• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Your right to resell products you own (Iphones, electronics, ...) in jepordy.

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s 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 Inc. AAPL -2.13% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?pagenumber=1

Wow, really hope the supreme court reverses this bad decision. Can you imagine not being able to resell your old ipad or iphone. Not having the right to resell family heirlooms. You wouldn't be able to resell used textbooks, and other things too.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
and down goes eBay!!!

Bullshit and the SC needs to throw that shit out.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I don't see how there could possibly be a legal basis for the copyright holder having any control over reselling products. After all, the whole idea is that they have a COPY right and reselling something doesn't involve making a copy. If they really do have control over a copy after you purchase it, basically they'd end up with a completely new right.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
If they will not allow you to resell the product used; then buy it back at a depreciated price based on age of the product.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
We can even turn that question around. And ask, do we have a right to even throw it into the trash? Look at, for example, that newspaper or books you buy, or even the junk catalogs you get in the mail. They are all copy write protected in one way or another.

Shall we be forced to retain them as it becomes our responsibility to prevent then from falling into unauthorized hands, and then be sued if some dumpster diver abuses the copy right.

There would be then only one solution, and that is to turn over to the one responsible party to be trusted not to abuse the copy right, and that can only be SCOTUS. As we can drop them off at the Supreme court building and let the Justices worry about their safe disposal.

As we can also solve our unemployment problem at the same time and create new small business opportunities too. As we could designate selected authorized armored trucks, aka garbage trucks, to deliver the nations trash, and dump it all on the SCOTUS building. And since Scalia is our nations most trusted Justice, maybe we can just all send it to Scalia's office.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,001
2,472
126
Just a cursory look at this particular case, it seems to revolve around the re-sale of International Edition text books. Can an individual purchase international editions of textbooks and then import lots of them into the US for resale?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I don't see how there could possibly be a legal basis for the copyright holder having any control over reselling products. After all, the whole idea is that they have a COPY right and reselling something doesn't involve making a copy. If they really do have control over a copy after you purchase it, basically they'd end up with a completely new right.
This. A copyright says I can't make a copy of something, so you can't make a copy of a book, or a copy of a CD/DVD, etc ...it doesn't give them a right to control what is done with the authorized copy once you have legally paid for it, as long as you aren't reproducing it without permission.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Just a cursory look at this particular case, it seems to revolve around the re-sale of International Edition text books. Can an individual purchase international editions of textbooks and then import lots of them into the US for resale?
The appeals court said that wasn't relevant, what was relevant was the fact the books were not MANUFACTURED in the U.S, so the first sale doctrine did not apply and thus any resale was a violation of copywrite law.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
This. A copyright says I can't make a copy of something, so you can't make a copy of a book, or a copy of a CD/DVD, etc ...it doesn't give them a right to control what is done with the authorized copy once you have legally paid for it, as long as you aren't reproducing it without permission.
The appeals court said that was only true if it was manufactured in the U.S. The appeals court said copyright law says gives them lifetime resale control over all products made outside of the U.S.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,206
176
106
Nothing is hardly made in the US anymore. If this were taken to it's crazy conclusion, you couldn't sell your car, house, or anything. The copyright remains with the holder but the tangible ownership of that copy belongs to the buyer. I guess we should all realize we don't need to buy their shit anymore.
 

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
1
0
This is systemic of a political system that is ruled by lobbyists and special interests. Now that the SC has ruled corporations are people, they will advance their own purchased politicians.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
This is apples DREAM!

Not only do they get to steal everyones ideas, then sue the competitors for using geometrical shapes they get to stop us from selling our old things. They no longer need to worry about keeping prices low.
 

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
1
0
It's also what Steam does and I think all video game companies do that now, maybe music as well. E-books might have similar restrictions. They want to you keep your copy and buy it as a gift.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
The appeals court said that wasn't relevant, what was relevant was the fact the books were not MANUFACTURED in the U.S, so the first sale doctrine did not apply and thus any resale was a violation of copywrite law.
Whose copyright law? The foreign country's copyright law?

Since when do foreign laws have any bearing at all on sovereign US ground?
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Whose copyright law? The foreign country's copyright law?

Since when do foreign laws have any bearing at all on sovereign US ground?
Since American laws have bearing on foreign countries..........

IE. Megaupload
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,118
7,639
146
Whose copyright law? The foreign country's copyright law?

Since when do foreign laws have any bearing at all on sovereign US ground?
The World Intellectual Property Organization with its 185 member states would disagree with you.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,313
761
126
This would be bad for Apple. Their sales on new iPhones are only as high as they are because of people reselling their phones to get new phones. I can guarantee you Apple would not want this for hardware.

The appellate ruling doesn't make much sense. I doubt SCotUS is going to uphold the lower courts/its not going to have as far reaching consequences. Its doesn't make sense. Mainly because

American APPLE selling to American AT&T selling to American Consumer.

That is NOT the same as Publisher manufacturing and selling to India Co., who's sells to Indian consumer, who then imports to sell to US consumer.

Apple manufactures their products for the US abroad but they sell them directly in the US, directly to US consumers or to US Companies who sale to US consumers, so a first sale has occurred.

I can guarantee you its going to be limited to goods manufactured and sold in foreign countries. Not goods manufactured in a foreign country and then sold in the US by the company who manufactured the goods. At most it will end up fucking over 3rd party importers.
 
Last edited:

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
The World Intellectual Property Organization with its 185 member states would disagree with you.
The US Constitution expressly forbids allowing a foreign body to pass laws affecting the US.

Oh, but that's right...living document. Rofl.

You just keep pissing your rights away. We'll see who's saying "I Told You So" in 20-50 years when we have no rights left.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,118
7,639
146
The US Constitution expressly forbids allowing a foreign body to pass laws affecting the US.

Oh, but that's right...living document. Rofl.

You just keep pissing your rights away. We'll see who's saying "I Told You So" in 20-50 years when we have no rights left.
That pesky Article 2 be damned right?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
The US Constitution expressly forbids allowing a foreign body to pass laws affecting the US.

Oh, but that's right...living document. Rofl.

You just keep pissing your rights away. We'll see who's saying "I Told You So" in 20-50 years when we have no rights left.
Not if it is part of a treaty.

We might have to stop labeling our tuna in the U.S as dolphin safe because GATT/WTO said it infringes on open trade. That is another body affecting U.S law, it is allowed because we are signatory to the GATT treaty and bounded by it.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
This. A copyright says I can't make a copy of something, so you can't make a copy of a book, or a copy of a CD/DVD, etc ...it doesn't give them a right to control what is done with the authorized copy once you have legally paid for it, as long as you aren't reproducing it without permission.
The same Court also found Obamacare to be Constitutional, so don't be too sure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY