The real answer to this sort of stupid, is for the AirBnb's of the world to host in a different country. The US has become so reactionary and grasping that the safest business model is to have the active portions hosted somewhere safe, such as in Brazil.. where there is no extradition or mutual assistance treaty. Here a few weeks ago it was noted that a LEO had subpoened information from 23andMe. The intention being, one assumes to track a DNA match to or from a suspect. And there is no effective way for 23andMe to fight back, except, to have all of the DNA profiles stored somewhere in the world where there are strict data privacy laws. The DNA testing could still be done in the US (or better, Canada) but the data would never be retained. Same with AirBnB. And there would be very little exposure for airbnb.ca to any US municipality's whinging.
And of course, the lesson never sinks in. This is a parallel to situation to the utility of anonymous Panana corporations.
Re that tape of the Big Aim Superb Owl One, maybe the owner should find some country which is NOT a Berne convention signatory, and offer the tape for auction there, to the highest bidder. No Berne, watch the NFL burn!
The 'received-wisdom' backup to this is that 'Texaco was a bad corp'. Of course, there is the little question about how the plaintiff's lawyers bribed the judge, and paid an 'expert' to write the judge's decision. Of COURSE, they got a massive judgment. But it was a fraud, and should not have been granted. Chevron is now suing the plaintiff's lawyers in the USA for damages for fraudulent conspiracy. For the same amount as the judgment. So 'corporate sovereinty is not actually involved here. Just extortion and fraud.
Copyright is not *properly* about the copies, it is about the COPYING.
Wiley wants to make this about the copies. It jumps into the sec106 quagmire but wants sec 109 struck out on a semantic quibble concerning the words 'lawfully made under this title' (which Scotus screwed up dealing with Omega v Costco inho).
Wiley wants 'lawfully made' to modify 'under this title', so that something not made in the USA with the consent of the US copyright owner is 'not lawfully made under this title'.
I have not seen any mention of the Berne Convention. But that Convention effectively means that *any* copyrighted work, produced by a national of a Convention country and subject to copyright in his country, is granted copyright protection in all other Convention countries.
I presume that Wiley published first in the US, and possibly in other places within 30 days of the US publication.
So Wiley's publication of the book in Thailand, is with Wiley's consent. That consent pursuant to the Berne Convention is good worldwide: the Convention countries agreed to accept and uphold minimum mutual standards.
Thus those books were 'lawfully made under this title': they were made with the consent of the copyright owner.
Wiley is trying to say that the copyright it (or its subsidiary) holds is a different copyright, but it has to argue that it is for the same book (otherwise there would be no question: 2 different books/copyrights, Wiley cannot object).
I am surprised that the effect of the Berne Convention was not mentioned, since that Convention, which expands the extent of a US copyright's 'aura' also extends the owners' consent when view in this manner.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dyspeptic Curmudgeon.