Supreme Court To Decide Whether Or Not You Own What You Own

Jafafa Hots writes "The Supreme Court is set to decide, in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, whether or not First Sale Doctrine applies to products made with parts sourced from outside the United States. If the Supreme Court upholds an appellate ruling, it would mean that the IP 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. Your old used CDs, cell phone, books, or that Ford truck with foreign parts? It may not be yours to sell unless you get explicit permission and presumably pay royalties. '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."

Comments

Let them do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will provide a huge boost to US manufacturing jobs!

Re:Let them do it.

[qbast]

Actually no, it will be the opposite.

Re:Let them do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Do you know how much money US car makers "loose" to used car sales? Imagine now that you can't resell a car made in Mexico.

Re:Let them do it.

[zidium]

What's your reasoning?

If this horrendous piece of judicial fascism becomes law against all that is holy and in the Constitution, then I would see it as a major boon to U.S. manufacturers.

ANd if this passes, I will try my darndest to get my state (Texas) to re-establish its republic and get the fuck out of this forced-by-gunpoint union. And then I'm going to join the new Texas Armed Forces to defend the republic from both Mexico and the U.S. ;-/

Re:Let them do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that any sane company is going to go out of their way to manufacture as much as possible outside the U.S. so that they get to decide whether or not you can sell it. If I'm an electronics company, and I can build the phones I'm going to sell in America, in either America or China, and you need the manufacturer's permission to sell something not bult in America, why would I build in the U.S.? If I build in China, I can force my customers to buy new phones because they aren't allowed to buy used ones.

Re:Let them do it.

[mabhatter654]

This will be a boon to US "companies" ... You know the "designed in California" "built in China" guys....

This is about books... So the company wants its USA copyright to apply everywhere, but sell the same book for $20 outside the US and for $100 inside the US. Basically they want "shrink wrap" license on books similar to region coding on DVDs.

Re:Let them do it.

[hrvatska]

You'll still be able to resell the car made in Mexico, you'll just have to pay a reseller fee to the auto company that manufactured and imported the car.

Re:Let them do it.

[Ol Olsoc]

If this horrendous piece of judicial fascism becomes law against all that is holy and in the Constitution, then I would see it as a major boon to U.S. manufacturers.

ANd if this passes, I will try my darndest to get my state (Texas) to re-establish its republic and get the fuck out of this forced-by-gunpoint union. And then I'm going to join the new Texas Armed Forces to defend the republic from both Mexico and the U.S. ;-/

Since you could never sell your vehicle, you'll keep it until it's run into the ground. Not very conducive to the trade in model.

And ease up a little on the caffeine.

Re:Let them do it.

[Golddess]

As much as possible? IANAL, but it sounded like even if the only part of the car that was manufactured outside the US was the car's cupholder, then you'd need permission from that cupholder company to sell the car.

Re:Let them do it.

[sgt_doom]

Obviously at least qbast has abstract intelligence here today. Thanx.

Re:Let them do it.

[JohnFen]

Except that any sane company is going to go out of their way to manufacture as much as possible outside the U.S. so that they get to decide whether or not you can sell it.

That's sociopathic behavior, so definition no company that does it is sane. Unfortunately, most multinational companies are sociopathic.

Re:Let them do it.

[ai4px]

Any guesses as to how much the "reseller fee" will be? How many people would buy a used car if the price of the car was artificially increased to within a breath of a new car price? New car goes for $20k, used 2 year old car sells for $10k. GM (or Ford or Toyota) tacks on a reseller fee of $10k, and you'll never sell that old car. Your potential buyers would just as soon buy a new car.

Re:Let them do it.

[hrvatska]

Why charge as much as $10k? If car companies could get away with something like a reseller fee it would be low at first. Once one company does it and gets away with it other companies will follow suit. Sort of how airlines introduced all the fees they now charge. At first it would be called something like 'post sale regulatory coverage fee', and be justified as being needed to cover expenses related to government mandated recalls. Once most new cars were covered by a resell fee then the cost of it would start to rise.

Re:Let them do it.

[rally2xs]

And if I'm a customer, I ain't buyin' squat from overseas, and only from US manufacturers so's I can sell the stuff later. So, moving the company overseas may just result in far fewer sales.

Re:Let them do it.

[viperidaenz]

unless you removed the cupholder before selling.

Re:Let them do it.

[viperidaenz]

Are you implying the judges can't be sold without foreign permission?

Re:Let them do it.

[cbiltcliffe]

That's a derivative work. Copyright violation.

Re:Let them do it.

[sjames]

If, for example, a car has zero resale value by law, it will immediately be worth a lot less to a buyer than a similar all American made car.

The Supremes would have to have several extra holes in their heads to even think about making such a ruling. They would destroy many billions of dollars in value with a single bang of the gavel. They would have a dreadful time sorting out the issue of anything bought prior to the ruling where the decision was in part or in full based on resale, particularly if the explicit purpose was resale.

They would also wipe out major auction sites, any second hand store, all used car lots, and many retail operations. Destroying the entire underpinning of ownership in law is not appropriate for even the Supreme Court.

Re:Let them do it.

[Teancum]

Is the Texas State Militia recruiting?

Re:Let them do it.

[countach]

It's also an environmental disaster. Anything that puts a limit on reuse and resale encourages the throw-away society.

Re:Let them do it.

[mrchaotica]

All corporations are sociopathic by design

Re:Let them do it.

[Lucractius]

This is contingent on the judges being cognizant of the systemic effects of the decision and basing a judgement on those effects being blatantly unreasonable.
If I'm not mistaken, they are meant to be deciding if that's what the law as passed by congress was meant to do or not.
Not if the outcome is potentially the start of the second american civil war.

Its a coin toss in my mind. Its easy to see both sides, one side appears to be a major plus for the profits & health of american companies and the economy as a whole, the other seems to be missing out on those advantages, however is better due to potentially unforeseen (by the judges) socioeconomic consequences implicit in not choosing this decision.

I would like to think the decision wont destroy first sale doctrine, however based on precedent in lower courts and the previous decision Omega S.A v. Costco Wholesale Corp. I see the distinct possibility that the court may decided in such a way as to subtly gut first use to the core for the entire USA and cause havoc and chaos.

On the other hand, nothing stops public economic pressure (car you can resell is worth more, and sells higher brand new, so 'first sale doctrine rights' may wind up like factory installed aircon and mag wheels as a little plus on luxury cars, and congress or state legislatures might try to mandate manufacturers of certain things such as cars to make their grant of sale rights a requirement for the products to be sold in a state. Such as the 'may cause cancer' warnings required by California.

Re:Let them do it.

[toddestan]

What would undoubtedly happen is that car manufacturers would waive that fee if you trade in your old GM or Toyota car for a new GM or Toyota car. So while the used car market would not be wiped out, it would be under the complete control of the auto manufacturers which I'm sure they would be quite happy with.

Re:Let them do it.

[KingBenny]

the EU bureacracy does its best to chase all big business from europe asap but at least they got a few things right, like the right to re-sell your digital goods. Consumers need to be able to consume or their whole dated system goes to hell, right.
i suppose that law could be easily extended to "yes, you can still sell your car like everyone has been able to for the last 200 years ? how old are cars actually i have no clue, probably something to do with the steam engine like all the rest)

Might be incentive to buy American?

[gorfie]

That would certainly deter me from buying products that were manufactured or contained parts that were manufactured abroad. People would be determined to buy domestic products (assuming they even exist these days). That said, it was clear that I could sell my car without permission when I bought it - changing the terms after the sale seems very wrong. If they implement this rule, they should specify that it applies to sales after a point in time in the future.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would certainly deter me from buying products that were manufactured or contained parts that were manufactured abroad.

But it would incentivize companies to build stuff abroad. Once they've imported it they can voluntarily give purchasers control over it anyway if that helps build sales, but it's something they can turn on and off to their own benefit. If they build in the US then they don't have the option. So why build in the US?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[pesho]

That would certainly deter me from buying products that were manufactured or contained parts that were manufactured abroad.

Name one such product.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[jimbolauski]

Did the contract you signed to purchase the car explicitly say you have the right to resell the car and all of its components? I have not read purchase agreement in a long time but if that statement is not in there, then you were not granted the right to resell without permission if the appellate court's ruling is upheld. Unless your car is 50 years old I doubt that 100% of the parts are made in the US and you would fall into the you are boned category.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[P-niiice]

Exactly, and anything that benefits companies is good to go with this court. Thomas would snore in agreement.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[firex726]

Ya know most things that are listed as "Made in America" are only partly made here, maybe assembled from parts manufactured abroad.

You'd have to in effect recreate the entire manufacturing and mining industries from scratch.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[WillAdams]

Bear Archery still makes bows in the U.S. Tour of the factory here:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=428012

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[EasyTarget]

So the the best example of something wholly made 'made in America' is a weapon.
Well done.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[gstoddart]

Did the contract you signed to purchase the car explicitly say you have the right to resell the car and all of its components?

But since we already have right of first sale, the presumption has always been that it is our property, and that we are free to sell it.

This would literally change it so that everything is essentially licensed, and you don't own it.

And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary.

This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Jawnn]

That would certainly deter me from buying products that were manufactured or contained parts that were manufactured abroad. People would be determined to buy domestic products (assuming they even exist these days). That said, it was clear that I could sell my car without permission when I bought it - changing the terms after the sale seems very wrong. If they implement this rule, they should specify that it applies to sales after a point in time in the future.

You'd have to change a lot more than the automotive industry. Otherwise, you would not be able to afford that "all American made" vehicle. That's right. The simple fact is that it costs more to build a car in the U.S. than it does to build, and deliver, a car made in Japan or Korea. But damage to the economy, done by off-shoring huge chunks of our jobs, is so widespread that only a fortunate few now have the income to be such "patriotic" consumers. This is by design. Yes, it is, and TFA is nothing if not yet another indication of that design. Look of the word "serfdom". You are on the path to it.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[roccomaglio]

Justice Thomas has stated he does not feel that he is listening when he is thinking about what to say, so he does not ask questions. It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping. The interesting thing is that some of the pro corporate stuff comes out the liberal side of the court. For instance Keho, this was where the supreme court decided that the government could seize property via eminate domain and give it to a corporation. The logic was that the government would receive more tax revenue from the new use. The conservative side produced citizen united which basically lets corporation give unlimited money to political speech.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also mean that most garage sales would have to get raided in case there was a stereo or DVD player on sale and many donations to organizations such as Good Will or Salvation Army would not be allowed. Hurray! We can still put that stuff in the landfill though. I remember that appellate court ruling when it was mentioned here or on Arstechnica. At the time I wondered just how they could come to such a ludicrous decision.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Henry Arms

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[medcalf]

It's Kelo, not Keho, but otherwise a spot-on comment. I would like to think that this would be an obvious, slam-dunk decsion, but after Kelo and Reich, I don't know that there are such things any more. Which, by the way, just points out the infinite danger of the "living Constitution" philosophy: it inevitably leads to the rule of man (that is, arbitrary and capricious rule, rather than the rule of law, which is predictable and not tied to personalities), by the mechanism of making the law meaningless without constant, case-by-case interpretation.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[bsDaemon]

Frankly, I suspect that most people will never have heard of this case. A quick Google for the case gives first-page results that are mainly on blogs. Market Watch and Reason Magazine are the only two reasonably well-known publications on the first page of Google results (some people might argue scotus blog, but let's face it, that blog caters to a niche's niche and no one would have heard of it if cameras had been allowed inside the Supreme Court for the Obamacare ruling). I subscribe to Wall Street Journal and Reason, and if this story was every played up in either of those, then I must have totally missed it, because this is the first time I'm hearing of it.

Rather than making people determined to buy American, I suspect that most people will go along doing as they always have, completely oblivious of this ruling, until such time as they finally get screwed by it. However, by that time it will be too late, and much like TSA and the security state, kids will just grow up accepting that's the way things are and reacting in disbelief when their parents or grandparents tell them there was ever a time when people could engage in commerce without interference or that cell phones used to only have 2 'apps' -- one that made calls and one that stored ~10-20 phone numbers and that was it.

Now, I except the ruling will be in our favor, but if its not, I also see new business opportunities to take advantage of the situation. Much like titling companies, you'll probably see companies pop up to take care of all the necessary legal hassle associated with prepping used cars or whatever have you for sale, taking a cut of the proceeds. Hell, I just might start one myself.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen more of a fuss about this kicked up by conservation/environmental groups, though. Blocking the used/second hand market would be disastrous for the environment, since people would have to keep buying newly made durable goods. That's not even to mention the economic effect it would have on the poor who rely on the used car market.

However, I really just can't see any situation in which people go on a 'Buy American' kick because of this.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mellon]

This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.

The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.

So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[CaptSlaq]

So the the best example of something wholly made 'made in America' is a weapon. Well done.

Is a bow. A bow can be used as a weapon, certainly; So can your car.
Words mean something. Most bows these days are used for sport or hunting. I don't recall a single news story where a bow was used as a weapon. More often knives (which you have in your kitchen, yes?) and firearms.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[pesho]

I will give you the bow and arrows. I also would like to thank you for the vivid picture your post painted in my imagination. A picture of a world were we all roam naked with nothing but a bow and arrow in our hands. Does Bear Archery take squirrel furs or sea shells as payment for their fine product?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[pesho]

I am pretty sure it shipped from China. I have the invoice and fedex tracking information to prove it.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[EasyTarget]

So.. let me get this right. An object with no other purpose than killing things is NOT a weapon.
Wow, you really set me straight there, we silly dizzy Europeans are just so dumb.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[adonoman]

Hunting weapons are still weapons... Every time you kill a deer with a bow you are using is as a weapon. The fact that bows are almost never used against people doesn't change the meaning of weapon.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cpt kangarooski]

It may be that the Court limits the case to that, but the appellate court that already heard this case said that first sale as codified does not apply to copies manufactured abroad even if imported by the copyright holder.

You can read it here if you like: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2678020953327425749&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The relevant bit is on p. 218 (look for the page numbers on the left hand side).

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Don't go into a "strict constitutionalist" spiel. No one that claims to be one actually is one right now. Scalia is only one when it benefits his buddies.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[MachineShedFred]

This would be the kind of court decision that would have Congress write an amendment codifying right of first sale, and having the House get somewhere around 418* "Yea" votes, followed by about 95* in the Senate. Obama would sign it, and roughy 50 states would ratify it.

Not only would it be the fasted amendment ever ratified, but it would be a clear message that the Supreme Court can go to hell if they're going to fuck around with the way commerce has worked in this country since before it was a country.

* there's always a few cranks that vote against the obvious flow, just to get their name in the press with a few quotes. They just want to grandstand, and nobody pays attention to them anyway.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. When was the last time you heard of someone being murdered by a flintlock, or better yet a halbard or pike or even a crossbow? Those are all still weapons, even if they're totally obsolete and no one uses them any more, and most surviving examples are in museums.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Grishnakh]

Personally, I think it'll be great. After they ban the resale of everything, they can set up a big new federal government department to handle enforcement of this, and clamp down on all Ebay sales, yard sales, Craigslist sales, etc. It'll be fun watching the US economy implode.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Grishnakh]

The simple fact is that it costs more to build a car in the U.S. than it does to build, and deliver, a car made in Japan or Korea.

What kind of stupid statement is this? It costs more to build cars in Japan than the US; in case you didn't know, Japan has extremely high labor costs. That's why every major Japanese manufacturer has assembly plants here in the US (usually in the South or in Ohio), because it's cheaper to build US-market cars here than to build them in Japan and ship them here.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[quintus_horatius]

The decision in Kelo was based on eminent domain being within state jurisdiction, where the taking was allowable according to Connecticut law, instead of federal jurisdiction. While the end result was a shame and did little to expand citizens' rights, it had nothing to do with a corporate bias because it was based on law and technicalities.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[JustOK]

Yes the term '''Eminate''' is a word(it is impossible to argue that it is not) or to be more precise eminate is a verb. It was coined by the legendary black philosopher of science and philologist Dr William F Fearon in 1999, one of the greatest academics of all-time. The verb '''Eminate''' means to praise and or to elevate. It has its origins in French/Latin etymology. It is in use in the business world in Europe and has been for several years.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Hatta]

Justice Thomas has stated he does not feel that he is listening when he is thinking about what to say, so he does not ask questions. It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping

Really? One of the finest legal minds in the country can't think on his feet? When I listen I come up with questions automatically. The very act of processing the information coming in produces questions. I'd go as far as to say that if you don't have questions after a talk, whether it's an argument, a speech, or a lecture, you weren't really listening.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[WillAdams]

No, closest one gets to bartering for larger manufacturers is groups like KT Ordnance which gives one a significant discount for paying w/ gold or silver:

http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/order.php

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[WillAdams]

I was hoping not to politicize the discussion, or I'd've posted a link like:

http://www.americansworking.com/guns.html

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[czth]

It's Kelo, not Keho, but otherwise a spot-on comment. I would like to think that this would be an obvious, slam-dunk decsion, but after Kelo and Reich

It's Raich, not Reich.... :)

Both wonderful rulings in the spirit of Wickard v. Filburn, too.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[WillAdams]

It was the first one I could think of where I was certain that I could find a set of factory tour photos which would be new to people.

I've actually decided that all of my future purchases will be made in the U.S., save where there's a traditional reason behind the importation, so have been collecting links like:

http://www.arrowmoc.com/

or

http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/mens/mens-collections/usa-made-tools-clothing/usa-made-tools-clothing.aspx

I wish that some politician would challenge America's retailers to fill their end caps w/ only Made in the U.S.A. products for the 4th of July holiday weekend.

