Supreme Court to decide if you can resell your own stuff.... (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

According to Market Watch the Supreme Court will be hearing a case this session to determine if you have the right to sell your stuff that was manufactured overseas. For over 100 years copyright law has allowed to to resell anything without getting permission from the copyright holder. An appeals court recently ruled that if an item is manufactured overseas (games, books, DVDs, Blu-rays, electronic items, etc.) that you must first get permission from the copyright holder to resell the item.

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. 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.

Full article here

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The whole concept of Intellectual Property has been warped beyond recognition. It has nothing to do with the rights of creators and everything to do with protecting the cash flows of media manufacturers who are being left behind by modern technology.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Does this mean you'd have to get permission from Toyota to trade in a Japan-built car?

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Steve Schaffer /t/324298/supreme-court-to-decide-if-you-can-resell-your-own-stuff#post_3985863
Does this mean you'd have to get permission from Toyota to trade in a Japan-built car?

If they have some type of trademark or copyright on the design....yep.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /t/324298/supreme-court-to-decide-if-you-can-resell-your-own-stuff#post_3985873
If they have some type of trademark or copyright on the design....yep.

Not if it was built in the Kentucky plant

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Not if it was built in the Kentucky plant

True, but Steve specifically said a made in Japan model. My biggest fear is that the court will uphold it and then Congress will pass a law allowing it that will be full of exemptions.

 

[DaveF]

It could lead to an interesting new rally behind "Made in America"


You can sell your Honda (Made in Tennessee) but not your Ford (made in Canada).

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by DaveF /t/324298/supreme-court-to-decide-if-you-can-resell-your-own-stuff#post_3985939
It could lead to an interesting new rally behind "Made in America"


You can sell your Honda (Made in Tennessee) but not your Ford (made in Canada).

Or could have the opposite effect: move manufacturing overseas so people have to pay for permission to the company to resell.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

TV station finally covered in a pretty good editorial:



FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather

 

[Stan]

TV station finally covered in a pretty good editorial:
FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather

I see this going absolutely nowhere except possibly big retailers, car dealerships, etc. There will be a huge underground market that will develop if this becomes law.
I mean seriously, my neighbor has a yard sale and has a few DVDs and BluRays to unload. Do you really think the overseas trademark police are going to come swooping in and shut her down?
This is ridiculous and basically unenforceable.
I buy something, it's mine and I'm free to do with it what I please.
My GM car was built in Canada, so I'm not allowed to sell it without paying royalties or other fees to the original builder? Not going to happen.

 

[DaveF]

According to Market Watch the Supreme Court will be hearing a case this session to determine if you have the right to sell your stuff that was manufactured overseas.  For over 100 years copyright law has allowed to to resell anything without getting permission from the copyright holder.  An appeals court recently ruled that if an item is manufactured overseas (games, books, DVDs, Blu-rays, electronic items, etc.) that you must first get permission from the copyright holder to resell the item.
Full article here

that article is totally confused. Apple has a "copyright" on the iPhone? GM owns the "copyright" on cars made overseas?
This seems to only apply to copyrighted works --books, movies, music--but the article is such a mess, I don't know.
The fox19 link just goes to a tv channels homepage..?

 

[Adam Gregorich]

that article is totally confused. Apple has a "copyright" on the iPhone? GM owns the "copyright" on cars made overseas?
This seems to only apply to copyrighted works --books, movies, music--but the article is such a mess, I don't know.
The fox19 link just goes to a tv channels homepage..?

Hmm I tried to embed the video and that was the link it used.. Try this link: http://www.fox19.com/story/19789453/reality-check-is-your-personal-property-really-your-property Yes, Apply has a copyright on a rectangle with round corners, just ask Samsung .

 

[Pete York]

It's not clear to me why people think the first sale doctrine as we have known it for a hundred years is being threatened. Both Kirtsaeng and the previous Costco case the Court heard were about questions solely related to the re-selling of gray market goods, imports. Why does that professor in the OP think that the Court's eventual decision on this issue could be used to narrow 'first sale' down to goods not only sold in the U.S. but manufactured as well?

Current example: There's a rather large difference in pricing between the UK Universal Classic Monsters BD set and the nearly twice as expensive domestic US version. The decision in this case could affect me, say, buying 100 UK sets and selling them here at the current US price, like an arbitrage trade (which, if it was possible to do, would get you about $4000 on a $6500 investment). But I don't see how it might apply to me buying the 100 cheapest US sets and trying to sell them. (Of course, if you bought just one UK set and down the road wanted to sell it, you might just as well be prohibited from doing so, or otherwise have some kind of restriction on such a sale, but still, this concerns a very small set of people.)

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Pete York /t/324298/supreme-court-to-decide-if-you-can-resell-your-own-stuff#post_3987567
It's not clear to me why people think the first sale doctrine as we have known it for a hundred years is being threatened. Both Kirtsaeng and the previous Costco case the Court heard were about questions solely related to the re-selling of gray market goods, imports. Why does that professor in the OP think that the Court's eventual decision on this issue could be used to narrow 'first sale' down to goods not only sold in the U.S. but manufactured as well?

Current example: There's a rather large difference in pricing between the UK Universal Classic Monsters BD set and the nearly twice as expensive domestic US version. The decision in this case could affect me, say, buying 100 UK sets and selling them here at the current US price, like an arbitrage trade (which, if it was possible to do, would get you about $4000 on a $6500 investment). But I don't see how it might apply to me buying the 100 cheapest US sets and trying to sell them. (Of course, if you bought just one UK set and down the road wanted to sell it, you might just as well be prohibited from doing so, or otherwise have some kind of restriction on such a sale, but still, this concerns a very small set of people.)

According to the article it could affect the US version too since it was made in Mexico (at least I think it was....I got the UK version).

 

[Pete York]

That's what I don't understand, Adam, The professor quoted is speaking with a degree of assurance that first sale doctrine is at stake in this case. But Kirtsaeng involves goods that are sold and bought abroad and then imported to the US to re-sell. There is a conflict concerning this specific category of goods within the copyright code which is what this case is attempting to settle. I don't see how the case is addressing anything other than that narrow category. In the example of media or discs made in Mexico, I can't see how that would fall under the class of goods covered in this Kirtsaeng case because that media goes to/is meant for the market in the US. And as long as you buy them in the US, you'll be able to re-sell them without any restriction, no matter where they're manufactured. The key thing is that the exclusive right to distribute within a market (or in DVD speak, 'region') is in no way circumvented, unlike with Kirtsaeng and his Thai-to-Cali textbook operation. What happened to Michael Reuben anyway, wasn't he a patent lawyer or something??

Needless to say, I'll be watching for this decision. I would be shocked if anything even remotely like the doomsday scenario in the article comes about.