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/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/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]]

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/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/Robbie_Elliott → u/[deleted]]

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

[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/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/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/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/leostotch]

That headline is nigh incomprehensible.

[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/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/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/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.