z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.
That's already done on used cars and any used stuff you buy from a store.
z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.
That's already done on used cars and any used stuff you buy from a store.
spitfirebill wrote:z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.That's already done on used cars.
Hell, some states charge you sales tax on the current values of cars you already own when you want to renew the registration...
What i see is the potential earnings on a black market. Sure you will need to bribe some government agents, but that has been done in other areas before so no big deal.
You have now made my old iPhone worth MORE by this law. thanks!
Or make the market for new products measurably smaller... Perhaps people will hold onto products longer if they know that there is no market for the goods that they are replacing. The iphone is am excellent example... Many of my peers sell their older version to a phone resale shop when upgrading, so that the buy-in is pretty minimal with a new contract.
Well all the manufacture has to do is no longer support older models (even if they are just one year or even one generation older than current sales).
the market will adjust, it always does. there use to be a Hat Tax in the US and a wig tax in the UK, how many people do you see wearing wigs and top hats?.
spitfirebill wrote:z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.That's already done on used cars and any used stuff you buy from a store.
Yes, but I'd bet the person-to-person market for used goods is far larger than 2nd hand/resale shops.
Duke wrote: 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?
Random floundering here...
Back in the iron/bronze age, that's exactly what people would do. The idea of an original owner having a "copyright" is extremely new in human history, and frankly, a little odd.
If craigslist is outlawed, only outlaws will use craigslist.
z31maniac wrote: It's just a cover for being able to tax the same item sale twice.
I suspect this - they manage to do it with used cars for private sale in PA today.
I would expect a huge black market to crop up almost immediately, as well as some interesting consequences for use of cash and information required at purchase time. As long as people are selling pianos, engines and rifles with no traceable ownership for cash... really hard to enforce anything.
I bet it is overturned regardless. Pandemonium would ensue.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I would expect a huge black market to crop up almost immediately, as well as some interesting consequences for use of cash and information required at purchase time. As long as people are selling pianos, engines and rifles with no traceable ownership for cash... really hard to enforce anything. I bet it is overturned regardless. Pandemonium would ensue.
Which is why I LOL at this thread.
4cylndrfury wrote: 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.
I agree, for the reason you mentioned, and one a lot of folks seem to forget. The number of people who earn wages high enough to buy new is steadily decreasing. For a lot of people, no used phone (or car) means even less spent on the economy. No phone company contract, no gasoline sales, etc. Being able to buy used can mean the difference between having a phone/car/whatever and not having one.
In a sane and rational world, it wouldn't even have gotten to SCOTUS in the first place. Lest we forget, this is not a sane and rational world, nor a sane and rational SCOTUS. Refresh your memory about their ruling on eminent domain if you need something to stifle your LOLing. 
Extremely misleading article by the writer of that piece. This guy from the comments section has hit the nail on the head.
"This is so misleading it hurts. This case has nothing to do with first sale doctrine at all, except the lawyers of the student have turned it into that. Short story of what happened: A student from Thailand found out it was much cheaper to buy his textbooks in his home country and ship them here to the USA. He then made a business out of it, with his family shipping them to him, and him(the student) reselling them here for much cheaper than Wiley & Sons was. He made a couple million at it, and then the copyright holder sued him for violating the "importing and reselling copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission" code of the copyright law. His lawyers tried to turn it into a first sale doctrine case, but he has no case, since the books he was selling were already copyrighted here in the USA, and he did not obtain permission to import and sell them, his case should have never gotten to the supreme court, as it should have been a case that was dealt with by border patrol at the border. What it does highlight is the extreme overcharging that textbook sellers do, since they sell them at what they can get here in the USA, while in other countries, people scoff at our outrageous prices. Again, to be clear, this is NOT a first sale doctrine case at all, that is just what the students lawyers have turned it into to gain support for him, who should have no support. He clearly violated copyright law by having his family sending him books that he did not have permission to import or resell, and he is in the wrong. First sale doctrine is not at stake, and likely, when the supreme court finds out what the case is really about, they will tell the student to get lost and be done with it."
anon poster wrote: "...and likely, when the supreme court finds out what the case is really about, they will tell the student to get lost and be done with it."
