Supreme court gets another one right

[PokerGuy]

The court ruled today in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, the case about copyright laws and the first sale doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b8afd4-909f-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_story.html

Had the court ruled for the plaintiff, it would lead to absurd situations where (as one of the justices pointed out), you would not be able to legally sell your used car without explicit permission from every copyright holder of any IP in the car (software for all the components etc).

This is a good ruling for everyone.

 

[IronWing]

The Washington Post link keeps loading and then blanking out for me. Here is a another link to the same story.

Hope this gets applied to pharmaceuticals next.

 

[PokerGuy]

The Washington Post link keeps loading and then blanking out for me. Here is a another link to the same story.

Hope this gets applied to pharmaceuticals next.

That's an interesting point. I'll admit I haven't thought about that context, but I wonder how this could play out with pharmaceuticals. They price products significantly differently in the US versus elsewhere...

 

[Matt1970]

In a 6-3 opinion, the court threw out a copyright infringement award to publisher John Wiley & Sons against Thai graduate student Supap Kirtsaeng, who used eBay to resell copies of the publisher’s copyrighted books that his relatives first bought abroad at cut-rate prices.

This ruling would have had devastating effects if it went the other way. That still leaves 3 Justices that have absolutely no clue.

 

[nehalem256]

This ruling would have had devastating effects if it went the other way. That still leaves 3 Justices that have absolutely no clue.

In a dissent for herself and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ignoring Congress’ aim of protecting “copyright owners against the unauthorized importation of low-priced, foreign-made copies of their copyrighted works.”

So wait did Ginsburg and Scalia just agree with each other?:hmm:

 

[soundforbjt]

So wait did Ginsburg and Scalia just agree with each other?:hmm:

Yep, and they both got it wrong.

 

[cubby1223]

It's one of those situations where the law has different impacts on different entities.

It is good for an individual to resell one product.

It is a total asshole move when someone makes a business around importing massive quantities of a product to undercut the company who creates the product.

 

[werepossum]

It's one of those situations where the law has different impacts on different entities.

It is good for an individual to resell one product.

It is a total asshole move when someone makes a business around importing massive quantities of a product to undercut the company who creates the product.

But in this case, Congress' aim of protecting "copyright owners against the unauthorized importation of low-priced, foreign-made copies of their copyrighted works" is protecting them against importing low-priced, foreign-made copies that exist because the copyright holder licensed them. I'm in favor of protecting American companies against low-priced, foreign-made competition in generally, but not against just those they actually licensed. That merely allows them to sell to non-Americans at a lower price than they sell to Americans. I'm not a big fan of that practice as is, and I certainly don't want it to have legal protection.

Bravo SCOTUS.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It's one of those situations where the law has different impacts on different entities.

It is good for an individual to resell one product.

It is a total asshole move when someone makes a business around importing massive quantities of a product to undercut the company who creates the product.

for an identical product, why isn't that product priced the same, ignoring transportation costs? if it's cheaper to import the same product from the very company who sells it, that means you're getting massively screwed over as a consumer.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's one of those situations where the law has different impacts on different entities.

It is good for an individual to resell one product.

It is a total asshole move when someone makes a business around importing massive quantities of a product to undercut the company who creates the product.

Why? It seems to me the "total asshole move" is playing pricing games where people in one country are forced to subsidize better pricing in others. This is a free market at work, with the little guy using a big conglomerate's greed against them instead of the usual, vice versa.

Good ruling. The First Sale doctrine is a fundamental freedom, so true to American values: "I bought it. I own it. I can do whatever I want with it."

 

[cybrsage]

He should be charged with operating an import business without a license. Copyright infringement not found, illegal business found.

 

[Matt1970]

He should be charged with operating an import business without a license. Copyright infringement not found, illegal business found.

They never mentioned his business was illegal.

 

[Matt1970]

for an identical product, why isn't that product priced the same, ignoring transportation costs? if it's cheaper to import the same product from the very company who sells it, that means you're getting massively screwed over as a consumer.

This.

 

[cubby1223]

That merely allows them to sell to non-Americans at a lower price than they sell to Americans. I'm not a big fan of that practice as is, and I certainly don't want it to have legal protection.

Bravo SCOTUS.

A business must at a minimum cover their operating costs. They want to be a good wholesome business and remain located within the United States, where operating costs are higher than if they located themselves in other parts of the world.

They have two options to provide their product world-wide:

(1) set a uniform price where because of cost of living differences between the U.S. and other countries across the globe the product is out of reach from other countries.
-or-
(2) have prices adjusted according to each region's cost of living, giving everyone the opportunity to benefit from the product, while ensuring those who are most capable of affording the product contribute the lion's share of the company's revenue.

See where this gets cute to read that comment from you?

I hope you are also in full support of outsourcing of jobs, and free trade bringing in cheap foreign-built products to compete against American labor on the store shelves.

 

[cubby1223]

Why? It seems to me the "total asshole move" is playing pricing games where people in one country are forced to subsidize better pricing in others. This is a free market at work, with the little guy using a big conglomerate's greed against them instead of the usual, vice versa.

Good ruling. The First Sale doctrine is a fundamental freedom, so true to American values: "I bought it. I own it. I can do whatever I want with it."

