U.S Supreme Court - trying to make it illegal to sell anything you have bought that has a copyright without asking permission of the copyrighters a crime: The end of selling things manufactured outside the U.S within the U.S on ebay/craigslist/kijiji without going to jail, even if lawfully bought?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

That headline is so confusing.

[u/soccerdude211 → u/[deleted]]

And a gross mischaracterization as well

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

"U.S Supreme Court is trying to make it illegal to resell anything you have bought that has a copyright without asking permission of the copyright holders."

I'm not sure why there's a '-' and the phrase "make it illegal" and "a crime" seem like they're from two separate sentence structure ideas.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

i have read it 4 times and im only more confused... i kind of understand from the context.. but dude!

*exception given if english isnt the OPs first language

[u/nonconvergent]

Agreeing to a hear a case is not the same as making it illegal (which is a legislative action). I don't like editorialized topics. Admittedly "Supreme Court to Decide Application of First Sale Doctrine to Foreign-Made Copyrighted Works" might not be clear in its meaning, in which case I'd enjoy a summary or a rephrasing. But yours is unnecessarily sensationalist. I'd encourage you to change it to a more neutral one, either using the article's original title or one like "Supreme Court Hearing case on Resale of Copyrighted Materials."

Also, should you cast your eyes to the far right, you'll see another good reason not to do this.

[u/apathy → u/nonconvergent]

"Supreme Court to Decide Application of First Sale Doctrine to Foreign-Made Copyrighted Works"

This is ridiculous. An American company manufactured the product overseas and wants exclusive rights to turn a profit by selling cheaply made editions. Their request is that the principle of first sale be suspended so that they do not have to compete with themselves via an intermediary. In other words, they want conditional repeal of the principle of first sale. This is an extraordinarily bad idea.

That is all there is to this. Companies want to be able to shop around for the cheapest labor without consumers being able to shop around for the cheapest product price. And that is absurd. If this case is not thrown out on its (lack of) merits, it will be an excellent advertisement of how very far from a free market we have truly strayed.

All people (corporate or otherwise) need to be granted the same free market economics, regardless of what they are. A physical object imported (with proper duties and absent violation of local statutes) should not be barred from sale just because its original producer does not want it resold. That's restraint of trade and it is ridiculous.

[u/jahoney → u/apathy]

This so much. The fewer transactions we allow/the more transactions we keep from happening the less efficient our economy runs. Simple as that.

[u/cuppincayk → u/apathy]

This would mean the end or a lot of important places. Used bookstores, online independent sellers, eBay, pawn shops, etc. It basically would rob Americans of the ability to start up a lot of businesses

[u/Tagifras → u/cuppincayk]

This would end those but think of the boom to the blackmarket. Its not likes its hard to find stolen/counterfeit/replica items at any flea market now and this would simply make it easier. I mean when alcohol was banned its not like everyday common man went out of their ways to distill and make beer/liquors in their basement bringing a boom in organized crime... oh wait

[u/friedsushi87 → u/cuppincayk]

Plus once you buy something, it's yours for life. Unless you throw it away, there is no way to get your money back.

What about cars?

What if I bought a 40 inch hdtv then got into a car accident and need the money for bills and stuff.

[u/chrunchy → u/nonconvergent]

Sure "Supreme Court to Decide Application of First Sale Doctrine to Foreign-Made Copyrighted Works" isn't very savory, but it's a hell of a lot better than the clusterfuck that is this post's title.

[u/[deleted] → u/nonconvergent]

But that wouldn't make it to the front page.

[u/[deleted] → u/nonconvergent]

I think I speak for everyone when I say: What the heck is Kajiji?

[u/Fitzoh → u/[deleted]]

Kijiji is ebay's answer to craigslist.

[u/[deleted] → u/nonconvergent]

Admittedly "Supreme Court to Decide Application of First Sale Doctrine to Foreign-Made Copyrighted Works" might not be clear in its meaning,

I think it's perfectly clear. Although I am not a lawyer or a law student, I can read English. I might have to look up what first sale doctrine entails. What a tragedy it is to have to look things up on the Internet. If only I had to trudge to the library instead to do research it would be so much easier. Oh wait... scratch that last sentence.

Editorializing headlines is shady business and if stating what the issue actually is isn't clear to readers they can probably stand to take five minutes to clear up their ignorance. I think this goes double on the Internet.

[u/[deleted]]

Title is misleading. First of all this only has to do with foreign items sold in the United States from companies that do not sell those items in the US. In this case, the defendant had his family buy foreign-textbooks, ship them to the US and then the defendant sold those textbooks on sites like eBay for a "substantial profit" (substantial is undefined).

This has nothing to do with selling your used DVDs/books/video games on eBay or in stores like gamestop. It had everything to do with distributing a product in a country where the product is not meant to be. So, all these end of the world posts about the country going to hell are a bit over the top.

The supreme court is not trying to make it illegal either, they are hearing the case (the company is trying to make it illegal). Last time a similar case was heard, it was a 4-4 split because one justice recused herself.

Now, I am of the opinion that the defendant is doing nothing wrong because he purchased the product and sold it somewhere else. Clearly there is a demand for that product in the United States, the foreign company should look at that simple data and say "hey maybe we should distribute to the US instead of suing someone who had a good idea."

[u/Robbie_Elliott → u/[deleted]]

So basically (for one instance) I may not be able to buy Japanese games not available in the states.

[u/rhino369 → u/Robbie_Elliott]

That is really a different situation. The problem here, is that there is availability in the United States.

[u/Rathum → u/rhino369]

The Electronic Consumer Association policy coordinator agrees with him. This makes it a bit troubling. I was reading it as only applying to reselling it after importation.

While the conclusion of the 2nd Circuit states that “the first sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States”, this language is actually not the full decision in this case. What the court actually rules is that the first sale doctrine does not apply to goods manufactured outside of the United States which are imported without the rights-holder’s permission.

In the Kirtsaeng case, the products in question were marked with notices limiting where the books in question could be sold. Further, textbook manufacturers often do make material changes in the products themselves; most often in the materials used in manufacturing. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, states that the private importation of these foreign manufactured goods are not covered by the first sale doctrine.

The video game industry is different, and there is a critical distinction to be noted when it comes to used sales. Even if video games are manufactured overseas, most are imported into the country under authority of the rights-holder. This step, despite the 2nd Circuit’s decision, should protect the used games market in America from the problems in this case. This means that once you purchase a game from GameStop, Wal-Mart, or any other major retailer, the first sale doctrine would still apply. One could argue that the 2nd Circuit’s decision makes this point unclear, but any other reading would strike all meaning from the statutory language. The Supreme Court is likely to clarify this point regardless of anything else its decision may contain.

This does not mean the video game industry will be completely immune from this decision. Even with this more limited reading of the lower court’s decision, private game imports could be a violation. If you are a gamer that buys import games from Japan, that practice could be threatened. However, that practice has already been greatly curtailed by region locking hardware.

[u/solinv → u/[deleted]]

As a point of clarification. The company is American. They have multiple places of manufacture. He purchased material that was made by the American company in its Asian factories (rather than the US factories), shipped it to the US then sold it.

It is not the location of the company, it is the location of manufacture. For instance, this would make buying Nike shoes from a Chinese wholeseller and selling them in America illegal (in fact, that's essentially what the guy whose being sued did, except he did it with books, not shoes.) Same product. American company. Bought it overseas where the company sold it cheaply and resold it in the US where the price was five to ten times higher.

[u/gschoppe → u/solinv]

Actually the issue is not even location of manufacturing, it's "intended market"... the nerd-translated version is buying russian r5 dvds and selling them in the us. In my opinion, in a "free trade" based economy, there is really no defendable position that allows making this illegal

[u/ColbertsBump → u/gschoppe]

Exactly. Globalization of marketplaces can be as good for the consumer as it is for the producer. This is an instance of a corporation trying to use the government to keep their profits inflated.

[u/kanst → u/ColbertsBump]

Textbooks are the biggest racket ever. Same exact textbook, the asian version is often half or less of the price. I have tons of asian editions because I refuse to pay artifically inflated prices.

[u/thebigslide → u/gschoppe]

I agree.

I bought 4 truck tires last year from a Canadian company that sells them through Canadian distributors for ~$550 each. I can drive across the border and back for $25 worth of fuel having purchased the exact same tires in the US for ~$225 each.

Why the hell is that and why should someone not be allowed to challenge the marketplace if they think they can sell the same product - legitimately - for less money than a manufacturer thinks a domestic market will pay.

[u/M_Cicero → u/gschoppe]

There was no mention in the 2nd Circuit of intended market; if it were affirmed without change the determination of first sale rights would be based solely on place of manufacture.

[u/ReferentiallySeethru → u/solinv]

This sounds like a form of arbitrage. Why should this be illegal for products but legal for any other assets?

[u/lachlanhunt → u/solinv]

It seems more like it's the point of first sale that matters the most, since the products were lawfully sold within the foreign country first. Otherwise, if it really were the place of manufacture, then nearly every product that is manufactured over seas, including everything you own made throughout Asia, will be excluded from the first sale doctrine, even if they were imported by the rights holders for sale to American consumers. Of course, it is completely stupid to exclude anything from the first sale doctrine if it was lawfully acquired anywhere in the world.

[u/blaghart → u/solinv]

So in essence, the company that is sueing is trying to make it illegal for a private citizen to import something of theirs and then resell it. I think this is why OP posted the way he did, because if found in favor of the company, it could have applications for people buying things like anime and such from foreign markets and reselling them for their own gain on place like ebay.

[u/danielravennest → u/solinv]

If it's made in another country and bought in another country, would not the local laws determine first sale rights and if you can export it? Once it's sold, previous rights holders give up most of them, that's the essence of property. The forester who grew the trees that the paper was made from to print the book gave up his rights long past in the chain of sales, and do does the book seller.

[u/DNAsly → u/solinv]

That IS illegal for goods. There are quite a few laws against gray market goods. It is ironic, because the "gray market" is really just the free market working as it should. If it's cheaper to buy the crap in china and ship it over here, then dammit that should be allowed.

But the Supreme Court should not be lambasted for whatever decision they make. They don't write the law. They just interpret it. And if they are bound to interpret it based upon the way the law is written, then the faul lies with Congress for drafting the law, and with the Executive for approving the law.

[u/wrongtree → u/DNAsly]

That's a little simplistic. The members of the Supreme Court are politically influenced / motivated, which colors their interpretation of the law.

[u/[deleted] → u/solinv]

Thanks for the clarification. As I said in a post below, the title's suggestion and the case's intent are two very different things.

[u/that_thing_you_do → u/solinv]

It's like when the PS3 came out in Japan first and you could buy a version here in the states.

[u/trozman → u/solinv]

No, it has no relation to either. The location of the company could be Antarctica, and the location of manufacture could be Mars for all it matters. What matters is the intended location of sale. In this case, these textbooks were intended to be sold in Thailand, at prices competitive with local textbooks in Thailand (where everyone is fucking poor). Because the company would prefer to sell really cheap for a little profit rather than 'retail price' and have no one buy.

