Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court issues major copyright ruling on foreign sales
la times ^ | 3/19/2013 | David Savage

Posted on 03/19/2013 9:28:39 AM PDT by tobyhill

Edited on 03/19/2013 9:29:28 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

The Supreme Court, in a major ruling on copyright law, has given foreign buyers of textbooks, movies and other products a right to resell them in the United States without the permission of the copyright owner. The 6-3 decision is a victory for a former USC student from Thailand, Supap Kirtsaeng, who figured he could earn money by buying textbooks at lower costs in his native country and selling them in the United States.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2013 9:28:39 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

2 posted on 03/19/2013 9:33:07 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Holy Crap


3 posted on 03/19/2013 9:33:27 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Outrageous!


4 posted on 03/19/2013 9:34:18 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs
Yep! It means once someone buys a movie or music for the first time then they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. From what I read, the student was buying over there, selling over here on our soil.
5 posted on 03/19/2013 9:36:48 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Then what about meds??? What say you to that USSC?


6 posted on 03/19/2013 9:37:20 AM PDT by free from tyranny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free from tyranny

Exactly my thought - pharmaceuticals.


7 posted on 03/19/2013 9:38:01 AM PDT by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

that is next.


8 posted on 03/19/2013 9:39:40 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The textbook publishing companies with their ridiculous overpricing brought this upon themselves.


9 posted on 03/19/2013 9:40:38 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free from tyranny
Meds have to be inspected by the FDA first and be prescribed by a doc but in this case they used a “first sale” rule which opens the door for everything.
10 posted on 03/19/2013 9:41:01 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

sounds like the right decision


11 posted on 03/19/2013 9:41:12 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs

Happens every day. Many used/new bookstores around my town. Do you think they send their profit to the writer??


12 posted on 03/19/2013 9:41:20 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I don’t see how they can ban anything from this, they have established the precedent.


13 posted on 03/19/2013 9:41:31 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Now if he copied the books and then sold them, that would be a whole different matter and a copyright violation.


14 posted on 03/19/2013 9:42:56 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
First thoughts.....

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!!!!


On reflection, how is it, that creature scotus-penguinis-limpis is even dealing with international patent and trademark law? If it is USIP and proven to be USIP, then the IP owner or his agents decide if it can be sold or if royalties are required, NOT the fer govt.
KYPD what the he!! is going on here???
15 posted on 03/19/2013 9:45:27 AM PDT by petro45acp (No good endeavour survives an excess of adult supervision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

What if the company that bought the books gave him permission to copy the books?


16 posted on 03/19/2013 9:47:06 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

...uh. Maybe it is time to start over in this great experiment. Time to find the tea, a nice harbor, and a few like-minded RE-Patriots?


17 posted on 03/19/2013 9:50:17 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ( EVERY DIME Obama Spends is given to him by the Republicans in the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Overseas company purchases a Blue-Ray Movie for $5 a copy, turns around and sells the same copy over here for $8 but a company here buys it directly from the producers for $10 a copy and the company sells it for $15. Which one will you buy?
18 posted on 03/19/2013 9:54:29 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Copyright holders would love it if they could forbid you to sell a used DVD on eBay, which is where we would be heading if the ruling would have gone the other way.


19 posted on 03/19/2013 9:56:41 AM PDT by Stevenc131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
From what I read, the student was buying over there, selling over here on our soil.

Buying full price over there and providing the copyright-owner with the profit they agreed to. Now let's get that same Opinion for medications that are identical to the FDA formularies.

Interesting split - Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Scalia dissented.

20 posted on 03/19/2013 9:57:18 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This might be a blow to the charging what the market will bear strategy. Sell high in the US and other higher income nations and sell low in lower income nations. That’s how companies maximize profits by seeking the greatest volume of sales.

Since this involves RE-sale only, it’s probably a reasonable ruling as long as some don’t start importing lower priced copyrighted items on a massive scale. Then the companies would have to solve the problem by raising pricing in the lower income nation.


21 posted on 03/19/2013 9:58:34 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

“If it is USIP and proven to be USIP, then the IP owner or his agents decide if it can be sold or if royalties are required”

Yeah, they already decided it could be sold when they sold him the textbooks in the first place. They can’t put additional restrictions saying that it can’t be resold after that. That was settled long ago when the music companies tried to stop people from reselling used CDs.


22 posted on 03/19/2013 10:05:41 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

The sad part is we all paid some dork in DC $100,000+ per annum to come up with this lame trademark.

They’re doing a bang-up job with .eu and .bz domains, eh?


