SC decision could decide whether you can resell used goods (Craigslist/eBay etc.)

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...ase-could-threaten-ebay-and-garage-sales?lite

The legal battle involves Supap Kirtsaeng, a student from Thailand who was surprised by the high cost of academic textbooks when he arrived in the U.S. to attend college. He asked his parents to search bookstores back home and send him much cheaper versions -- published overseas and sold at a fraction of the price -- of the same texts.
He was soon running what amounted to a small business out of his apartment, helping to pay his way through school by selling textbooks on eBay. The exact amount of his profit is unclear, but court records say it was around $100,000.
The textbooks his family shipped him each bore this warning: "Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the publisher's authorization is illegal," but Kirtsaeng wasn't bothered. He concluded -- based on a search of articles on the Internet -- that he was in no legal jeopardy.
The publisher of some of the books he sold, John Wiley & Sons, didn't see it that way. It sued him in federal court, and a New York jury ordered him in 2009 to pay $600,000 in damages. When he said he had nowhere near that kind of money, he had to hand over personal property, including his computer, printer and golf clubs. A federal appeals court last year upheld the verdict. Kirtsaeng was caught between two federal laws, and he's now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to see it
his way.
One longstanding provision says when the holder of a copyright offers a work for sale, its legal interest in that specific copy evaporates as the item is sold. It's called the first-sale doctrine, and it means that if you buy the latest John Grisham novel, you can sell it on a website or give it away to the church library without violating copyright laws.
But another law prohibits importing works "acquired outside the United States ... without the authority of the owner of copyright." Applying that statue, the federal courts ruled against Kirtsaeng, reasoning that "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States."
A who's who of companies and groups involved in selling used merchandise is urging the Supreme Court to overturn the publisher's victory.
EBay warns that leaving the ruling intact would be a blow to "trade, consumers, secondary markets, e-commerce, small businesses, and jobs." Goodwill Industries says the ruling would have "a catastrophic effect on the viability of the secondary market and, consequently, on Goodwill's ability to provide needed community-based services."
"There are enough copyright owners out there -- and enough crazy copyright lawsuits," says a group of book store operators in a friend of court brief. "No one should be put to the choice of violating the law and hoping they don't get caught, and losing their business."
The effect of a victory for the publisher, according to some experts in copyright law, would extend far beyond the market for books and other published materials. It could also affect sales of thousands of used consumer electronic products made outside the U.S. that contain copyrighted software, perhaps even used cars.
Kirtsaeng's lawyer makes the same expansive claim in his Supreme Court brief. "Even cherished American traditions, such as flea markets, garage sales, and swapping dog-eared books are vulnerable to copyright challenge" under the appeals court ruling, argues Josh Rosenkranz of New York.
But could that really be the outcome?
"It doesn't mean you'd have industry enforcers attending yard sales. You'd just be converting a bunch of people into law breakers," says Prof. Rebecca Tushnet, an expert on copyright law at Georgetown Law Center in Washington.
Most likely, she says, music and book publishers would be visiting stores and Internet sites that sell used materials. "Anything more organized, like eBay sales or craigslist could be disrupted," she says.
"And I do think it's a very serious threat. They are very clearly willing to do this."
Not so, argues Washington, D.C. lawyer Ted Olson, representing the publisher that sued Kirtsaeng. If such predictions were right, he says, "those consequences should already have occurred in response to 30 years of judicial decisions and commentary."
However the court decides the case, it will undoubtedly affect a category known as graymarket sales, in which middlemen legally buy products overseas, then make them available for sale by retailers in the U.S. who can offer the products for lower prices.
Swiss watch maker Omega and discount retailer Costco have been battling in court for years over this issue. Omega claimed Costco was improperly selling its watches acquired overseas through just such a graymarket mechanism.
Omega says its authorized US dealers charge prices "that are higher than the prices charged in other, less developed and less competitive markets." It argues that any erosion of copyright protection for overseas sales would limit a manufacturer's ability to tailor prices to global markets.
But discount retailer Costco is siding with Supap Kirtsaeng, saying it "often sells copyrighted products that, although genuine, were not purchased directly from the copyright owner."

I don't know, call me crazy but, when a news article comes from a site named "NBCPolitics The Latest Political Headlines", perhaps it should go in P&N, so that's where I'm putting it.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
yeah this is a huge decision. the way the court has been ruleing im not expecting a good result
 

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
yeah this is a huge decision. the way the court has been ruleing im not expecting a good result

So no more ebay/costco/craigslist? What about big box stores? Walmart/Target/Bestbuy/Gamestop resells used stuff. No more Russian steam keys, no more used textbooks.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
So no more ebay/costco/craigslist? What about big box stores? Walmart/Target/Bestbuy/Gamestop resells used stuff. No more Russian steam keys, no more used textbooks.

this won't hurt box stores. this is going ot kill ebay/craigslist/garges sales/gamestop etc.

yeah no more used books, music movies clothes, toys (that was already done with the cpsia the biggest pile of shit legislation in history).

though the odds of it doing that are actually slim. but it could
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
How does costco fit in between ebay and craigslist? :confused:

CNBC original on The Costco Craze has founder saying that some of the high end items he sells in stores are gray market, because manufacturer won't give him a good discount, so he goes around them and buys gray market and sells in store.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
They're going to take awhile to decide, but I see no reason to believe they wouldn't try to strike down sales of used consumer items or that they wouldn't come to some compromise. The Republicans support this more than the Democrats do.

Conservative Parties love regulations and the supply side, yet they even screwed the supply side over with tariffs.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
CNBC original on The Costco Craze has founder saying that some of the high end items he sells in stores are gray market, because manufacturer won't give him a good discount, so he goes around them and buys gray market and sells in store.

right while it is going to effect them i dont' see it putting them out of business like this could to criegslist, ebay, local reseller shops etc.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
They're going to take awhile to decide, but I see no reason to believe they wouldn't try to strike down sales of used consumer items or that they wouldn't come to some compromise. The Republicans support this more than the Democrats do.

Conservative Parties love regulations and the supply side, yet they even screwed the supply side over with tariffs.

I hope they make it a law , I have no problems with breaking mans laws as no man has authority over another , In their pea sized brain they think they have , Ya they can punish you . But So what, Do what you know is right screw the man made lies. I mean laws
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
They're going to take awhile to decide, but I see no reason to believe they wouldn't try to strike down sales of used consumer items or that they wouldn't come to some compromise. The Republicans support this more than the Democrats do.

Conservative Parties love regulations and the supply side, yet they even screwed the supply side over with tariffs.

Tariffs are good for keeping jobs in the US. Sure it's considered protectionism but I'm all for it.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
That sucks, I have quite a few International Editions of books. Its just not fair for a publisher to sell me a book in the US for $200 and then sell the same book to another student studying the same path as me for $75.

I know, Capitalism and all that. But whatever, I have friends in other countries, I send them things from the US that are hard to find in their countries and they send me books.

Of course, none of them are running an illegal textbook import business in Ebay.


I wonder if its illegal for those Korean companies to sell rejected A => A- grade re-branded Apple Thunderbolt displays.

I have two of them and I paid a lot less than what someone would pay for an A+ version of the same display. Purchased on Ebay, imported from Korea within a week.
 
Last edited:

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Pardon me if I'm being dense, but how in the world are they arguing that selling a used GENIUNE copy of a book/software/whatever can be breaking copyright? That is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
Pardon me if I'm being dense, but how in the world are they arguing that selling a used GENIUNE copy of a book/software/whatever can be breaking copyright? That is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

Because publishers often sell "International" versions of textbooks to citizens in countries outside of the US. There is nothing different about the content of these textbooks other than sometimes having a different cover...the problem is, the publishing companies don't want a student who needs "Intro to Anatomy" but has to pay $300 for it at their Medical School's bookstore to be able to hitup a Medical School's bookstore in China to get the SAME book for $150.

Basically, they want us to pay more for these books while they sell them in other countries for a fraction of the price.

Its not just college textbooks but textbooks for elementary, middle, and high schools as well.

That's why I only buy/trade textbooks from students, I NEVER purchase new textbooks because they try to fleece students in every way possible.
 
Last edited:

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,741
1,030
126
Regardless of how this turns out. This dude took it to an extreme and screwed it up for everyone. 100k in import books? Dude.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
I'll concede the Georgetown professor knows more than I do, but it doesn't seem that threatening to Craigslist, eBay, etc. The matter of contention is whether or not the 'first-sale' doctrine applies to foreign items, not whether the 'first-sale' doctrine is legitimate in its own right.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I'll concede the Georgetown professor knows more than I do, but it doesn't seem that threatening to Craigslist, eBay, etc. The matter of contention is whether or not the 'first-sale' doctrine applies to foreign items, not whether the 'first-sale' doctrine is legitimate in its own right.

I agree. The text seems to degrade far away from what I understand as the actual issue in the suit. He isn't being sued simply because he's reselling things he's purchased. That's a brash generalization of the lawsuit. He's being sued because he's essentially importing the books without licensing them from the owner, which is exactly what that one law that was referenced talks about...

But another law prohibits importing works "acquired outside the United States ... without the authority of the owner of copyright." Applying that statue, the federal courts ruled against Kirtsaeng, reasoning that "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States."
I've dealt with this a lot in a different realm... Japanese manga. I did a bunch of work as a scanlator a few years back, and it's a very, very gray area. The original "creed" is to only work on unlicensed works, but I can't recall anyone ever having permission from the publisher (Japanese companies like Shueisha) to work on them. I don't recall ever receiving any negative communication from those companies, but if the series was licensed in America, it wasn't uncommon for groups to receive cease and desist letters from the company that holds the license to distribute in the US (companies like Viz, TokyoPop, etc.).

In some ways, this is sort of the same. I assume that whoever sued him has the right to distribute that book in the US... not him.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,944
12,214
136
This seems like the publishers are doing/trying to do the same thing as the movie industry does with regionalized DVD's. They do it purely for market reasons. Same thing with drugs only that industry uses commerce laws to keep us in economic servitude.