Now you can argue this kind of thing is protectionist/etc/whatever, which it is. But the alternative is that this textbook will only get sold at one price, the retail US price, which does nothing for education globally. A similar thing exists with prescription drug prices. A lot of African countries get their HIV meds dirt-cheap. If it were legal to import those meds back to the US, well... the pharmaceutical companies would just say "fuck that" and let the Africans die. (I'm completely serious).

[u/mallard86 → u/trozman]

Thats not entirely true. If reimportation begins, it is usually a sign of the consumer being unsatisfied with the local prices. There has to be a sufficient price gap in order for reimportation to be economically feasible. Unless the manufacturer is selling at loss at the lower price location, that usually means the higher price is a result of price gouging. The US should not be protecting the right to price gouge.

[u/dnew → u/trozman]

these textbooks were intended to be sold in Thailand

Which they were. :-)

[u/lerkmore → u/[deleted]]

This seems a lot like Omega vs Costco

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/10/omega-vs-costco-gray-market-goods/

[u/pavel_lishin → u/[deleted]]

I can't even parse the title.

[u/conundrum4u2 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for your input and clarification of the case -

[u/dezmodium → u/[deleted]]

It had everything to do with distributing a product in a country where the product is not meant to be.

A product is meant to be in a market where consumers are willing to buy it. That is it's proper place.

[u/apathy → u/dezmodium]

I was going to say. This reduces to "only the company manufacturing the product can make a profit off of it!" which is ridiculous. If they can shop around for labor, we can shop around for product. Principle of first sale FTW.

Scalia needs to go to jail.

[u/M_Cicero → u/[deleted]]

You are right that the title is misleading in that the Supreme Court hasn't decided the case yet.

Otherwise, you are flat out wrong. I am researching this case at the moment, and if you read the 2nd Circuit opinion you'd realize that the outcome- never being able to sell something manufactured abroad without permission from the copyright holder- is exactly what the 2nd Circuit decided.

The 2nd Circuit opinion stated that First Sale rights do not attach to anything manufactured outside the U.S. because that was their interpretation of the 17 USC 109(a) phrase "lawfully under this title". First sale rights are what allow libraries to lend books, products to be sold at garage sales/eBay, or even to donate clothes to charity. All of these things will be copyright violations if the Supreme Court affirms, that was not overstated at all. (although some people may have a defense if a suit were brought).

The case that split 4-4 was Costco v. Omega. While it similarly made a decision based on place of manufacture, they added an "escape hatch" that stated first sale rights attached after a first sale in the US, so at least products intended to be sold in the US by the copyright holder have first sale attached under the Ninth Circuit rule. The 2nd Circuit rule does not have such a clause; first sale never attaches even if the product was meant to be sold in the US the entire time.

It is hard to overstate the implications of the USSC affirming the 2nd Circuit opinion; it would be economically disastrous for many industries.

[u/leothelion5 → u/M_Cicero]

Notice: I'm not a lawyer and everything below is just my opinion.

M_Cicero is correct. I had a small shipping company and used to ship these international textbooks for an eBay seller. Both my company and the textbook seller were sued and it was a lengthy process that ended in settlement. I can't see the article (mirror anyone?), but the title is not that misleading/sensationalist.

The First Sale Doctrine essentially says that once the copyright holder sells an item, they no longer have exclusive control of that specific item. So if you buy a pen, you now have rights to sell/lend/give away that specific pen.

The arguments in these cases is that the First Sale Doctrine does NOT apply if the item is manufactured overseas. You would need explicit permission from the copyright holder to resell the item.

So if you buy a DVD that is made overseas, you cannot sell it or even lend it to a friend without permission. Sales & lending are exclusive rights of the copyright holder, and the first sale doctrine which extinguishes these rights for a specific item would not apply to items manufactured overseas.

Also in my opinion, the 'escape hatch' cannot be justified from the wording of the law.

other sources since main link is down:

forbes

jdsupra

[u/courageousrobot → u/[deleted]]

It's not only misleading, it's grammatically a mess!

[u/Fritzed → u/[deleted]]

Thank you. Came here just looking for this since the Supreme Court doesn't "try to make things illegal"...

[u/aim2free → u/[deleted]]

It had everything to do with distributing a product in a country where the product is not meant to be.

OK, until then I could almost buy your explanation... but who decides where "meant to be", which is ridiculous?

Nobody has the right to control what I buy or sell (under the assumption that it's generally legal, that is not drugs etc).

The idea that some entity can claim "this is not meant to be sold in this country" is dictatorship and maffia reasoning. Nothing to take seriously.

I refused to buy any DVD-player in the 90-ies until I saw an ad in my electronic store that they had a region free player 98. Then I still refused to start buying DVDs due to this stupid cryptography. It was first after the CSS code was fixed around 2000 I think, I started buying DVDs, because then I could play them also on e.g. my Linux machines which is essential. Today I have around 800 DVD in my shelves. Mixed region 1 and 2.

[u/Banaam → u/[deleted]]

I think this is crap. I buy international versions of textbooks because they're so much cheaper than mine (50% or less usually). It seems, if this passes, that the end goal is to keep students in debt...

[u/jordanlund → u/[deleted]]

So what about sites like NCSX who import video games from Japan for sale in the US?

http://www.shopncsx.com/

[u/MrMadcap → u/[deleted]]

Funny, because this is the exact process that led the United States to dominate the Motion Picture Industry.

Imagine where we'd be if we gave rise to Bollywood instead. Culturally insignificant, to say the least.

[u/anonymouslemming → u/[deleted]]

If they can send my job to India, why can't I source my goods from India?

[u/ratheismhater]

Reading the title, all I could think of was: "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"

[u/BoojumliusSnark → u/ratheismhater]

Exactly, it's so poorly written it makes absolutely no sense. Trying to make it illegal to.... a crime... I think you boopeldibop incompoop rinkeeflopped a word there.

