> Woops.  I began to suspect that I might be wrong here.  If I was in Japan, 
> then I would, in fact, not be able to download songs from the US.  Plus, 
> they say that they check your country of origin to make sure that it 
> corresponds to your address.  So...  If I happen to be living in Japan for 
> 3 months, without a permanent address, I would be forbidden from 
> downloading anything from any iTunes?  Sigh...

It just seems that some companies are very shortsighted and do not consider 
that people go abroad for periods of time.

For example I had this with a Poker website, because all my bank details are 
from my UK address but my IP address is in Germany.  They basically didn't 
want my business.  They even froze my account after I had won some money. 
In the end I just gave up trying to talk to them.  Have been using a 
different site since then and had no problems whatsoever.

Even the UK driving licensing agency can't cope.  A UK driving license is an 
EU license, so is valid to use and keep in any EU country (no need to 
change).  However, they won't let you change your address to a non-UK one! 
So when I called to ask what I should do (as I was moving to Germany) they 
suggested I change the address to a friend or relative in the UK that could 
forward any mail!

Post a reply to this message

>  Isn't discrimination against customers based on their country of origin
> illegal in most places?

Yes, but it's only discrimination if there is no reason for it, and in most 
cases you can come up with a reason.

Post a reply to this message

>> It would be a big waste of resources (for very little return) to make 
>> available every piece of music worldwide that was even a bit popular to 
>> every country.
>
> Not on the internet.

Surely to store, index and deliver every song in the world on each iTunes 
server is going to cost more than just the "locally selected" catalogue?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Interestingly, it was 
> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
> discriminating against.

  That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.

  Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

  (One could ask what would be a "very good reason which can be justified"
to discriminate against anyone. Well, one good example is movie casting:
If the movie needs a young man for a role, it's logical that they would
hire a young man, rather than an old woman.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
> Even state lines?

  There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone
because of his nationality, and immigration issues.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, it was 
>> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
>> discriminating against.
> 
>   That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.
> 
>   Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
> which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
> a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

	It wasn't really that they didn't want lawyers. They just wanted the
best ones. As he couldn't win the court case, he was rejected.

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
>> particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.
> 
> Then the question becomes who is violating the license, and when?

	The person who sold it to me (online). Occasionally, these books are
shipped from abroad, but most of the time they're being sold within the
US. Either way, the seller knows where he's shipping to.

> Can the publisher enforce on me a contract by printing it inside the
> book? Am I required by US law to uphold a contract in India? Are you
> breaking Indian law by buying a book in the US sold to you in the US?

1. At least for the Indian books, it's usually listed either on the
front or back cover. Don't recall for the Korean ones...

2. That's why I said I don't know the legal implications. It's a
violation in Indian law, but I don't know about US law.

3. I doubt it. The condition says "not to be sold", not "not to be
bought". I wasn't informed in advance that there was a condition on it,
so I don't see why I should be liable. The sites do say "international
edition", but they don't say from which country and under what
agreements. In the old days (i.e. early 2000's<G>), such books usually
meant paperbacks from Europe (with no such terms written on them) - so I
can claim lack of knowledge...

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
>> Even state lines?
> 
>   There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone
> because of his nationality, and immigration issues.

	And then there are export restrictions.

	Also, I haven't seen this in the thread so far (and haven't read the
whole thread): A movie may be released on DVD in one market earlier than
another. It makes sense to control selling it based on market (this is,
albeit, not strictly based on nationality). In the original offending
case (Jeremy's), isn't it possible that the song will be released in his
market later on?

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:33:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> Oh yes, I do remember those - I wanted one of those DeCSS T-Shirts, in
>> fact, but never got around to purchasing one.
> 
> I think I still have the one with PGP encoded as barcodes on it. I was
> actually involved in a company helping to fund the legal fund for that
> one.

Cool, I like that.

>> I'm not sure why they
>> didn't use that argument (or why it didn't work if they did use it).
> 
> In part, they wanted the Louisiana venue because it was Napoleanic, and
> hence much friendlier to the attacking party. One defendant was in
> California and the other in Ontario or some such, IIRC, but they brought
> suit in Lousiana based on both companies having customers in Louisiana.

Oh, don't even get me started on venue-shopping.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> For example I had this with a Poker website, because all my bank details 
> are from my UK address but my IP address is in Germany. 

You would be *amazed* at the level of fraud with online gambling sites.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message