Now they are using the courts to inforce their imaginary definition of free enterprise. Like they really want free markets.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I agree. The text seems to degrade far away from what I understand as the actual issue in the suit. He isn't being sued simply because he's reselling things he's purchased. That's a brash generalization of the lawsuit. He's being sued because he's essentially importing the books without licensing them from the owner, which is exactly what that one law that was referenced talks about...

I've dealt with this a lot in a different realm... Japanese manga. I did a bunch of work as a scanlator a few years back, and it's a very, very gray area. The original "creed" is to only work on unlicensed works, but I can't recall anyone ever having permission from the publisher (Japanese companies like Shueisha) to work on them. I don't recall ever receiving any negative communication from those companies, but if the series was licensed in America, it wasn't uncommon for groups to receive cease and desist letters from the company that holds the license to distribute in the US (companies like Viz, TokyoPop, etc.).

In some ways, this is sort of the same. I assume that whoever sued him has the right to distribute that book in the US... not him.
I would tend to agree, but see the below post.

That sucks, I have quite a few International Editions of books. Its just not fair for a publisher to sell me a book in the US for $200 and then sell the same book to another student studying the same path as me for $75.

I know, Capitalism and all that. But whatever, I have friends in other countries, I send them things from the US that are hard to find in their countries and they send me books.

Of course, none of them are running an illegal textbook import business in Ebay.


I wonder if its illegal for those Korean companies to sell rejected A => A- grade re-branded Apple Thunderbolt displays.

I have two of them and I paid a lot less than what someone would pay for an A+ version of the same display. Purchased on Ebay, imported from Korea within a week.
Do we really want laws that allow American manufacturers and IP holders to charge Americans more than they charge people in other countries? Because that's the current practice. I can see the upside - American companies earn profits they might not make, being uncompetitive if they had to charge the same prices, which helps our trade imbalance. But trade imbalance is not the be-all, end-all of a society. There's also living standard, and I strongly suspect ours suffers by being charged higher prices to allow manufacturers to charge other nations lower prices. In effect, we subsidize other nations.

Seems to me that on balance, keeping the doctrine of first sale rights separate from used articles serves an important function, keeping honest those who have the right to sell the particular products in America.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
I would tend to agree, but see the below post.


Do we really want laws that allow American manufacturers and IP holders to charge Americans more than they charge people in other countries? Because that's the current practice. I can see the upside - American companies earn profits they might not make, being uncompetitive if they had to charge the same prices, which helps our trade imbalance. But trade imbalance is not the be-all, end-all of a society. There's also living standard, and I strongly suspect ours suffers by being charged higher prices to allow manufacturers to charge other nations lower prices. In effect, we subsidize other nations.

Seems to me that on balance, keeping the doctrine of first sale rights separate from used articles serves an important function, keeping honest those who have the right to sell the particular products in America.

I don't see why publishers should not have the right to price competitively in different markets. Within reason, of course, you can't bar the sales of your book in Philadelphia to people who bought it in New York. But being able to approach global markets differently with your intellectual property, without interference from smugglers, seems reasonable to me. Different consumers of the world of the world have very different purchasing power.

I mean what is this guy doing except taking advantage of a company's decision to approach markets at different price points? Without any laws preventing this, a company is forced to maintain uniform prices for all products they sell globally, less they risk being undercut on their own product by resellers.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
"Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the publisher's authorization is illegal,"

He broke the law, he should be punished according to the law he broke. Done.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't see why publishers should not have the right to price competitively in different markets. Within reason, of course, you can't bar the sales of your book in Philadelphia to people who bought it in New York. But being able to approach global markets differently with your intellectual property, without interference from smugglers, seems reasonable to me. Different consumers of the world of the world have very different purchasing power.

I mean what is this guy doing except taking advantage of a company's decision to approach markets at different price points? Without any laws preventing this, a company is forced to maintain uniform prices for all products they sell globally, less they risk being undercut on their own product by resellers.
But do we really want to subsidize the different consumers of the world for the benefit of the publishers? Right now publishers are free to set American prices high enough to recoup overhead and investment, while selling to other markets at a price point high enough to cover straight manufacturing and distribution costs plus an acceptable profit. Say a publisher sells a particular textbook both domestically and abroad, that the textbook costs $50 to print and has $2,000,000 in production and overhead costs, and that distribution costs average $10/unit domestically and $30 abroad. If that publisher sells 5,000 units domestically at an average of $500 and 5,000 abroad at an average of $100, then Americans are subsidizing the book for non-Americans by picking up all of the indirect costs.

I have no problem with that sales strategy, but I do have a problem when they enlist the federal government to protect that sales strategy. And I really have a problem when they enlist the federal government to protect that sales strategy from competition with used books as well. For that matter, why not extend it internally? Certainly Vermont has a lot more money to spend on textbooks than does Arkansas. Should the federal government therefore protect the publishers' "right" to sell books for $250 in Arkansas and $500 in Vermont? Note that I have absolutely no problem with publishers choosing to sell books for $250 in Arkansas and $500 in Vermont, I just fail to see why my scarce tax dollars are best used protecting those publishers from hillbilly book runners.

Why on Earth would we band together to form a government to make sure we pay more than anyone else just because it benefits publishers?
 
Last edited: