] If big pharma price-discriminates rationally, it
] guarantees the following query from some representative
] in some committee hearing: "How come a hospital in Lagos
] spends $1 for this pill, but the local Catholic hospital
] in my district must pay $5,000?" And, of course, in the
] Inquisition that is congressional testimony, there is no
] effective way to answer such a question.

Wired 12.02: Lessig says access to drugs in the third world not an IP issue

] Thus, at least according to this court, the more uncommon
] (and provocative) the context of the remixing, the less
] likely it is legal. Of course, this raises the question
] of how new contexts can ever become legal. Presumably, at
] some point in history, no one framed art. Then the first
] person came along and put a painting in a frame. Under
] the theories in Mirage and Munoz, that person would have
] been historically guilty of copyright infringement
] because the context of their remix was uncommon at the
] time.

Decius wrote: This article is interesting and also deeply troubling. Apparently recontextualization of someone else's artistic work is a copyright infringement EVEN IF YOU PAID for the copy that you are recontextualizing unless there is a specific fair use exception. This is copyright law preventing artistic expression for no financial reason, but strictly to prevent expression.

There's also interesting commentary about the first sale doctrine and what you actually own when you buy something.

LawGeek: We fought the Kuleshov effect and The Law won?