Selling without permission

[Al B]

Here is an article I ran across about a Supreme Court ruling to be made in the "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons" case. It involves a ruling over whether or not the original copyright holder will have the power to stop someone from selling a product or item made overseas without the copyright holders permission.

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril - Jennifer Waters's Consumer Confidential - MarketWatch

 

[actaeon277]

Good way to fix that, DON'T BUY CRAP FROM OVERSEAS.
Yes I know, hard to find stuff.
And yes, sometimes maybe buy foreign if it is better.
But then you'll have to deal with this.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

It's downright comical considering the incestual american copyright infringement committed by overseas factories.

 

[rambone]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxZ1g3-2qKU[/ame]

 

[parsimonious]

I have learned about this or something similar a few years ago when I bought a copy of
Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", from a used book store. It was printed in Great Britain,
and one of the first pages states,

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition
that it shall not, by trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise
circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other
than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser

That is a lot of legal sounding mumbo jumbo that may not have anything to do the
specifics of the current scotus case, but I was surprised that the first line was
Except in the United States. Considering the subject of the book.

I didn't know the book was printed outside the US when I bought it. What was interesting
is that is was censored.
Common Sense says alot of things about the king, the crown, and king george.
In Great Britain I think it's still illegal to print anything uncomplimentary about the
king or queen. Elizabeth sure is honored regularly.
Anyway king would show up as K---, and george as G-----, etc.
This book was an interesting reminder of our rights and privileges in this country.

 

[downzero]

Good way to fix that, DON'T BUY CRAP FROM OVERSEAS.

Good luck with that.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Even if John Roberts has an aneurysm similar to what he had for the Obamacare fiasco, this could be spun into a net plus. If you can't sell your foreign made goods without a paper trail granting you that privilege from the original manufacturer (who might be kaput), you could only trash it and lose all of that value. That makes foreign made goods artificially less valuable in the first place. The value of domestic made goods artificially rises. More people buy American. The American manufacturing sector perks up to meet the demand. More domestic job creation happens.

Still, all that artificiality is bound to muck up the economic plumbing somehow.

 

[Classic]

I'm surprised no one can see what a great deal this would be for the U.S. government. Naturally the IRS would be the record keeper and collector of the "copyright" fees for every transaction. Of course they would need to collect a small tax on every transaction.

 

[Solitaire]

This case is about a person who had his family buy textbooks in Thailand for very low prices. The family then shipped the textbooks to him, and he ran a business selling them in the US, where the same textbooks are much more expensive. According to the article, he made 1.2 million selling the textbooks on eBay. The copyright holder is butthurt.

Does anyone really think that the Supreme Court is going to make a broad-based ruling prohibiting American citizens from selling their own personal property, based on this case? This is obviously a case involving commercial sale of goods, not Joe Bob selling his Honda mower to his neighbor for $50.

Even if the Supreme Court did decide, in a moment of insanity, that Americans do not have the right to buy and sell their own personal property as they damn well please without permission, does anyone really think that the overseas companies who manufacture goods for sale in the US are going to deny blanket permission to resell their products? Given the enormous hit that their products would take in value compared to American products with no such restrictions, I would think they would have no choice, if they want to continue to sell things here.

The real issue:
How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?

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

It obviously has nothing to do with me selling my iPhone or Nissan.

Journalism is in a sad state these days.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups. In some contexts, 9 is a large number.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This case is about a person who had his family buy textbooks in Thailand for very low prices. The family then shipped the textbooks to him, and he ran a business selling them in the US, where the same textbooks are much more expensive. According to the article, he made 1.2 million selling the textbooks on eBay. The copyright holder is butthurt.

Does anyone really think that the Supreme Court is going to make a broad-based ruling prohibiting American citizens from selling their own personal property, based on this case? This is obviously a case involving commercial sale of goods, not Joe Bob selling his Honda mower to his neighbor for $50.

Even if the Supreme Court did decide, in a moment of insanity, that Americans do not have the right to buy and sell their own personal property as they damn well please without permission, does anyone really think that the overseas companies who manufacture goods for sale in the US are going to deny blanket permission to resell their products? Given the enormous hit that their products would take in value compared to American products with no such restrictions, I would think they would have no choice, if they want to continue to sell things here.

The real issue:
How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

It obviously has nothing to do with me selling my iPhone or Nissan.

Journalism is in a sad state these days.

If we limit ourselves to the realm of logical and rational thought, I would agree without reservation. I am not willing to bet on logical and rational thought driving the decision of a Supreme Court which has already declared that a law lacking any constitutional authority which explicitly declares that it is NOT a tax is in fact a tax and therefore constitutional under the authority of congress to raise taxes (fact notwithstanding that the constitution authorizes congress to raise taxes for the purpose of carrying out those things which the Constitution grants it authority to do as opposed to raising taxes for any reason/no reason on its whim). This is also the court that doesn't seem to understand the Tenth Amendment or the word 'Infringe'. Rationally, you are right, but I am not taking any cash bets on what the Supremes may end us doing.

 

[Rhoadmar]

If some entrepreneur buys a product and finds a market that he can sell the same product for a profit he has done well. If the company that originally sold or manufactured the product were smart, they would continue business with said entrepreneur or move directly into that market. In some cases government is only leech.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The original manufacturer was ALREADY in that same market. The issue is that they wanted to operate on a business model that sold the same published work in two different markets on the planet at different price points, even adjusting for currency variations. By doing what he did, he was denying the original publisher their business model. He bought from the low price point market to sell back into the high price point market. This is analogous to music and movie pirates denying the music publishers their geriatric business model, but in what I would submit is a totally legal way.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The original manufacturer was ALREADY in that same market. The issue is that they wanted to operate on a business model that sold the same published work in two different markets on the planet at different price points, even adjusting for currency variations. By doing what he did, he was denying the original publisher their business model. He bought from the low price point market to sell back into the high price point market. This is analogous to music and movie pirates denying the music publishers their geriatric business model, but in what I would submit is a totally legal way.

One wonders why the publisher is willing to sell so cheap in another market to begin with. The same question could be raised regarding prescription meds. By contrast, I would not expect to find a new Rolls Royce available for sale in the far east for $20K.

 

[Prometheus]

Good way to fix that, DON'T BUY CRAP FROM OVERSEAS.
Yes I know, hard to find stuff.
And yes, sometimes maybe buy foreign if it is better.
But then you'll have to deal with this.

No phones, computers, tv's and no cars for you then. Good luck on just about everything else too.

It obviously has nothing to do with me selling my iPhone or Nissan.

and yet it will be applied to you, your phone, your car (even your ford or chevy) and your books.

 

[spencer rifle]

One wonders why the publisher is willing to sell so cheap in another market to begin with. The same question could be raised regarding prescription meds. By contrast, I would not expect to find a new Rolls Royce available for sale in the far east for $20K.

Because a Thai student whose family who makes $2000 a year will simply not spend $120 for a textbook. If the publisher wants to sell it, they gotta meet market price point. What I want to know is why they are selling a $15 textbook here for $120. I guess it's because they can. Prof kickbacks play in here somewhere, as do constantly updated editions with minimal changes. That way your used books are useless to the new students.

Many foreign (read Chinese) business models seem to be predicated on making the item so cheap that it makes more economic sense to get a new one rather than bringing it back for "warranty" service that might take months and not end well anyway. And we're letting them get away with it.

 

[Solitaire]

and yet it will be applied to you, your phone, your car (even your ford or chevy) and your books.

Extremely doubtful. But I guess we'll see.

 

[jedi]

Extremely doubtful. But I guess we'll see.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because a Thai student whose family who makes $2000 a year will simply not spend $120 for a textbook. If the publisher wants to sell it, they gotta meet market price point. What I want to know is why they are selling a $15 textbook here for $120. I guess it's because they can. Prof kickbacks play in here somewhere, as do constantly updated editions with minimal changes. That way your used books are useless to the new students.

Many foreign (read Chinese) business models seem to be predicated on making the item so cheap that it makes more economic sense to get a new one rather than bringing it back for "warranty" service that might take months and not end well anyway. And we're letting them get away with it.

Exactly the point I intended to raise!

 

[Solitaire]

I'm sorry, was I not sufficiently paranoid? Here, let me fix it.....

The criminal supreme "court" will no doubt rule that Americans no longer have a right to sell their own property. After Obama wins the election by rigging the voting machines in Chicago, he will be free to dispatch an army of brown shirts to monitor criminal attempts to sell personal property. Underground garage sales will be raided by jackboot thugs, and the nation will descend into chaos as citizen turns in citizen. Eventually, you will have to register every serial number of every piece of property that you own and be subject to a property audit by a newly created Property Control branch of the IRS.

Is that better?