Copyright Laws and Intellectual Property

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Mon, Oct 8, 2012 - 3:52pm
Ganja Jane
Joined: Aug 7, 2011

Copyright Laws and Intellectual Property



Right To Sell Your Own Stuff Is In Peril

This update corrects the spelling of Georgetown Law School’s Jonathan Band.

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

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.

A Supreme Court case could limit the resale of goods made overseas but sold in America.

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. AAPL -2.04% 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.

There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. EBAY -1.48% and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.

“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

Better made in the U.S.A.

While American men's brands once prized European craftsmanship or appreciated low-cost production from the Far East, some of the best fashion now is made right here in the U.S. Martin Marks talks menswear. (Photo: AP)

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

Edited by: Ganja Jane on Nov 8, 2014 - 5:01am
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 - 4:02pm
Ganja Jane
Joined: Aug 7, 2011

Part Deux to pervious post:

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or “copies manufactured domestically” were.

“That’s a non-free-market capitalistic idea for something that’s pretty fundamental to our modern economy,” Ammori commented.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case on Oct. 29.

Both Ammori and Band worry that a decision in favor of the lower court would lead to some strange, even absurd consequences. For example, it could become an incentive for manufacturers to have everything produced overseas because they would be able to control every resale.

It could also become a weighty issue for auto trade-ins and resales, considering about 40% of most U.S.-made cars carry technology and parts that were made overseas.

This is a particularly important decision for the likes of eBay and Craigslist, whose very business platform relies on the secondary marketplace. If sellers had to get permission to peddle their wares on the sites, they likely wouldn’t do it.

Moreover, a major manufacturer would likely go to eBay to get it to pull a for-sale item off the site than to the individual seller, Ammori added.

In its friend-of-the-court brief, eBay noted that the Second Circuit’s rule “affords copyright owners the ability to control the downstream sales of goods for which they have already been paid.” What’s more, it “allows for significant adverse consequences for trade, e-commerce, secondary markets, small businesses, consumers and jobs in the United States.”

Ammori, for one, wonders what the impact would be to individual Supreme Court justices who may buy and sell things of their own. He himself once bought an antique desk from a Supreme Court justice. “Sometimes it’s impossible to tell where things have been manufactured,” he said. “Who doesn’t buy and sell things? Millions of Americans would be affected by this.”

If the Supreme Court does rule with the appellate court, it’s likely that the matter would be brought to Congress to force a change in law. Until then, however, consumers would be stuck between a rock and a hard place when trying to resell their stuff.

"La cucaracha, la cucaracha, Ya no quieres caminar, Porque no tienes, Porque le falta, Marihuana que fumar."
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 - 7:40pm
Silver Spurs
Joined: Sep 17, 2011


Anyone besides me... thinking... black market. Don't think this is much to worry about, too much disruption to business which both political parties need. Supreme Ct. knows this. (Lawsuits... don't you just love the stupid ones that come before the courts!)

Thu, Oct 18, 2012 - 3:44am
Joined: Jul 21, 2012

Another Reason To Ignore the Gang of 545 AKA the DOTS

Just walk away from the DOTS and ignore the parasitic control freaks.

Just remember we do NOT need the DOTS, the truth is the DOTS need us.

Ignore them and take back your freedoms.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.


The only option left is to just simply walk away, ignore the TINY DOTS because truth be told we do NOT need the TINY DOTS, not in the least. The fact is, the TINY DOTS needs us to continue their funding so they can control us, suppression us, dictate to us and confine us.

We do NOT need the TINY DOTS.....the TINY DOTS needs us......

WE do NOT need the TINY DOTS.....the TINY DOTS needs us.....

We do NOT need the TINY DOTS.....the TINY DOTS needs us......

WE do NOT need the TINY DOTS.....the TINY DOTS needs us.....

When you realize this, the TINY DOTS becomes IRRELEVANT and you become free.

This is the TINY DOTS greatest fear, if the throng in mass wakes up to the simple fact and realizes they do NOT need the TINY DOTS then the TINY DOTS will lose all power, all control and all suppression of the throng.