Supreme Court, and Ownership/Reselling rights.

[strigori]

I think this is a topic that has slipped under the radar, and actually could have bigger impacts on some segments of the economy, and what it means to own something. Its a fairly long read, but well worth it.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-means/

 

the case is a long-awaited rematch between content companies seeking to knock out the "first sale" doctrine on goods made abroad (not to mention their many opponents). That makes Wiley v. Kirtsaeng the highest-stakes intellectual property case of the year, if not the decade. It's not an exaggeration to say the outcome could affect the very notion of property ownership in the United States. Since most consumer electronics are manufactured outside the US and include copyrighted software in it, a loss for Kirtsaeng would mean copyright owners could tax, or even shut down, resales of everything from books to DVDs to cellphones.

 

 

The impact of this is going to be big either way. And I really, really hope they side with Kirtsaeng. And it looks like it could go wither way.

[strigori]

The Supreme Court found in favor of Kirtsaeng, a good win for the consumer.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/supreme-court-eases-sale-of-certain-products-abroad.html?_r=0

 

A publisher of some of the textbooks, John Wiley & Sons, sued Mr. Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, and it won $600,000 in the lower courts. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court threw out that award and ruled that imported copyrighted goods were subject to the same rules as goods bought in the United States: owners of particular copies can do what they like with them.

[Junior]

That is excellent news. I mean, it is asinine to think I bought a TV 5 years ago, want a new one now and couldn't sell my old one.

[BigRedBuster]

I think this falls into...."careful what you wish for".

[strigori]

I think this falls into...."careful what you wish for".

How so?

[BigRedBuster]

Someone steals your car and immediately sells it to his friend then disappears with the money. The next day you drive down the street and see your car. You can't get it back because....hey....he bought it and now it's his.

 

 

Hey....victory for the guy who bought your car from the thief for $1000.

[strigori]

Someone steals your car and immediately sells it to his friend then disappears with the money. The next day you drive down the street and see your car. You can't get it back because....hey....he bought it and now it's his.

 

 

Hey....victory for the guy who bought your car from the thief for $1000.

I think you misread something. What you describe is still receiving stolen property, a crime in and of itself. This case involved a guy who bought something legally overseas, brought it back with him, and sold it again. Very, very different things. To use the car analogy it would be like you bought a car, then 5 years later decide you don't want it anymore, so you sell it, then the car maker sues you because they did not give you permission to sell your own property.

[BigRedBuster]

Someone steals your car and immediately sells it to his friend then disappears with the money. The next day you drive down the street and see your car. You can't get it back because....hey....he bought it and now it's his.

 

 

Hey....victory for the guy who bought your car from the thief for $1000.

I think you misread something. What you describe is still receiving stolen property, a crime in and of itself. This case involved a guy who bought something legally overseas, brought it back with him, and sold it again. Very, very different things. To use the car analogy it would be like you bought a car, then 5 years later decide you don't want it anymore, so you sell it, then the car maker sues you because they did not give you permission to sell your own property.

 

 

Your example is even much farther far fetched than my example. If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

 

I'm looking for an article that spells this out. But, from what I heard on TV was that these books were clearly marked "not for export" from what ever country they came from. He then had his family buy a bunch of them, ship them to him and he resold them.

 

Now, from what I heard on TV they made it sound like by exporting them, they actually broke the laws of where ever they came from. And, they may have broken import laws here.

[carlfense]

If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

People have in fact said that you can't resell (and/or modify) a product that you've lawfully purchased in the United States.

[strigori]

Someone steals your car and immediately sells it to his friend then disappears with the money. The next day you drive down the street and see your car. You can't get it back because....hey....he bought it and now it's his.

 

 

Hey....victory for the guy who bought your car from the thief for $1000.

I think you misread something. What you describe is still receiving stolen property, a crime in and of itself. This case involved a guy who bought something legally overseas, brought it back with him, and sold it again. Very, very different things. To use the car analogy it would be like you bought a car, then 5 years later decide you don't want it anymore, so you sell it, then the car maker sues you because they did not give you permission to sell your own property.

 

 

Your example is even much farther far fetched than my example. If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

 

I'm looking for an article that spells this out. But, from what I heard on TV was that these books were clearly marked "not for export" from what ever country they came from. He then had his family buy a bunch of them, ship them to him and he resold them.

 

Now, from what I heard on TV they made it sound like by exporting them, they actually broke the laws of where ever they came from. And, they may have broken import laws here.

No laws were broken. The publisher just printed 'not for export to north america' on a page in the book. And the Supreme Court said that a company can't do that. Had they found in favor of the publisher, all the software that comes on anything electronic could have a 'not for resale' notation, effectively blocking sale of anything that includes a copyright. CDs, DVDs, players for either, your car, as it has a computer on board, as long as it was manufactured outside the country. Which is pretty much everything at this point.

[sd'sker]

If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

People have in fact said that you can't resell (and/or modify) a product that you've lawfully purchased in the United States.

i think the iphone is a pretty good example of that issue.

[carlfense]

If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

People have in fact said that you can't resell (and/or modify) a product that you've lawfully purchased in the United States.

i think the iphone is a pretty good example of that issue.

Yep. Genetically modified grain is another.

[BigRedBuster]

If you buy the product here from a local dealer and have it for 5 years then sell it....of course you can do that and nobody has ever said you can't.

People have in fact said that you can't resell (and/or modify) a product that you've lawfully purchased in the United States.

i think the iphone is a pretty good example of that issue.

Yep. Genetically modified grain is another.

 

 

If you own an Iphone, you should be able to sell it.

 

However, the Genetically modified grain is a whole other issue. If the farmer had purchased a sack of seed corn and then wanted to sell it to his neighbor is one thing. But, the company should be protected from the farmer raising a crop with the genetics they developed, producing seed corn with those genetics and then selling that to all of his neighbors. I know there are examples of farmers being what I would call mistreated over this issue. But, in general, I agree the seed corn company should be protected from this.

[carlfense]

If you own an Iphone, you should be able to sell it.

Do you think that should you be able to install whatever software on your phone that you'd like?

 

However, the Genetically modified grain is a whole other issue. If the farmer had purchased a sack of seed corn and then wanted to sell it to his neighbor is one thing. But, the company should be protected from the farmer raising a crop with the genetics they developed, producing seed corn with those genetics and then selling that to all of his neighbors. I know there are examples of farmers being what I would call mistreated over this issue. But, in general, I agree the seed corn company should be protected from this.

What about a farmer who purchases seed corn, plants that seed corn, and then plants the next year with the corn that he grew himself?

 

(And I do see the logic of the seed corn company's argument . . . but how far can their control extend?)

[strigori]

If you own an Iphone, you should be able to sell it.

Do you think that should you be able to install whatever software on your phone that you'd like?

 

However, the Genetically modified grain is a whole other issue. If the farmer had purchased a sack of seed corn and then wanted to sell it to his neighbor is one thing. But, the company should be protected from the farmer raising a crop with the genetics they developed, producing seed corn with those genetics and then selling that to all of his neighbors. I know there are examples of farmers being what I would call mistreated over this issue. But, in general, I agree the seed corn company should be protected from this.

What about a farmer who purchases seed corn, plants that seed corn, and then plants the next year with the corn that he grew himself?

 

(And I do see the logic of the seed corn company's argument . . . but how far can their control extend?)

Monsanto's argument is only to protect its earnings, nothing more.

We could have a whole thread about the evil monster that is Monsanto....

 

The phone unlocking we may get solution for soon. Its getting some early bipartisan support. Mainly from the fact that its pretty close to impossible to make a reasonable argument for why you can't, other than to protect a companies earnings.