1 2 3
Giant Purple Snorklewacker
Giant Purple Snorklewacker MegaDork
10/9/12 9:27 a.m.

This has to go to the Supreme Court? Really? An appellate actually went the other way? How exactly would they control a private sale of goods I have in my possession and give to you in exchange for cash? How does one prove they are the 1st owner of anything - I mean - Sears was technically the 1st owner of my ratchet.

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -1.12% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

Link to full article

DrBoost
DrBoost UberDork
10/9/12 9:30 a.m.

That can't be right.

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH PowerDork
10/9/12 9:31 a.m.

Copyright run amok again. Finally it's affecting some real meatspace items. Welcome to the insanity.

Javelin
Javelin MegaDork
10/9/12 9:36 a.m.

So I can't sell a Miata without Mazda's permission? WTF happened to our country?

racerfink
racerfink SuperDork
10/9/12 9:39 a.m.

The one comment has it right. A case where lawyers are trying to turn it into a case thats far different from the charges brought against their client.

PHeller
PHeller UltraDork
10/9/12 9:42 a.m.

Wait, this would limit the resale with permission of anything manufactured over seas. Would you need the permission of the manufacturer, or country of origin? If I wanted to resell an iPhone, would I contact FoxCon, or Apple?

If anything, I see this as a pro "Made in USA", which is usually a very...well...that gets political.

But, if you want to make a dent in the sale of foreign made goods, this would do a good job.

Flight Service
Flight Service UltraDork
10/9/12 9:45 a.m.

Strangely enough this actually part of what the Federal Government is supposed to do by regulating and promoting interstate commerce.

Here's to doing their job???

Zomby Woof
Zomby Woof UberDork
10/9/12 9:51 a.m.

I find the concept of copyright protection to be absurd, but most of you here have stood up for it in the past. You're just getting what you're asking for, and it will keep getting worse unless you fight against it.

rebelgtp
rebelgtp UltraDork
10/9/12 10:01 a.m.
Javelin wrote: So I can't sell a Miata without Mazda's permission? WTF happened to our country?

Lawyers.

1988RedT2
1988RedT2 UltraDork
10/9/12 10:15 a.m.

This is what happens when corporations run the gubmint. Ooops. Sorry. Please disregard.

Curmudgeon
Curmudgeon MegaDork
10/9/12 10:22 a.m.
racerfink wrote: The one comment has it right. A case where lawyers are trying to turn it into a case thats far different from the charges brought against their client.

And everyone wonders why I bitch about lawyers. I will shut the hell up now, lest I feel the weight of the banhammer and then become encased in concrete.

ransom
ransom SuperDork
10/9/12 10:27 a.m.

Somebody needs to do a photoshop of Carbonite-encased Han Solo as part of a nice patio...

PHeller
PHeller UltraDork
10/9/12 10:29 a.m.

Random picture I found looking for "Han Solo Patio"

foxtrapper
foxtrapper PowerDork
10/9/12 10:38 a.m.

Good. Because this has already long been a problem, particularly with software, and the hardware the software is encoded on. That's why you can't sell your own copy of Microsoft Office legally, because you don't own it, you only have a licence to use the product. It's why Amazon will only allow you to download the CD you thought you bought eight times. The list of problems with this is long.

Microsoft was sued, and lost, against this years ago. But the victory for the owner was ignored and effectively rendered moot because of it being ignored (mostly by Microsoft).

There is nothing new with the problems of proving ownership. In particular for trying on new clothes at a store, and attempting to walk out of the store in the clothes you wore walking in. If you can't prove you own them, the store can successfully charge you for theft. It's been done, quite a few times, particularly with nasty boutique stores. Purses are another that is not uncommon.

So it's long due for some clarification is to what are the rights of an owner or perceived owner of an item with regards to ownership and the transfer of ownership.

Remember too, this has already been decided. And you, the perceived owner, lost. The lower court already ruled that you cannot sell your Miata if Mazda says you cannot. This is an appeal of that ruling.

JohnInKansas
JohnInKansas HalfDork
10/9/12 10:40 a.m.

In reply to Curmudgeon and ransom:

failboat
failboat Dork
10/9/12 10:56 a.m.

I will file this story under "I'll believe it when it happens."

corytate
corytate Dork
10/9/12 11:24 a.m.

rah rah rah keep yer gov'ment hands off my medicaid!

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury UltimaDork
10/9/12 11:25 a.m.

potentially violent comment withheld

failboat
failboat Dork
10/9/12 11:25 a.m.

and you can keep the change!

N Sperlo
N Sperlo PowerDork
10/9/12 11:41 a.m.

This thread makes me LOL.

ransom
ransom SuperDork
10/9/12 11:47 a.m.

In reply to JohnInKansas:

Awesome!

Curmudgeon
Curmudgeon MegaDork
10/9/12 11:53 a.m.
ransom wrote: In reply to JohnInKansas: Awesome!

Plus fourteen thirty two.

Duke
Duke PowerDork
10/9/12 12:09 p.m.
Zomby Woof wrote: I find the concept of copyright protection to be absurd, but most of you here have stood up for it in the past. You're just getting what you're asking for, and it will keep getting worse unless you fight against it.

WHAT?

This has nothing actually to do with copyright protection; that's just a smokescreen for something else they want to slip by.

Unless the original purchaser agreed to limit his resale rights while making the original purchase, there is no Constitutional way in hell they can post-apply some sort of resale restriction after the fact.

Of course, given the current Supreme Court, that means precisely boobydick.

Out of curiosity, why do you find copyright protection to be absurd?

You think I should be allowed to build and sell copies that are just like (insert your favorite item here) without any recompense to the people who originally conceived, designed, gambled, and produced it? I should just be allowed to cash in on their hard work and investment?

z31maniac
z31maniac PowerDork
10/9/12 12:22 p.m.

It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury UltimaDork
10/9/12 12:42 p.m.
z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.

I think no...

Its just a cover for being able to keep used items off the market, to make the market for new items immeasurably larger. Less used iPhones on the market = more demand for new iPhones (due to a lack of options).

douchebaggery at its finest

EDIT: this plan will likely backfire on manufacturers. Im not going to buy a new iPhone when they release a new model, if I have a perfectly good one on the shelf at home that I cant do anything with.

I would buy a new iPhone if I were able to free up some cash by selling my old one. I have no demand for the new model if the old model is still in my posession. Theres no demand for the new one in my life, because that demand is fulfilled by the old one.

Short term gains will not make up for the long term losses created by drying up your market base when you convert repeat consumers to single through reduction of demand.

Same thing holds true for cars - there will be less demand for new cars if I cant sell the one I already have.

This would inevitably drive quality down on manufactured goods in general as designed obsolescence is introduced into new models in order to reduce their lifespan (well, this issue will only get worse, as manufacturers determined decades ago that long lasting items = decreased sales in the short term - what they dont get is that building the best item possible will create more demand for your brand in its segment, thus, driving up sales long term.)

bean counters suck

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Birthdays
Our Preferred Partners
uy41O8JvxF4ykJ5iyj5URpdVnAqhlv4uyzLxAMAUcigzJdLHXXa47l1nDdPmNbmw