Skip to comments.Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
Posted on 10/11/2012 9:00:47 AM PDT by lastchance
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Courts busy agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmothers 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 has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen does on the book No Easy Day, you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.marketwatch.com ...
If SCOTUS rules against the right to resell, it is going to p*ss off a HUGE electorate! Most of the middle class, and almost all lower class I would imagine, depend heavily, if not exclusively, on buying second hand, be it electronics, books, and most especially, CARS!!! Private resale of cars will take a HUGE hit in people, since most don’t want to trust the scam artists at dealerships.
This government is a bunch of absurd control freaks.
SCOTUS is not stupid, they’re not going to do that. They will cop out on some narrow technical ground, and send it back to the lower court.
Sorry publishers, but free trade works for both the big guys and the little guys. If I can't import something, then why in the hell should you be able to print them overseas and import them regulation and tax free.
Too bad the article writer didn't bother to tell why the 2nd circuit court of appeals made its anti-free market decision or even what the official name of the case was.
I dunno. American textbooks, especially engineering textbooks, have been sold at a steep discount in Asia for years, with the legend in the title page, “Not to be sold in the United States”.
I agree that textbooks are a rip off, but really, how does upholding this restriction affect my right to sell my grandmother’s jewelry? The books were sold *at a steep discount* precisely because they could not be resold into the U.S. market.
The concept of private property is constantly being eroded by the courts and big government. Even where the founders specifically provided for protection of private property (Fifth Amendment due process clause) today’s courts have weakened or eliminated the protection (Kelo decision).
If the Supreme Court does not uphold the first sale principle for imported products, we will see what is left of US manufacturing race offshore.
If a company chooses to price products lower overseas it certainly has the right to do so but must recognize it is creating an arbitrage situation which others can take advantage of. It is not the role of government in a free market to restrict the property rights of buyers who take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity created by the seller. If the seller wants to eliminate the arbitrage, he needs only to raise prices outside the US or lower them inside the US. There is no compelling economic, social, or national interest served by allowing sellers to retain property rights in perpetuity.
Ooooooo! I bet they're reallllllly scared we'll vote them out of office!
SCOTUS? oh wait...
In the town of Bloomsburg, PA, you have a hard time selling anyone’s old stuff. There is an ordinance that requires antique dealers to report their business transactions to the local police. I kid you not. Your business records must be submitted to the police, or you’re OUT.
Last I heard (early this year) it included secondhand goods, including metals, coins; there were provisions for photographing the items, a waiting period, and more. Look it up if you want to be stunned speechless.
They could make the decision, but I’ll wait until they tell me how they are going to enforce it.
So much for selling your house.
Well in the USA we used to be able to "own" property and as such if I "own" something then I have the right to sell it.
If it was against the law for those books to enter the USA then it is up to customs to stop it. But since he brought thousands of books (if the stories are true on the amount of money he made that is) into the USA and he hasn't been charged with violating customs laws that tells me he had the right to do with those books as he saw fit.
And being we have a Constitutional challenge on the already overbearing copyright laws by Big Media who have bought huge changes to the copyright laws at the trun of the century, I gotta side with the kid. He found a market nitch and filled it.
If the publisher wants to protect his price in the USA its simple. Quit selling his stuff cheaper overseas. Problem solved!
SCOTUS rules on corporate process.
SCOTUS rules on corporate process.
America has gone down the toilet because the government has applied corporate process to We The People - and no one noticed, nor cared.
It's much easier to be righteously pissed than actually learn something and solve the problem.
Chief Justice roberts, in one of the most courageous rulings in American history, used Obamacare to call judicial notice to this difference between corporate and natural person applicability of laws. He risked everything to do this, and yet has received nothing but hatred from the very fool who are most upset about his ruling - even though he freed them.
Get a brian, moran:
The purpose of such laws is to prevent the sale of stolen goods.
But they were not sold in the US at first sale and that is what the coming SCOTUS argument hinges on.
Why are you calling me a moron? I posted an article on an issue which I believe should be of concern. I did not write the article and I did not demand you come and read the article to comment on it.
Your insult is unnecessary and crass.
Obviously SCOTUS can’t be voted out! Duh!
I was referring to the pro-Obama electorate who make a living off of garage sales, flea markets, and buying/selling used cars. If SCOTUS passes it, and the only way it can be undone is through presidential or congressional intervention, they may shift their allegience to the candidate(s) who is supportive of free-market trade, even when second-hand.