23 posted on 03/19/2013 10:16:05 AM PDT by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: free from tyranny

Not under copyright law.


24 posted on 03/19/2013 10:18:55 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stevenc131

Half Price Books would go out of business if the opponents of this ruling had their way.


25 posted on 03/19/2013 10:20:14 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Will88

The way I read it is that the first owner can do whatever he wants with it, even give it away if that’s his desire.


26 posted on 03/19/2013 10:20:42 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I never expected this ruling - and am so glad to see it. This means that you own what you buy, and are free to resell it. Copyright holders are free to charge whatever they want, wherever they want, but only for the first sale of an item, and can’t prevent resale.

Amazing! Standing up for property rights of the individual purchaser/owner over the greed of the company that already made what they wanted to charge.


27 posted on 03/19/2013 10:30:01 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
The keywords the SCOTUS said was “lawfully made”. Now any person can legally make a copy of anything for their own use. Now the SCOTUS just opened the door for resale for profit of that copy.
28 posted on 03/19/2013 10:31:23 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

That’s true. But the guy in this case was buying books in Thailand and reselling in the US for a profit. If he’s buying only a few no one will notice. What if thousands of foreign students start buying dozens or hundreds of textbooks each in their native country and resell them in the US?

Then the campus book stores notice the sales decreases. It’s another one of those things where if a very few do it no one notices. If it becomes large scale many will notice, including the book printer/copyright owner who sets the prices in all the countries involved.


29 posted on 03/19/2013 10:35:02 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This should have implications for the phone-unlocking issue.


30 posted on 03/19/2013 10:49:00 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Several things the articles doesn’t address, and maybe the court case didn’t address.

How many books can a foreign student bring into the US and resell without some sort of import license?

And how many can he sell at a given college without acquiring a business license?

Not enough information to know whether the guy was bringing in a few books, or enough to be considered an importer and then a retailer in the US.

But that’s not the ‘distribution channel’ the copyright owner planned on, and if it became too significant they’d have to make changes or lose significant profit.


31 posted on 03/19/2013 10:49:46 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs

Why “holy crap”? This is just an extension of “first use” policy which has been part of common law and statutory law for many years when it came to the reselling of copyrighted materials produced, bought and sold in the U.S.

The consequences if this case had been found in favor of the plaintiff would have been very far reaching and costly to consumers. Do some research on the case.


32 posted on 03/19/2013 10:54:06 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Will88
“According to these three justices, the majority decision's “bold departure from Congress’ design” is “stunning,” and they further say that the parade of horribles is “largely imaginary.” They object to the majority's interpretation of the phrase “lawfully made under this title” and say that the high court has just reduced the illegal importation clause of the Copyright Act to “insignificance.”

I think what the dissenting judges are saying is that there is no way of determining “lawfully made”.

33 posted on 03/19/2013 10:56:25 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This is a positive ruling.

Think about it...

First, it supports property rights.

Second, this removes the incentive for businesses to make most of their profits off of American customers. Businesses are now going to charge the entire world the same price rather than sticking it to Americans.

Expect prices of such items to drop somewhat.


34 posted on 03/19/2013 10:58:08 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Another win for personal freedom, the real story is that 3 voted against it. would you like to have to pay a copyright fee to sell a used car or have to pay copyright fees on your garage sale items your selling.

The concept of personal property should always be upheld in the USA.


35 posted on 03/19/2013 10:58:59 AM PDT by jyro (French-like Democrats wave the white flag of surrender while we are winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

You are somewhat lacking in legal knowledge. This ruling does not allow the copying of any copyrighted material, current copyright law still applies. You can not copy a DVD you do not own even if it is for your own use.

What this ruling means is if a US citizen buys a work that has been published overseas the same “first use” policy pertains to that foreign published work as it does to a domestic published work. The publisher does not have a right to prohibit the resale of that work.


36 posted on 03/19/2013 11:04:59 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kidd
It is a positive ruling for the real owners of such items to do what they want but the other side of it is that it renders prosecution of copyright violators nonexistent. Everyone will claim they own the copy and there is no way law enforcement can find out otherwise.

Joe Blow gave me his copy that he made after he legally downloaded it off the internet.

37 posted on 03/19/2013 11:06:09 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: brityank

Your writing about patent law not copyright law.


38 posted on 03/19/2013 11:06:31 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Will88
What if thousands of foreign students start buying dozens or hundreds of textbooks each in their native country and resell them in the US? Then the campus book stores notice the sales decreases.

