Battle replay

GLM-4.7 vs Kimi K2

tree_0014 · Video rental shop

GLM-4.7 · Better

WIDE

Rounds

2 - 0

Final Score

1,408,319

Tokens

$14.08

Cost

Onboarding R2

Mode

← Back to battles·View source page·onboarding_battles/R2_glm-4.7_Kimi-k2_tree_0014.log

Timeline

Arrow keys or j/k move between rounds.

Round 1 of 2

Round Context

Depth 2Width 2Pressure test

Logic Chain

Root

Video rental shop

Step 2

In a Copyright Ruling, the Legacy of the Betamax

Question

Identify the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning a Thai student's resale of textbooks that affirmed the 'first sale' doctrine applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad. In the context of copyright history, this case is frequently compared to a seminal 1984 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling that legalized a specific home video recording technology. Provide the name of the 2013 case and its exact voting margin. Then, referencing the 1984 predecessor, quote the specific analogy Jack Valenti used when describing the threat of that era's video technology to Congress. Finally, explain how the 2013 ruling resolved a specific legal uncertainty involving Costco that the Court had previously deadlocked on.

Answer length: 200-300 words.

Show hidden checklists

Depth checklist

Target Entity 1 (2013 Case): Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Target Entity 2 (1984 Case): Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (The Betamax Case)

Width checklist

2013 Case Vote Margin: 6-to-3
Jack Valenti Quote: Compared the VCR to the 'Boston Strangler' (specifically: 'The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone')
Defendant's Activity: Reselling cheap textbooks imported from Thailand (arbitrage)
Resolution of Prior Deadlock: Clarified that the 'first sale' doctrine applies to imported goods, resolving the issue left by the deadlock in Costco v. Omega (regarding Omega watches)

Examiner rationale

The question uses Deep Logic by describing the cases via their litigants (Thai student) and historical attributes (1984, 5-to-4 vote, home video technology) rather than naming them directly. It requires Wide Aggregation by demanding distinct facts linked to these entities: the specific vote count of the later case, a famous quote from a lobbyist regarding the earlier case, and the legal connection to a third entity (Costco/Omega) mentioned in the analysis.

Judgment

Better

NONE

Score 1 - 0

Both agents provided factually accurate responses that met all constraints, including the correct case names, voting margins, quotes, and legal explanations. However, Agent A provided a superior User Experience by structuring the answer into three logical paragraphs corresponding to the three parts of the prompt (The 2013 Case, The 1984 Comparison, The Costco Resolution). Agent B presented the information as a single, dense 'wall of text,' which makes it harder to scan and digest. Agent A wins on formatting and readability.

Evolution step

Determining Next Step...

WINNER is A. Targeting Loser Failure: NONE.

Action: Pressure Test (Deep+1 & Wide+1)

Descended to: 'Revolution in Resale of Digital Books and Music'

GLM-4.7

Zhipu AI

181.7s

The 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, decided by a 6-3 vote. This pivotal ruling affirmed that the "first sale" doctrine applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad, thereby allowing the lawful resale of imported items without the copyright owner's permission [1]. This case is frequently compared to the 1984 *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.* ruling. During the home video recording debates of that era, MPAA president Jack Valenti famously testified before Congress, utilizing a stark analogy to describe the threat of the VCR. He stated that the video recorder was to the American film producer and the American public "as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone" [2]. Furthermore, the *Kirtsaeng* ruling definitively resolved a specific legal uncertainty involving *Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A.* In 2010, the Supreme Court had deadlocked 4-4 in the *Costco* case. This split left standing a lower court decision that limited the first sale doctrine to U.S.-made goods, preventing retailers from selling imported watches. By overruling the Ninth Circuit's interpretation in *Costco*, the 2013 decision established that Section 109(a) applies to copies legally manufactured anywhere in the world [3]. ## References [1] *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, 568 U.S. 519 (2013). Oyez (Chicago-Kent College of Law). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-697 [2] Valenti, J. (1982). *Home Recording of Copyrighted Works*. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks. United States Government Publishing Office. [3] *Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A.*, 562 U.S. 40 (2010). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/562/40

Kimi K2

Moonshot AI

218.5s

The 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, which affirmed that the first sale doctrine under Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad with a 6-to-3 vote [1]. The case involved Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai student who purchased textbooks manufactured overseas and resold them in the United States. This case is frequently compared to the seminal 1984 ruling *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, which legalized home video recording technology in a 5-to-4 decision [2]. MPAA president Jack Valenti famously testified before Congress: "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" [3]. The *Kirtsaeng* ruling resolved critical legal uncertainty arising from *Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.*, where the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 in 2010 after Justice Kagan recused herself, leaving unresolved whether the first sale doctrine protected the resale of foreign-manufactured watches imported without authorization [4]. By definitively holding that first sale applies to copies lawfully made abroad, *Kirtsaeng* settled this question, clarifying that retailers like Costco could resell legitimate imported goods without copyright holders' permission and eliminating the circuit split the *Omega* deadlock had created [5]. The decision prevented copyright holders from segmenting global markets through price discrimination and ensured that legitimate copies could circulate freely in U.S. commerce regardless of origin. ## References [1] *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, 568 U.S. 519 (2013). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/568/519 [2] *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, 464 U.S. 417 (1984). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/464/417 [3] Jack Valenti, Statement on Home Recording of Copyrighted Works, U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice (April 12, 1982). https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1982/04/13/mpaa-chief-says-vcr-threatens-film-industry/dc6c39af-e1f3-44dc-b58f-34b2d6f2f84f/ [4] *Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.*, 562 U.S. 40 (2010). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/562/40 [5] L. P. Loren, *The Implications of Kirtsaeng for Copyright Exhaustion*, 92 Boston University Law Review 1827 (2012). http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/Loren.pdf