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

[Smoblikat]

This would mostly affect media wouldn't it?

Your grandma's antique jewels definitely would not have a copyright, nor would any furniture or electronics.

You can't "copyright" hard goods. That area is reserved for patents and trademarks. You can patent physically functionality and technology and trademark styles.

I think maybe they should make the distinction they are trying to make is mass importing/reselling of things COPYRIGHTED in other countries. Like mass importing international edition books and selling them at a fraction of the price.

Or remember those links to European edition blu-rays that were like half the cost? Imagine someone mass importing those and selling them. When really they were never intended by the copyright holder to be for sale in this market, and they are undercutting the price of their other products they did intend to sell in this market.

I think there is some worth in this case, it seems like it could massively impact some stores like Gamestop and eBay if the implementation of this kind of a rule was borked though

Really seems like whoever wrote this article has no understanding of IP law (not that I have much):
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."

Honestly now that I'm thinking about it though shouldn't most of this just fall on customs? Isn't it their job to make sure some jerk isn't mass importing foreign stuff for resale in the first place?

Thats what theyre doing.

 

[shira]

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.

So those super-valuable Road Show heirlooms brought to the U.S. by your immigrant ancestors, or the Picasso an American investor purchased, or virtually ANY item purchased in another country by American tourists - all of those items can no longer be freely re-sold.

Yeah, no major problem at all.

 

[shira]

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.

Your confused. The U.S. can be a signatory to all sorts of international agreements (for example, CITES) that have the force of law in the U.S., and often does so because of the benefits derived.

 

[shira]

Can someone explain what legal difference it would make as to the country the product was made in? What is the argument that it is it our right to resell our own property if its made in America but not if it is made abroad?

I think it has to do with the fact that the U.S. has explicitly accepted the "first sale" doctrine for items created in the U.S. But U.S. law cannot override copyright laws in other countries. For example, in Europe, the "droit de suite" applies, which requires that artists be paid a fee when their artwork is resold. Thus, if a work of art created in Europe is sold to an American, there's a good argument that the artist is still entitled to his fee if the American re-sells the work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite

Edit: Think of it this way. A European artists sells you a work of art on the understanding that if you or any subsequent owner re-sells it, you will pay a fee to the artist. Now, doesn't it seem like dirty pool if you take the art to America and re-sell it there, but refuse to pay the artist his fee?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It's ok guys this was all talked about in the Bible. Just another step along the way to the antichrist taking over the world.

It's only the beginning.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yo...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.

If anyone is interested, the Amicus Briefs filed in this case are quite informative.

See http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I think it has to do with the fact that the U.S. has explicitly accepted the "first sale" doctrine for items created in the U.S. But U.S. law cannot override copyright laws in other countries. For example, in Europe, the "droit de suite" applies, which requires that artists be paid a fee when their artwork is resold. Thus, if a work of art created in Europe is sold to an American, there's a good argument that the artist is still entitled to his fee if the American re-sells the work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite

Edit: Think of it this way. A European artists sells you a work of art on the understanding that if you or any subsequent owner re-sells it, you will pay a fee to the artist. Now, doesn't it seem like dirty pool if you take the art to America and re-sell it there, but refuse to pay the artist his fee?

But the U.S. is a sovereign nation and its citizens (by and large) may not be subject to foreign law barring some specific choice of law or conflicts of law provision on point. Enforcement of the foreign agreement would be problematic at best, particularly if the agreement between the artist and the purchaser were as simple as you state.

FWIW, I have spent many years negotiating licensing and other agreements between U.S. and foreign companies. The enforcement clause in such agreements is critically important and often very hard to work out between the parties.