William

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the conservative groups I follow are for the USSC overturning the appellate court ruling (which was the bad one). I think you're more likely to be surprised. Then again, because you post tired old canards like actual truth, you're more likely to bury your head in the sand when your freedoms are once again protected by the conservatives on the bench so you can claim ignorance the next time something like this comes down the pike and you go to lay your blame again.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[MitchDev]

A ruling supporting this idiotic idea would kill American Manufacturing...

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mellon]

There are actually two opposing rulings on this case—if you read the summary of the question before the court from their web site, you can get a clear picture. But my point is that it doesn't apply to patents. And you should read the appellate court decision more carefully—it explicitly refers to "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title..." IOW, not what you said.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Plekto]

Think of how many auto dealers alone would scream at this. No used car sales. In fact, I can right off the top of my head just keep coming up with example after example of businesses that sell used equipment. Ebay, for instance, would simply shut down. And they have pretty deep pockets last I checked.

And then there's the absurd part of it. That we actually are limiting ourselves as a nation based upon the IP and copyrights of other nations like China that ignore our same laws. We might as well just give up and move Congress to Shanghai. I really would like to know the thought process behind the idiot who first thought this up. Because once you think about it beyond your tiny little niche and apply it to everyone, it's a disaster.

Welcome to the U.S. Nobody can sell anything used - just throw it away.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[schroedingers_hat]

By putting it into landfill you are still transferring ownership.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mellon]

Oh, as for the bit on p. 218, the specific case they are talking about is where the copyright holder has granted publication rights in the U.S. to one company, and in Great Britain to another, and this second company attempts to import works printed in Great Britain into the U.S. In this case, they would not have permission from the copyright holder to do so, and hence the sale of these products in the U.S. would not be allowed.

Whether it should be possible to prevent such sales is certainly a question that I think is worth asking, and I think the answer should be "no." But what the law says about such sales is well established—they are not allowed.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[zidium]

Justice Thomas was only a judge for SIXTEEN MONTHS before he was put on the Supreme Court.

That's just ludicrous to me!

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[DeadCatX2]

Did the contract you signed to purchase the car explicitly say you have the right to resell the car and all of its components?

Does any contract even matter after I have paid off the car completely?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

The contract I signed for my car was a contract for payment, not for what I can and can't do with it. In fact the contract did not say I could drive it off the lot, stick the key in the ignition, wash the car, use the radio, or even sit in it. It was a sales contract that defined and acknowledged that money and ownership had changed hands.

In fact specific to cars, isn't the car sold to a dealer by the car company and then you buy it from the dealer? In terms of registering it with the state and getting a title you look like the first buyer but its not the first time the car was "sold", just the first time it was titled. In fact, dealers buy and sale cars from each other all of the time and then sale it to you. It's not considered used because it was never titled.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[swalve]

Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner. If the government abuses this right, throw the bums out.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[medcalf]

Agreed on Scalia, which is why I mentioned Reich. Thomas seems to be the only one who means it.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[medcalf]

Gah! Too much World in Flames lately for me, it would seem.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[swalve]

The contract of sale is different from the contract for the loan.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[medcalf]

It says that they can take property for public use. So taking it to give it to another private party, who in turn promised to develop it in a way that would bring in more tax revenue to the city, is not public use. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed. The icing on the cake, though, is that the proposed marina development fell through and New London would have made more in tax revenue if they'd not taken the property in the first place.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[interkin3tic]

This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.

This is pedantic, but I object to your statement implying that IP laws were not already ridiculous. That it could get worse is proof that anything can get worse, not that it wasn't already horribly fucked up beforehand.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mabhatter654]

This is specifically about buying things PUTSIDE the US that are comparable to here... Or the "gray market" items... Books, DVDs, TVs that have the generic "certification" but a different "model number" than what's sold at retail here.

Silly example, Sory TV 1a is sold for $200... Some guy in Hong Kong sells Sory TV 1b for $100 that is EXACTLY THE SAME, from the same factory even... Even has the same "FCC certified" sticker for customs.

Companies don't want "individuals" buying products at different prices overseas and selling them here cheaper.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Sique]

Sport weapons are still weapons. Just because you replace a real target with a symbolic one you don't change anything. A weapon is an instrument whose final purpose it is to inflict damage onto another object, be it living or not. The difference to a tool like a knife or an axe (which can be used as weapons too), is that the object, which you use a weapon on, serves no further purpose after the damage was done.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tompaulco]

Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner.
I actually saw this happen in a nearby city. There was an area predominantly populated by fixed income, older people who owned their own homes mortgage free. The city decided that they wanted to build a commercial area there. Cities hate residents, because residents cost them money, while commerce pays them money, so it is easy to understand why they would want to move commercial in. They ended up making lowball offers on hundreds of houses. Some people took them, some didn't. The city would also let you move your house, but they would only approve the moving permit from the city's chosen contractor, which was expensive. The longer people stayed, the lower the offers got, until finally some people had their house condemned out from under them for refusing to sell. Those who did move had to go from having no mortgage to having a mortgage on a more expensive house because most of these houses were in the $50k range and houses nearby that were available cost more like $75k, and they were only compensated about $35k for their houses. The city determined that was fair market rate because they were just going to tear the house down anyway, and nobody else would offer anywhere near $35k for a house that was going to be torn down.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tompaulco]

A ruling supporting this idiotic idea would kill American Manufacturing...
Yes, it would be literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. You move all manufacturing offshore, lowering costs somewhat, but not as much as you think. Meanwhile, you lay off all of your American workers, you bring in all of these goods that are slightly cheaper than if they had been made in the USA, and... nobody buys them except for the rich executives who profited from closing down American plants. Except, there are not enough rich executives to buy enough of the product, so the company goes bankrupt and people in China get laid off.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[sargeUSMC]

Man, I want to live in your United States, and not the real one that we have. Here's what would really happen in Congress if the USSC came down on the side of corporations in this decision: Nothing

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tompaulco]

Welcome to the U.S. Nobody can sell anything used - just throw it away.
You wouldn't be able to throw it away. That is a transfer of ownership. You would instead have to hope that someone will steal it from you, thus making them do the illegal thing instead of you. But if you try to arrange it to where it is easy to steal the item, they still might get you for aiding an abetting or something similar.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[lengau]

Just because you're using something for sport doesn't suddenly make it not a weapon.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[moeinvt]

"The decision in Kelo was based on eminent domain being within state jurisdiction, where the taking was allowable according to Connecticut law, instead of federal jurisdiction."

It's absolutely ridiculous that the Courts invoke the idea of "state powers" when it's convenient for them, but at other times insist that Constitutional protections (as per the 14th Amendment) supercede state law. Women have a Constitutional right(even though there is nothing about abortion in The Constitution) to have an abortion that no state can legislate against, but a state law can take precedence over the Fifth Amendment? WTF?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tompaulco]

In fact specific to cars, isn't the car sold to a dealer by the car company and then you buy it from the dealer? In terms of registering it with the state and getting a title you look like the first buyer but its not the first time the car was "sold", just the first time it was titled. In fact, dealers buy and sale cars from each other all of the time and then sale it to you. It's not considered used because it was never titled.
That's not even just specific to cars. Just about everything you buy (including most of the "wholesale to the public" stuff) has already been purchased by a company once and is being resold to you. A retail shop buys its stuff from a wholesaler and the resells it to you. Logically, if the government is going to say that you can't resell an item you purchased, that should also extend to the retailer, who is also reselling the product without even the addition of a value-add to make it a technically different product. Of course, the government will not do this because retailers are a powerful lobby, unlike consumers, who can do no worse than voting for the OTHER tyrant.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - if landfills are illegal, resale is illegal and transfer of ownership is illegal, maybe we Americans will finally start thinking about their purchases. . . . . . .

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[jedidiah]

State jurisdiction? Like having the right to own another human being? You mean that kind of "state jurisdiction"? The question of whether or not rights specified by the Bill of Rights can be enforced within states by the federal government is already well established. It's not 1850 any more.

States don't get to trample your rights. We had a big war about it and everything.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[fustakrakich]

You'd have to in effect recreate the entire manufacturing and mining industries from scratch.

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[jittles]

I would disagree that the purpose of things like target bows are created for the "purpose of damaging targets." Don't get me wrong, poking a hole in a piece of paper can be cathartic, but ultimately the point is to master a hobby that is fun, allows you to spend time outside, and do something physical and challenging. You could turn the challenge into shooting an arrow through a hoop, and having it hit a rock that remained completely undamaged and it would likely be just as relaxing as a paper and hay target. Just because you do not understand the enjoyment or purpose behind modern archery, doesn't mean that people only use bows and arrows to destroy things.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tilante]

Well, leaving aside hunting, where the purpose of the weapon is still to kill things, many (but admittedly not all) sport 'weapons' have been modified in ways that make it hard for them to inflict significant damage. For example, fencing 'swords' have blunt tips, blunt edges, and 'blades' that are very flexible -- all to make it difficult for them to actually inflict damage. Similarly with a Kendo shinai. Paint ball guns shoot paint balls instead of solid projectiles, and shoot them at a much lower velocity than real guns shoot their projectiles.

Things like those I wouldn't consider to be a real weapon -- but yeah, I have to agree that a hunting bow is still a real weapon.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[tilante]

Actually, crossbow deaths still happen - there are a fair number of crossbow hunters in the US, and they're just as likely as mistakenly shoot a person as hunters using guns. One happened last month, in fact: http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story/Owen-County-Woman-Dies-in-Crossbow-Accident/UzDm7-_IV0Wh7jV5dy_Ydw.cspx

Murder by crossbow happens as well, though it's less common: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-10801054 and http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/900745--man-shot-dead-with-crossbow-inside-main-st-library are two murders-by-crossbow from 2010.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cpt kangarooski]

There are actually two opposing rulings on this caseâ"if you read the summary of the question before the court [supremecourt.gov] from their web site, you can get a clear picture.

Actually that is saying that there is a circuit split; different courts in the US have different rulings on this question, and the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve the split and set a single nationwide precedent. But in this actual case, John Wiley & Sons v. Kirtsaeng, both the trial and appellate courts ruled against Kirtsaeng with regard to the first sale defense.

But my point is that it doesn't apply to patents.

I don't know enough patent law to know about the details of patet rights exhaustion, but there is sometimes cross pollenization of ideas between copyright and patent, e.g. inducement liability, so I wouldn't want to say that this will have no effect on patents at all.

And you should read the appellate court decision more carefullyâ"it explicitly refers to "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title..." IOW, not what you said.

Oh, as for the bit on p. 218, the specific case they are talking about is where the copyright holder has granted publication rights in the U.S. to one company, and in Great Britain to another, and this second company attempts to import works printed in Great Britain into the U.S. In this case, they would not have permission from the copyright holder to do so, and hence the sale of these products in the U.S. would not be allowed.

My apologies, I gave you a bad cite. The correct pages are 221-222. I'll just quote it directly:

This reading of the Copyright Act militates in favor of finding that 109(a) only applies to domestically manufactured works. While the Ninth Circuit in Omega held that 109(a) also applies to foreign-produced copies of works sold in the United States with the permission of the copyright holder, that holding relied on Ninth Circuit precedents not adopted by other courts of appeals. Accordingly, while perhaps a close call, we think that, in light of its necessary interplay with 602(a)(1), 109(a) is best interpreted as applying only to copies manufactured domestically. ...

In sum, we hold that the phrase "lawfully made under this Title" in  109(a) refers specifically and exclusively to copies that are made in territories in which the Copyright Act is law, and not to foreign-manufactured works.

Thus, the court is saying that even if a copyright holder manufactures a copy abroad and imports it into the US itself for sale here, because it was not made here, first sale as codified at section 109 does not apply.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Plekto]

I think you'd be able to recycle it, though. ;)

But seriously. This would be like coming up with a $1 tax on bullets. And then forgetting that it affects law enforcement, the military, and so on. THe idea (IIRC) was about software initially, but making it apply to physical items is sheer insanity.

My guess is that if this passes, that businesses will be able to re-sell items (since evidently only businesses are people any more - we're just meat-sacks with numbers attached), so either you'd have to apply for and pay re-seller's license fee, or give the item to a place that did.(ie- donate or "recycle")

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[pubwvj]

There are lots of products that are produced 100% within our country. I make such products. Lots of small businesses do. Perhaps this is the way to "Buy USA" happening, through judicial force. Ugh.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cayenne8]

It's absolutely ridiculous that the Courts invoke the idea of "state powers" when it's convenient for them, but at other times insist that Constitutional protections (as per the 14th Amendment) supercede state law. Women have a Constitutional right(even though there is nothing about abortion in The Constitution) to have an abortion that no state can legislate against, but a state law can take precedence over the Fifth Amendment? WTF?

If I recall....the abortion thing was ruled on on the basis of the right to "privacy", not so much the abortion itself, so, in that way, I supposed it overruled the states on that basis?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cayenne8]

He's too busy thinking about Anita Hill's tits to bother paying attention to what they're saying in the court room.

Maybe Thomas is still pondering his ruling that allowed Monsanto to patent and basically take over the whole soybean source of production in the US...?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[MitchDev]

Who needs to manufacture anything? We can all work in "service" industry jobs... you won't actually own anything ever again. You don't own your house, even if you have paid off your mortgage (try not paying your property taxes...)

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cayenne8]

Justice Thomas was only a judge for SIXTEEN MONTHS before he was put on the Supreme Court.

That's just ludicrous to me!

From what I understand..technically you don't have to have been a judge prior to, or even a lawyer at ALL, in order to qualify as a Supreme Ct. Justice.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, a typical Libertarian/Republican dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest type of idiot. Yeah, let's do it your way and eliminate job placement for people with disabilities, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, public transportation, food stamps, community colleges, state universities, pell grants, and student loans to make this nation a dog-eat-dog/survival-of-the-fittest nation. Oh, you can't get a job because employers are refusing to hire you due to your disability or race? Yeah, let's do it your way and tell them "Tough shit, just die!" Yeah, let's go back to the days of racism and discrimination. After all isn't that the Losertarian and Rethuglican vision of "The American way"?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Kjella]

The city determined that was fair market rate because they were just going to tear the house down anyway, and nobody else would offer anywhere near $35k for a house that was going to be torn down.

Of course they wouldn't, but that's a fucked up way to calculate a price. The price should at the very least be what it would have been, if the government wasn't trying to expropriate it. I'm not entirely opposed to public expropriation, but it should absolutely not be a way for the government to get property at below market value.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Digicaf]

He's saying that when you "come up with questions automatically", that detracts from your cognitive listening skills because at least part of your thought is directed to the question and not what's being said. I have to agree with him. No matter how good you think you are, when you start thinking of questions while listening to something you take away some attention that could have otherwise been spent on listening and understanding.

Most people who've taught or given presentations would attest that people who think they can talk (or think of questions) and listen at the same time are deluding themselves.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[phantomfive]

A lot of outrage in the world would be gone, if people took the time to understand what they were outraged about.

But hey, outrage is fun.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[gr8_phk]

Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner. If the government abuses this right, throw the bums out.

Nice. It says they can seize the property FOR PUBLIC USE as long as the properly compensate the owner. It does not say they can take it from one private owner and give it to another because the other will pay more in taxes. Although this is what SCOTUS has decided the correct interpretation should be.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Politburo]

The Court in no way said that a state law takes precedence over the 5th, they ruled the 5th was satisfied. Probably best to read the decision yourself rather than rely on some random slashdotters interpretation.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[ProfBooty]

I thought they opened plants here to get around import limits due to Voluntary Export Restraints negotiated in the 1980s? Wasn't that one of the reasons that infiniti, acura, and lexus were created?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[ProfBooty]

and Diamond Star motors.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about that, but it's common knowledge that Japanese (and German) labor rates are significantly higher than American (non-union) labor rates. Lower labor rates == lower manufacturing costs. Hence, we have lots of Honda, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes plants here in the US.

As for the luxury Japanese brands, those were created so they could sell upscale Japanese cars. Back in the 80s, "Honda" and "Toyota" were brands equated with cheap, reliable, but non-fancy transportation. American buyers weren't going to buy a "Honda" that cost as much as a Cadillac, when this was the same company that sold the inexpensive bare-bones Civic. So they copied the Americans: they created luxury divisions. No one would buy a highly expensive Ford or Chevy (except the Corvette, but that's not a luxury car), however they will buy a Lincoln or Cadillac.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[DM9290]

Not only would it be the fasted amendment ever ratified, but it would be a clear message that the Supreme Court can go to hell if they're going to fuck around with the way commerce has worked in this country since before it was a country.

I think you don't understand the role of the supreme court. The supreme court is not a political body. It interprets the laws as they are written in the facts of the specific cases at hand. If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states, then the rules of statutory interpretation would imply that goods made someplace else are treated differently. Otherwise the phrase "inside the United States" would be redundant, and the legislature is presumed to NOT speak redundantly so as to give each word in a statute full effect. Once the court is allowed to assume words are redundant then that opens up a huge can of worms for different courts interpreting statutes in unpredictable ways. The court is required to assume that anything legislature put into law, no matter how strange it seems, was done intentionally.

If any message is being sent by this, it would be the court sending a message to the legislature to write betters laws in the first place.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[citylivin]

"Most people who've taught or given presentations would attest that people who think they can talk (or think of questions) and listen at the same time are deluding themselves."

Really? Bringing a pad of paper (or smartphone) to note down comments for the question period in a meeting isnt standard where you work? People just rely on their awesome memories, or what?

You can easily take 10 seconds to note down a comment for later without detracting from your listening ability at all. If I can do it, and my job is not specifically to listen and ask questions, I am sure someone whoes entire job revolves around listening to lawyers and other extremely boring and esoteric people all day, can make the effort to learn that skill - if they have somehow gone through life without it.

its a cop out plain and simple. These people dictate the laws for your entire country (sometimes the world), yet cant be bothered to take basic notes for their own reference? bullshit.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[MachineShedFred]

That's all well and good, except that we know the court has effectively legislated from the bench in the past. Besides, there are several statements in US law including in the Constitution, which are arcane.

For example, an African-American citizen gets to vote as a single person today, rather than three-fifths of a person which is written in the Constitution.

I agree that Congress should write better laws, with language far more pithy than in use today (1000-page bills that nobody has read, etc.).

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[qeveren]

I think this is about when you go buy some mercury and "accidentally" spill it on your property before taking the buyout money.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[QuantumPion]

The conservative side produced citizen united which basically lets corporation give unlimited money to political speech.

No. Citizens United case lets people, including groups of people organized into organizations such as corporations or unions, SPEND unlimited money on political speech. In other words, you are now allowed to not only spend a little money on cheap leaflets, but you may spend large amounts of money for example publishing a book or making a TV show. Before Citizens United case, you COULD NOT PUBLISH A BOOK, OR MAKE A TV SHOW that was considered by the court to be political in nature, before an election.

Let me repeat. Citizens United had NOTHING to do with GIVING money to politicians. Citizens United was about spending money on speech.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[sjames]

Then why have Japanese car companies opened factories in the U.S.?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[qeveren]

So, when are you moving to Somalia?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[thebigmacd]

Uhh...dead animals definitely serve a purpose...as food.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[countach]

No it wouldn't be a message to the Supreme Court. It would be Congress doing their job. It's not unusual that people find that the law isn't what they hoped and wanted it to be, and Congress has to step in to fix it. The court's job isn't to make the law what is convenient, it is to interpret it.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[r606]

".technically you don't have to have been a judge prior to, or even a lawyer at ALL, in order to qualify as a Supreme Ct. Justice." What's your point?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[IonOtter]

I have a question regarding eminent domain?

Suppose I go through all the work, all the effort, all the bargaining, and I've still lost. All options are completely exhausted, the "bad guys" are going to take my property out from under me.

Now, I know that I can't offer to "rent" my property to some company looking to quickly dispose of some toxic waste. That's illegal in the extreme.

But suppose I had a lot of disposable income, and wanted to give an incredibly agonizing "fuck you" to the bad guys.

I make sure to secure whatever permits I might need prior to starting construction. I rent a large crane drill, and proceed to sink 30' deep holes all over the place. All the edges, in the middle, right next to municipal water mains, you name it. I then fill those holes with steel reinforced concrete, to 10' up in the air. I start at the far corner and move across, making sure to arrange them so you cannot bring in any sort of backhoe or bulldozer.

In short, I plant a forest of concrete trees that cannot be dug up, cannot be easily demolished, will delay whatever project they have planned by several years, and cost the "bad guys" fifty times the money they sank into stealing my property in the first place.

The "bad guys" come in and take the property. I've already moved all my stuff out and poured the last "tree" in the driveway a week earlier. I drop the keys in their hand, laugh my ass off and drive away.

Would they have any legal recourse to come after me?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Digicaf]

No it's not. Definitely you should take some simple notes if you need them, but that's very different from developing questions about the material while it's being presented. Taking notes doesn't require understanding, and therefore requires almost no thought. Thinking of a question, however does take significant thought because it goes well beyond simply repeating the same material in a different format. This is especially true as the subject mater gets more complex. That's one reason why it's so much better to wait for questions until after the presentation.

Think about the process involved in both activities. In taking notes, auditory processing occurs as you hear the material and is quickly sent to the hand for writing. It's a simple, rote process that requires no real thought or effort. Developing a question, however, is much more complicated. You have to hear the material, process it for an appropriate level of understanding, discover an area for further investigation, formulate that into a coherent fragment, and speak it. The second process requires activation of a lot more of your cognitive centers than the first (especially since the first activity has been so thoroughly burned in).

In either case, the point is that you devote your full attention to the presenter so that you don't miss something. If you're thinking of a question, you're attention is on the question and not the presenter.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[swalve]

You can look at it two ways, both of which lead to the same answer. First, the "for public use" portion is a constraint on who does the taking, not on what happens after the taking is done. Secondly, "for public use" can mean almost anything. If the public, by way of their elected representatives, decides they need a riverwalk instead of a shantytown, then the taking is a public use. No matter who ends up ultimately owning it. The point of the clause is to force the government to compensate the property owner. A strict "public use only" interpretation would seem to force the government to never be able to rid itself of the property should it desire to. And even if all of that is wrong, the government can end-run around all of that by simply leasing to property to the entities they wish to occupy the property.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[swalve]

That would probably end up being some kind of intentional nuisance. Plus, they'd never give you the construction permits to do it, which means you'd be in trouble on that end too.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[alcmena]

Exactly. That is why Bush was able to nominate someone so unqualified that even the Republicans couldn't stomach the idea of approving her.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mellon]

Read it again: "This last sentence indicates that, in the Court's view, copies "lawfully made" under the laws of a foreign country — though perhaps not produced in violation of any United States laws — are not necessarily "lawfully made" insofar as that phrase is used in 109(a) of our Copyright Act.[42]" What the court is saying here is that the mere fact that the copyrighted materials were produced legally in the country where they were produced does not always mean that they are "lawfully made" under U.S. law. It does not say that they are never "lawfully made" under U.S. law, and if you read the rest of the text on the pages you reference, you can see that the court acknowledges that some imported copies—those that are made with the permission of the copyright owner—may be subject to the first sale doctrine.

As to the question of patents, it's true that a ruling in support of the District Court's decision could have implications that would carry over into patent law, but this ruling would not set a precedent that would apply to patent law.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mrchaotica]

And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary. This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.

It's more than that; this is the point where every patriotic American should say "enough is enough" and reach for the proverbial "fourth box!"

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cpt kangarooski]

It does not say that they are never "lawfully made"

But neither do they say that they might be. Saying that there is a less than 100% chance doesn't mean that it has to be more than 0%. Given the strong, unambiguous language repeated throughout--

109(a) is best interpreted as applying only to copies manufactured domestically. ... In sum, we hold that the phrase "lawfully made under this Title" in 109(a) refers specifically and exclusively to copies that are made in territories in which the Copyright Act is law, and not to foreign-manufactured works. ... To summarize, we hold that (1) the first sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States;

--I think they're not leaving open the hole you think they are.

As for which imported copies you think would be subject to first sale, could I have a quote?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mrchaotica]

If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states...

The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!

Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mrchaotica]

Frankly, I suspect that most people will never have heard of this case. A quick Google for the case gives first-page results that are mainly on blogs. Market Watch and Reason Magazine are the only two reasonably well-known publications on the first page of Google results (some people might argue scotus blog, but let's face it, that blog caters to a niche's niche and no one would have heard of it if cameras had been allowed inside the Supreme Court for the Obamacare ruling). I subscribe to Wall Street Journal and Reason, and if this story was every played up in either of those, then I must have totally missed it, because this is the first time I'm hearing of it.

I've gotten several emails from demandprogress.org about it. (That's the price of being an independent thinker, I guess: I get liberal petition emails and conservative survey mailers!)

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[mrchaotica]

Why would they need permission? They're not making any copies (but rather only moving around ones previously made legally), so copyright law should never kick in.

If anything, the company should be sued in Great Britain for breach of contract.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[rsborg]

I actually saw this happen in a nearby city.

Care to tell us which city this was? I'm not surprised this isn't something that is visible on the public's radar given the celibrity spam^Wnews that we are innundated with. but I'm really curious now.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[rsborg]

This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.

The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.

So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.

All of this is true, however if you look at the history of the infamous Citizens United case, you'll find that the court really went out of it's way to use the very narrow case at hand to prove something very much not intuitive from the facts that conveniently gave corporations unlimited power of funding political campaigns without public insight into who is funding them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Before_the_Court

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[chrismcb]

That said, it was clear that I could sell my car without permission when I bought it - changing the terms after the sale seems very wrong. If they implement this rule, they should specify that it applies to sales after a point in time in the future.

They aren't changing the terms. They are clarifying them.
Who made it clear you could resell the car? The dealer? You COULD argue that you had the manufacturers permission (of course you didn't have all the manufacturers permission, which of course is impossible.
Do you know why government hammers cost $400 dollars (or some ridicules amount) it is because there needs to be paperwork on the entire manufacturing process. So you can trace a part all the way to the raw materials. This paperwork doesn't exist. You have to have permission from EVERY manufacturer of every part in the product, and the manufacturers of the parts, and the manufacturers of the parts for the parts.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[ccanucs]

ebay would be kinda hosed as well - right?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[squiggleslash]

The supreme court did not disagree. Most of the complaints about the ruling were from people who refused, point blank, to find out what the court actually ruled.

What SCOTUS ruled was that they, as a group of old people in a city hundreds of miles away, who had never visited the area, had no real way to tell whether the city's decision was legitimate - that the city was better qualified to define "Public use" than it was.

That's all. It never ruled the scheme "constitutional", contrary to myth, nor said it was a good idea. It merely stated that they weren't in a position to judge and therefore stop it.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[DM9290]

If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states...

The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!

Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.

Copyright revokes the normal rights other owners have over their own property. The US is the most copyright crazy country the world has ever known by the way. Beyond even the Soviet Union.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[HornWumpus]

So it's Disney squashing 'Song of the South' resales?

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Holladon]

You're confused, and your apparent resentment of women's constitutional right to bodily integrity does not vouch for your rationality, but here goes anyway: The state law did not take precedence over the Fifth Amendment. The state law, instead, allowed for the delegation of the state's eminent domain power to a corporation, and there was no constitutional provision that made such delegation invalid. Part of the analysis was whether or not the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement could be read more broadly as a public purpose. The Court held that it could, the state law in question was constitutional, and the taking was for a valid public purpose/public use. The fact that a state law influenced the Court's reasoning does not mean the state law preempted the US Constitution. There are no state laws that preempt the US Constitution. None. At most, there are state laws that do not VIOLATE the Constitution, and/or are simply outside of the scope of the Constitution, which means that those laws are, wait for it, CONSTITUTIONAL. Get it? The Court held that the state law in question was constitutional, which means that the Constitution was what took precedence.

Next time you're looking for a good rage outlet for your uterus envy, it would behoove you to actually have a clue what you're talking about first.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[cavebison]

Australian capital city here. You can buy houses - actual houses - over there for under $400k? Consider yourself lucky!

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Tastecicles]

He's not the only judge who falls asleep during hearings. HHJ Thorpe (Family Division of England's High Court) is famous for it: I've been in the room when he fell asleep *while delivering a judgement!*

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Tastecicles]

A bow isn't a weapon. It's a projectile launcher. I've used a compound bow to launch a rope leader. Nothing died, but a brick face was severely inconvenienced. A rifle or pistol are also not weapons. They are projectile launchers. Rifles during WWII were used to fire grapnels to scale cliffs. The projectiles are what makes it a weapon.

Re:Might be incentive to buy American?

[Tastecicles]

I would rather buy a Bickerstaffe or a Beauchamp. Oh wait, I already have a Bickerstaffe *and* a Beauchamp. The Bear went back after one of the leaves started to splinter.

That is virtually every electronic device.

[AlabamaCajun]

Almost any electronic device and all autos made after the 50s or 60s that has an imported part of some sort. Do we take it to the next level with minerals and metals imported too? I think this has about as much chance of standing as a two legged stool.

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[Sique]

Please remember, if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[guruevi]

Have you looked recently at any component. I have here an electronic prototype box (plastic and PCB) that has 9 patent numbers printed on it. My car has a laundry list of them, computers and software have a bunch of them attached to them.

Almost everything you buy (including certain screws - see Torx) have patents attached to them.

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[Targon]

The problem is that pretty much every product these days uses computer chips or various sorts, which WILL have all sorts of copyrights, patents, and such. Since many chips are made outside the USA, that DOES mean that just about everything has at least one element that comes from a foreign country.

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[The Rizz]

if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.

...or a trademarked logo anywhere on it, or any type of computer chip (the code is copyrighted), or they don't stamp a copyrighted patten into the plastic/metal/whatever... so, in other words, it only holds to non-raw materials (i.e., pretty much everything a consumer will ever actually purchase).

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[drinkypoo]

Sounds cool. I can trivially eliminate anything like that from my car and my truck, which are mechanically-regulated diesels. My car is german but has no ABS etc and cruise doesn't work anyway. The truck has RABS but it's Kelsey-Hayes. This will immensely magnify the value of my vehicles, though I will have to go shopping for a new head unit for my car.

Re:That is virtually every electronic device.

[Artraze]

As a historical note, just about every screw had was patented at some point, aside, perhaps, from slot heads. For instance, when Ford was designing the Model T, he ultimately picked Phillips head for the screws because he could more easily license the patent for that than he could the patent for the square/Robertson head which he otherwise preferred. It's also worth pointing out that the Torx patent expired about 20 years ago now, though there is a much newer Torx Plus which may covered. "Torx" is still a trademark though; "hexalobular" tends to be the generic. (That's probably why adoption seems to be increasing, and I'm glad because it's really the best head around; especially vs Phillips which is pretty much designed to be awful for general use)

That's crazy talk.

[Anonymous Coward]

When something is sold, it is no longer the sellers, it's the buyers.
This rediculous IP notion has gotten out of hand.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[Zimluura]

i wish i could mod this post "+1 obvious but necessary"

Re:That's crazy talk.

[Hanzie]

+1 obvious, but has to be screamed in the face of idiots.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual property rights are fundamentally incompatible with tangible property rights. You can have one, but not the other. We're careening backward toward the age of guilds and fiefdoms at breakneck speed, and if the court upholds this decision we should interpret it as nothing short of a full broadside attack on property rights, and respond appropriately.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[squiggleslash]

...and yet a lot of people, on Slashdot, don't agree with you.

I remember when Real Networks reverse engineered the iPod's DRM and shipped a program that copied Rhapsody (then owned by Real) music to the iPod. How people howled.

Some, rightly, complained that Real's actions were simply propping up DRM and DRM is wrong (although Rhapsody is a fairly good example of a "good" use of DRM if DRM is going to exist anyway, but that's another issue...) But a lot of people were furious that Real had hacked "Apple's" iPod and that Real was being unethical for copying music to "Apple's" devices and it was quite right that Real would need permission from Apple to do that.

The notion that, actually, an iPod belonged to the buyer, not Apple, and that it was the buyer's decision what to do with it was generally considered flamebait...

The world is complex. Technology is complicated. I shouldn't have to bring my lawyer into Best Buy with me when I buy a fucking MP3 player. If I buy one, it should be mine, end of story, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it as long as I don't break the law doing so. You want me not to copy the firmware? That's fine, because I can't legally copy it anyway. You want me to not install my own firmware, or reverse engineer what's on it, or sell content I've recorded on the device using the audio recording feature (contianing no third party content), or paint it blue? F you, that's not your decision.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[kav2k]

This rediculous IP notion has gotten out of hand.

What, just now?

Re:That's crazy talk.

[tompaulco]

When something is sold, it is no longer the sellers, it's the buyers.
Well, that just makes sense. Unfortunately, the sellers don't seem to like that. But if they don't like that, then perhaps they should just keep it and not sell it at all. Or they could 'license" it at a severely reduced charge and take all the responsibility for the product.
In exchange for letting us do whatever we want with our purchased product, we could agree to not sue them or even complain when the product breaks when not used for its intended purpose. They can feel free to only warrant the product for its intended use and if we want to do something with it outside of that scope, then the warranty becomes null and void.
For example, if you want to install Linux on your PS#, then Sony should not be allowed to prevent you, but should not have to be responsible if you brick your PS3 or it will no longer play games.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[girlintraining]

..., and I should be able to do whatever I want with it as long as I don't break the law doing so

Whups. You were doing so well until then, too. Let me ask you a single, very simple question: Do you know all of the laws which may be applicable to you? No, of course you don't. Our own government can no longer count the number of federal laws alone. Many of those laws are badly or vaguely written. Did you know, for example, that if you possess a fish that is illegal to possess, own, transport, or consume anywhere in the world, that's a federal crime? That's right: Our own laws make references to the laws of other countries! Have you reviewed the laws of the other 176 countries currently on the planet as well?

You can start to see the problem here. Right now, everyone reading this is likely doing something illegal. Any officer will tell you -- you follow someone long enough, and they'll commit a crime. Justifiably, even. You can't operate a motor vehicle for any length of time without committing some kind of moving violation. And that's just one example of one daily activity of yours... amongst dozens.

My point is this: You shouldn't do (or not do) something based on whether you think it's illegal. The legality of a thing stopped being relevant a long time ago -- everything is illegal. In california, oxygen "is known to cause cancer" (old joke: Californian visits Minnesota and shortly after passes out. He is revived by putting his head under a car's exhaust). The law has degraded into pure idiocy, and anyone who still thinks it should form the basis of any kind of ethical or moral behavior is severely deluded or selling something. Do what's right -- you're going to pay for it anyway. Might as well be damned for what you really are.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[rastoboy29]

I don't ever remember that outrage.

Apple was outraged.  /. was not.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[squiggleslash]

You can start to see the problem here

No, actually, I can't. What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote, and in what way is it an objection to the concept that a manufacturer should have no say in what I use something for after they've sold it to me?

Be clear about this: in order to refute my argument with yours, you need to be claiming that the law is so complex, as you state it, that manufacturers need the right to impose additional obscure legal requirements on me after I've bought something.

What. The. Fuck?

Hell no. Complain all you want about the number of obscure laws, about Georgian towns where riding a bicycle while wearing a short skirt makes you liable for nearby breaches of the liquor law every third Sunday, or whatever, but accept that this has nothing to do with the right of someone to use their own property for any legal purpose. Do we have too many laws? I think most would argue yes, or at least, that we don't have the right collection of laws (we have many bad ones, and quite a few things that should have good laws don't), but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Apple being refused the right to decide who can put DRM'd music on an iPod makes no difference as to whether or not I should be able to hit someone over the head with it, or whether I should be required to recycle it when I dispose of it.

Re:That's crazy talk.

[Holladon]

Serious question: what is it that you think you buy when you buy a music CD?

Most people, I think, would agree that you haven't bought the entire copyright in the music: you don't have the right to turn around and market and sell a million copies of the CD as though you were the artist (if you did, music would rarely be made, and high-quality audio recordings would likely be non-existent, as the artist would have to recoup all costs and expected profits from a single sale). So what have you bought? You've bought a physical object, sure, but the physical object itself isn't WHY you paid the 15 bucks, or whatever music CDs sell for (who buys CDs anymore). You paid 15 bucks because you wanted to be able to listen to the music. The value you sought was the right to experience, on a repeated basis at your convenience, listening to the music. The traditional legal view is that, once you've decided you no longer want this experience, you can recoup some of your costs by selling the CD second-hand to someone else. But, enter the internet age and suddenly there's a new wrinkle: NOW you have the technological capability to continue to benefit from the repeated experience of listening to the music whenever you want, AND to sell and/or give that experience to multiple other people without inhibiting your ability to enjoy it concurrently. Well, now you're recouping your costs without giving something up, and another person has gotten the full value of the item without having to pay full value. Under the old system, buying used meant buying slightly inferior, which was why you got a discounted price and provided you with a legitimate choice: buy the full quality product from the original seller, or buy a slightly lower quality product secondhand. Because you were selling a different good, you were not usurping the seller's exclusive right to sell something she owned. With modern technology making it trivially easy to duplicate products at the same level of quality as the original, you're now competing directly with the seller by selling the exact same product (one that you never invested the resources to create) instead of offering a substitute with an attendant cost to yourself. So, essentially, you've unilaterally lowered the selling price of the CD without the seller's agreement. You've altered the market for the seller and enriched yourself at her expense. The seller didn't agree to sell you a CD for five cents (your effective cost after you've resold digital copies to multiple people). The seller agreed to sell you a CD for 15 bucks.

Yes, I know, the seller still got 15 bucks, you can't prove any of those people would have bought it from the seller so no "provable" lost profits (btw, this is exactly why the copyright act has its horrific statutory damages clause -- they've already answered this argument before you've made it and, yup, it's an ugly, bullshit answer), it doesn't "cost" anything to make extra copies and therefore no one is "hurt." You can take this view, but it's extremely short-sighted and, frankly, entitled (yeah, I said it). Yes, these are old rules based on old tech and they need to change and accommodate the new world and new tech, and the rights owners are being draconian jerks about it and the law is broken. All of these things are true. But how does any one of them mean that therefore we throw our hands up and say "IP is ridiculous"? I certainly don't want to live in a world where there are even larger hurdles and costs and disincentives for talented but cash-poor artists to seek to hone their craft and produce amazing music and writings and movies and games and artwork. Sure, there will always be SOME art, just like there was moonshine during prohibition, but moonshine is a poor substitute for a quality bourbon or a nicely-aged wine. And yes, I'm aware that we're not talking about making art illegal; we're just talking about making it impossible for artists to expect any kind of realistically orderly and enforceable system of rights that would help them, you know, EAT so

Re:That's crazy talk.

[nitehawk214]

Right now, everyone reading this is likely doing something illegal.

When reading Slashdot becomes outlawed, then only outlaws will read Slashdot.

Perhaps that will cut down on the trolling.

John Wiley & Sons should be the ones getting s

[usuallylost]

It sounds like they are gouging the hell out of their US customers if this guy can buy the same book abroad, pay international shipping on it, probably import duties etc. and still make $1.2 million dollars. Instead we have another case where a "rights holder" is trying to assert insane terms on the rest of country to preserve their business model. Let us hope that the Supreme Court hears this on one of its "non-crazy" days.

What about my house?

[cvtan]

It's not just a problem with electronics. I might have Chinese light fixtures, or Mexican light switches, plumbing etc. in my home. Will I have to get permission from 50 different companies before I can sell it?

Re:What about my house?

[firex726]

Well a lot of lumber and steel is brought over the border.

Re:What about my house?

[ZombieBraintrust]

This case is about copyright law. Lumber and steel does not apply. Unless they start stamping the lumber with images that are copyrighted. US law allows the copyright holder the exclusive right to controll imports into a country.

Re:What about my house?

[CODiNE]

Oh believe me you do NOT want Mexican plumbing in your house. That little trash can in the bathroom takes on a whole new job.

Re:What about my house?

[poofmeisterp]

It's not just a problem with electronics. I might have Chinese light fixtures, or Mexican light switches, plumbing etc. in my home. Will I have to get permission from 50 different companies before I can sell it?

Oh, that's not a problem at all!

You simply have to either remove all of those items from the house pre-sale and transfer them to the new property using your own method of transportation, or you must get permission to sell (and thereafter perform the sale of) each item individually.

See how easy it is? *waves American flag*

P.S. I am American and disgusted.

The Top Court's reaction should be priceless.

[109 97 116 116]

I predict an obvious but subtle castigation of lower courts for it getting there at all.

But when did we lose common sense? Can't a corporation think it's way out of a wet paper sack?
Clearly the solution for them would be to raise prices abroad.

This parallels drug importing I suppose as well. Same solution imho.

Oh wait...nobody abroad would pay that much for a book? Then maybe you're gouging the US market and as a judge I'd say you've made your profit here via gouging and abroad by what you were willing to sell for under no choice but your own and what the market will bear.

Tough Shiite.

Re:The Top Court's reaction should be priceless.

[MickyTheIdiot]

I am sorry but I am incapable of optimism that this version of SCOTUS can do anything right.

I have no clue which way this can go. I believe that members of this court are highly compromised by their dealings in the corporate world and their personal holdings. If they weren't you wouldn't see stuff happening like Thomas making rulings that affect his previous employer.

The fact is the huge elephant in the room is corporate ties in each and every case. They vote along with that pro-corporate bias even if there isn't a meeting where someone tells the "you vote like this."

This is going to be a telling case. It will show the underbelly of this court.

Hmm, up for a corporate exploit

[Coisiche]

So if upheld then Apple (or indeed any American corporation that utilizes offshore manufacture of products of their own design) could forbid resale of their products so that you could only ever buy new from them.

Seems like a win for them.

Here's list of unknown accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a website that tracks what products are still made in the US of A

They seem to be pretty good about differentiating between actually made and assembled. Now as far as raw materials are concerned or sub-assemblies, I don't know.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[pesho]

Do any of these products contain plastic, fibers, pigments, metal, rubber or electronic components? if so more likely than not they contain parts not made in the US.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[arth1]

They seem to be pretty good about differentiating between actually made and assembled.

Not so good as far as I can tell. I looked at http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/music.html#Audio and can tell you that several of the companies there sell items assembled from Far East components, and some even sell products manufactured completely in China.

These days, it's exceedingly hard to avoid foreign products. Even if you make children, I'm not convinced they won't come out with parts Made in China.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[gl4ss]

all you need is a foreign manufactured microchip and it would fall under this nonsense.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[Talderas]

I believe there is one product that is no longer made in the USA at all.

Resistance wire. You know, the wire that is made specifically for is resistance values? We used to have 1 manufacturer in the US (I think) but it closed in the 90s. Now I think most of it is manufactured in Sweden and Germany.

The generalize what that means... anything that has a heating element was constructed from parts made outside the US.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[arth1]

Similar for most strong magnets:

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/09/0930/magnets.html

In practice, this means that pretty much anything with a speaker is going to be partially made in China.

Re:Here's list of unknown accuracy

[Grishnakh]

It's not just microchips; you can't make anything electronic in America any more, because the most mundane components (capacitors, resistors, etc.) are all made abroad, usually in Asia. We do still make things like Intel CPUs (dies only, packaging is in Malaysia), and a lot of other microchips (I think Microchip's (the company) factories are all here in the US for instance). But the low-value stuff isn't made here at all.

So Far, Supreme Court Unanimous

[retroworks]

The Fuji vs. Jazz Camera, Lexmark vs. Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers, and other cases have been rare examples of unanimous rulings by the Supreme Court vs. similar appellate court rulings on patent extension. I work in the re-manufacturing industry and am not too worried about the USA courts (though the Terminator-like persistence of foreign companies bringing the case that resale = patent or trademark infringement is frightening, and the Mickey Mouse rulings on Trademark are depressing). What's more troubling is the direction ownership law goes when the USA Supreme Court and European Courts no longer oversee 80% of all product sales. Chinese consumers purchase more computer products than the USA today, and if they take a Japanese turn in their court rulings, these corporations may become godlike, and the USA may be tempted to try to give our own companies (like Apple) similar power. See links to the cases above at http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2012/03/usas-finest-supreme-court-ruling-for.html

Before yesterday ..

[OzPeter]

Before yesterday I would have nominated "PETA Condemns Pokemon For Promoting Animal Abuse" as the batshit crazy story of the year. Now I think it has competition.

The case is being misrepresented here....

[Anonymous Coward]

The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States. At issue is having someone buy things cheaper overseas and resell them cheaper here in the US than the manufacturers intended US price.

That's still horrible - but not nearly as bad as the article summary would have you believe.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[alphax45]

If your right (and I think you are) that makes a lot more sense.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[guruevi]

Aren't all items eventually intended to be sold in those countries as well as the US.

I can see major legal loopholes in your argument if they would allow it. Simply import everything that is 'intended' for another market and you won't have the right to resell it anymore?

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[cpt kangarooski]

The lower court directly addressed that question and said that authorized importation of a work manufactured abroad would not be sufficient for the first sale statute to apply. Perhaps they went further than they needed to to decide the case that was before them, but the case is not really being misrepresented.

While the Ninth Circuit in Omega held that 109(a) also applies to foreign-produced copies of works sold in the United States with the permission of the copyright holder, that holding relied on Ninth Circuit precedents not adopted by other courts of appeals. Accordingly, while perhaps a close call, we think that, in light of its necessary interplay with 602(a)(1), 109(a) is best interpreted as applying only to copies manufactured domestically.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[The Rizz]

... you honestly think corporations would limit themselves to that interpretation?

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[JaredOfEuropa]

The real question is how the ruling, if upheld, would affect subsequent cases. At a glance there's still a lot of reasons to be afraid, very afraid.

Some time ago in NL we had laws against "parallel imports" that specifically targeted this practice (they probably have been superseded by Euro laws since). If I remember correctly, this law granted the manufacturer or their designated representatives the right of first sale (and first sale only) in our country, which was achieved by forbidding anyone else to import their stuff in bulk. Kirtsaeng wouldn't have been able to import the books under this law, but there would have been absolutely no question about the legality of second hand sales in general.

Another thing that I wouldn't mind to be set firmly into law. If you buy a physical product, it should come with a perpetual license for all associated IP: patents, trademarks and copyrights. That license is an inseparable part of the product. The idea that the license remains with the first buyer and is non-transferrable is ludicrous, yet that is exactly what IP holders would love. Creators of intangible products like computer games and e-books have already gotten in on this action, and made transferring access certificates or keys to create game accounts more or less impossible. I do understand the difficulties there, but I'd me much more inclined to firmly anchor the first sale doctrine into explicit law and extend it to non-tangible products, than I'd be to extend the notion of personal licenses to physical products, as is seemingly on the table in this case.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[jgtg32a]

So this case is more about import laws than anything else?

Does the US have anything on the books about not being allowed to import goods in direct competition from the manufacturer?(I'd guess no, but I have no clue)
Do our trade agreements not allow the import of goods from other countries that are not allowed for export. What I'm getting at is the US doesn't have a problem with the products being imported per se, but the country they are coming from does not allow the export of those items from anyone other than the manufacturer? (This I could see as being very likely)

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[Rob the Bold]

The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States. At issue is having someone buy things cheaper overseas and resell them cheaper here in the US than the manufacturers intended US price.

That's still horrible - but not nearly as bad as the article summary would have you believe.

It's not like the SCOTUS (or, allegedly its unsupervised peons) hasn't gone above and beyond the scope of the case before.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States. At issue is having someone buy things cheaper overseas and resell them cheaper here in the US than the manufacturers intended US price.

That's still horrible - but not nearly as bad as the article summary would have you believe.

It's not necessarily horrible, as Wiley may be using profits from US sales to allow them to subsidise prices in third world countries so that people can get their books who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them.

However, it's an object. If you choose to trade it at a certain price, it's no business of yours what happens to it from there. As long as US import duty gets paid, there is zero reason that Wiley should even have a case.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[fa2k]

The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States.

Seems like a valid generalisation to me. The point is that the manufacturer can prevent you from selling something you have in your hand, on US soil (but bought somewhere else).

The further generalisation to anything made of *parts* coming from other places, but sold as a complete item in the US also makes logical sense. If your Nexus Q that you bought from Google uses memory chips from China, and the chip has some copyrighted elements to it, the chip manufacturer could come after either you or Google if you sold it to someone else..

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[fa2k]

I didn't defend the first generalisation well. The idea that a company can restrict an item for sale in a specific region may seem fair. The problem is that there are no "legal tools" for the company to prevent people from reselling the item anywhere once they have bought it legally. Then there is copyright, the standard choice of weapon when you can't get your way with other laws. The book manufacturer claims that the student is breaking a licence when re-selling books. There is nothing inherent to this about limiting sale to certain regions. If the manufacturer printed in big letters on the book "Not for sale to redheads", and someone imported a book and sold it to someone with red hair, that would be legally the same thing. Same with "Not for use on Tuesdays", etc. These examples wouldn't happen, but companies may try putting in "Not for resale" (at all) on CDs, phones, etc, and many people wouldn't care.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[JohnFen]

That's still horrible - but not nearly as bad as the article summary would have you believe.

How is that not nearly as bad? It seems equally bad to me...

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[JohnFen]

The idea that a company can restrict an item for sale in a specific region may seem fair.

Uh, no, that doesn't seem fair at all.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[mcgrew]

If your right (and I think you are) that makes a lot more sense.

If your right to think you are... huh?

Oh, "you're". Sorry, I mistook you for someone literate.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[dbet]

Except, those items ARE sold in the other countries. Then someone who now owns them, imports them and sells them in the U.S.

They could solve this with a tariff on such imports. That way, they're still "yours" but the inflated U.S. price is somewhat protected. The only problem is, that will NEVER happen. People buy way too many imports and companies are making way too much money selling cheap imports to Americans.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[Grishnakh]

The only problem here is, how exactly do you know whether a product was intended for US sale or not? That's going to be pretty hard to police.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[Solandri]

The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States.

"Not intended for sale in the U.S." is code for "I want to benefit from the lower cost of manufacturing overseas, but I don't want my customers to benefit from lower prices due to those lowered manufacturing costs. I want the entirety of the benefit to go straight into my pocket."

Outsourcing is a two-way street. If we're free to send jobs and manufacturing overseas, then we must also be free to bring the products of that overseas manufacturing back into the country.

Re:The case is being misrepresented here....

[mrchaotica]

Who cares what country it was "intended for sale" in? Globalization works both ways, bitch!

Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[concealment]

The guy who's being brought to trial seems to have imported enough textbooks to earn $1.2 million. That means this isn't really a case about reselling your car, but about whether private citizens can buy a bunch of stuff abroad and re-sell it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad.

You can track the legislation here:

• SCOTUSblog: Kirtsaeng v. Wiley and Sons

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It will, unless very cautiously written, soon enough be supplying precedent for shutdowns on individual ebayers and whatnot.

Also, isn't 'illegal importing' more usually what we call "Arbitrage" or "Trade", unless the goods imported are themselves illegal or relevant laws concerning customs duties and declarations were not adhered to?

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[gl4ss]

the books are legal.

it's reselling them that you need permission for, hence the stupidity of this case.

I repeat, the books weren't unauthorized pirate copies...

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[SvetBeard]

Have you priced textbooks lately? $1.2 million is only 5 or 6 books.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[Fr33z0r]

...this isn't really a case about reselling your car, but about whether private citizens can buy a bunch of stuff abroad and re-sell it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad.

And yet this is the core of how most companies operate these days. Buy cheap abroad (labour, manufacturing, components etc) and sell at home for profit.

It's sad that what has long been considered business as usual for companies is legally questionable for individuals.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[jvkjvk]

No, you see this is an individual.

Of course individuals have no right to "Trade" - that's for corporations.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[Rob the Bold]

The guy who's being brought to trial seems to have imported enough textbooks to earn $1.2 million. That means this isn't really a case about reselling your car, but about whether private citizens can buy a bunch of stuff abroad and re-sell it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad.

It sounds like the guy's real crime was not being a big corporation.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[nine-times]

Well when you call it "illegal importing", you're kind of begging the question, aren't you?

That means this isn't really a case about reselling your car, but about whether private citizens can buy a bunch of stuff abroad and re-sell it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad.

Yes, that's how a lot of businesses make money. I mean, every store is making money by buying things under conditions that are cheaper and then re-selling it for a profit. Everyone who imports anything is "buying a bunch of stuff abroad and re-selling it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad." Every manufacturer with factories overseas is doing the same exact thing.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it goes on all the time with all sorts of odd goods. It can also be smuggling when the government puts up trade barriers. For example, lately there has been a cheese smuggling ring to bring cheese into Canada from the US due to our protectionism for dairy farmers. Cheese here sells for 3 times the price compared to many parts of the US.

Personally, I practice "Arbitrage" with auto parts. Those can, more often than you'd think, be 1/10th the price in the USA. Example: MAF for a Crown Vic. $380 in Canada. $40 in the US via eBay. I just wish American sellers would focus on some cheaper ways to ship things--having shipped things cross country before, that part DOES NOT cost $60 to ship to Canada. More like $15 including handling, tops. But the savings still make it worth it.

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What disturbs me about this case is that the legal theory being advanced is that any private copyright holder has the power to veto arbitrage attempts purely because they don't like them(since, obviously, the better the price discrimination, the more of the surplus value they walk away with).

Border tariffs and regulations are... shall we say... mixed when it comes to 'impartially administered source of revenue and set of meaningful protections against imported pests, pathogens, and dangerous articles' vs. 'blatant tool of protectionism and handout for influential industries'; but they are, at least, not a novel legal construct and are (theoretically) answerable to representative governments and equally binding upon men and multinationals both.

The case that the supreme court will be hearing(unlike, say, that of the Canadian cheese smugglers or a cocaine importer) alleges no improprieties related to customs declarations, duties, import restrictions, etc.; but rather claims that rights of first sale simply don't exist for articles not manufactured within the US. That's so much crazier than any mere dodgy tariff policy(and those get pretty crazy).

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[sgt_doom]

You mean what every chain grocery store does every day in Amerika????

Re:Looks like an end-run around illegal importing

[QuantumPion]

So what is the exact number of books allowed to be imported for re-sale per unit time where by any additional books would constitute "prohibited mass exporting".

The article says something different

[Albanach]

So having read the article, it doesn't say the same thing as the summary. To be fair, I haven't read any of the court paperwork, so the publisher could indeed be claiming that you cannot sell something with foreign parts.

This case, however, stems from a student buying textbooks at lower cost overseas and then selling them in the US on eBay.

I'm not saying it's good, right or proper that the publisher wishes to restrict these sales. I simply want to highlight that it's a very different proposition saying you cannot resell in the US a complete product purchased in a developing market where the manufacturer sells at a lower cost as opposed to being unable to sell anything that contains a foreign part.

I believe the situation the publisher supports is already the case in Europe, where Levi Strauss won a battle against supermarkets who were importing grey market denims and selling them at a lower cost than licensed distributors could buy the jeans in the UK.

Re:The article says something different

[gl4ss]

which is equally silly. essentially I shouldn't be able to take my jeans to a flea market because I bought them during a trip to USA? (levi's can be had ~33% of the price there vs. here locally, not kidding).

legally the case is is sadly about who has the right for resale. global markets and all, consumers should benefit from it. if we can find a cheaper way to ship the products into our hands in whatever country we are in, then we should be allowed to do so.

Re:The article says something different

[Albanach]

legally the case is is sadly about who has the right for resale. global markets and all, consumers should benefit from it. if we can find a cheaper way to ship the products into our hands in whatever country we are in, then we should be allowed to do so.

It might not be as black and white as you make out.

Take for example antiretroviral drugs used for treating HIV infections. As they often say, each tablet costs about 20 cents, after the first tablet which cost $2 billion.

The drug firm needs to recoup its development costs before its patent expires. So it might calculate it can do so by selling to customers in the West at $1,000 per patient per year.

But there are people dying in the developing world who could also benefit. The drug firm could see the drug their profitably (if we only consider manufacturing) at $50 per patient per year. That increases their overall revenue and lets them spend more money developing more drugs.

But if those $50/year drugs were to make their way back into the Western markets, the drug company would now be losing money.

So, should they not sell the lower cost drugs and leave the developing world to fend for themselves, or should they be able to sell at different prices in different markets?

Of course the argument is very different for denims, where there's not huge development costs to recoup. But it might be similar with textbooks which had large upfront fees paying the authors and doing the editing and layout. Similarly it might be the same with electronics that have huge development costs.

Re:The article says something different

[h4rr4r]

They can sell at different prices and deal with importation or they can somehow add some value to the more expensive sales. Maybe delivering them for free and on time, or adding in some service.

What they should not be able to do is demand that my tax dollars make them wealthy.

They have no right to make a profit, only a right to try to.

Re:The article says something different

[DarkOx]

If sellers can price discriminate based on region more power to them but they should have no right to control secondary markets in anyway. If that means people re-import stuff and undercut the seller in the local market place TO FUCKING BAD.

Re:The article says something different

[Pinky's Brain]

If the lower court had simply said "for something sold legally once in the US the first sale doctrine applies" (similar to exhaustion of rights doctrine inside the EU for instance) then there would have been no problem except for grey importers ... the problem is that for some insane reason or other they simply excluded all foreign manufactured goods from the first sale doctrine, which creates a problem for pretty much everyone.

It's simply insane.

Re:The article says something different

[sgt_doom]

You're right, of course, legally it should never made it to the federal level. Period. But then everything is rigged in America.

Re:The article says something different

[mrchaotica]

So, should they not sell the lower cost drugs and leave the developing world to fend for themselves?

Yes.

The more humane, solution, of course, would be to remove responsibility for drug research from corporate interests entirely and instead treat it as a social good.

Re:The article says something different

[gl4ss]

If they don't make a profit, they don't make more drugs.

yeah right. they'll try to make more drugs regardless, because they're trying to make a living.

maybe they should try selling to everyone at 100 bucks instead of asking some people 1000 and some 50. obviously they could produce it for under 50... only the rich in the west need the drug?

how about this: should the electricity company be able to charge bill gates 1 million dollars per kwh? it's only fair because he can afford it, no?

Re:The article says something different

[h4rr4r]

Sell me the drugs to give away at cost and I will be happy to do so. Let me reimport those drugs and donate 50% of my profits for free drugs, sounds even better.

Expecting to outsource my job then charge me so much I cannot afford the medicine I need because I live in a wealthier nation is not charity nor altruism.

End of amazon/ebay?

[marcushnk]

Wouldn't this destroy Amazon and Ebay?
they sell an awful lot of second hand kit...

Re:End of amazon/ebay?

[guruevi]

Yes, but at least then nobody will be skirting any sales taxes anymore. win-win for the politicians.

Re:End of amazon/ebay?

[Somebody Is Using My]

It's a win for big corporations too.

After all, you shouldn't be buying somebody's USED goods. How does that help the poor corporations? They don't see dime one from that transaction. No, you need to buy a NEW widget instead. That way the corporations get some of their hard-earned investment back. What's good for corporations is good for the country. The old device needs to be tossed away into some hole in the ground.

That's the American Way. Why do all those Ebayers and flea-marketers hate America, that's the real question!

Re:End of amazon/ebay?

[idontgno]

After all, you shouldn't be buying somebody's USED goods.

Ending is better than mending!

It is a Brave New World! Where's my soma?

Re:End of amazon/ebay?

[mrchaotica]

If that's the case, then we should at least get the endemic casual sex too, damn it!

Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If we don't have an explicit treaty with the Goblins, everything made by Goblins would be exempted from the First Sale doctrine. Citation provided:

From The Deathly Hallows by JKRowling:

"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."

"But if it was bought — "

" — then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[JaredOfEuropa]

I hope you have a license to reproduce this excerpt; Rowling takes her IP very seriously. And it's "foreign made" to boot...

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That is very inconsistent with the view of JK Rowling I have. She said in a 2010 interview, "scarper[ing] to the West Indies [to avoid taxes] at the first sign of a seven figure royalty cheque would be contemptible". She pays taxes in UK because, "it is my notion of patriotism". She believes, like Warren Buffet, the rich should pay to contribute to the social safety net, because she herself was a beneficiary of the safety net at one time. She does not sound like one who would come dunning for money from some poor engineer whose code has finished building in the next window and should be running the code right now instead of typing a comment in slashdot.

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[roju]

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books (575 F.Supp.2d 513) is a copyright lawsuit brought on 31 October 2007 by the media company Warner Bros. and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling against RDR Books, an independent publishing company based in Muskegon, Michigan. Lawyers for Rowling and Time Warner argued that RDR's attempt to publish for profit a print facsimile of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a free online guide to the Harry Potter fictional universe, constituted an infringement of their copyright and was not protected by the affirmative defense of fair use. The trial was held from 14–17 April 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2008, the court ruled in Rowling's favor, and publication of the book was blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._and_J._K._Rowling_v._RDR_Books

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I posted a very tiny excerpt from a large book in a highly visited site in a relevant topic for free. She is more likely to thank me for the free advertisement than to sue me for infringement. That RDR took their entire website and tried to print it for profit. Totally different.

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[sgt_doom]

Thank the gods....someone who fully understands ....

Re:Hope we have a proper treaty with the Goblins.

[Fned]

I posted a very tiny excerpt from a large book in a highly visited site in a relevant topic for free.

...and it'll only cost you fifty thousand dollars to argue that as an affirmative defense in court.

Article is misleading

[rollingcalf]

What matters is where the authorized "first sale" occurred, not where it was manufactured.

So if a book publisher has books printed outside the US, then imports them and sells them retail for the first time in the US, you can freely resell it because the first sale occurred within the US.

What is being disputed in this court case is whether you can resell a copyrighted item in the US if the first sale occurred outside the US.

Re:Article is misleading

[cpt kangarooski]

Not quite. Different appellate courts appear to be of different minds about whether 17 USC 109 (permitting unauthorized resale, etc. after the first sale under the auspices of the copyright holder) applies to works manufactured abroad but imported by or under the authorization of the US copyright holder.

Here is the language from the appellate decision in this case, which is what is being appealed:

While the Ninth Circuit in Omega held that  109(a) also applies to foreign-produced copies of works sold in the United States with the permission of the copyright holder, that holding relied on Ninth Circuit precedents not adopted by other courts of appeals. Accordingly, while perhaps a close call, we think that, in light of its necessary interplay with  602(a)(1),  109(a) is best interpreted as applying only to copies manufactured domestically.

Re:Article is misleading

[Targon]

This also brings into question the idea of special pricing based on market being what is at fault. Why should the exact same product that is being sold for a low price in China sell for more in the USA, except for the cost of shipping, import tariffs, and taxes? From that point of view then, if you buy a product outside of the USA and then sell it here, the seller should be expected to pay all of the associated fees, and that would generally eliminate any benefit for selling the product cheap(because you give up your profits and then some).

An important election.

[SternisheFan]

This is one reason why this year's U.S. Pesidential election is so important. At least one Supreme Court judge will retire due to advanced age, both Republicans and Democrats are very aware of this

Re:An important election.

[PortHaven]

And do you think it will make a difference which President appoints a justice?

Both are beholden to the copyright holders who fuel their election funds.

Levis case in the UK?

[tubs]

This sounds very similar to the Trade Mark laws no in effect in Europe. It basically boils down to, you cannot import for resale anything that is trademarked, as the trademark owner has exclusive import rights.

This was originally because of a French company exporting it's product made in France to outside of the EU. The French companies product was then imported into France, and sold at a discount.

There was a major court case between Tesco and Levis about this, which had the Tesco representitive show tow paisr of Levis, both made in Turkey. One had been imported to the UK by Levis, and the other by Tesco from Turkey. The ones that were imported by Tesco are now illegal to sell in the UK.

It only includes items bough from outside the EU, not between EU countries (so say Germany to UK = fine, USA to UK = Not okay, unless the trademark owner has ok'd it). It's worked in the EU, so I expect this will mean it will work in the US too, as we all generally follow the same IP laws.

Re:Levis case in the UK?

[JaredOfEuropa]

What matters is how you frame the law (or how the jurisprudence works out). In Europe, the law is explicit about importing for resale without the rights holder's permission. In this US case it seems they want to achieve the same, but they go about it differently, by more or less stating that IP rights on physical objects imported from abroad cannot be transferred by the first owner. No more parallel imports, sure, but an unintended side effect is that it does make private second hand sales of imported goods illegal. Unintended by the courts perhaps, but very, very much intended by the rights holders, who will most certainly break out the champagne if this is upheld.

It's a little more complicated than that

[91degrees]

Copyright law recognises that publishers may well want to publish the same item at a different price in another country. A textbook in the US or Europe can be sold at quite a high price. In poorer countries, there's no way they can sell for these markups, so they're a lot cheaper.

The law allows the copyright holder to licence distribution to another party for distribution in another territory. To prevent a companies own products from competing with their domestic sales, the law makes it an infringement of copyright to sell a copy licensed for sale in another country. Whether you think this is right or not, this is what the law recognises, and what the Supreme court will be basing its decision on.

Of course, the lawmakers don't want to prevent you from taking a book with you when you're travelling, nor do they think that you should buy an entire new library if you move to another country. So you're allowed to bring the foreign copy to your country if you have no intention of selling it.

So what happens if you change your mind? Do you have the right to sell something that you legally brought into the country? Is the "first sale" the first time the item was sold, or is it the first time the item is sold in the US?

The article is highly misleading. This has no effect on something that just happens to have been made in another country, as long as it was originally sold by the copyright holder. Only items where the item has not yet been sold in the US.

Re:It's a little more complicated than that

[h4rr4r]

More reason to abolish or at least severely restrict copyright. If you want to sell a text book cheaper in a poorer country change the chapters around, change the example problems at least do some work to make it unsuitable for other markets, rather than demanding society pay to keep making you wealthy.

Re:It's a little more complicated than that

[Hatta]

It's not complicated at all. Copyright law is incompatible with property rights. Pick which one you want.

Re:It's a little more complicated than that

[91degrees]

There's no absolute legal right to property. Copyright law is well established, as are laws such as taxation and eminent domain.

This is a legal matter, about explicit legal rights, not about hypothetical moral rights which may or may not exist.

Re:It's a little more complicated than that

[Hatta]

I see you've made your choice. Copyright is also incompatible with free speech. I'd suppose you'd give that up just as easily too.

Re:It's a little more complicated than that

[91degrees]

I have made no choice. I may, for all you know, oppose all laws. That does not change the fact that the laws exist, and that these are what the Supreme court is going to be ruling on.

The only thing this proves...

[JustNiz]

The only thing this proves is how ridiculous and out of touch with reality that the law is.

Even if such a law was enforceable, no-one (even the manufacturers) would want to, as the moment they did, no-one would buy their stuff.

Re:The only thing this proves...

[erroneus]

Game companies want Gamestop out of the used game business. The RIAA wants an end to used music. The MPAA wants an end to used movies. And every thing maker will want to get in on this as well. Every sale of used-thing is believed to be a lost sale of new-thing.

Re:This will come down to commerce

[The Rizz]

The 99% will not care, because they'll be too busy saying "well it doesn't hurt me directly, and therefore I don't care"

Actually, since it kills every thrift store, second-hand shop, pawn shop, etc. I'm pretty sure "the 99%" are going to notice the problem pretty damn quick.

Africa!

[mwvdlee]

All humanity stems from Africa.
All products include some amount of human labor.
Therefore all products include something from Africa and First Sale doctrine no longer applies.

Ofcourse you could apply it to materials only, in which case pretty much every product includes parts made from materials not naturally formed on earth.

Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[jellomizer]

This is messing with the capitalistic economic model people will still want those goods, and people will be willing to sell them, but they will do it over the black market. Because the legit way is too costly.

The black market isn't always for shady product, but products that you cannot obtain legally.
For example in New York the biggest Black Market Activity is in unpasteurized milk. Why because there is a good number of "organic" lovers who would rather have their milk unprocessed and they say it tastes better, and is better for you, and by New York Law milk can only be sold pasteurized. Hence black market activity.
So saying you cannot resell a product and people wants it. It will be done under the table.

Now the problem with black market is the buyer and seller loose legal protection. So the seller can rip you off and you have no legal recourse. Or the buyer can do something else to you and in order to get the guy in trouble you will need to admit to breaking the law. This is a problem with prostitution because it is illegal if the women are mistreated they do not have many options for them.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[h4rr4r]

Please list some citations.
I am unwilling to believe that unpasteurized milk is a bigger black market activity than illegal drug sales without some evidence.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[jesseck]

He doesn't need citations... when the FDA starts the "War on Cows", you'll know.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[ZeroSumHappiness]

http://www.cityspoonful.com/black-market-for-raw-milk-delivery-thriving-in-new-york-state/

Try searching for '"new york" "black market" milk' and you'll get a number of news reports on the issue.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[moeinvt]

What? You mean some people in NY think they're smarter than the FDA with regard to the food products they want to consume? That DEFINITELY has to be illegal!

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[h4rr4r]

The size of the black market for drugs is orders of magnitude larger.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[cayenne8]

What? You mean some people in NY think they're smarter than the FDA with regard to the food products they want to consume? That DEFINITELY has to be illegal!

What would be wrong with letting people make that choice for themselves?

If they want to contract directly with a dairy...and get their milk direct from them with no pasteurization (those that own the farms aren't prohibited from consuming their own produced milk that isn't pasteurized).....and accept whatever consequences arise...what's the problem?

It isn't just in NY...there are folks across the nation that have to deal with various state laws concerning this. Some states...people co-op like, and 'buy' shares of a cow on a farm, and since they own the cow, they can get the milk in whatever form they wish, and get around the laws that way.

There are some cheeses that are best with un-pasteurized milk...but you can't import them into the country, and while in some states you can make it...you can't transport it for sale to other states...

But I see nothing wrong with giving adults the ability to decide about their foods, etc.

Not everyone needs permission from nanny to do what they want to do as an adult..

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Ah, sorry, didn't realize the dispute was over whether milk was the largest black market rather than whether it was a large black market.

I'd wonder if illegal subletting and illegal loft renting is a larger black market than drugs in NYC though.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[Lithdren]

You need to learn to read first before demanding citations. Nowhere does he say that unpasteurized milk is bigger than drugs in the black market. I'm not even sure why you'd asume that based on what he said.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[mrchaotica]

sarchasm ('sÃr-"ka-z&m) : The giant gulf (chasm) between what is said and the person who doesn't get it (i.e., you).

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[dywolf]

They're still idiots, right up there with the anti-vaccine people.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[HornWumpus]

Whereas if you pay for sex and she steals your money?

It's a license for the sellers to cheat. If it was only to keep the buyers on their best behavior both would be legal.

Re:Might be incentive to buy Black Market

[HornWumpus]

Unpasteurized milk people are idiots. Risking sickness for a product that is no better.

Unpasteurized milk cheese on the other hand, is fantastic.

Worse

[AliasMarlowe]

Even worse, many items are made from petroleum. Just think of plastics and everything made from plastic or incorporating bits of plastic (I see some vinyl in that there car, sonny, and the tires are made of rubber). Now some of the petroleum used in making those plastics and related synthetics might have come from wells in the USA, but some might not and it tends to get blended during or after refining. The provenance of such intermediate materials is not tracked.

So we have another question: how much transformation of a foreign-sourced raw material or intermediate material derived therefrom would be needed to escape the consequences of this putative ruling? Would shaping foreign wood into furniture be sufficient? What about polymerizing a foreign-sourced material (making an intermediate of plastic or ceramic or rubber)? Even supposing a strict boundary could be defined for the amount of processing or transformation required, it would just lead to the creation and feeding of loophole-finding (or making) industries.

Re:Worse

[pepty]

Wouldn't they just use the same standards that apply to the "made in the U.S.A." label? I.e., 75% of the manufacturing cost and a tranformative step (assembly, molding, etc) would have to be domestic.

Re:Worse

[spyke252]

I can see it now. "The Supreme Court ruled today that the First Sale Doctrine does not apply to items made outside the U.S., citing the "Made in China" sticker as the main characteristic of these items..."

Re:Worse

[quintus_horatius]

How does one determine the provenance of a widget, mineral (like oil), or foodstuff? Commodity items are difficult if not impossible to discriminate post-sale. Enforcement would be impossible for many products.

Re:Worse

[muchObliged]

If we ever have to come to a point where we have to examine the percentage of a raw material in a good to determine whether or not we have to pay royalties on resale then we have come to a point of mockery so absurd that our judicial system should be excruciatingly embarrassed. This current story coupled with this story from yesterday make our current state of affairs boil down to paranoia and lack of progression in the long run.

Re:Worse

[nukenerd]

How does one determine the provenance of a widget, mineral (like oil), or foodstuff?

Easy. In practice you can say everything will have something from abroad in it, even if it something like a anti-wear trace additive in the oil, or the ink in the label of the food wrapper. That is what the lawyers will say anyway.

Re:Worse

[countach]

But there is no copyright on commodities, so it isn't an issue.

Re:Worse

[HornWumpus]

Not only that but if a woman had a vagioplasty her plastic surgeon would be entitled to a share of any alimony she received.

Globalism at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Since time before time every merchant has known the following motto: Buy low. Sell high. Now with globalism we can buy labor and materials cheaply from the ends of the world and sell high in our own home market where half the populations lost their jobs to outsourcing. Isn't double dipping a great thing?

Wait, a private citizen like you wants to use the same strategy?! How dare you even think of this unpatriotic act circumventing the core values of capitalism? Preposterous! Only governments and large corporations are allowed to do that. You just take what you are offered at our fair and reasonable prices or we'll see you in court. Now go back to your television and be a model consumer.

Meanwhile in some research lab...

Hey guys, looky here! I have just found a new source of energy! We might be able to power our rockets and indeed our whole civilization with it! I call it hypocrisy and the best part is it seems to be an abundant and renewable resource in our civilization!

The case

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Many book publishers license their books to be published in India, Thailand etc cheaply. I have bought many "Eastern Economy Edition" (EEE) in IISc Bangalore and IIT Madras when I was a student there. Though the price is very cheap compared to the dollar prices, it is still comparable on purchasing power parity exchange rate. For example the the book Engineering Statics and Dynamics by Shames cost me 65 Rupees or about 8 USD (exchange rate was 8 Rs per USD back in the 80s). My dad, a civil servant comparable to a sergeant in the US armed forces, had a take home pay of about 500 Rs then. Imported books, not reprinted as EEE, would easily run into 50 USD to 60 USD. It would have beeen one month pay for my dad.

Some student from Thailand imported the EEE books from Thailand, sold them on E-Bay and made 1.2 million dollars. He is claiming immunity under First Sale doctrine. The EEE contract with the Asian publishers prohibit them from selling it to the lucrative western markets. But once the book has been bought in those markets, can they be imported and sold in USA? The appellate court ruled it can't be brought in sold.

I am not a lawyer, but I expect the Supreme Court to rule more narrowly. "When a copyright/intellectual property right originating from USA, is licensed to foreigners under some restrictive license, the foreigners can not use first sale doctrine and third parties/subsidiaries to circumvent the license restrictions". That is the kind of ruling I expect. That is, not all foreign made objects would be exempted from first sale doctrine. Those items made abroad under restrictive licenses from ip-holders in USA alone would be exempted. But I am not sure they will rule this way. I am an engineer most comfortable calculating intersections between triangles and tetrahedrons. I find them very easy compared to US laws.

One interesting tit bit was that, when I came to USA as a student with F-1 Visa, I was scared by the EEE books I was bringing in. I used some 75% of my baggage allowance with books. I knew how serious copyright law was in USA. I knew my books are cheaper in India. I was worried the immigration officer would reject my visa and send me back! Seriously. I was worried about everything from the turmeric powder in my hand baggage to the loose staple on the sealed I-20 form issued by the university attached to my passport! Once inside the USA, I was just relieved. I never even thought for a moment to buy millions dollars worth of EEE books and selling them cheap in the USA. There have been hundreds of thousands of students from Asia who knew the price differentials. None of us thought of exploiting it by arbitrage, because we knew it was "wrong". This creep from Thailand did just that. If the courts do not rule narrowly and uphold first sale doctrine for these EEE books, the publishers will simply stop licensing EEE books under cheap terms. Millions of Asian students will be affected.

Re:The case

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy isn't this wrong? The deals the publishers make is not with the individual who purchased the goods But with the distributor. This shouldnt mean that the restrictions are carried forward if he should decide To sell them. The quantity Shouldnt matter if it was 1 or a million books.

Re:The case

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, it would just take a few minutes for the asian counter party to create a colluding third party entity to escape the restrictions of the contract. The only way for the US publishing house to stop that is deny the asian counter parties the first sale doctrine.

BTW, the EEE books are not done by "distributors". They are printed locally. Probably the original publisher gives out the content electronically. But the EEE books are printed locally using crappy paper, bad ink and then bound lackadaisically. I have the Advanced Engineering Mathematics by Erwin Kreyzig, fifth edition bought for 80 Rs in 1988, on my desk right now. Utter crap in terms of print/binding/paper quality. But content! It is the content dummy.

Re:The case

[dcollins]

"If the courts do not rule narrowly and uphold first sale doctrine for these EEE books, the publishers will simply stop licensing EEE books under cheap terms. Millions of Asian students will be affected."

Recommendations:
- Uphold the law of first-sale.
- Defend people's right of free speech.
- Expand the freedom of information.
- Get working on open-source textbooks.

Re:The case

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I don't know. I have to ask my code.

Re:The case

[scamper_22]

None of us thought of exploiting it by arbitrage, because we knew it was "wrong". This creep from Thailand did just that. If the courts do not rule narrowly and uphold first sale doctrine for these EEE books, the publishers will simply stop licensing EEE books under cheap terms. Millions of Asian students will be affected.

Just what is 'wrong' about bypassing differential pricing? Illegal perhaps. I actually think differential pricing should be illegal as it is wrong. Just my opinion of course. Why should companies license books or drugs or games or music or anything else for cheap in other countries? Maybe they should respond to it by lowering pricing in America and increasing pricing in Asia? Indeed, differential pricing is one of the problems with free trade. A 'high-dollar' is supposed to allow country access to a higher standard of living and increased efficiency by machinery purchases and others. But what happens when companies can simply differentiate pricing, then the benefit of a high-dollar is hurt.

Re:The case

[QuantumPion]

One interesting tit bit was that, when I came to USA as a student with F-1 Visa, I was scared by the EEE books I was bringing in. I used some 75% of my baggage allowance with books. I knew how serious copyright law was in USA. I knew my books are cheaper in India. I was worried the immigration officer would reject my visa and send me back! Seriously. I was worried about everything from the turmeric powder in my hand baggage to the loose staple on the sealed I-20 form issued by the university attached to my passport!

Welcome to America, the land of freedom! ._.

Re:The case

[Jens Egon]

. If the courts do not rule narrowly and uphold first sale doctrine for these EEE books, the publishers will simply stop licensing EEE books under cheap terms. Millions of Asian students will be affected.

How does that stack up against cheap ereaders from china and scanners?

This is the wet dream of every maker

[erroneus]

Oh goody! No more first sale doctrine! No more used games/CDs/cars/android-phones-tablets and on and on and on. You want a new one? Fine. Just don't think you can get away with selling your old one. Garage sales are the new black market.

I think NO OBJECT should be exempt from the first-sale doctrine. It's an object. A thing. The patents associated with the things were exhausted with the first sale. Nothing else was manufactured. I think they're out of their minds. But there would be enough big-money interest in the US wanting to see this happen so they can justify similar protection in the US to "fight back" in the most patriotic way imaginable.

The things I own, I don't own... I hoped I would die before that happened.

Re:This is the wet dream of every maker

[mrchaotica]

The things I own, I don't own... I hoped I would die before that happened.

I would hope the government would be forced to kill you if that happened (because otherwise you'd kill it first).

Re:who cares

[Lumpy]

"The rulers know that they are going to stop over the line and have the 3rd American revolution on their hands."

No they wont. The american sheep already accept and like it. Getting groped to get on an airplane is happily accepted by the majority of Americans. Having cops ready to tase you or even assult you for any reason is happily accepted by most americans.

As long as we have our cable TV and internet, we will be happy and complacent citizens...

Re:Schrödinger's Cadillac

[Simon Brooke]

... might be owned or unowned, but is still owned if meanwhile no appeal is upheld.

Nah. It's been r possessed.

Re:A reason to outsource non-copyright businesses

[tepples]

Better yet to reject copyright-tainted inputs in favor of Free ones

How can one reject all copyright- and patent-tainted inputs without joining the Amish?

Re:POLITICIANS BOUGHT AND SOLD I CAN SEE !!

[Lumpy]

The Supreme court is APPOINTED by the president and congress. they are not voted in. So in a heavily republican controlled period, you get republican agenda judges. in a Democratic controlled period, you get Democrat agenda judges. And you always get Self serving sitting on a pillar judges that tow the party line.

It's been this way forever. The first sitting Supreme court decided according to their party and their desires and not what was according to the constitution.

Re:America..... the land of the free

[Cwix]

Nope, USSR was Communist. The US is turning into a fascist country.

The major difference being that communist countries everything is controlled by the workers (in theory). In fascist countries the government is controlled by the corporations. This is obviously a case of the latter. PLEASE USE THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY!!!!

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[dontfearthereaper]

In a world where patent trolling is rampant... you'll see it happen, and unfortunately, if the ruling is upheld, you'll very likely if not definitely see the following:

- Pawn shops out of business
- 'legit' used car market evaporates or used car prices skyrocket to nearly the price of new (with all of the extra money going to the IP trolls)
- Trade stores (Gamestop, Trade It, etc) out of business
- Thousands upon thousands of jobs lost
- Billions of dollars in revenues (both tax and trade) disappear
- If they make it retroactive, lawsuits and repossession of property en masse
- If the law is applied evenly, the real estate market gets even more thoroughly screwed up than it already is (you sure that lumber and drywall is US produced? what about the wiring? light switches? ceiling fans? refrigerator? glass? vinyl/aluminum siding sheets? PVC pipe? faucets? the list goes on.....)

commercial sales only

[nten]

The AC said it would be ruled to only apply to commercial sales. That is why it was proposed that the 99% would not care. I would not be surprised at this either. The motive behind this is to maintain the ability to pricefix products like printer cartridges, and car parts. I doubt they would go after junkyard owners unless they started making enough money that it looked enticing. I still maintain the naive hope that the court will burn this with fire and declare all the judges that let it get this far to be mentally incompetant and commit them.

Re:commercial sales only

[The Rizz]

The AC said it would be ruled to only apply to commercial sales. [...] I doubt they would go after junkyard owners unless they started making enough money that it looked enticing.

If you are a business and sell something, it's considered a commercial sale. Every type of store I listed would have nearly 100% of their business fall under this law. As for making enough money that it would be enticing; used cassette/CD sales, used VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray sales, and used video game sales would almost instantly be destroyed by the copyright holders - the **AA and similar ilk have been trying to kill used sales for decades, and if this gets past the SCOTUS, they'll finally have what they need to do it. And you can be sure the **AAs would force it into a whitelist situation ASAP, which effectively kills all used sales of almost everything.

Re:commercial sales only

[Hatta]

The AC said it would be ruled to only apply to commercial sales. That is why it was proposed that the 99% would not care.

And just where do you think the 99% shop? Non commercial operations? Does that mean non-profit organizations will be able to fund themselves through this kind of copyright arbitrage? Somehow, I doubt it.

You bring up a good point

[concealment]

Buy cheap abroad (labour, manufacturing, components etc) and sell at home for profit.

It's sad that what has long been considered business as usual for companies is legally questionable for individuals.

That is the underlying question about business itself, isn't it? How far do we let it take over our lives?

These business practices should be valid for:

a. Individuals
b. Businesses
c. Both
d. Neither

Which would you choose?

My inner libertarian says whatever is good business should stand. But I fear that might make North America into one giant McDonald's.

My inner liberal says that we should take a moral stance first, but this usually results in government legislation that is even more abusive than good business.

If I have an inner conservative, he's suggesting that our society needs a sense of its direction outside of "make profit," and that with that in place, business as usual will be guided to a saner place...

I wonder which is closest to the truth.

No, you completely missed the point

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

You do not seem to understand the significance of what you read. Basically it is this - immigrant student from Thailand goes to buy university text books and thinks "Wow. These prices are a lot more than I would pay back home for the same books. Maybe there is a business opportunity here." Then he recruits relatives to buy the books in Thailand at Thai prices and ship them to the USA, where he sells them on Ebay for over a million dollars in profit. John Wiley & Sons sues. Thai student invokes "first sale" as a legal defense, so it broadens the scope to include basically every manufactured good.sold in the USA. It is his invoking of "first sale" that has made this potentially into a gigantic nightmare.

Re:No, you completely missed the point

[Albanach]

You do not seem to understand the significance of what you read.

I've no idea what you're suggesting. Your past says almost exactly the same thing I did.

If it's being argued to the court that the first sale doctrine does not apply when goods contain foreign components that is a big deal.

If, on the other hand, it is being argued that if you buy something in another country you are not protected by the US constitution, that is much less of a deal and would, in fact, be precisely in line with prior SCOTUS decisions where they have declined to permit an extraterritorial extension of constitutional protections.

ONLY CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

ONLY corporations have PROPERTY RIGHT.

Signed, United States, Inc.

Re:ONLY CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS

[zidium]

I'm increasingly convinced that non-spammy trolls like the one you mentioned above are primarily composed of enlightened, non-standard, trend-setting free thinkers.

IT's OK. Darwin, Dawkins, and every atheist, really, just 50 years ago were considered trolls by society, too.

Conversely, I've never witnessed a definitively enlightened, non-standard, free thinker label anyone a troll, either...

Re:ONLY CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS

[silverspell]

Conversely, I've never witnessed a definitively enlightened, non-standard, free thinker label anyone a troll, either...

Yeah, I've never seen a Scotsman label anyone a troll, either.

At least...not a true Scotsman.

Re:America..... the land of the free

[NEDHead]

Please clarify - Is it USSA or Rome? And if Rome, then are you suggesting that the urban sprawl will turn the country into one large city?

I am so confused

Clown Court

[damicatz]

I refuse to recognize anything that the Supreme Clown Court says. They stopped following the Constitution a long time ago and only rule based on their own political interests.

I will resell what I want to resell. Any attempt to commit a violent act against me for doing such will result in me defending myself with a proportional amount of force.

Re:Clown Court

[tekrat]

Go for it. The Branch Dividians did very well with that. You're living in a police state that pepper sprays peaceful protestors, and zip-ties/handcuffs people so tightly they suffer nerve damage.

The NRA loves to talk about their 2nd amendment rights, but the sad truth is that any militia attempting to overthrow the government to get their country back wouldn't survive even 5 minutes against part-timers in the national guard.
 

Re:Clown Court

[PortHaven]

Well, Afghanis are doing a pretty amazing job considering they have far less resources than Americans do. Granted, it would be a blood bath with far more American militia killed than soldiers. But one must remember, a society can only lose so many before it collapses in it's willingness. That's why it's more affective to divide a populace, then you can enforce on one while privileging the other.

This is what has often been done by regimes.

Re:Clown Court

[bussdriver]

Afghans have less to lose; their life is really tough they have a long history of resistance and always winning in the long term. It would have to be really really bad for Americans to fight in significant numbers. Take away their vapid TV programming and then something might happen. Romans had their gladiators, we have reality TV. It supports all other methods of control; you'd have to fix or overcome it before you could address all the other control schemes.

Re:Clown Court

[ProfBooty]

Given that the number of military veterans in the USA outnumber our current military strength 10-1, it is certainly possible that the US military would have some difficulty. That being said, the number of people who have served or currently serve in combat arms is rather small.

Re:Clown Court

[mrchaotica]

US soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not the Government. I would hope and expect that many of them would switch sides.

Re:This will come down to commerce

[BetterSense]

Sure, at first, some people may notice that there used to be thrift stores. For a while. Some old geezers will say "I remember back in my day when you could just buy things, and then sell them--for cash!--and it was nobody's business but yours". But eventually, it will just be normal. Thrift stores will just be added to the list of businesses that aren't allowed to exist, and so they don't exist. And since they don't exist, nobody will care about getting the law overturned, because they will perceive no demand.

After all, who can say how many stores are currently NOT in existence due to over-regulation? Can you even begin to say what businesses are ALREADY not in existence, due to laws? How many picobreweries, tobacconists, brothels, non-health-department-licensed restaurants, non-licensed physicians and dentists? How many cheap delivery services are NOT in existence due to the Post Office monopoly on first class mail? How many people WOULD be growing MJ in their backyard if it was legal? Exactly how many cab drivers WOULD there be in Dallas if they weren't effectively regulated out of existence so as not to compete with light rail projects?

It's easy to say "this law is harmful because if we pass it, a valuable sector of the economy will disappear and thousands of jobs will be lost". It's harder to convince people to see the jobs and the economic sectors that aren't even there, that were never started, or that used to be there.

Out of sight, out of mind. People don't miss what they don't have, and once the regulated sectors of the economy dry up, people don't even see the regulations as unreasonable anymore. If all the thrift stores disappear, it will just be another of a thousand cuts to our economy, and then people will sit back decades later and wonder why the economy sucks and blame the other party for it.

"Sold" abroad, not "made"

[Anonymous Coward]

For the first-sale doctrine, it does not matter whether the product was made abroad or made from parts made abroad. What may matter (depending on the Supreme Court's decision) is only whether there has been a first sale in the US. There's a reason it's called first-sale doctrine and not manufacture doctrine, you know.

In the case now before the Supreme Court, the books were first bought in Thailand and then re-sold in the US.

Re:"Sold" abroad, not "made"

[PortHaven]

So where are the components of electronic devices purchased? Are we able to re-sell our cell phones, just not the microchips inside?

How about this? When Apple sells you an iPhone. Are you the first purchaser? Didn't Apple have to essentially "purchase" them from Foxconn?

Re:God!

[tekrat]

Don't be ridiculous. Almost every "American" knows that all humanity started with Adam, created by God, in the garden of eden, which, according to a lot of people now, was in the USA. None of this other country bullcrap, God picked America as the chosen land -- I mean, that's why he gave all the oil to Muslims... errr. wait a minute...

The linked article is full of misunderstandings

[MobyDisk]

The linked Marketwatch article is complete BS. Clearly the author had no idea what they were talking about, and just took one sentence and expanded it into massive hyperbole. Here are some choice examples from the article:

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -0.15% has the copyright on the iPhone

I don't think so. They have patents, not copyrights.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain.

No, those things also cannot be copyrighted.

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.

Also nothing to do with copyright.

He himself once bought an antique desk from a Supreme Court justice.

Yet another example.

It sounds like the author just made stuff up as they went along. Here are some better articles:
SCOTUS! eBay! Cert and Other Sundries
Summary of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. at the Supreme Court's own blog

Re:The linked article is full of misunderstandings

[PortHaven]

I believe this is related to the Costco importation of watches. Where they're trying to use "copyrights" on logos to prevent sale of items.

Re:The linked article is full of misunderstandings

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is you who is terribly ill-informed.

You don't think that apple has a copyright on the IOS operating system and other miscellaneous software which is contained in every iProduct, and is an essential, inseparable, and indispensable part thereof? Please tell us how you think that anyone can buy an iPhone, iPod, or iPad in Singapore without buying a copy of the Apple copyrighted software contained within it?

Beyond Apple, please tell us how a person can buy any modern consumer item, whether it be a toaster, wrist watch, television, dvd player, or even automobile, without also buying the firmware (i.e. copyrighted software) which runs all of its functions.

Regarding jewelry, paintings, furniture, and other works of art, of course the creative design elements are copyrighted by their creator, and would be subject to the same principle. If a craftsman carves the panels of a wooden desk, do you not realize that his carvings are copyrighted? This would mean that a consumer who purchases a carved desk or painting in another country, brings it into the U.S., and later wants to sell it could be forbidden from doing so.

The implications of this case are profound, and have the potential to overturn hundreds of years of precedent regarding the fundamental relationship between people and their property.

Re:The linked article is full of misunderstandings

[MobyDisk]

Interesting. Thanks.

Re:The linked article is full of misunderstandings

[MobyDisk]

+1 Insightful, -1 Asshat

Good point about firmware. If you ever register for an account, try not to be an ass about it though.

By bringing up the idea of pre-loaded software, does that mean that AT&T also has a copyright on the iPhone? What about the firmware on the microprocessor? Or the video chip? You could probably find dozens of companies who have copyright over something on the phone. But that does not mean they have a copyright on the phone itself. But if this court ruling goes through, those companies could claim they control the distribution of the phone. Even more complex, it would depend on where the software/firmware was installed! If it was installed in the US, then that would qualify as first sale. But if it was installed overseas, it would not be first sale. I hope the Supreme Court comes across that argument! Who has a say in the distribution of the phone might depend on the locations of individual parts when their firmware is loaded.

Orwellian

[Baron von Daren]

I did read the article, but it doesn't give me a real feel for the issue from a legal perspective. In any case, this is like a lame plot detail from a bad dystopian si-fi story; it’s absurd.

Good luck enforcing this broadly. The logistics, should it become law, would be daunting. This isn't to say there might not be some enforcement for bigger ticket items or ramifications like ebay and craigslist, but I find it hard to believe there would be wide spread enforcement of this law for small scale deals, even things like car sales. Then again, if there is profit to be made if the law is enforced, I could be wrong.

And people talk to no end about how government is the enemy; corporations, at least what they are becoming, are the enemy...seriously.

Re:This will come down to commerce

[eth1]

The 99% will not care, because they'll be too busy saying "well it doesn't hurt me directly, and therefore I don't care"

Actually, since it kills every thrift store, second-hand shop, pawn shop, etc. I'm pretty sure "the 99%" are going to notice the problem pretty damn quick.

From what it sounds like, basically the entire US economy would shut down overnight. Everyone from WalMart down to the local mom-and-pop coffee shop would have to get licenses for every single thing they sell before they could continue business.

Building locally

[sjbe]

Otherwise, you would not be able to afford that "all American made" vehicle.

There is no such animal. Some vehicles are majority sourced in the US but no vehicle is sourced exclusively from one country.

That's right. The simple fact is that it costs more to build a car in the U.S. than it does to build, and deliver, a car made in Japan or Korea.

That is not true at all. A lot of cars are made in the US precisely because it is too expensive to build them overseas. Cost of labor is not much cheaper in Japan than it is in the US. Korea isn't especially cheap when it comes to labor either. Much auto assembly can be automated with sufficient volume so the labor differential is further reduced. You also have to account for where the parts for the vehicle are made - the number of auto parts made in the US is huge and shipping them elsewhere would be expensive. Furthermore you have to account for exchange rates. The Yen is quite strong at the moment which makes exporting from Japan expensive. Honda and Toyota build a LOT of cars in the US precisely because it is cheaper to build them in the US.

If they decide we *don't* own what we buy...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

the court will have proven itself so divorced from reality that it no longer serves any useful purpose and should be dissolved. Believe me, I was thinking that after that little "money is speech" nonsense.

Re:If they decide we *don't* own what we buy...

[Greyfox]

Certainly some adjustments are on order. Ever since that decision I've been thinking they're just making judgments sarcastically and saying "If you don't like it, fix the constitution!" Their real message seems to be "Fix the constitution," but that does not appear to have occurred to anyone.

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm davidwr but I don't want to undo my moderation of the parent post. It was "-1 - troll" when I saw it, +1 insightful'd it, and by that time it was "2 - funny."

If the Supremes rule broadly that the First Sale doctrine doesn't apply to items which contain foreign parts, you'll see a disruption in the marketplace, but it won't be pretty.

SOME customers, notably some business customers who depend on the ability to re-sell, some governments looking for any excuse to "buy American," and a small percentage of individuals will insist on buying American when possible. SOME retailers will specialize in selling only products that their customers are "free to resell" but it won't become widespread, general practice.

Here's why:

Most large companies that control "IP" - studios, large software houses, etc., will make sure that their mainline products qualify as "made in part overseas." Yes, they may sell a "made in the USA" or "free to resell" version that has minor differences and huge up-front increased price so they can qualify to sell to governments and companies that insist on the "right to resell" but their retail products will prohibit reselling. Because they are willing to turn down business from SOME customers to protect their future sales from the resale market, they will essentially "force" most of America to either concede to the reality that they can't re-sell their CDs, or simply do without.

My hope is that the Court will do the opposite and make it clear that people have the right to re-sell what they've already paid for.

Re:Yes and no

[zidium]

When Obama gets re-elected and nominates one to two more supreme court justices, this will certainly become law-by-judicial-fiat, which is completely unconstitutional.

Fucking judges.

Check out Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America.

Re:Yes and no

[scot4875]

If only he'd been able to do it before the law-by-judicial-fiat was able to "pass" the Citizens United ruling.

--Jeremy

Re:Yes and no

[cayenne8]

When Obama gets re-elected...

Goodness....you're certainly being pessimistic.....

Re:Yes and no

[qeveren]

Why would you single out Obama? Better to just say, "Once the President gets elected...", 'cause you know that's how it's going to be.

Re:Yes and no

[grantspassalan]

If this monstrosity should actually become law by decision of the Supreme Court, this law will be the most ignored law ever, impossible to enforce in any way shape or form. People will always sell the things they own no matter what any level or department of government or anybody else says. Even our do-nothing Congress will overturn this decision, should it happen. I don't understand in the slightest how any judge anywhere can make such a ruling.

Re:Yes and no

[doccus]

When is this ruling due..? It will bankrupt the entire used record industry, and cause economic chaos when implemented in all the other markets.. Ebay would collapse dragging down the US economy so fast that it would cause a recession so severe that i can't even describe it , as nobody would believe it until they experienced it for themselves.. I dearly hope that these judges have considered the ramifications of this judgement, on their own friends an family also..

Harry Potter goblins

[judoguy]

Same damn thing as in the books. You only rent something, never "own" it. Kelo vs New Haven showed who owns your home. The county or city, not you. You only get to buy and sell the leases fairly freely, but you don't own your house. That's why you have to get permission from the actual owner to alter it. In most places in the U.S., you can't even replace your kitchen faucet without permission from the real owner. Nearly everyone in an urban area walking out of a Home Depot is, or soon will be, in violation of local laws and often don't even realize it.

What this would mean...

[PortHaven]

As I recall, we no longer make transistors in the U.S. So don't just think of used foreign merchandise. Think of EVERY product that uses an Asian made transister or microchip.

- No used cars
- No used computers
- No used cell phones
- No used electronics
- Very few used toys

Yes, there are few decisions that would cause a revolution and the mass murder of politicians. But if the Supreme Court decided in favor of the apellate court's decision. I'd wager the result of enforcing such a decision would be the end of the American political system.

I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court will give this an easy slap down.

Re:What this would mean...

[neminem]

I predict the result of enforcing such a decision would be pigs flying and hell freezing over.

Wow, this would deter me from...uhhh

[Gedvondur]

Oh, that's right. It wouldn't deter me in the slightest.

  All it would do is make me ignore the ruling and sell whatever the hell I wanted on Craigslist anyway, and wait the two weeks it would take Congress to create new law that gets around this stupidity. Let those corporations try and sue everybody. Local LEOs and prosecutors are not going to waste their limited budgets on this shit.

Unenforceable. One of the keys to knowing a law or ruling is bad is when it is unenforceable and criminalizes everyday behavior. War on drugs, prohibition, gun laws etc....all more or less unenforceable laws that create a criminal class out of common citizens who are otherwise law abiding. Bah.

This "creep from Thailand" was an entrepreneur

[langelgjm]

There have been hundreds of thousands of students from Asia who knew the price differentials. None of us thought of exploiting it by arbitrage, because we knew it was "wrong". This creep from Thailand did just that.

Actually, engaging in this sort of arbitrage is virtually an American tradition. The only reason there's a lawsuit here is because there's intellectual property involved. If someone discovered that they could purchase Widget X in Country B at a lower price than in Country A, then bought a lot of Widget X and imported to Country A to resell at a higher price, we'd typically call them smart or at least entrepreneurial. Not to mention that consumers in Country A benefit from lower prices.

But since this involves copyright, normal logic goes out the window, and we're told that a book, lawfully purchased in Thailand, cannot be lawfully sold by its purchaser in the United States... because OMG WE NEED DIFFERENTIAL PRICING. You know what? Not my problem. Don't use copyright law to outlaw arbitrage. You want to make your differential pricing more effective? You could translate it into the local language, that'd be a huge barrier to reimportation and reselling.

BTW, this is the exact issue brought up in the Omega v. Costco case - except there it was even more ridiculous, since the copyright was on a design that happened to be stamped on the watch. Currently Costco is apparently winning the issue, since they're arguing that Omega is engaging in copyright misuse in order to control distribution of a normally uncopyrighted object (a watch).

Re:This "creep from Thailand" was an entrepreneur

[sgt_doom]

Thanx, langelgjm for setting that ignoramus straight --- Americans and Chinese have been doing this for ages and ages.

I've personally run into over hundred people, really strangers, who I found out were doing it in a most offhanded manner.

RTFB

[SnowDog74]

SCOTUS filed a brief on the matter that explicitly indicates that the scope is only Title 17, Copyright law, not patent law and not the uniform commercial code. The petitioners argument is based on a misunderstanding of Section 109(a) which deals with Limitations on transfer rights. The case has to do with the inapplicability of transfer rights under section 109 in foreign countries where Title 17 does not apply. There's a very good reason for that inapplicability if you think about why other countries protections or prohibitions don't apply to actions or works created in the United States. So SCOTUS did its job in rejecting the petition.

The case will not apply to all goods sold. It will only apply to works not protected by Title 17 because those works were created in foreign countries not party to Berne Convention rules. And that makes sense. If I'm from some country that didn't sign off on the Berne Convention, and has totally different laws concerning creative works, then why would America's laws apply? That would be like expecting Saudi Arabia's Sharia law to be applicable to the actions of U.S. Citizens in the United States.

What's good for the goose...

[kilfarsnar]

From TFA:

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaengâ(TM)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.

I see. So when jobs get shipped overseas because labor is cheaper, and companies can make a higher profit, I'm told I have to accept lower wages and compete in a global marketplace. When a consumer notices that prices are cheaper abroad and buys books there to increase his profit here, the courts change one of the fundamental concepts of Capitalism (that you can resell what you purchase) to stop him.

Can there be any doubt we live in a Corporatocracy? Can I get a fucking witness?

It's copyright, not scamright.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As usual, about 90% of the posters, including, impossibly, the OP, never read TFA. This isn't about your iPod or old book or 40% of your car. It's about some asshole buying books over seas and importing them to the US and selling them for millions in a huge operation.

No, you don't, in fact, get to do that. Copyright is about creating a de jure monopoly on intellectual property so you can charge what the market will bear.

If you have qualms about the indefinite re-extensions Congress keeps issuing, that's one thing. Otherwise, the law is working as intended.

Re:It's copyright, not scamright.

[JohnFen]

No, you don't, in fact, get to do that.

Since the court hasn't ruled, that statement is not fact. From a common-sense point of view, though, it's pretty ahrd to understand why it shouldn't be allowed.

Copyright is about creating a de jure monopoly on intellectual property so you can charge what the market will bear.

Copyright is about creating a temporary monopoly, yes, but the monopoly is on production, not distribution. This act doesn't violate that at all -- the guy wasn't printing the books, he was legally purchasing them. The publisher still has the monopoly on production.

Re:It's copyright, not scamright.

[mrchaotica]

No, you don't, in fact, get to do that.

The Hell you don't! Globalization works both ways, bitch!

The only copy made was made legally. Copyright is irrelevant when you merely move a copy that already exists.

reality check

[epyT-R]

The fact this is even being discussed at the FEDERAL level shows just how far off base our society has come. Selling stuff we purchased has to be a fundamental right in a free society. Otherwise, what was bought exactly? What's the point in owning anything? It seems like these days, the empowerment that comes with the choices we're still allowed to make is being stripped away, leaving only the liabilities. Why should we bother getting up in the morning? Between insurance companies, patent whores, employers, and the state, it seems like we're not allowed to do much at all with our lives or the things we supposedly own. Sure, there are still choices, but an increasing number of the ones left are false, as the 'wrong' one comes with a pile of artificial consequences enforced by these entities while they high five each other over the lines that are supposed to separate them.

To me it's obvious that the right to own is being picked apart because it's a source of empowerment for the individual. Am I really that far off base?

Don't be hasty.

[hoboroadie]

Two months is a long time.

If they don't want it being sold in the USA....

[mark-t]

... then they shouldn't allow it to be imported in the first place.

Seems fairly simple, really.

Not that I advocate what they are doing here... but prohibiting unauthorized resale of it when they don't even *TRY* to stop unauthorized imports seems to me a whole lot like closing the barn door *after* the animals have left.

Of course I realize that there'd still be ways around the law in that case, but at least that would make the law a whole lot more consistent.

Re:America..... the land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget how many of Britt's 14 characteristics of fascism the US is now clearly exhibiting:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism, Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights, Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause, Supremacy of the Military, Rampant Sexism, Controlled Mass Media, Obsession with National Security, Religion and Government are Intertwined (so help me Bastet), Corporate Power is Protected, Labor Power is Suppressed, Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts, Obsession with Crime and Punishment, Rampant Cronyism and Corruption, Fraudulent Elections.

Re:The Supreme Court of the Republican Party

[PortHaven]

We weren't required to buy healthcare back then either....just saying.

Re:This would destroy jobs

[PortHaven]

Why modded down?

He's 100% right...it would hurt American industry to give foreign companies such a competitive advantage. And that will likely be the reason the Supreme Court will find a way to overturn the appelate court decision.