We can only hope. SCOTUS has not earned any gold stars in my book for the last few major decisions. If there is an agenda they want to advance by upholding the decision, they will uphold it.
So a copyright grants right of first sale to the holder? Fine. Did you buy your Miata in the US? Then that first sale has occurred here and you can sell it used anytime you want.
The law says nothing about place of manufacture.
Now, if you bought it in Canada and wanted to sell it in the US they might make a case of it, but I'm willing to bet most of us buy all our stuff in country.
I still think the kids lawyers are trolling the system and wasting SCOTUS time.
a couple million selling textbooks? how long was he at it? and how did he get caught?
DuctTape&Bondo wrote: a couple million selling textbooks? how long was he at it? and how did he get caught?
I bet he was turned in by the campus bookstore because his actions threatened their little empire. 
Duke wrote: 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?
Absolutely. Same goes for recorded material like movies, and music. I think once it in the public domain, it should be a free for all.
Zomby Woof wrote:Duke wrote: 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?Absolutely. Same goes for recorded material like movies, and music. I think once it in the public domain, it should be a free for all.
Not to be a semantics dick, but "in the public domain" means that there is no copyright on something. What you're saying is that everything should be in the public domain as soon as it is released?
What, then, is the incentive to create something new and innovative and good? The milk of human kindness is not shallow, but the milk of rational self interest is deeper.
You seem to think that everyone who creates something should effectively give it away - or at least only charge enough to cover materials and labor, not paying themselves for the energy, investment, and risk required to create something new.
And what do you base this thinking on? Because I'm not seeing how this is good in short run, let alone the long run.
Duke wrote: Not to be a semantics dick...
That's ok. I'm that dick sometimes too. The wording was a mistake on my part.
I'll use a movie, or cd as an example. Once I buy a cd, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, whether that's just to listen to it, to copy it, or to copy it and resell it. You can still charge what you want for something, but the concept of being the only one ever able to profit from it seems absurd to me.
I'm a good mechanic who has a really smart way of tearing something down and rebuilding it. It makes my life easier, and my job more profitable. If you work in the bay next to me and start doing it the same way, should I have the right to make you stop, or should you have to give me some of your pay? I don't think so. A lot of people have become insanely wealthy because of these types of laws, and frankly, I find them to be more than a little ridiculous.
^I disagree on the CD/Movie. I shouldn't be able to buy a CD, then copy and resell for a profit. I think you're completely wrong on that aspect of it.
Copy it, back it up, multiple copies for yourself, yes. But to make money off of it, no.
In reply to Zomby Woof:
Metallica is now hunting you down.
z31maniac wrote: ^I disagree on the CD/Movie. I shouldn't be able to buy a CD, then copy and resell for a profit. I think you're completely wrong on that aspect of it. Copy it, back it up, multiple copies for yourself, yes. But to make money off of it, no.
Of course, it's done nowadays without even selling it, because if you really wanted to, you could record the songs off the RADIO (been there, done that with a cassette recorder) and have the song for free as well.
Many musicians put high quality MP4 music videos up on youtube, where it is as simple as a click away to DL the MA4 (practically loss-less) song onto your computer.
So yea. Even if they don't like it, they sure don't seem to be too up in arms about it. In fact, is it just me or do musicians seem to be getting richer?? 
In reply to racerfink:
I've got a textbook from (IIRC) Korea - local edition of an English language one - that I didn't buy to resell. It clearly states on the back cover that the book is not for sale in certain regions. So it's not like you can't tell you're doing something to piss off the publisher.
There's a bit of a difference between "grey importing" text books for resale and buying one abroad for personal use. Couple of large companies in the UK lost a similar lawsuit they got hit with because they imported other products (Levi's jeans IIRC) from a non-EU country much cheaper than they could get them from the UK wholesaler. Got sued for the same reason as this kid got sued, and they lost, too.
So, how would one monetize this?
An off-shore version version of craigslist? A cross-border swap meet? (Nothing shady there.) Will US manufacturers want to try "foreign-washing" their made in US products by inserting some trivial imported item?
You'll need to log in to post.
