專利:二手媒體產品橫行市場
America’s Supreme Court delights online retailers and appals media firms
聯邦最高法院判決——有人歡喜有人憂CALL it academic arbitrage. Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai student who earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Southern California, made as much as $1.2m with some basic maths. He asked friends and family to ship him cheap textbooks from Thailand, which he sold for a handsome profit in America. The books were intended only for sale in Thailand, and Wiley, a publisher of some of the textbooks he sold, sued him for copyright infringement in September 2008 and won. Mr Kirtsaeng appealed, and the case made its way to America’s highest court.
Supap Kirtsaeng 是一名泰國學生，在美國南加州大學取得了數學博士學位，然而他僅靠簡單的算術便賺得了120萬美金。Supap Kirtsaeng讓朋友和家人從泰國寄來廉價的課本，再在美國高價賣出，所得利潤豐厚，可以稱之爲是“學術套利”。Supap Kirtsaeng賣出的課本原本只限於泰國境內出售，因此，他所售課本的出版商之一，約翰威立父子出版公司，在2008年9月以侵犯版權爲名對Supap Kirtsaeng提起訴訟，並打贏了官司。之後，Supap Kirtsaeng提出上訴，該案便一路打到了美國聯邦最高法院。On March 19th the Supreme Court ruled that American copyright law does not restrict goods produced abroad from being resold in America. The ruling，widens the reach of the “first sale doctrine”, which gives copyright-holders control of their goods until their first sale; afterwards the purchaser can lend or peddle them for whatever price he chooses. Previously, the first-sale doctrine protected copyright-holders from their works being imported and resold without their permission. A retailer could legally sell a second-hand “Gone with the Wind” DVD, but could not buy it cheaply in Russia, bring it to America and sell it for a low price. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, that protection has been swept away.
今年的3月19日，聯邦最高法院做出判決，宣佈美國版權法不限制國外購進的產品在美國再次出售，擴大了“首次銷售原則”的適用範圍(“首次銷售原則”規定，版權所有者在首次銷售前對產品享有控制權；首次銷售後，購買者則可以以任意價格租借或販賣所購產品。)之前“首次銷售原則”的規定是，不經版權所有者許可，不得從他國進口並再次銷售其產品，這在一定程度上對版權所有者進行了保護。對於零售商來說，售賣二手的《亂世佳人》DVD是合法的，但他們卻不能從俄羅斯低價買進這一DVD，進口至美國，再以低於美國市價的價格賣出。然而，在聯邦最高法院的這次判決之後，版權所有者將失去這一層法律保護。
Publishers, record labels, film studios and other content-owners are shocked. They have often sold the same product in poorer countries for less, knowing that it would not hurt their pricing power at home. Now it will. Big online retailers such as Amazon and eBay could start exploiting these pricing differences on a large scale. Ian Whittaker of Liberum Capital, a broker, thinks this ruling will really hurt academic publishers, such as Pearson (a part-owner of The Economist). They tend to sell identical books for eye-watering prices in America and much less in countries where people cannot afford those prices.
包括出版商、唱片公司、電影製片廠在內的一衆版權所有者大爲震驚。之前，這些公司一貫在較爲貧窮的國家降低產品價格，知曉這樣做並不會損害其在本國的定價權。然而現在，這種降價策略將對這些公司在美國的定價權產生直接影響。如亞馬遜和eBay這樣的大型網上零售商很可能會開始利用國際間的價格差大規模牟利。倫敦投行Liberum Capital的股票經紀人Ian Whittaker認爲，聯邦最高法院的這一判決將損害培生教育出版集團（The Economist股東之一）等學術出版商的利益。這是因爲，學術出版商所售課本在美國通常標價極高，但在那些無力承受高價的國家，課本定價則會大爲降低。Publishers have already warned that they may have to turn the page on the old system of letting students in poor countries buy textbooks cheaply. “Some people are predicting a world where price discrimination will no longer be possible,” says Arti Rae, a professor of law at Duke University. Media companies could choose to stagger the release of films or books across countries, delaying the launch of titles in countries where they cannot fetch high prices. However, that may simply encourage piracy. Congress could intervene and rejig 調整 更改 the Copyright Act of 1976, which established the first-sale doctrine. But that would require Washington to get its act together 齊心協力—a plotline so implausible that it would make J.K. Rowling blush.
對此，出版商們已經做出了警告，表示他們或許要迫於壓力結束讓貧窮國家學生低價購買課本的歷史了。杜克大學的法學教授Arti Rae表示：“有人認爲，今後價格歧視將不復存在。”媒體公司可以控制電影或圖書在不同國家的發佈時間，在那些無法賣出高價的國家推遲產品投放市場的時間。然而，這樣做可能只會讓盜版行爲更加猖獗。國會可以介入此事，對1976年版權法案（該法案確立了“首次銷售原則”）進行調整，解決媒體公司所面臨的困境，但是要達成此事恐怕需要聯邦政府各方面齊心協力，這種事情估計連寫奇幻小說的J??K??羅琳都覺得不可能發生吧。In any case, an even bigger copyright issue is brewing. The Copyright Act was written before digital media became popular, and the first-sale doctrine does not apply to electronic wares. Should consumers have the right to lend and sell their music files and e-books, even though they do not wear out like their physical counterparts, or should content-producers retain the copyright? If consumers could legally resell their electronic media, it could wipe out the profits of many media firms. ReDigi, a firm that enables people to buy and sell second-hand electronic music files, was sued last year for copyright infringement by Capitol Records, a music label. A judge should rule on the case soon, but it may well be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
總之，一場更大的版權問題即將到來。1976年撰寫版權法案時，數字媒體大流行的時代還沒有到來，而“首次銷售原則”也不適用於電子產品。在電子媒體產品不會像實體媒體產品一樣耗損老化的情況下，消費者是否有權租賃、出售他們的音樂文件夾和電子書？而內容出版者又是否應當保有他們的版權呢？如果消費者有權轉售他們的電子媒體產品的話，很多媒體公司的盈利空間將不復存在。唱片商Capitol Records去年以侵犯版權爲名起訴了ReDigi公司，而ReDigi公司正是允許人們購買、出售二手電子音樂的。負責該案的法官不日便會做出判決，但這一案件可能會像Supap Kirtsaeng案一樣，一路打到聯邦最高法院去。
