The days of selling things you own maybe over

[bigrebnc1775]

Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxZ1g3-2qKU]Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[4Horsemen]

I was wondering why all the craigslist shoppers have slowed to a gotdamn crawl.

I need to unload some unwanted shit.

Where's a needy Obamabot when you need one?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This ruling could effect anything not made in the U.S.including homes if it's not totally constructed out of American made products, cars, firearms, clothing most shoes.
This ruling will kill and put an end to flea markets, yard sales, estate sales.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't watch videos, anyone wanna summarize?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't watch videos, anyone wanna summarize?

I did in the post before yours.

 

[Lane1777]

there goes e-bay

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can't watch the vid...WTF is it?

 

[Grandma]

I'm laughing at all of you. You done been had.

Here's the real deal, by example:

Say you buy a CD made in the US by a record company with the necessary permits in the US. You can resell it.

Say you buy the same CD made overseas by an overseas company that is not related to the US record company. Basically, the overseas version is a bootleg. It's an illegal copy. You're receiving stolen goods, so you can't legally own it, much less resell it.

Say you buy a US CD, et cetera, and you make copies to sell - you're violating copyright, forging as it were , and can get hauled into court.

This is not a new law it's been around since the late 1960s, at least.

 

[paravani]

From the National Law Review articley written by McDermott, Will & Emery:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving “gray market” resale of copyrighted works and the defense of the “first sale doctrine.” The “first sale doctrine” in copyright law permits the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of that copy without limitations imposed by the copyright holder.

... Textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons brought a copyright infringement suit against Kirtsaeng, a graduate student from Thailand. Kirtsaeng’s friends and family shipped him foreign editions of Wiley textbooks printed abroad by Wiley’s affiliate Wiley Asia, which Kirtsaeng then sold on commercial websites such as eBay for allegedly substantial profits. Wiley alleged that Kirtsaeng violated Wiley’s copyrights by unauthorized importation of textbooks only intended for a foreign market.

(yada yada yada legal precedent stuff of interest only to lawyers... )

... In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court order indicated it will consider whether such a foreign-made product can never be resold within the United States without the copyright owner’s permission; can sometimes be resold within the United States without permission, but only after the owner approves an earlier sale in this country; or can always be resold without permission within the United States, so long as the copyright owner authorized the first sale abroad.

... It is expected that this decision will be of particular importance to importers, distributors and retailers of copyrighted goods produced abroad.

The gist of the case is this: Wiley and Sons sells the same textbook in Thailand that they sell here, but they charge Americans a LOT more for the same book. So a Thai student realized he could make more than a buck or two by having friends and family buy extra copies for his classmates, which he would then sell on eBay for less than they could be bought here.

All books sold were lawfully acquired, authorized copies.

Wiley and Sons screamed because they weren't able to gouge as many American consumers as they had been gouging, because the global marketplace allows individuals to import, buy, and sell at a profit.

In other words, high-paying American jobs in engineering, manufacturing, and yes, publishing are being exported to other countries where corporate America can hire workers for less; but apparently corporate America doesn't think that We the People should also be able to similarly exploit the international economy.

-- Paravani

I don't watch videos, anyone wanna summarize?

 

[paravani]

From the National Law Review articley written by Rita Weeks, a partner at McDermott, Will & Emery:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving “gray market” resale of copyrighted works and the defense of the “first sale doctrine.” The “first sale doctrine” in copyright law permits the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of that copy without limitations imposed by the copyright holder.

... Textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons brought a copyright infringement suit against Kirtsaeng, a graduate student from Thailand. Kirtsaeng’s friends and family shipped him foreign editions of Wiley textbooks printed abroad by Wiley’s affiliate Wiley Asia, which Kirtsaeng then sold on commercial websites such as eBay for allegedly substantial profits. Wiley alleged that Kirtsaeng violated Wiley’s copyrights by unauthorized importation of textbooks only intended for a foreign market.

(yada yada yada legal precedent stuff of interest only to lawyers... )

... In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court order indicated it will consider whether such a foreign-made product can never be resold within the United States without the copyright owner’s permission; can sometimes be resold within the United States without permission, but only after the owner approves an earlier sale in this country; or can always be resold without permission within the United States, so long as the copyright owner authorized the first sale abroad.

... It is expected that this decision will be of particular importance to importers, distributors and retailers of copyrighted goods produced abroad.

I don't watch videos, anyone wanna summarize?

The gist of the case is this: Wiley and Sons sells the same textbook in Thailand that they sell here, but they charge Americans a LOT more for the same book. So a Thai student realized he could make more than a buck or two by having friends and family buy extra copies for his classmates, which he would then sell on eBay for less than they could be bought here.

All books sold were lawfully acquired, authorized copies.

Wiley and Sons screamed because they weren't able to gouge as many American consumers as they had been gouging, because the global marketplace allows individuals to import, buy, and sell at a profit.

In other words, high-paying American jobs in engineering, manufacturing, and yes, publishing are being exported to other countries where corporate America can hire workers for less; but apparently corporate America doesn't think that We the People should also be able to similarly exploit the international economy.

(IMO, Wiley and Sons should have stated in writing inside the books that they were not to be resold in the US, or outside the country of purchase. Similar "not to be resold" messages are often printed inside advance copies of books, or in textbooks intended for instructor use only.)

-- Paravani

 

[Grandma]

Are you certain that Wiley and Sons sold copies of their books in Thailand or authorized Thai printing? If that's the case, Wiley and Sons still own the books as a US company, since they're based here. So the 1974 resale law stands.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property?

Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property? - YouTube

That's pretty funny.
You may as well get ready to experience one giant collective **** YOU to the federal government if the SCOTUS goes the wrong way on this and the government mandates enforcement of the ruling.
In any event, the chances of this becoming law are possible but not probable. Even if the SCOTUS affirms the 2nd District ruling, there is no possible way to enforce it.
Think about it. There is no way the federal and state governments could afford to enforce it.
Yard or garage sales? Really. The Garage sale police?
Oh and just who did that text book publisher recover the $600k from?

This story has some stink on it. I am not buying this at all.
Thanks for posting though. The value in this is that we get to see how absurd the system of juris prudence can be.

 

[paravani]

Are you certain that Wiley and Sons sold copies of their books in Thailand or authorized Thai printing? If that's the case, Wiley and Sons still own the books as a US company, since they're based here. So the 1974 resale law stands.

Well, the quoted article says:

Kirtsaeng’s friends and family shipped him foreign editions of Wiley textbooks printed abroad by Wiley’s affiliate Wiley Asia, which Kirtsaeng then sold on commercial websites such as eBay for allegedly substantial profits.

... but it seems to me that if Wiley and Sons sold the books once in Thailand, it's not right for them to demand to be paid twice for the same book. They do, after all, have control over what price to charge for the book the first time it's sold, don't they?

-- Paravani

 

[Widdekind]

a former graduate student colleague specifically told me once, that he looked forward to becoming a Professor, and selling expensive "updated editions" of textbooks each semester, by making minor cosmetic modifications a couple times per year. i fear that opportunistic exploitation of, and de facto opposition to, those Americans who want to learn (at universities), contributes to skyrocketing costs, increasing far faster than inflation. In essence, public investment in public education is transmuted to "investment in [student loan] debt". Eliminating economic arbitrage, on cheaper foreign books, could help keep American universities an expensive "captive market". i fear that learning itself is being opposed (subtly); increasing costs certainly doesn't help

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property?

Reality Check: Is SCOTUS Putting An End To "Personal" Property? - YouTube

That's pretty funny.
You may as well get ready to experience one giant collective **** YOU to the federal government if the SCOTUS goes the wrong way on this and the government mandates enforcement of the ruling.
In any event, the chances of this becoming law are possible but not probable. Even if the SCOTUS affirms the 2nd District ruling, there is no possible way to enforce it.
Think about it. There is no way the federal and state governments could afford to enforce it.
Yard or garage sales? Really. The Garage sale police?
Oh and just who did that text book publisher recover the $600k from?

This story has some stink on it. I am not buying this at all.
Thanks for posting though. The value in this is that we get to see how absurd the system of juris prudence can be.

Pretty much