If the free market is allowed to operate freely, then the campus book store will start getting its books from the foreign sources directly.

Then the bookseller will lower domestic prices and raise foreign prices to maximumize their own profits, in accordance with supply vs. demand economics.

Once domestic prices from the bookseller have dropped sufficiently, the campus book store will once again get its books from a domestic source, with the effect that Americans will pay less and foreigners will pay more.

39 posted on 03/19/2013 11:07:03 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I don’t see why it is our SCOTUS place to figure out why foreign countries can not get a better handle on the problem of goods that are unlawfully made on their own soil.

The fact that the DVD someone bought in Hong Kong might be a pirated copy is a red herring. There was never any question that the textbooks were indeed lawfully made.

If concerns about pirated goods are to take precedence over first use rights then the resale of any copyrighted or trademarked work whether produced domestically or not should be prohibited.


40 posted on 03/19/2013 11:12:18 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
“So it's illegal to copy a DVD? Interestingly, no. Judges have said that consumers have a right to copy a DVD for their own use—say, for backing it up to another disk or perhaps watching it on another device, such as an iPod. That's the same “fair use” rule that made it legal to tape television shows for watching later, perhaps on a different TV. The problem is that consumers can't duplicate DVDs without software tools that get around the copy protection on those disks. It is those tools that Congress outlawed.

Is it still legal to copy a CD? The same fair use doctrine allows consumers to copy their music disks to computers and other devices. Because CDs don't have anything to protect them from being copied, it's also legal to distribute software for “ripping” them to a PC’s hard drive. The ripping software doesn't have to circumvent any anticopy protections.”

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/technology/articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd

Now prove I didn't own it and didn't have the legal right to sell it.

41 posted on 03/19/2013 11:14:33 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

And this case highlights the fact that US compannies (with or without copyright involvement) sell the same product much cheaper in many foreign nations than in the US. Again, it’s pricing at what the market will bear. If they didn’t do that, they’d sell little in many poorer nations. But US consumers are definitely subsizing those lower priced foreign sales. Probably nothing to be done about that.

But I’m with the dissenters when it comes to importing into the US and reselling. At some point people doing that are definitely in the import business and then also in the retail business in the US. I’m sure there’s a business solution to the problem if it becomes too large.


42 posted on 03/19/2013 11:15:02 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I dunno,

Microsoft has a pretty good way of protecting copyrighted material. Companies are going to have to use technology to protect its copyrights.

And I’m not sure how this ruling changes the ability of law enforcement to enforce copyright protections. It was poor before, and it’s still poor. “Joe Blow gave me his copy that he made after he legally downloaded it off the internet” was an illegal, but unenforcable, transaction before the ruling - and it still is.


43 posted on 03/19/2013 11:17:19 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

No one will ever be able to prove if a copy was pirated or not.

What if someone legally downloads an MP3 at 99 cents a song and then resells it for 10 cents a song? Is that legal?


44 posted on 03/19/2013 11:19:00 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

No they didn’t, and no they can’t.

Read the opinion.


45 posted on 03/19/2013 11:20:15 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I predict down the road during a political campaign they will magically come up with information that a candidate illegally downloaded something in their past.


46 posted on 03/19/2013 11:20:50 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
“We hold that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad,” writes Breyer, who later adds that it is not surprising that for at least a century the “first sale” doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law.”

Yes they did and this is the courts opinion.

47 posted on 03/19/2013 11:26:57 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kidd

What it changes is bearing of proof. Before law enforcement could prosecute based on just having an illegal copy but now they have to prove that the copy is illegal.


48 posted on 03/19/2013 11:30:39 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kidd
If the free market is allowed to operate freely, then the campus book store will start getting its books from the foreign sources directly.

Internationally, the free market is not allowed to operate and it never will be. Too many local interests that are and often should be protected.

The copyright holder in this case will probably work something out with its foreign distributors restricting who they can sell to, or how many copies can be purchased by individuals not in the book business in that nation. Unless it's really a large scale problem, they probably wouldn't change pricing in the foreign counry.

The information in this case doesn't tell us how large scale this was. The copyright holder might have just been trying to nip something in the bud.

49 posted on 03/19/2013 11:30:57 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
There was never any question that the textbooks were indeed lawfully made.

Indeed. But the issue that the dissent raises, which is a valid one, is that the textbooks were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act. And they were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act because the Copyright Act does not apply in foreign countries. How can a work be lawfully made under the Copyright Act when it is not subject to the Copyright Act?

50 posted on 03/19/2013 11:38:25 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson