Just like the headline says. You can read about the background here:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/free-internet-porn-isnt-unfair-competition-to-pay-sites-appeals-court/

This obviously has beneficial implications for many genres of Internet-based media.

You can read the actual court opinion here:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020110126040.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

Though interestingly enough, the Appeals Court ordered that this opinion NOT be published in its official reports, meaning that lawyers won't be able to cite it as legal precedent in future cases. Why this is the case remains unclear. Perhaps they were simply embarrassed by the subject matter and didn't want to be tagged as being the judges who helped guarantee the continued flow of free porn for all?

Via Mike Mansick over at Techdirt -

The unauthorized 'sequel'/commentary on J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye can be published and sold around the world, EXCEPT for the U.S. and Canada.

So much freedom of the press or the notion that America is freer than any other country in terms of what you can publish. The bizarre arrangement is the result of a settlement agreement between Swedish author Fredrik Colting and the Salinger estate over a copyright dispute over Colting's book 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.

More details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12181223

My previous thoughts on the outrageousness of the Salinger copyright claim can be found here:

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001176

This latest development is a double insult in light of the disastrous 4-4 Supreme Court split in the case of Costco v. Omega. Unless the Supreme Court revisits the issue, what this means is that you can still be held liable for IP infringement if you buy copies of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye overseas or via the Internet (as I have done) and then try to resell such copies to others here in the U.S. who might want to read this new and original work.

Quite amazing...and pathetic.

"Criticism will survive even if no one's paying for it. Obviously it's better if people are paying for it. But the fact that artists weren't able to make a living from their work hasn't detracted from the quality of that work. Charles Ives was the second greatest composer in American history and he worked in insurance his whole life." - Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

"Who is Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and why should I care?" you ask?

Read about his background here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/01/roger-ebert-pbs-show-critics-ignatiy-vishnevetsky.html

[Lest anyone be confused, I'm generally in favor of paying artists for work and creating rational incentives. I'm just against the current irrational copyright regime and intellectual monopolies.]

Gene Quinn, along with his site IPWatchdog.com, has been a stalwart defender of the current patent system. The honest impression that I have gotten in the past while reading his posts is that he has elevated the importance of the patent industry (and the economic benefits it has given to a discreet class) over actual innovation. Regular readers of this site might recall him being singled out by Stephan Kinsella [ http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001821].

Imagine my surprise when I came across the following posts at Quinn's IpWatchdog site this past week:

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/12/14/patent-trolls-innovation-vampires-suck-life-out-of-economy/id=13797/

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/12/09/intellectual-ventures-becomes-patent-troll-public-enemy-1/id=13711/

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/12/08/copyright-trolls-the-meaner-stepsister-of-patent-trolls/id=13695/ (This post is admittedly written by a guest to Quinn's site, but it is still nice to find him hosting such views).

I don't want to make too much of this. I (and I suspect other contributors to this site) still have profound disagreements with Quinn's perspective. But it nonetheless seems to mark something of a positive shift in thinking, or at least rhetorical emphasis. Even if it turns out to be slight, it is still a positive development which I welcome. A simple recognition of the harm that patent trolls cause shouldn't be difficult to admit to - even for those who are stalwart supporters of the remaining aspects of our current patent system. It is somewhat amusing to see his commentators accuse him of going over to the "dark side" and espousing "pure, unabashed anti-patent rhetoric", and then read Quinn having to defend even this reasonable and narrowly-tailored critique which he has authored.

Quinn himself admits: "I know that over the last several years I have not been one to want to jump up and down over the problems created by patent trolls..."

I hope that this will mark the opening of a more constructive dialogue. If these posts of his are any indication, then we actually share the same broad goal of maximizing innovation. Before now, I honestly wasn't sure he placed that goal as the prime directive.

So in the hopes of building further bridges of peace, love and understanding, here is a parting thought for now which I hope Quinn chews on further -

True "innovation" can't be thought of merely as the creation of a new invention, but rather, the placement of that new invention into the hands of wider society. There is no actual innovation until the practical benefits of an invention are widely disseminated for use by the general public (or as large a group as the nature of an invention practically allows for) which in turn allows them to build further on it.