Invisible </sarcasm> tag strikes again.
By your logic, I could buy a copy of a best seller, scan it, bind it and sell it on eBay. I mean, it’s my paper, my ink, my binder and my copy of the book.
Clearly importing them violated the “first sale” lisence agreement. Why would the lisence owner need to depend on customs to enforce his intellectual property rights?
The likely effect of a “favorable” ruling would be to curtail discount sales of textbooks in Asia.
Incidently, I bought a couple of Tom & Jerry DVD’s on eBay, turns out they were sold in and shipped from Singapore and are not supposed to be imported into the U.S. It doesn’t seem to be a copyright issue, since the same DVDs are not sold in the U.S. It appears to be racial sensitivity. The black maid is depicted as a , well black maid, with a thickly accented dialect. “Tom, yous is a shiftless, wortless good-fer-nuttin’ lay-a-bout old tom cat and eyes gonna toss you outen dis house if you don’t take cares of dat mouse around here!” She is an altogether admirable and noble character, but it just won’t play in the U.S. Disney’s “Song of the South” is not available on DVD nor VHS and they closely monitor eBay and Craig’s list to keep it that way.
It kinda fustrating because I have a VHS copy of the PBS miniseries “Mother Love”, which is absolutely riveting and I cannot get someone to copy it to DVD, even for my personal use, because of copyright restrictions. For whatever reason the copyright holder refuses to release copies, even though it is eagerly sought after.
Ahhh if I were you I wouldn't use the word "logic" anymore until you learn the meaning.
Your straw man argument of COPYING an existing work doesn't fly. why you ask because he didn't do such.
He bought books and had them shipped to the USA and as is his right here in the USA he can resell it as he sees fit. He owns it its his to do with as he pleases.
Its called the right of first sale for a reason. The Copyright holder controls the first retail sale after that he has no say in whether the owner of the product sells it or burns it or uses it for toilet paper.
This back door try on controlling all sales of products past the first sale is a power move by Big Media. Either you own it outright or you are renting it.
"Clearly importing them violated the first sale lisence agreement. Why would the lisence owner need to depend on customs to enforce his intellectual property rights?"
Then you have no understanding whatsoever of the first sale doctrine. He bought those books from a retail source. He didn't IMPORT them he had them shipped to him. Importing means wholesale purchasing with a business license etc. Like I said he bought them retail And thus the first sale was done. Any sale after that wasn't a first sale. Therefore he has the right to do with the merchandise as he pleases as far as reselling them goes.
If this idiotic ruling stands then by law you will not be allowed to resell ANY thing made over seas without permission from the copyright holder. Apple is salivating at the thought of this stupid ruling being upheld.
He imported them.
OK if you say so. But being the Customs Office would not allow such a transaction as the copyright clearly states it can't sell as first sale in the USA (Wholesale Imports must pass customs) then please explain how he was able to sell enough of them to make over 1 million dollars.
See the problem here is you don't understand the difference between wholesale and retail and what the right of first sale entails.
I've been selling merchandise all over the globe for over 15 years and purchased goods from overseas sources both retail and wholesale. There is a difference and what this kid did was legal. But the copyright holders want their cake and eat it to. If we still had a legal system they would lose BUT its been bought and paid for so we will see.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Same approach statewide in LA based upon a law that was passed in 2011. I assume it is in effect and functioning but I haven't researched it any further.
Cold hard cash. It's good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.
But that's not the case here in Louisiana now. It's a law that was passed during this year's busy legislative session.
House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don't even know about it.
"We're gonna lose a lot of business," says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items.
"We don't want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It's an everyday transaction," Guidry explains.
Guidry says, "I think everyone in this business once they find out about it. They're will definitely be a lot of uproar."
The law states those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash. State representative Rickey Hardy co-authored the bill.
Hardy says, "they give a check or a cashiers money order, or electronic one of those three mechanisms is used."
Hardy says the bill is targeted at criminals who steal anything from copper to televisions, and sell them for a quick buck. Having a paper trail will make it easier for law enforcement.
A police state is a safe state.
Our property rights are being eroded to pad the wallets of the Political Elite and the Copyright Mafia.
They can ALL kiss my ass!
Tell that to your dog.
(Ps I assume you were being flippant)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.