IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 1 line I don't think imports are "illegal" to sell alongside domestics.

> I don't think imports are "illegal" to sell alongside domestics.

It's a violation of US copyright law (Title 17 section 602) to import works that have a US copyright without the permission of the US copyright holder. There are exceptions for personal use but distributors and stores that import non-US versions of current US titles are in violation of the letter of the law. (Doesn't mean I *agree* with the law, but there it is.) -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)

But isn't the US copyright holder the same as the foreign copyright holder (i.e., the artist?) And therefore, wouldn't said artist generally give themselves permission to sell their own records? In the case where a record label may own a copyright (and not the artist), wouldn't it be in the US label's best interest to keep the imports highly priced to drive US consumers to the domestic disks? The point of the law is probably to prevent undercutting the price of the domestic product, which is certainly not a possibility in a situation where US records and CD's are usually around half the price of the imports -CF

quoted 18 lines -----Original Message-----

>-----Original Message----- >From: Lazlo Nibble [SMTP:lazlo@swcp.com] >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 7:54 PM >To: idm@hyperreal.com >Subject: (idm) Parallel Imports > >> I don't think imports are "illegal" to sell alongside domestics. > >It's a violation of US copyright law (Title 17 section 602) to import works >that have a US copyright without the permission of the US copyright holder. >There are exceptions for personal use but distributors and stores that import >non-US versions of current US titles are in violation of the letter of the >law. > >(Doesn't mean I *agree* with the law, but there it is.) > >-- >::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:48:31 -0500, you wrote:

quoted 3 lines But isn't the US copyright holder the same as the foreign copyright

>But isn't the US copyright holder the same as the foreign copyright >holder (i.e., the artist?) And therefore, wouldn't said artist generally >give themselves permission to sell their own records?

??? an artist with a record deal does not (generally) retain any copyright.

quoted 3 lines In the case where a record label may own a copyright (and not the

>In the case where a record label may own a copyright (and not the >artist), wouldn't it be in the US label's best interest to keep the >imports highly priced to drive US consumers to the domestic disks?

if a us label has paid a lot of money (not that that's likely ;) for the *exclusive* rights to sell a record in the their territory they do not want people to sell identical records for which they don't get paid - at any price. g.

At 11:48 02/12/97, Chris Fahey wrote:

quoted 6 lines The point of the law is probably to prevent undercutting the price of

> >The point of the law is probably to prevent undercutting the price of >the domestic product, which is certainly not a possibility in a >situation where US records and CD's are usually around half the price of >the imports >

no, the point of the law is to keep any imports out. That way, the only ones sold are domestics and the domestic record company gets all the money. simple really. -j- ________________________________________________________________________ The power of the dance is a dangerous power. Like other forms of self surrender, it is easier to begin than to stop. beatphreak@mail.utexas.edu john branch

quoted 19 lines -----Original Message-----

>-----Original Message----- >From: beatphreak@mail.utexas.edu [SMTP:beatphreak@mail.utexas.edu] > >At 11:48 02/12/97, Chris Fahey wrote: >> >>The point of the law is probably to prevent undercutting the price of >>the domestic product, which is certainly not a possibility in a >>situation where US records and CD's are usually around half the price of >>the imports >> > >no, the point of the law is to keep any imports out. That way, the only >ones sold are domestics and the domestic record company gets all the money. > >simple really. >-j >beatphreak@mail.utexas.edu >john branch >

Duh. What you said is basically what I said, only less accurate. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the reason they wanted "to prevent undercutting the price of the domestic product" was because they wanted to "get all the money". The point of the law is NOT simply to "keep any imports out." If that were the case then the law would say "No foreign records are allowed into the US." They ONLY want to keep imports out if they are going to compete with domestic products. This is obvious - we both know this. Why do you have to dispute my accuracy with your brash flippancy when it's obvious that both of us understand this concept fully?

quoted 3 lines -Chris Fahey

>-Chris Fahey > >

I guess it's important to distinguish between ""selling" and importing". These two things are different: 1) A store already has imports in stock, and then months later they get a shipment of the same record on a domestic release. 2) A store orders an import release while they already have a domestic release in stock. I see #1 happen all the time, and it seems pretty innocent. This seems to be the situation in which the retailers choose to lower the price of the import for good, and allow their stock of imports to dry up. #2 Seems to be the problematic one for domestic labels, and appears to be the one which really violates the law. In this situation, some people desire to buy the import instead of the domestic release (for whatever reasons) and this presents a real problem for the US label - a problem which a law like this would be helpful in deterring. This is a boring subject. It has grow tiresome. It is time to dance! -CF

quoted 41 lines -----Original Message-----

>-----Original Message----- >From: Lazlo Nibble [SMTP:lazlo@swcp.com] >Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 1:31 PM >To: idm@hyperreal.com >Subject: RE: (idm) Parallel Imports > >>> It's a violation of US copyright law (Title 17 section 602) to import >>>works >>> that have a US copyright without the permission of the US copyright >>>holder. >> >> But isn't the US copyright holder the same as the foreign copyright >> holder (i.e., the artist?) And therefore, wouldn't said artist generally >> give themselves permission to sell their own records? > >Very few artists on major labels own the copyrights to their own work. > >> In the case where a record label may own a copyright (and not the >> artist), wouldn't it be in the US label's best interest to keep the >> imports highly priced to drive US consumers to the domestic disks? > >It's even more in their best interests to keep imports out of the country >completely, which the parallel-import laws allow them to do. > >> The point of the law is probably to prevent undercutting the price of the >> domestic product, which is certainly not a possibility in a situation where >> US records and CD's are usually around half the price of the imports > >I think that's probably a little too narrow a view of the law -- the labels >seem to view these laws primarily as an additional tool for enforcing their >distribution agreements. And in a sense I can't really blame them; if I were >investing X dollars in exclusive US distribution rights to a release, I'd be >annoyed by the general availablility of non-US copies in my territory. But >ultimately I think it's the labels' own fault when they lose sales to imports >-- most of the reasons people buy imports (better track selection, better >sound quality, earlier availability) could be matched by the US labels if >they >cared enough to do so. > >-- >::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)