[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [78-l] (Fwd) Naxos Wins LandmarkCaseAgainstCapitol/EMI
At 09:49 AM 6/12/2003 -0500, Karl Miller wrote:
I wonder about all of those folks who take the bus to Mexico to buy their
It is illegal to bring medications through customs. More precisely, what
one buys in Mexico must be declared on importation and I believe there is a
Catch 22 sort of problem. You need a Mexican physician for the drugs to be
legal where you bought them but an American one to be able to possess them
on the U.S. side of the border. The pharmacia will not demand the Mexican
authorization but the customs guards are supposed to.
On the other hand, I buy my medications from Canada. They are sent by
regular mail across the border and show no sign of a customs declaration.
The pharmacy is large and well advertised. A Canadian physician writes the
scrip based on my original from my U.S. physician.
It also seems interesting to me that, due to Edward J. Smith and others,
there are plenty of examples of the Met not "protecting" their interests.
Oh, but they did. They had him sign a "cease and desist" order under which
he promised to make and sell no more. The same has happened to others. That
is one reason I do not have substantial Met material on what I produce.
However, a very stupid dealer prompted the San Francisco Opera to ask me to
"cease and desist"; I complied without demurrer as I would with any such
request. Their complaint was interesting in that they did *not* invoke
copyright but trademark. It seems that they have trademarked "San Francisco
Opera" and "SFO". Since those three discs were labelled "San Francisco
Opera" (volumes 1-3), they contended that I was "promoting" my discs using
their trademark. Whether that would have stood up in court (it was
considered laughable by those who knew the discs and my project) is beside
the point. I would always honor a request by a company responsible for a
production or a recording.