Supreme Court set to decide if you can sell your own stuff

People will always figure out ways to make money on products. The market changes and the people who are invested in the current system bitch and try to legislate the new system into not happening. Eventually it changes despite the legislation and either the old business model changes or just ceases to exist.

The "People can give away their music for free on youtube because they are stupid" mindset is BS. They get a chance for exposure then if they get popular one of the youtube vendors pays them to be on their exclusive channel and gets ad revenue, or maybe it's Itunes. Still selling music, just under a new model.

wbjones wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.

but in my opinion I DO in fact fully own it ... same as if I went to BN and bought the same CD ... Amazon is just a different retailer ... I pay them for the CD ... therefore I own that CD

Lot of people also think they own their copy of Microsoft Windows just because they have a CD or it came on their computer. You don't own it, you've leased it. Same with the music you downloaded. Read the user terms (and note the word user, not owner).

foxtrapper wrote:

wbjones wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.

but in my opinion I DO in fact fully own it ... same as if I went to BN and bought the same CD ... Amazon is just a different retailer ... I pay them for the CD ... therefore I own that CD

Lot of people also think they own their copy of Microsoft Windows just because they have a CD or it came on their computer. You don't own it, you've leased it. Same with the music you downloaded. Read the user terms (and note the word user, not owner).

Yep. You own the CD. The music on the CD? You didn't actually buy that.

N Sperlo wrote:

foxtrapper wrote:

wbjones wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.

but in my opinion I DO in fact fully own it ... same as if I went to BN and bought the same CD ... Amazon is just a different retailer ... I pay them for the CD ... therefore I own that CD

Lot of people also think they own their copy of Microsoft Windows just because they have a CD or it came on their computer. You don't own it, you've leased it. Same with the music you downloaded. Read the user terms (and note the word user, not owner).

Yep. You own the CD. The music on the CD? You didn't actually buy that.

this - you own the medium, not the content. Youre granted permission to observe the content at your liesure, but not reproduce the content or distribute the content. If you want to scratch the shiny stuff off the plastic disc, you can do whatever you like with it...sell it a thousand times, throw it like a ninja star at your brother, or turn it into a coaster (theyre good for that). But the content is solely the privately owned work of the artist, as is the right to reproduce it.

Duke wrote: He can do anything legal he wants to with the books *in Thailand* . What he can't do is bring them into the US. The law that needs to be enforced is at - and within - the US boundary. No foreign enforcement necessary. And last I heard, just being from a different country didn't excuse compliance with laws of *any* country, not just the US.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. If you buy something in a foreign country it's perfectly legal to bring it into the US, assuming it's not an illegal product. Buying something abroad and bringing it to the US, even with intent to make a profit, is not illegal, and never has been, as long as you pay your import duties and such.

A US company suing a US citizen for something they did in Thailand that's legal in the US is not a good precedent.

dculberson wrote:

Duke wrote: He can do anything legal he wants to with the books *in Thailand* . What he can't do is bring them into the US. The law that needs to be enforced is at - and within - the US boundary. No foreign enforcement necessary. And last I heard, just being from a different country didn't excuse compliance with laws of *any* country, not just the US.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. If you buy something in a foreign country it's perfectly legal to bring it into the US, assuming it's not an illegal product. Buying something abroad and bringing it to the US, even with intent to make a profit, is not illegal, and never has been, as long as you pay your import duties and such. A US company suing a US citizen for something they did in Thailand that's legal in the US is not a good precedent.

I think Duke was taking a jab at the "Lets travel the world to stop this pirating" mindset thats shut down a few websites lately.....

The difference here that you're missing is the simple fact that the books were most likely marked with where they could be sold. Also, for some reason, I am doubting this guy is a US citizen......

dculberson wrote:

Duke wrote: He can do anything legal he wants to with the books *in Thailand* . What he can't do is bring them into the US. The law that needs to be enforced is at - and within - the US boundary. No foreign enforcement necessary. And last I heard, just being from a different country didn't excuse compliance with laws of *any* country, not just the US.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. If you buy something in a foreign country it's perfectly legal to bring it into the US, assuming it's not an illegal product. Buying something abroad and bringing it to the US, even with intent to make a profit, is not illegal, and never has been, as long as you pay your import duties and such.

It's a violation of the terms of your ownership agreement, IF your ownership agreement stipulates that the product was not to be imported to the US. The creator has every right to enforce that, as long as it was part of the purchase agreement.

Look at it this way: Nissan has never federalized the Skyline, and the purchase agreement when buying a Skyline indicates that they cannot be registered in the US. So should a purchaser be relieved of that, just because they bought the car overseas and it is now their property? Ignore the NHTSA part for right now - it's an example about the preconditions of the sale, not about the federal standards.

An "ownership agreement" in Thailand has no force of law in the United States.

4cylndrfury wrote: this - you own the medium, not the content. Youre granted permission to observe the content at your liesure, but not reproduce the content or distribute the content. If you want to scratch the shiny stuff off the plastic disc, you can do whatever you like with it...sell it a thousand times, throw it like a ninja star at your brother, or turn it into a coaster (theyre good for that). But the content is solely the privately owned work of the artist, as is the right to reproduce it.

