Slashdot Mirror
First-Sale Doctrine Lost Overseas
Max Hyre writes "In a 4-4 decision, the US Supreme court let
stand the Ninth Circuit's decision that
the First-Sale Doctrine (which says once you buy something, the maker
gets no say in what you do with it) only applies to goods
made in the US. That Omega watch you bought in Switzerland last
year? It's yours now—forever. You can't sell
it without Omega's permission."
The headline is overstating things a lot. The First-Sale Doctrine isn't lost overseas. Since this is a 4-4 tie decision by the Supreme Court, only the lower court decision is upheld. There is no precedential force behind the decision at all. Thus, the only thing that can be said about this is that Costco loses this particular instance, but the right of First-Sale overseas remains in effect since this decision isn't useful for any subsequent precedent.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109077/ --- A good analysis of what happens when a tied decision occurs.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
The summary is written is misleading. The distinction made by the Ninth Circuit depends both on where an item was made as well as where it was sold. If you legally purchase a foreign made product in the US (ie from an authorized reseller like Walmart), then the right of first sale still applies. However, you can't buy foreign products in a foreign country and then resell them in the US without permission.
I still think it's a bad decision but the summary makes it out to be even worse.
The prohibition is on distribution of copies or derivative works. Not resale of the original.
Specifically due to the 'first sale' doctrine - the copyright holder controls distribution only through the first transaction, not through subsequent transactions. Since this ruling says that 'first sale' does not apply to goods procured outside the US, it means that the copyright holder does retain distribution control of the original copyrighted work.
It's an absolutely unforgivably terrible ruling, but that's what it says.
I can top it. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the SCOTUS decided that corporations were people and thus entitled to 14th amendment protection.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
The Bill of Rights to the constitution grants no rights. Its evident if you read it. The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say it grants any rights or freedoms. It recognizes the freedom and rights of the people that already existed. Indeed to be even more clear the 9th amendment reads
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Where do these other rights come from if you think they come from the constitution? Clearly the founders of our country realized that the rights of men were not granted by governments, but came from some other higher power; they said so in the Declaration of Independence. Your views on rights being granted at whim by the government lead to a statist tyranny. Dread Scott was wrong on law and on the merits.