Comments on: There Goes My Summer Home http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Derek Bambauer http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/comment-page-1/#comment-60483 Derek Bambauer Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:42:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/#comment-60483 Danny, it never hurts to stand up for principle! Especially when that principle is "supplementing Derek's income". Saqib, I'm with you - it's surprising how many extraneous textbooks one accumulates. I have no idea what to do with these things. For a while, I kept them, with the idea that I might eventually read them and learn something about new areas. Once that fantasy dissipated, they just took up shelf space. Joe, your reading of the statute might well be right, in which case this is much less worrisome. On re-reading the language, your argument is a good one. I don't know NY law well yet, but wouldn't a tit-for-tat bargain already run afoul of existing bribery laws? Or are those limited to public officials? I have also been thinking that this might bear on the sale of used CDs, for example, which I know some states have moved to try to regulate more tightly. Danny, it never hurts to stand up for principle! Especially when that principle is “supplementing Derek’s income”.

Saqib, I’m with you – it’s surprising how many extraneous textbooks one accumulates. I have no idea what to do with these things. For a while, I kept them, with the idea that I might eventually read them and learn something about new areas. Once that fantasy dissipated, they just took up shelf space.

Joe, your reading of the statute might well be right, in which case this is much less worrisome. On re-reading the language, your argument is a good one. I don’t know NY law well yet, but wouldn’t a tit-for-tat bargain already run afoul of existing bribery laws? Or are those limited to public officials?

I have also been thinking that this might bear on the sale of used CDs, for example, which I know some states have moved to try to regulate more tightly.

]]> By: Joe Gratz http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/comment-page-1/#comment-60259 Joe Gratz Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:26:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/#comment-60259 I'm having trouble seeing how this bill affirmatively bans sales of review copies. It says faculty members are not allowed to take bribes "for adopting" course materials, except that copies "that are not to be sold" are exempt. At the very least, that suggests to me that if you didn't adopt the book, this law has nothing to say about whether you can sell your review copy. And even if you did adopt the book then sell your review copy, the "for adopting" language has a tit-for-tat sense to it, and whether you were permitted to accept the book in the first place would seem to hinge on whether you got the book in exchange for adopting it, or whether you would have gotten the book whether or not you adopted it (which seems more likely). But I agree that if it means you can't sell review copies, it's probably preempted; 109(a) says you are "entitled" to sell lawfully made copies you own. I’m having trouble seeing how this bill affirmatively bans sales of review copies. It says faculty members are not allowed to take bribes “for adopting” course materials, except that copies “that are not to be sold” are exempt. At the very least, that suggests to me that if you didn’t adopt the book, this law has nothing to say about whether you can sell your review copy. And even if you did adopt the book then sell your review copy, the “for adopting” language has a tit-for-tat sense to it, and whether you were permitted to accept the book in the first place would seem to hinge on whether you got the book in exchange for adopting it, or whether you would have gotten the book whether or not you adopted it (which seems more likely).

But I agree that if it means you can’t sell review copies, it’s probably preempted; 109(a) says you are “entitled” to sell lawfully made copies you own.

]]> By: Saqib Ali http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/comment-page-1/#comment-59925 Saqib Ali Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:17:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/#comment-59925 <i>bans faculty members from selling “complimentary” copies of textbooks</i> That can't be too good for the environment. If you don't need a book, you should be able to sell it, so that others can put it to good use - as long as it was purchased legally. bans faculty members from selling “complimentary” copies of textbooks

That can’t be too good for the environment. If you don’t need a book, you should be able to sell it, so that others can put it to good use – as long as it was purchased legally.

]]> By: Daniel Silverman http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/comment-page-1/#comment-59911 Daniel Silverman Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:08:46 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/08/08/there-goes-my-summer-home/#comment-59911 You fight the good fight Derek! You fight the good fight Derek!

]]>