If you want to go live in a 3rd world country because of their low prices, go, have fun there, enjoy your life.

It is this way because products cannot always sell overseas to cover the cost of labor and other expenses of operating a business within the United States.

 

[werepossum]

A business must at a minimum cover their operating costs. They want to be a good wholesome business and remain located within the United States, where operating costs are higher than if they located themselves in other parts of the world.

They have two options to provide their product world-wide:

(1) set a uniform price where because of cost of living differences between the U.S. and other countries across the globe the product is out of reach from other countries.
-or-
(2) have prices adjusted according to each region's cost of living, giving everyone the opportunity to benefit from the product, while ensuring those who are most capable of affording the product contribute the lion's share of the company's revenue.

See where this gets cute to read that comment from you?

I hope you are also in full support of outsourcing of jobs, and free trade bringing in cheap foreign-built products to compete against American labor on the store shelves.

But assuming that any business must earn an acceptable rate of return overall, that requires Americans to subsidize (through higher domestic prices) other nations' ability to "benefit from the product". We pay more that they may pay less; how is that fair?

I am not a free trader; I support import tariffs based on labor costs and adjusted for trade imbalances, with a minimum tariff on everything imported.

 

[cubby1223]

But assuming that any business must earn an acceptable rate of return overall, that requires Americans to subsidize (through higher domestic prices) other nations' ability to "benefit from the product". We pay more that they may pay less; how is that fair?

I am not a free trader; I support import tariffs based on labor costs and adjusted for trade imbalances, with a minimum tariff on everything imported.

What is fair? We already subsidize the rest of the world. How much do we give to Israel every year? Egypt? Central and South America? The list goes on.

When it comes to operating a business, sometimes you want to create the disincentive for a foreign based company to create a competing product.

Foreign countries, China and South Korea as prime examples, often subsidize products created within their country for the export market to the U.S. There is an advantage to keeping the business and associated technologies within their country. How do you think Samsung has risen to the global powerhouse that it is dominating much of the electronics sector? The citizens of South Korea subsidize Samsung's costs. And in the end it benefits the country.

 

[cubby1223]

It's just, this case does not really fall within the realm of copyright and the first sale doctrine.

But protections must be in place to allow people to create a product and operate a globally competitive business within the United States. This is more along the lines of import tariffs and other taxes.

For those who want to talk about fairness for us against the greed of American corporations... should a product which, say, sells for an average hour's wage in the U.S., demand an entire month's wage to someone in a foreign country? Should we as Americans only need to do an hour of labor to purchase a product while a foreign worker must work a whole month of labor to afford? Is that fair? Are we the ones getting screwed in that deal by the evil fat cats?

 

[cybrsage]

They never mentioned his business was illegal.

If he had a valid business license to import good and resell them, it would have been mentioned and his business would have been sued instead of, or in addition to, him personally.

 

[Bowfinger]

If you want to go live in a 3rd world country because of their low prices, go, have fun there, enjoy your life.

It is this way because products cannot always sell overseas to cover the cost of labor and other expenses of operating a business within the United States.

Nice rant, but you have it exactly backwards. For IP-centric goods (entertainment, software, and books), the primary cost is the creation, not the production. They are the products that least need protection from localized production cost differences. Ordinary manufactured goods, in contrast, are far more affected by local production costs. They do NOT receive the same import protections you are trying to give IP goods, however.

 

[Newbian]

That's an interesting point. I'll admit I haven't thought about that context, but I wonder how this could play out with pharmaceuticals. They price products significantly differently in the US versus elsewhere...

I would assume the license to sell medications would be a hassle short of owning a pharmacy already.

And even then if the drug companies find out you do it couldn't they blacklist you from buying the drugs from them at either place and wouldn't taxes be a issue on a lot of this?

 

[Paratus]

Why? It seems to me the "total asshole move" is playing pricing games where people in one country are forced to subsidize better pricing in others. This is a free market at work, with the little guy using a big conglomerate's greed against them instead of the usual, vice versa.

Good ruling. The First Sale doctrine is a fundamental freedom, so true to American values: "I bought it. I own it. I can do whatever I want with it."

With that right being eroded right and left, (see what I did there ), I'm glad to see it being shored up by SCOTUS if only in part.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Wow, talk about a thread about irrelevancies. This only affects those who legally buy American copyrighted goods abroad specifically tagged as foreign-only to resell in the US, and that would be... this one person. Woo fucking hoo. Who the hell cares?

 

[Matt1970]

If he had a valid business license to import good and resell them, it would have been mentioned and his business would have been sued instead of, or in addition to, him personally.

$10 and 10 minutes at the county clerks office and you have a business license. The only license you would need beyond that would depend on what you are importing and selling. Being that he was being sued directly he was probably a DBA. Either way, going after him for not having a business license is like charging someone who committed murder with discharging a firearm within city limits.

 

[lopri]

Yep, and they both got it wrong.

It was a question of statutory interpretation, afaik. Not something ideologically charged Constitutional issue. I am not familiar with the case and the opinions, but there is nothing unusual about Ginsberg and Scalia agreeing with each other on what a statute means.

Same goes for the majority. I understand that there are real-life impact that might be divisive per ideological leanings, but it looks like the ruling was based on what the law says, not what rights are at stake.