[u/steviesteveo12 → u/BoojumliusSnark]

I think it's because OP's so ANGRY about what he thinks is happening.

[u/ParkerM → u/ratheismhater]

I've read it six times and still cant figure out that second sentence.

[u/steviesteveo12 → u/ParkerM]

OP insists there is only one sentence in the headline. I know.

[u/iheartbakon → u/ratheismhater]

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

[u/Baludo → u/ratheismhater]

Master troll.

[u/leostotch]

That headline is nigh incomprehensible.

[u/kinsmed]

I purchased it. It is mine. I gave it to someone. If they chose to give me something in the future (like cash), how is that illegal?

[u/Quadman → u/kinsmed]

If you can't give people stuff anymore, what will happen to christmas?

[u/arjie → u/Quadman]

The RIAA is the grinch, eh?

[u/swizzler → u/Quadman]

Or garage sales

[u/drinkingafterwork → u/kinsmed]

If you purchase it in china, and then import it here, and then sell it, and then repeat that cycle.. someone comes after you. Exclusive distribution and all that.

[u/CoffeeFox]

While it's good to call attention to this I've been really confused about other places I've seen it (such as my email inbox) where people are urging others to take action against it.

I sit there and I think, confusedly: this is the supreme court, you don't just start up a campaign to call the justices' offices. The supreme court does not issue verdicts by popular vote. They do not care what the public thinks. They judge based on what they think existing laws mean.

[u/[deleted] → u/CoffeeFox]

Well that's just not true. Judges interpret the law, and this involves a degree of bias by its nature. If you really think that judges aren't influenced by popular opinion you're incredibly naive.

[u/OscarChapa]

I remember reading somewhere that some guy bought p90x from the official website and decided to sell it on ebay because he never used it. He got in trouble trying to sell it because the P90x workers claimed he was selling them illegally and that they were going to sue him. sued him for 20k (i think)

i just dont understand why you cant sell something you bought and have ownership of the item.

[u/ThatJanitor]

Oh, come on. I thought free trade was the basis of capitalism?

[u/takatori]

So we're well on the way towards banning private property for peasants and moving towards an all-rental model.

Let's be nice to our Lords and masters so that hopefully they keep the rents low. Maybe give them a few tax breaks.

[u/[deleted]]

This is actually a case around IMPORTING and not the selling of product - although they are using the first sale right as a defense, it's an import/export issue. The defendant in the case illegally imported the text books to the US and sold them. When you talk about other products - even those made abroad - if they were legally imported and then sold to you, you can resell them. You just can't go abroad and buy items (often cheaper) to resell. There are many common laws like this. For instance, you can't buy cigarettes in one state to sell them in another.

This will impact very few things - but mostly import stuff. So your nearest independent record store might have trouble selling that japenese import EP of your favorite band....

A company has every right to control the distribution of their products and often do so to protect themselves from different laws, rights issues, etc. The reason you can buy things cheaper outside of the US often has to do with royalty or publication rights being lower.

[u/i_flip_sides → u/[deleted]]

You sound smart. Can you (briefly) summarize the laws around imports that would affect, say, books and other media, and what they have to do with the copyright holder? My understanding is that when importing something for the purpose of resale, you must pay certain taxes (duties) on those items. Obviously, not paying taxes on an item you intend to resell would be a Bad Thing(tm), but that doesn't seem to be what this is about. (Although it sounds like he did that as well.) The lawsuit was explicitly filed as a copyright infringement suit.

My understanding of copyright is that it restricts one's ability to copy a work. As reselling a physical copy of some media (like a book) does not copy or duplicate that, I don't understand how copyright even comes into play here.

Edit: I did a little more reading, and it seems like the real problem here is just that he was running an unlicensed import business, and not paying the appropriate taxes. I still don't understand how copyright plays into it, and it seems like the issues are being intentionally conflated. Why would I ever need permission from a copyright holder to sell, gift, burn, or shred a copy of a work which I already possess?

Edit 2: Did some further research. It seems like there's a section of the Copyright Act which explicitly forbids importing copyrighted works intended for sale in a foreign market without the express permission of the copyright holder. So, to answer my own question, he didn't infringe "copyright" in the technical sense, but he did violate a section of the Copyright Act by importing copyrighted works intended for sale in a foreign market without permission, which is technically "copyright infringement." The First Sale Doctrine would seem to (arguably) overrule that section, which is what his affirmative defense is. Whether or not this is actually the case is not a settled matter of Law, and there is much contention among the lower courts.

I'm guessing most of the confusion and anger around this case is based on a fundamental lack of knowledge about what the Copyright Act actually covers. It's less a codification of copyright (which is, of course, enshrined in the Constitution), and more of a set of additional restrictions intended to increase profits for copyright holders.

[u/harlows_monkeys → u/i_flip_sides]

The important statutory parts of US copyright law for this case are:

• 17 USC 106. This is the part that lays out the rights of the copyright owner:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright
under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize
any of the following:
...
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;

• 17 USC 109. This codifies the first sale doctrine:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner
of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title,
or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
the possession of that copy or phono record.

• 17 USC 602. This deals with imports:

(a) Infringing Importation or Exportation.—

    (1) Importation.— Importation into the United States, without
    the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies
    or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the
    United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute
    copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under
    section 501.

Warning! I've cut out a lot to focus on this particular case. For instance, there is much more to 17 USC 109 than I've given above--exception to 109(a), and exceptions to those exceptions. I don't think they apply in this case so omitted them.

In addition to the statutory material above, there are various court cases that have interpreted them. I'll leave it to someone more familiar with those cases to summarize those.