I don't wish to start a philosophical conundrum akin to the question of "does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?" But from my perspective, a ground-breaking invention is not "innovation" if it is kept under wraps by a small secret society or elite oligarchy. The term "innovation" inherently connotes the fact that its benefits are shared by as much of the public as practically possible. The next step is debating what system would maximize that.

The gulf in views are still vast, but if we can agree on what "innovation" actually means and can also agree that maximizing it should be the primary goal IP regimes (as opposed to placing economic considerations for certain IP players as a primary end unto themselves), then we will be well on our way towards a more constructive dialogue.

The Supreme Court on Monday said Costco could be liable for copyright infringement for selling foreign-made watches without the manufacturer's authorization.

True - the Court split 4 to 4 and offered no reasoning for the vote, which technically means that no legal precedent by the high court is created. But on a practical level, it leaves in place the lower court's opinion which said that copyright law prevents Costco from re-selling foreign-made watches that it lawfully purchased.

There is also reason to believe that Justice Kagan might have also sided against Costco had she joined the debate since she once wrote a brief urging the Supreme Court to refuse Costco's appeal.

It will be quite amusing to see the reaction from people who support the current IP-regime but also claim to champion 'free market' principles. Their level of cognitive dissonance seems boundless. There can be no free markets without the freedom to re-sell goods which you have lawfully obtained. I should think that would be obvious, but apparently not to those who like to ape economic talking points without grasping the actual concepts that underlay them.

Nobody is accusing Costco of manufacturing false goods, placing Omega labels on non-Omega watches or making any form of 'copies' whatsoever. They are saying that once Omega sells its goods to party X, it should continue to have the legal right to prevent X from selling such goods to Y if it doesn't approve. To condone such power under the guise of 'free markets' is a perversion - pure and simple. But once you start equating real property with "intellectual property", perversion is sure to follow.

And now you have case where the first-sale doctrine (allowing you to re-sell previously bought goods without the manufacturer's permission) applies to domestic goods, but not overseas goods. More on the first-sale doctrine here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Meanwhile, you can read up on the details of the case at the links below:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/scotus-first-sale/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-supreme-court-divides-evenly-in-costco-gray-market-case.html

A link to the 9th Circuit's original ruling which provides much of the nitty-gritty legal details and background can be found here:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1488540.html

Audio of the Supreme Court arguments on this case can be found here:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_08_1423

[update] PDF Text transcript here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1423.pdf

UPDATE: More reactions and background from across the web here -

http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2010/12/costco-v-omega-afffired-by-equally.html

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-publishers-hollywood-win-an-unusual-victory-in-costco-v.-omega/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/copyright-defense-restricted/

A good analysis of the issues at stake before the decision was handed down here - http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/11/05/costco-v-omega-is-about-much-more-than-cheap-watches/

The IP Policy blog tries to make the case for copyright misuse in this case here - http://188ip.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/costco-v-omega-and-copyright-misuse/

SAP (the world's largest maker of business application software) has been ordered to pay $1.3-billion (with a 'B') to Oracle - the largest fine ever levied for a copyright infringement case (and the 23rd largest jury verdict in history).

That's ten times larger than the biggest verdict the RIAA was ever able to produce in its own litigation. I'd look for some legal challenges to this verdict, including some potential constitutional arguments which try to expand the reasoning behind BMW v. Gore [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore ]

Read all about it here:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/11/why-did-oracle-just-win-more-t.php

And here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/sap-must-pay-oracle-1-3-billion-over-unit-s-downloads.html

Apparently, many people choose this avenue for two reasons- convenience and ease of access. The limitations placed on local pharmacies by regulations make it impossible for buyers to get the dosages they want. In other words, it is impossible to buy Xanax online without prescriptions from local pharmacies. Since the production, distribution, and sale of Xanax pills is controlled for obvious reasons, buyers opt for online purchases to overcome these restrictions.

Also, the price of Xanax in online pharmacies is much lower than that of local stores and pharmacies. The ratio of Xanax 1 mg to each dollar is significantly cheaper. This makes it possible for users to order Xanax at prices half or even a third of that of local pharmacies. And given the wide range of brands on sale, it is not difficult to see why users may turn to a web-based Xanax pharmacy for their prescription medication.

Next, most pharmacies also provide various packages. Buyers can request a dosage that they want starting from as little as 30 pills to 360 pills. Xanax 0.25mg is the least potent and therefore least expensive tablet. This makes it possible for anyone to buy Xanax within a set budget and still save money. As for quality, there is no assurance that you will get your money's worth with cheap Xanax. Though generic brands are more popular, their quality is not guaranteed as they may not be tested.

Getting Xanax pills legally delivered to your home It is possible to place an order from an online store and get your supplies shipped to you overnight. You just have to select from a wide array, for instance, Xanax 0.5 mg, fill the details, checkout, and complete your order. Most pharmacies try to expedite deliveries after processing orders. The seller will require you to provide your personal details, contact address, and specify the recipient. With the increasing cases of fraud, most sellers guarantee confidentiality of personal details. You can make follow ups by phone or e-mail to confirm the expected day of delivery. This way, you can track your purchase and ensure that it reaches on time.

Consider to buying Xanax without a prescription from internet pharmacy? The tough laws and regulations on the local distribution and sale of Xanax have not closed the door of opportunity for people who want to buy Xanax without prescription. In fact, it has created an immense opportunity for online vendors and pharmacies to sell generic brands. Individuals who were limited on dosage because of prescriptions now have the leeway to access any amount of dosage.

Sadly, most websites don't caution buyers about the health risks involved and the dangers of using drugs without prescription. Especially with no regard to the dangers of starting with Xanax 2 mg. More often than not, buyers who have poor judgement are bound to use more prescriptions than required and in the end, they fall in to a vicious cycle of dependence and addiction.

BoingBoing.net's Cory Doctorow pens a smartly constructed essay exploring the question of what we should really want and expect from a copyright legal regime.

I am in complete agreement with the broad goal he advocates:

In my world, copyright's purpose is to encourage the widest participation in culture that we can manage - that is, it should be a system that encourages the most diverse set of creators, creating the most diverse set of works, to reach the most diverse audiences as is practical.

It is well worth reading his thoughts on how he would start to get us there.

Check out the full column here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow

Stewart Baker over at Volokh.com wonders why most libertarians have laid down when it comes to their willingness to tolerate the current copyright regime:

Conservatives and especially libertarians seem like a cheap date on this issue. You'd think libertarians would have been in the forefront of objecting to governmental intrusions into our lives at the behest of a special interest let alone the creation of a new class of quasicriminals, defined as more or less everyone who entered high school after 1996, who can be investigated and prosecuted whenever the government or some member of industry decides that they are too troublesome.

But no. For a lot of libertarians, judging by the comments to David's post, all the RIAA has to do is call its new government-created entitlement a form of property, and, presto bingo, it's sacrosanct.

Come to think of it, maybe I can persuade readers here that TSA's new enhanced security measures are just fine as long as we enforce the rules by giving all the passengers on the plane a "property" right not to travel with people who refuse body imaging and enhanced patdowns. Instead of relying on oppressive government regulation, we'd just let the passengers collect millions in "statutory damages" from noncompliant travelers.

Read the full context of his thoughts here:

http://volokh.com/2010/11/20/girl-talk-and-intellectual-property/

David Post over at Volokh.com has a must read concerning the latest attempt by Congress to restrict the way the Internet operates in order to protect Big-IP.

As he explains:

It's awful on many fronts. It would allow a court to effectively shut down a site operated out of Brazil, or France, without any adversary hearing (unless, I suppose, "the domain name" itself comes into court to argue the case) or any reasoned determination that the site actually is engaged in unlawful activity. There is a name for that in our law: "prior restraint," and we don't like them even in cases where truly compelling governmental interests are at stake, let alone where the purpose is merely to protect the rights of copyright and trademark owners.

Check out the full details here:

http://volokh.com/2010/11/13/once-again-the-copyrighttrademark-tail-tries-to-wag-the-internet-dog/

[Update] Popular Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds writes: "If I have to choose between getting rid of copyright and getting rid of free speech, I'll say goodbye to copyright. The folks at Big Content, and their shills like Leahy, seem to want to make me choose."