From: Jackie Moleski <moleskij@...
>Basically, when I read the actual LAW, not someone's interpretation of
>it, it sounded like it was designed to prevent retailers in the US from
>selling non-US DVDs (this would include Japanese Anime, and Hong Honk
>action films, as well as British TV. Not to mention as another poster
>pointed out on this list--Patrick, I think-- foreign films.)
Copyright law doesn't say anything about this; it's limited, broadly speaking, to the right to copy, make derivative works, and publically perform works covered by the law. What you're talking about has more to do with trademark law and so-called grey-market goods, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. (It's why you see products like some high-end hair care products -- which, if the manufacturers had their way, would only be sold in salons -- in stores like Target these days.) Anyway, it's not illegal either way -- not for Amazon UK to sell to the US, or for Amazon US to sell to the UK.
>In terms of fair use, e.g. making a second copy for your own personal
>use, such as a back-up or whatever-- there has been a LOT of coverage
>about this in places like SlashDot and Wired. Naturally, the mainstream
>media is ignoring the issue. Essentially, the issue is still up in the
>air as far as I know -- consumers want to be able to make back-up copies
>of CDs and DVDs (even stripping the copyright protection).
This is two different issues -- under copyright law, fair use definitely exists. The issue with electronic media is the DMCA, which doesn't allow stipping digital copyright protection even to make a fair-use copy. It doesn't cover analog forms of copyright protection, so you have the bizarre situation where fair use exists for some kinds of media but not others.
>[quote] This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
>way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise
>circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding
>or cover other than that which it is published and without a similiar
>condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent
>Which means, you can't take off or change the cover, then lend-out the
>book. Why? I have no idea!
My guess would be the UK version of trademark law, but I'm not very well versed in it.