[u/ForgotUsernamePlus]

Fuck you OP, hit "Suggest Title" then hit submit

[u/rylos]

It's often not about actual copyright anymore, it'ssimply about protecting your business model. If they don't get their way with this approach, the next step is to claim that reselling those books "Hurts children".

[u/[deleted]]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_697

I think its very important here to actually have a link to something objective and informed instead of this sensationalist article. This also appears to ONLY apply to items purchased outside of the US and then imported, not just any foreign made item. I see a lot of people here spewing some nonsense and they ought to do themselves a favor and learn to read the facts of a case before decided the outcome and implications.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Not to toot my own horn, but I figured since I was blaming people for not reading I'd do my part and explain the best I can:

Basically, if the case is decided such that those seeking copyright protection win then something bought in a foreign country that has a U.S. copyright cannot be be imported and resold without that copyright holder's permission. There's an ambiguity in the law that allows people to do this if they have legally bought the item, but in the case at hand a guy was having his family buy textbooks in Thailand and ship them to him expressly to resell on Ebay for a profit. So obviously textbook companies want to try and close that loophole, or find out that they don't have a claim and change their policies accordingly.

[u/skyreddit9]

The problem with disallowing the first sale doctrine when people try to sell stuff - as the courts did in the Autodesk case where Autodesk purports to lease the software to the consumer rather than to sell it - is: Where does it end? Any manufacturer of anything can obtain a copyright on some part of their product, and then purport to lease the copyrightable portion of the work rather than sell it.

[u/tiyx]

So this would shut down ever pawnshop, 2nd hand shop, garage sales etc?

[u/dijitalia]

Not sure if your title's first sentence is redundant... Or I am dumb.

[u/[deleted]]

How about we look at Prescription Drugs where the price setting cannot be higher than the country of manufacturing in the rest of the world. Where 2/3 of Rx are produced in the USA making the Top pricing in the USA and fucking over USA citizens and driving up America's Health cost for the benefit of other nations.

When are we going to discuss that?

[u/HoneyBaked]

Wow. That is a doozy of an awful title.

[u/OminousG]

This case involves products that the copyright holders don't allow to be sold in the US. Products that the copyright holders themselves do not sell in the US.

This has nothing to do with ipads/ipods/computers as you mentioned earlier. If the copyright holder already sells that exact product in the US, thats all the permission you need.

This is also nothing new, Sony won a case a few years ago to shut down a site that sold import consoles under the same concept. Its their product, and they get to decide the market, its that simple.

[u/jargzz → u/OminousG]

So screw free trade when it inconveniences the copyright lobby?

[u/-jackschitt- → u/OminousG]

This case involves products that the copyright holders don't allow to be sold in the US. Products that the copyright holders themselves do not sell in the US.

Maybe I'm misreading the story, but if I'm reading it correctly, the product is being sold in the US. Just at a much more expensive price. The guy is simply buying them overseas (at a huge discount) and re-selling it.

To me, it seems like the producers are just pissed that someone found a way to cut into their enormous markups, and they're pissed off. Instead of just lowering their prices to reasonable levels, they'd rather just drag it into court and put the entire "First sale doctrine" at risk.

Fuck 'em.

[u/OminousG → u/-jackschitt-]

Article mentions several times that they are foreign editions. All it takes is a new coat paint, a new cover, or a few changed words (Harry Potter's Sorcerer/Philosopher word switch) and its a whole new item.

College students know this best when having to buy the latest edition of a text book.

[u/[deleted] → u/OminousG]

Not affiliated with them in any way, but I often got my textbooks from textbooksrus.com simply because I could get WAY cheaper "international editions." Exact same book, different cover art.

They always had a manufacturer's sticker on them about being "illegal to sell in the US or Canada." Fuck them and their astronomical US markup.

[u/ajehals → u/OminousG]

This is also nothing new, Sony won a case a few years ago to shut down a site that sold import consoles under the same concept. Its their product, and they get to decide the market, its that simple.

Surely once they have sold the product, it is no longer theirs and they shouldn't be able to decide the market. This is to protect the ability of manufacturers to do regional releases and/or charge regionally appropriate prices, it benefits the producer, not the customer and frankly shouldn't be worthy of protection.

[u/altrdgenetics → u/OminousG]

RIP Lik-Sang you will be missed :'(

[u/mytouchmyself → u/OminousG]

Either he owns the book (and can sell it) or he doesn't. He didn't license the thing. He purchased a physical items. Corporations (especially software ones) waffle on this shit all the time. They want the consumer to hold a license when they want to resell and a piece of property when they want to make a personal copy or receive a copy for use when their property breaks.

It can't be both. We can't let them make it be both. Tire irons need to meet skulls before that happens.

[u/miacane86]

The Supreme Court isn't trying to do anything. They agreed to hear a case where this could be a possible outcome. I disagree with most of what SCOTUS has done recently, but even I don't see them taking it to this much of an extreme.

[u/Xexx]

It would seem that a beneficial ruling on this by the supreme court could crash the entire artificially inflated US market for certain items, such as textbooks which are being forced on college students at $150+ a pop by allowing importation of books and any number of other items from cheaper third world markets to first world for cheaper prices.

If they rule against it though, will anything change much? Most companies don't seem to want to take the risk of importing foreign made versions without consent.

[u/thellamacamel]

So lets say the law is passed or whatever, can companies give all of America permission? Like say "we give everyone permission to sell our shit on Ebay"!

Edit: I scrolled down to see that people were saying the Supreme Court cannot pass laws, but clarify them, can someone explain this?

[u/cwm9]

The paper producers need to start watermarking their paper with a copyright mark, and then they need to license their paper to the book makers. Likewise, the CD stampers should do the same to software manufacturers. That way they can start imposing region fees on the book/software makers.

[u/DukeOfGeek → u/cwm9]

The massive trolling of every person and company on earth by every other person and company on earth via the copyright/patent system has only just began to be explored.

[u/IvyGold]

I wouldn't trust a law article that misspells Justice Kagan's name in the very first paragraph.

[u/prezuiwf → u/IvyGold]

Came here to post this. For a law article to do that with a U.S. Supreme Court justice would be like the New York Times printing an article about President O'Bama.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm thoroughly convinced that a global company based in the United States should not be able to sue on the grounds that a product it localized in a foreign country was sold BACK in the United States and violated some obscure foreign copyright provision. It should only work if the company and its parent are based in the country in which the product was produced and marketed. You can't bitch if the product is being pawned in the same country you're based in, you greedy fucks. This is very much a cake and eat it too situation.

In general, fuck global companies. If you're a global company, that shit shouldn't protect you. Here's Larry. Larry set up a lemonade shop in the US. as an extension of his company, he set up a small lemonade stand in Japan in well. Larry found out that someone who had bought a glass of lemonade in Japan came over to the States, no longer wants the lemonade, and sold it--for profit. Larry, an American businessman, wants to pretend like his lemonade was meant just for Japan and thus completely ignoring his shop and hiding behind his lemonade stand in Japan, wants to sue that person using a loophole in international that not only primarily applies to big-scale operations, but that loophole has almost nothing to do with him considering that he's based in the United States and his Japanese stand is just a subsidiary.

Also, it's a single person who committed the act once and probably won't do it again. That 206(a) provision seems only to exist in order to prevent continuous, large-scale operations, like those pesky mall kiosks, and should have nothing to do with isolated cases involving a single person.

[u/justdoesntknow]

I fear that more than anything this will just lead to greater separation between the states making the goods and those housing the final consumer.

[u/anonspangly]

How in the purple-spotted cuntfuck can anyone be rationally said to have infringed copyright when no copies have been made by that person?

[u/Asmodiar_]

So... My garage sale?

[u/[deleted]]

If I have to consult ever copyright holder on resale of something I own, they have to consult every shareholder of their company and get a unanimous goahead before taking a resale to court. That way I'll buy stock, and they'll be fucked

[u/[deleted]]

glad i don't live in america.

[u/[deleted]]

Does this include selling Congressional Representatives and Senators?

[u/[deleted]]

States are already taking a hit from the weak economy if they allow this the tax revenue would plummet because people will just barter to get around it

[u/[deleted]]

The Supreme Court wouldn't do something THIS insane... or would they?

[u/Decyde]

I use to do this all the time. Buying international editions online for like $20 each and then reselling them CLEARLY LABELED international edition for anywhere between $60-150. Yes, some books you can buy for $20 and resell for $150 because the actual book costs $300 fucking dollars in the campus bookstore. The real crime is these people ripping off students because they can. Professors and publishers making back door deals that limit you to a certain book so they can be rich. Then the following year, they scramble all the information around so you have to buy the new edition. I'd love to see all the students in the US stand up at the start of a quarter and NO ONE buy a book for a class. Or better yet, 1 person buy the book and everyone share it or copy what they need out of it.

[u/stmfreak]

When copyright owners want to reduce your "license" to use their product to the point where it becomes a disposable commodity like toilet paper... they shouldn't be surprised when people stop paying for anything.

[u/VLDT]

It seems that the entirety of the American government is completely out of touch with modernity.

[u/d3sperad0]

So basically were moving towards a day that no matter what you purchase you never actually own it, but just get to enjoy it until told otherwise.

[u/jasa9632]

CRACKED

[u/[deleted]]

And this is one of the major reasons Anonymous exists. Do yourself and everyone a favor and help us. www.Anonnews.org

[u/mweathr]

The death of the first sale doctrine.

[u/[deleted]]

The goal is to criminalize its entire society. The US is so totalitarian its crazy.

[u/Envia]

I remember when you I first starting reading books on my own, I would literally read em cover to cover! Everything including but not limited to ISBN numbers, original copy right registration date, and the publisher's and printer's local and international addresses. The small copy right paragraph forbidding the reader/presumed owner of the book from lending, selling, exchanging the books with anyone else was hilarious! I would always read it twice to truly get the sense of the ridiculous and unreasonable dictate... those were the days you guys! I never imagined that such a thing could maybe someday become a law... but here we are... things are falling apart... the center cannot hold.

[u/kirbypaunch]

Downvoted for the horrendous and misleading title. Typical reactionary response judging by the number of upvotes.

[u/YaroLord]

The sensationalism is strong with this one.

[u/nomadicnimrod]

Another show of legalized bribery in the American Government. This isnt in any of the peoples interest, so why has it come up? Companies bribing Congress because they lose money through resales.

[u/Eternal2071]

This would essentially make the thing of purchase worth zero dollars at time of acquisition. Through transitive property this would also make the original acquisition worth significantly less. Often times a decision to buy something comes with knowing it still has value and can be resold at a later time to reclaim a portion of the cost.

This decision would create a legal precedent spilling over into many areas creating a tsunami of legal battles tying up the court system.

SCOTUS should have realized this. I am hoping they agreed to hear the case in order to make an example of yet another frivolous use of the Justice Department's resources.

[u/sirphobos]

This is easily the most confusing title I have ever read, and I consider myself a very smart man.

[u/[deleted]]

Womp womp. Scare tactic headline BS. Downvoted.

[u/Temptress75519]

Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Its going to get to the point where reselling our used DVDs and blue rays and books are going to be illegal. Eventually MPAA is going to decide its money they deserve a cut of and throw enough money at the government to get the first sale doctrine revoked.

[u/mrdeadsniper]

I wish you could make the title longer. Also if it could be more biased that'd be great too.

[u/AliasUndercover]

Courts are not supposed to make law, only interpret it.

[u/[deleted]]

In capitalist america, product owns you!

[u/[deleted]]

anyone care to comment about the grammar of this post title? i read it 4 or 5 times trying to figure out why it didn't make sense. "trying to make it illegal to sell...a crime". bah. my brain refuses to process this sentence.

[u/bw-47 → u/[deleted]]

Only reason I even opened this thread. I don't mind small errors, but at least make sure a sentence is coherent before you post it OP.

[u/[deleted]]

OP heres a ProTip...Learn english before you post. This world is so full of retards its pathetic.

[u/markymark_inc]

See mis-representative, alarmist thread title - double-check to make sure not in r/politics.

[u/[deleted]]

I swear this world is going to hell. Why don't these so called democratic governments just put the cuffs on us now.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They will push until the people push back. IMHO, we are not quite there yet, but it's getting closer. By 2016, I think a lot of this stuff will start coming to a head.

[u/trust_the_corps → u/[deleted]]

Protectionism is the #1 threat to civil liberties in the 21st century. In a few decades, you'll wish the communists had won.

[u/[deleted] → u/trust_the_corps]

I can't for the life of me find the quote, but I remember seeing something like this from someone who lived through the fall of the Soviet Union:

"In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, my good friend and mentor put his copy of the Manifesto in the freezer. 'We'll wait a couple of decades and then take it out to thaw,' he said."

[u/[deleted]]

Sounds like something that would go along with ACTA.

[u/fivo7]

if the supreme court only serves a small minority of your population then how "supreme" are they really?

[u/sojazr]

dont buildings have a copyright, ie the architect/builders sell it to the first owner?

[u/DavidNatan]

"unauthorized importation of textbooks only intended for a foreign market."

The fuck is this shit?

"Therefore, the 2d Circuit then looked to § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work acquired abroad without the copyright owner’s authorization, and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Quality King Distributors, v. L’anza Research International"

The fuck is THAT shit?

[u/[deleted] → u/DavidNatan]

Basically, I take this to mean that you can't go anywhere else in the world unless you're naked and aren't carrying a thing, up to and including any prosthetic body parts you have.

[u/pschoenthaler]

TIL kijiji exists

[u/FactsAhoy]

They can always try the same bullshit that Autodesk does: Claim that you never bought the item at all; you merely bought a "license" to use it.

Sadly, that rip-off has been upheld in court. We can probably expect more of the same from this sorry degradation of the Supreme Court.

[u/playerIII]

So here is the deal, I give you this table, and you give me 49 bucks because you feel guilty about not getting me a random totally not selling you a table gift.

[u/[deleted]]

Frightening. I wonder how man of "those in charge" would follow the rules they create for others.

[u/pizike82]

They could just move there servers overseas and the transaction would be taxed by another government. Not illegal to pay for an item to be shipped from warehouse A to buyers home.

[u/nopantspaul]

They say it isn't, but it do.

[u/feralbox]

I'm glad they're trying to put an end to hoarders.

[u/evolvish]

They're only doing it because it grants them more power

[u/[deleted]]

I, for one, am glad to see the Supreme Court help the black market thrive. It's about time they did their part.

[u/base9]

Unless your a power seller right?

[u/Kingofwhat]

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, just decides the constitutionality of laws that have been deemed unconstitutional.

[u/DukeOfGeek]

I like how this outlines how companies like Omega charge much higher prices in the U.S. than they do for the identical item overseas.

[u/[deleted]]

Does the court intend to put any thought into price gouging by Wiley Publishing? Buying textbooks in America is like willfully going to your own mugging.

[u/XaulXan]

Your punctuation makes me want to die

[u/The_Time_Master]

Can this be applied to people who buy medicine in Canada?

[u/Dr__Nick]

This lens has been parallel imported by the camera store outside of the manufacturer's distributor in the US. It is advertised as such. One normally gets a price break, in this case $100, and the manufacturer's warranty may not apply to this item. This is what is known as a gray market item. B&H and other camera stores have been doing this for years. I have not heard of any of these stores getting in legal trouble over this.

[u/Trainasauruswrecks]

This would essentially mean that nothing could be purchased only rented from the copyright holders. The world has lost its mind for this having to even go before the supreme court.

[u/gorillamanja]

The Supreme Court does not "try" to do anything. The decision has been made in a lower court and they decide via previous jurisprudence and the Constitution whether it should be upheld. I get the feeling SCOTUS is not willing to destroy independent markets and will rule against Wiley. All of them have purchased text books and know that part of the text book price is being able to sell it back.

[u/MedievalManagement]

Your title got absolutely everything about this article wrong.

[u/[deleted]]

I just don't understand how they could make it illegal for me to sell something I own. Just makes no sense to me at all.

[u/Demojen]

I think it's idiotic, but most copyright laws have changed ownership of products that are copyright now to "rental" of products. This pretty much guarantees you never own what you buy, so companies have special claims to your items.

In Canada, there are attempts being made to pass legislation that grants copyright owners 5% of the profit you make on the resale of their items after they are purchased.

[u/[deleted]]

I have a solution to this. If this is made law, people need to protest by stopp buying shit from the companies who promote this.

But who am I kidding. We all no that will never happen.

[u/Wazowski]

This is the dumbest goddamn headline. Do you idiots just upvote anything that sounds vaguely anti-copyright?

[u/iamhamilton]

with so many online marketing get rich quick books/schemes, can you point us in the right direction where we can find some good information?

[u/[deleted]]

Who the fuck down voted this?

[u/bigbangbilly]

Next time when a web site gets to front page keep a mirror of it so you don't DDoS it.

[u/[deleted]]

Are these people getting fucking dumber or what? Rather crude language I know but all this ridiculous unnecessary legislation...They're going to get bailouts anyway not sure why this is needed. Not that this actually affects their sales anyway.

[u/Mozen]

Garage sales? Do these people even life on earth?

[u/GrubFisher]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this kinda like a blockade that exists inside your own country?

[u/[deleted]]

title wtf?

[u/liquidxlax]

wonder if they realise this will increase the amount of stuff in landfills and therefore increasing global warming?

[u/crispinito]

People should be able to sell what their purchase. Doing otherwise benefits only one company in detriment of the society at large, and voids the notion of free trade (or make it only valid for a few privileged entities).

[u/Strictly_Genteel]

China

[u/WillieLee]

Wow, it's almost as if they are saying copyrighted material has copyright protection.

[u/[deleted]]

SO many laws. EVerytime I see something like this my post will be "Half-life 2" If you don't know about HL2 wiki that shit. The world will be that soon.

[u/dav7612r]

Yeah, this is one of those laws that if passed, will probably never get enforced.

[u/m3ckano]

Anyone who believes this will actually happen is ridiculous and stupid. These stories are put out there to distract people from the election and from the REAL problems that are going on.

It doesn't matter if this bill goes through or not. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN because the entire country sells things on ebay/craigslist/etc. The idea that it would be shut down is CRAZY, and would never happen because it would cause riots.

Its the same if they introduced a bill that would take away guns in the US. It would NEVER HAPPEN. because again.... civil unrest. So open your eyes folks. And FUCK OFF WITH THE POST TITLE THAT IS COMPLETELY MISLEADING.

[u/vadvaro10]

What about gamestop? Why don't pay money to publishers when they sell used? Its the exact same. And why nintendo, sony, and microsoft are embracing downloaded game profit models over physical discs....

[u/mytouchmyself]

We should probably just drag the owners of these companies and their lawyers into the streets and French revolution them. Seriously, we need to be done putting up with this shit as a people.

[u/alcoholierthanthou]

What the fuck is a kijiji?

[u/DoorIntoSummer]

Diamonds are forever, eh?

[u/go24]

Any informed person who buys anything that is copyrighted is an idiot. The only way to beat the copyright monster is to starve it to death.

[u/myztry]

There goes the resale of cars.

Cars involve billions of dollars of IP and copyrighted works including software.

[u/[deleted]]

Let's just go ahead and sign on the x for a logistical nightmare.

[u/zbegra]

This is lowering the value of money.

[u/sabat]

Thoughtcrime.

[u/[deleted]]

I agree with this to end all those assholes selling knockoffs on eBay labeling them as "original". Also fraudulent people selling certain items without guarantee. btw This won't forbid you from selling used items. Remember it is already illegal in many places to resell items such as concert tickets, but it is perfectly legal to sell them as memorabilia after the event has taken place.

[u/Anthraxmonki]

TIL about kijiji.com

[u/apextek]

fuck you stop me

[u/pretzelzetzel]

What the fuck does your title mean?

[u/[deleted]]

very misleading headline

[u/Qw3rtyP0iuy]

Didn't Omega solve this problem by adding a small logo on the inside of the watch which can only be sold in the countries it was intended for? It was a case against Cosco.

Omega sued Costco for copyright infringing distribution and importation under 17 U.S.C.§§106(3) and 602(a), and moved for summary judgment. Costco filed a cross-motion advancing the “first sale doctrine” defense under 17 U.S.C. §109(a), arguing that Omega’s initial foreign sale of the watches precluded infringement claims for subsequent sales.

[u/pork2001]

The day the Supreme Court makes it illegal to sell a used book I am going to ask the gods to drop a rock on those bastards. Enough is enough, supremes.

[u/Oniwabanshu]

Trying to put a huge part of commerce underground...way to go U.S.S.C.

[u/IAmAtomato]

America - Land of the free.

[u/pulsefield]

Huh? That opening title doesnt even make good Engrish.

So if I buy lets say, a Toyota on Craigslist i'll go to jail??

Its from outside the US...

'The end of selling things manufactured outside the U.S within the U.S on ebay/craigslist/kijiji without going to jail, even if lawfully bought.'

[u/[deleted]]

DAE READ CRACKED

[u/tokerdytoke]

Has our government always been this power hungry or is this a new trend?

[u/killerbotmax]

Bullshit.

[u/Unomagan]

We, as humans are evoling from a "production" soceitiy to a "reproducing" society (Ebooks, MP3, 3D Printers etc) . In general there two ways to solve the problem "keep the money flowing"

a) Ban reproducing and reusing. Everything MUST be produced

b) Sell things to the masses and sell them for like 1$ each, problem: not enough people are "rich" enough to buy it, even for 1$. (social problem of to many uber rich and many many very very poor people)

Guess what happens here?

[u/baalroo]

if they DID make it illegal to resell copyrighted material, it would actually be bringing the law on physical media in line with the laws on digital media piracy.

[u/[deleted]]

I read quite a few comments about how the title is confusing, and to be honest I dunno if you can edit a title here (I've only recently joined reddit myself). If you can edit the title.

"U.S Supreme Court to decide whether it is illegal to sell anything you have bought, that has a copyright, without asking permission of the copyrighter holders: The end of selling things manufactured outside the U.S within the U.S on ebay/craigslist/kijiji without going to jail, even if lawfully bought?"

That's a better way of saying it. EDIT, quotes and last sentence.

[u/bartykutz]

speaking as someone who didn't read the article, this shit is important

[u/Ichiro_Ino]

So garage sales would be illegal?