As a consumer, I will politely reject this notion. If I give you money, I OWN your music (or software), and I will feel free to copy it as I darn well please. Now, I will not venture to sell those copies, as that is clearly illegal.

If an artist sells an original oil painting, he can make no claim of owning rights to the "image". Neither can he restrict the sale of said painting.

In reply to dculberson:

Just read back through the thread......buying things in thailand(meant for that region only), importing them, and then reselling here.....yea, that'll carry the force of US law.

I agree that this never should have made it through customs........especially since it was apparently going on for awhile.

1988RedT2 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: this - you own the medium, not the content. Youre granted permission to observe the content at your liesure, but not reproduce the content or distribute the content. If you want to scratch the shiny stuff off the plastic disc, you can do whatever you like with it...sell it a thousand times, throw it like a ninja star at your brother, or turn it into a coaster (theyre good for that). But the content is solely the privately owned work of the artist, as is the right to reproduce it.

As a consumer, I will politely reject this notion. If I give you money, I OWN your music (or software), and I will feel free to copy it as I darn well please. Now, I will not venture to sell those copies, as that is clearly illegal. If an artist sells an original oil painting, he can make no claim of owning rights to the "image". Neither can he restrict the sale of said painting.

Im not a fan of EULA restrictions or copywright licensing etc etc etc, Im just saying, thems the rules.

And, FWIW. there is a big difference between buying a CD and buying the original work. You dont own the music, you own a licensed reproduction of it. There are laws against reproducing someone elses property without their consent (license). If you dont like the laws, you may work to change them. But if you dont follow them, well, you know what happens.

1988RedT2 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: this - you own the medium, not the content. the content is solely the privately owned work of the artist, as is the right to reproduce it.

As a consumer, I will politely reject this notion. If I give you money, I OWN your music (or software), and I will feel free to copy it as I darn well please. Now, I will not venture to sell those copies, as that is clearly illegal.

Sorry, that's just not the case. If I decided U2 was the world's greatest ever band, and I wanted ALL to share in the joy and love, that does not entitle me to burn 7,000,000,000 copies of my favorite U2 album and give them away to every human being in the world... even though I wouldn't be selling them or making any money whatsoever on the transaction.

Now I agree, I should be able to make as many copies necessary for my own convenience, for my own nonsimultaneous use, but that's not unrestricted license to do whatever I want with the content. The 'nonsimultaneous' part is important, because there is only one of me - therefore only one of the copies should be in use at any given time, even if I have one on the computer, one in the car, one on my phone, etc. for my own convenience.

If an artist sells an original oil painting, he can make no claim of owning rights to the "image". Neither can he restrict the sale of said painting.

Sorry, that's also not true. As the creator of the image, he can (if he wishes) retain the rights to that image. Unless there was a prior agreement to restrict resale of the painting itself, you're right, he can't stop you from disposing of the actual painting as you see fit. BUT, owning the painting itself does not give you any right whatsoever to make copies of it, even if you give them away rather than selling them.

Intellectual property rights are still real property rights . How else did Michael Jackson end up paying the surviving members for the rights to the Beatles music catalog?

Let me give you a real-world, personal example:

I designed an apartment building for a client. He paid me to design a specific building for a specific site. I gave him the drawings, he paid me (eventually), the building was built, and the deal was done. No problem.

BUT, since many developers are scumbags who will cheat their mothers out of a buck if they can, he then went on to try building multiple copies of this same design on other sites. I did not get paid enough the first time for the client to continue profiting on my design forever without giving me any additional fees. Therefore, my original agreement (and the titleblock on my drawings) stipulates that HE owns the drawings, but I own the actual design, and it may not be reproduced without my consent. Therefore, him building additional copies of the project without telling me was in violation of my intellectual property rights as the originator of the design.

Now, if he had told me up front that he wanted to build many copies, I would have been fine with it. I would not expect him to pay the full design price every time he wanted to build the same building without changes. We would have negotiated a per-copy licensing fee up front, or I would have charged him a larger initial fee and waived my copyright to the design. Either way would have been ethical and legal.

But just owning the physical drawings did NOT give him any right to do whatever he wanted to with the intelectual property that was on those drawings.

MrJoshua wrote: The "People can give away their music for free on youtube because they are stupid" mindset is BS.

I don't think I ever said that artists doing so was stupid. I think they are perfectly within their rights to do so (as long as their contract with whoever paid to have the music produced agrees), and they are smart to take advantage of a new business model.

They are trading a small amount of short-term revenue (from selling the music now rather than giving it away) for more potential long-term revenue (from better exposure and popularity). That's a business decision for them to make, and I think it is a smart one.

But that still doesn't mean anybody else gets to make that decision for them.

yamaha wrote: Just read back through the thread......buying things in thailand(meant for that region only), importing them, and then reselling here.....yea, that'll carry the force of US law.

Well, not exactly. That is what the supreme court is deciding right now. Previously that has not been the case, perhaps it will be now.