Re:who cares

[Lumpy]

Says the little kid who still dresses Goth and spraypainst the Anarchy Symbol on things. Yet doesn't have the balls to post his comment under his account.

You are the worst kind, A loudmouth without any guts. I.E. the noisy part of the sheep.

I am old enough to know better. I see my fellow countrymen and countrywomen daily. I see how they don't care about ANYTHING but their own personal comfort. I watch them drive past an accident where a person is trying to wave people down for help. (I stop to help) Or ignore a parent smacking the crap out of their child.

Americans in general like the Security theater that makes them feel better. They gladly give up freedoms that they seem are worthless to them because they dont use them right now.

I see reality. You as a little kid, someone that doesn't know squat about the world, has the rose colored glasses. Rise up my brothers! Hack the Planet!

Mooooooo....

A win?

[phorm]

Only up to the point where people want to trade up to the newest iGadget and realize they won't be able to sell their old one to do so.

Yes, the iHoard has shiny gadgetitis when it comes to iProducts, but even they tend to sell/trade their old stuff when purchasing a new one, which means restrictions on used sales would probably impact new sales quite heavily.

Should be unlimited

[SuperKendall]

The conservative side produced citizen united which basically lets corporation give unlimited money to political speech.

No, it lets ANYONE spend ANY amount of money on political speech. That's because we have this little thing called "freedom of speech" which allows you to, well SPEAK. WIthout limits.

I don't see a problem with it since it applies to all sides of politics, and votes cannot be bought with pure money dumps. Do you know how much money is spent on fliers and phone calls and the like that go to millions? And yet such efforts can have a tiny to no impact at all on voters, because they tune it out and can easily find information they want to on candidates now. There is no problem with letting a politician spend himself silly because media is just not limited to a few channels the way it once was.

Re:Should be unlimited

[hondo77]

A corporation is not an "anyone". It is an "anything". Specifically, a corporation is not a U.S. citizen.

Re:Should be unlimited

[SuperKendall]

A corporation is not an "anyone". It is an "anything". Specifically, a corporation is not a U.S. citizen.

Nor can a corporation, by itself, run ads or do anything else. Instead the PEOPLE working for the company decide what the company will do, and it's the right of those PEOPLE to say what they like in support of or against someone running for office.

It's not like you can say just anything; libel laws still apply.

Re:Should be unlimited

[mrchaotica]

Nor can a corporation, by itself, run ads or do anything else. Instead the PEOPLE working for the company decide what the company will do, and it's the right of those PEOPLE to say what they like in support of or against someone running for office.

But why should those "PEOPLE" be conferred the special advantage of structuring themselves as a corporation? Forming a corporation is not some kind of inherent right; corporations are constructions of government that were supposedly created to serve the public interest. Once they cease to do that, their continued existence loses all legitimacy.

Re:Should be unlimited

[mrchaotica]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I thought of a way to rephrase it more succinctly:

The privilege of forming a corporation does and should come with trade-offs, and it's both reasonable and desirable for one of those trade-offs to be limitations on political speech.

Otherwise, "PEOPLE" are still perfectly free to exercise whatever free speech they want -- just without the tax advantages and leverage afforded by the corporate legal structure.

Re:Should be unlimited

[dywolf]

that's fine for individuals.
if it was only individuals, most of us wouldnt care. one person makes 20$, lobbies a congressman, another makes 20million and lobbies...a little onesided, but stillan individual. and a million people with 20$ can band together and resist one person with 20mil. and individuals tend to lobby for themselves, and keep a mind open to rights.

but corporations get the same rights. and corporations have billions even trillions to lobby with. and they dont give a damn about individuals or rights or anything else. they (not all, but neough to give all a bad name) lobby for what makes them more money, regardless of who or what it may hurt. "we just killed off right to xxxx...but we got record profits! yay us!"

Re:Should be unlimited

[dywolf]

So naive.

Corporate sponsored and/or co-writeen bills and issues of controversy in the past couple years:
-The Arizona Immigration Law
-Obamacare (out to get the insurance compnaies? hah. they helped write the damn thing)
-Keystone XL pipeline
-SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc
-current case before the Supreme Court
-Town in N Carolina that tried to build its own fiber network and was sued/shut down by the local cable company, with result that no, they could not build better internet than the local cable co. Competition? That's un-american!

There's many others. And sometimes, they actually get it right, from a liberty/freedom pointof view. A lot of times they dont.
But the point is, they (mostly) DONT CARE EITHER WAY. They only care about bottom line, and if it requires the repeal of the entire Constitution to do it, they will work on that too.

Missed the point again

[taustin]

This case has nothing to do with where something was made,, it is over where it was originally bought, and hinges more on import of copyright goods than on first sale doctrine. It's a much more complicated case than the hysterical morons in the secondary press (like whoeve wrote the summary here) make it out to be, and isn't likely to be a precedent for anything at all.

Re:Missed the point again

[moeinvt]

I think this particular case has everything to do with where the item was made.

Items made in the USA can be purchased in foreign countries and then imported and sold without being subject to copyright laws. Well, items except prescription drugs and medical devices anyway.

At issue here is whether a book manufactured by the "Asian subsidiary" of the copyright holder can be imported and sold.

dice roll

[Anonymous Coward]

votes cannot be bought with pure money dumps.

I can't decide if you're naive, not paying any attention at all, or just plain stupid.

Re:dice roll

[SuperKendall]

I can't decide if you're naive, not paying any attention at all, or just plain stupid.

All of those apply to people who think you can simply pour money into a campaign to buy ads. Sorry but as I explained, it's not that easy anymore since people can find out anything they like - good and bad - about candidates now.

Oh yes the campaigns still think this way. They just don't realize how outmoded this way of thinking has become.

Then you haven't been paying attention .....

[sgt_doom]

....such as in ever taking the time to look at the WTO's Financial Services Agreement, which that faux crat and fraudster, Bill Clinton was so hepped to sign into law. Evidently I may be the ONLY American who recalls that back around 1996, Clinton tried to get the House to create legislation removing the right of the individual citizen to own a patent, and only allow for corporations to own patents, moving it in line with the WTO charter. Fortunately, let us hope this pathetic crap doesn't pass just as Billygoat Clinton failed back with at least one thing in the 1990s. (And I state unequivocally I am an authentic democrat/progressive, not a phony Clintoncrat or Obamacrat.

Try reading....

[sgt_doom]

...the WTO's Financial Services Agreement.

Are you a chatbot or an Ameritard?

[sgt_doom]

"...would incentivize companies..." that's the most stupid drivel --- America reached critical mass for jobs offshoring back in 1999, when America became a net importer of tech services. Evidently, all concepts are beyond your grasp --- no wonder you're anonymous....

Craft Stores will be affected

[realsilly]

Would not anything made where parts are bought then be held at issue. If you knit a sweater, the manufacturer of that thread has the right to tell you not to resell that sweater, but break it back down to the owner of the Cotton farm can tell that thread manufacturer, I want a licensing fee for each object made with my cotton. The company who makes the dyes for the thread can say, we don't approve you selling that sweater because it uses Red Dye #5 and we have a patent on that. Next the chemical companies who provide the dye factory the chemicals to make the dye to have a say too.
You make a product, you sell it, you don't own it any more if you are a retailer.

This puts a whole new spin on both "buyer beware" and "possession is 9/10th of the law".

Re:This will come down to commerce

[blackraven14250]

I agree with your point, mostly, but some of your examples are downright frightening to leave unregulated. There's enough dentists who are licensed that suck, there's plenty of bad doctors, and plenty of bad restaurants already - we don't need them to be unregulated to promote a vibrant economy. Imagine the harm to our country if people without any training could open up offices as doctors, or even worse, dentists, and you'll realize that while regulation isn't always good (why would we heavily regulate tobacoonists?), it's also required in other areas.

Indeed....

[sgt_doom]

...usuallylost, let us hope, but you may have noticed that decision back around 2005, where SCOTUS privatized eminent domain???

Such that a private corporate concern can pressure the government, at all levels, to seize private property for their profitable use (involved a property firm, on behalf of Pfizer, seizing and destroying a neighborhood in Connecticut --- after the SCOTUS decision went in the property firm's favor, they abandoned the project after razing that neighborhood!); such a decision allow for foreign corporations to also exert eminent domain through local government, etc. (Pay close attention to what's transpiring with TransCanada and their pipeline and eminent domain in America, please.) It's all about that WTO Financial Services Agreement and their charter.

Are you ever clueless.....

[sgt_doom]

I predict an obvious but subtle castigation of lower courts for it getting there at all.

In case you haven't noticed -- which you obviously haven't -- pretty much all the cases now going to SCOTUS have been in that whackadoodle category: Citizens United would never have reached them forty or fifty years ago.

Of course, fifty years ago, when a governor was punked and fully exposed the way that the Wisconsin Governor Wanker (Walker?) was, the public outrage would have been deafening, and he likely would have resigned --- not been reelected in a recall election, where the same frigging percentage of "union" households voted for that wanker a second time (unions = business associations today, except for National Nurses United and the Longshoremen, etc.)!

Ameritards are brain dead today --- MK ULTRA has been a roaring success among the forever ignorant masses.

Re:Are you ever clueless.....

[HornWumpus]

50+ years ago, FDR put restrictions on public unions in place that make Walker look like a liberal.

Of course not!

[ThatsNotPudding]

It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping.

Exactly. He's merely waiting to vote whichever way Scalia tells him to. Whenever those two go out to lunch, as the waiter approaches the first time, Thomas shouts out "I'll have what he's having!"

Scalia's favorite song: Me and My Shadow

Re:This will come down to commerce

[hand_of_lixue]

I'm guessing you're middle class, born, raised, and current. Quite a few of my friends grew up not being able to afford anything more than thrift stores, and some of them are still limited to those for "expensive" purchases like clothing (especially semi-professional outfits). Telling the poor that they don't get to have clothing anymore is the sort of thing I'd expect to lead to riots, not grandpa telling stories about "back in the day"!

is it the fault of the supreme court

[Chirs]

if they find a day-one bug in existing legislation?

if the court finds a day-one bug in the law

[Chirs]

the proper answer is to fix the law, not attack the court

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[Grishnakh]

- 'legit' used car market evaporates or used car prices skyrocket to nearly the price of new (with all of the extra money going to the IP trolls)

Well you can count on the entire auto market collapsing, because not many people can afford to buy a brand-new car and then throw it away when it's having trouble. New cars can only cost as much as they do because people are able to recover part of the price by reselling the car after 3-10 years when they get tired of it or it starts having mechanical problems. People would only be able to buy a car and never resell it, meaning they'd have to keep it as long as possible; new car sales will absolutely plummet.

if Kirtsaeng wins

[Khashishi]

If Kirtsaeng wins, then companies like John Wiley & Sons will raise its prices abroad or close their overseas subsidiaries altogether. This means the only access that people in poorer countries will have to American books, drugs, movies will be cheaper counterfeits. I don't really have a problem with that.

Re:if Kirtsaeng wins

[usuallylost]

Possibly. A Kirtsaeng win simply represents the preservation of the status quo. If they lose the fundamentals of their foreign businesses really don't change much from when they opened them. On the other hand if they win then rights holders gain a huge new revenue stream off of the public. Really this is about protecting the deals that they cut with University book stores and if possible about seizing more money from the public. As far as text book publishers go, my guess is that if they lose they will start selling different domestic and foreign versions of the books. So that you can't use the foreign version in your US classes.

Thank you Costco, You tried

[chuckugly]

Isn't this just the Costco vs Omega ruling being applied to the general case?

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[dontfearthereaper]

Well you can count on the entire auto market collapsing

What it comes down to, (I could have probably said it better, but didn't particularly want to say this and more than likely get flamed into oblivion) is that if this is upheld, you're looking at a radical change in the consumer/producer relationship, and potentially the near total (if not completely total) collapse of the US economy assuming it is strictly enforced, or enforced at all. Given the precedents set by the RIAA/MPAA and Apple Computer, I do not think that the lower court's ruling can be struck down without also striking down the aforementioned rulings, but I'm also not a lawyer so I may be missing something there.

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[Grishnakh]

I agree entirely.

Interestingly, however, some other posters have pointed out that this doesn't apply to just anything, it only applies to things purchased overseas and imported without permission. Of course, with that, I really wonder: how do you tell if something is imported with permission or not?

Omfg

[grenadeh]

This absolute draconian 1984 x10 to the infinite bullshit needs to stop. Are you SERIOUS? I underatand what Mandak is saying and the simple fact is that the majority of society is not going to try to turn a profit through dishonestly re-selling their foreign acquisitions to get a larger margin, just like mandak never thought of it. Real legitimate human beings do not do that and, even though it seems like 99% of us are garbage, they really aren't. Laws and court rulings that punish the majority because of the shittiness of the minority need to stop right now. This affects everyone - reselling games to a GameStop or a Spin-it-Again or a whateverthehellotherof90000differenstores is one huge issue in the entertainment industry right now, for example. By this ruling it would be illegal for many legitimate businesses who purchase products from Japan and South Korea and Taiwan to resell them, such as PVC figure kits from e-bay sellers or import toys/figures/dvds/blurays/videogames/food/candy/comics/manga/shirts/shit at anime or horror or scifi or even porn conventions, or gun shows, or many other things. This hypothetically would put an end to all third-party vending, and not to be the conspiracy guy here - including the fact that this is a huge attempted strike at the sale of firearms in America, just to name one of many things.

Re:Omfg

[moeinvt]

"the majority of society is not going to try to turn a profit through dishonestly re-selling their foreign acquisitions to get a larger margin"

What's "dishonest" about it? Someone spots an opportunity to buy something in a foreign market for cheap and sell it in the U.S. for a profit. Good business strategy. If the manufacturer doesn't like it, they can raise the price in the foreign market or lower it in the U.S. market. Creating some artificial legal barrier to prevent import/re-import of products forces Americans to subsidize the development of these products for the rest of the world. It's BS.

This is especially pernicious in the field of prescription medications and medical devices. Why should a dose of the SAME drug that sells for 25 cents in Canada be sold at $25 in the USA? Someone should be taking advantage of the price differential by buying the drug in Canada and selling the drug for $5 in the USA. We're not talking about counterfeits. This is the same drug from the same manufacturer. The company that makes the drug can choose not to sell it to Canadian or European businesses at all OR they can choose to sell it to everyone at the same price. A fair market price. Once it's sold however, there should be no law against shipping it right back to the U.S. retail market.

Such laws are garbage.

Re:This will come down to commerce

[The Rizz]

From what it sounds like, basically the entire US economy would shut down overnight. Everyone from WalMart down to the local mom-and-pop coffee shop would have to get licenses for every single thing they sell before they could continue business.

Only non-First Sale items, which would cut Wal-Mart and most mom-and-pops out of any trouble; these items were purchased from the manufacturer or a distributor for the express purpose of resale, and the manufacturer/distributor was fully aware of this when sold to the store. This court case only covers an item resold after being bought by a consumer (whether resold by the consumer or a store).

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[cpt kangarooski]

No, the appellate opinion in the case being heard said that what mattered was the place of manufacture, regardless of whether it was imported with or without the authorization of the US rightsholder.

Re:Answer cloudy

[moeinvt]

I wouldn't expect it to be illegal to re-sell legal drugs if they were purchased in a country were they were cheaper either ... but it is.

Smells like Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

[yakovlev]

What this smells like to me is a re-trying of Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., probably where justice Kagan will not recuse herself.

At issue in the earlier case was whether or not Costco had the right to IMPORT the watches, NOT whether or not he had the right to sell them. If a similar decision occurs here, the lack of first sale doctrine would prevent Kirtsaeng from importing the items in the first place, not so much from reselling them. It most certainly would NOT prevent FIRST SALE from applying to items that you purchased in the US, even if made elsewhere, as those items would presumably have been imported legally.

My guess is that if Kagan is the deciding vote on this one, it will go better for consumers, but only time will tell.

I am not the first sale

[Osgeld]

If I buy a DVD, I dont buy it from sony, I buy it from walmart.
Walmart bought it from a distributor
and if life was only THAT simple the distributor bought it from another distributor, who bought it from the factory!

so go fuck yourself

I am not sure its as bad as TFA makes it sound...

[jonwil]

The question at issue (to me) seems to be this:
If you purchase an item in a foreign country and import it into the United States without permission from the rights holder, does the initial purchase in the foreign country count as the "First Sale" for the purposes of the "First Sale" doctrine in US law.

If you buy a textbook printed overseas from a US bookstore, that would count as the "First Sale" and since it was presumably imported with the permission of the rights holder, there is no issue.

Summary totally misrepresents case

[Relayman]

The case has to do with items purchased overseas then imported into this country. If you didn't purchase your item overseas, it doesn't apply to you.

Re:Who's Soveriegn Law Applies?

[mrchaotica]

If I sell you something with the agreement that you will not export it, and then you export it, does that license still hold?

Yes... in the jurisdiction of the country it was exported from!

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[mrchaotica]

if this is upheld, you're looking at a radical change in the consumer/producer relationship, and potentially the near total (if not completely total) collapse of the US economy assuming it is strictly enforced, or enforced at all

It would fling our economic system so far in the direction of socialism that we'd go past communism and loop back around to feudalism, only this time based on Imaginary Property instead of real estate.

Re:This will come down to commerce

[rsborg]

Sure, at first, some people may notice that there used to be thrift stores. For a while. Some old geezers will say "I remember back in my day when you could just buy things, and then sell them--for cash!--and it was nobody's business but yours". But eventually, it will just be normal. Thrift stores will just be added to the list of businesses that aren't allowed to exist, and so they don't exist. And since they don't exist, nobody will care about getting the law overturned, because they will perceive no demand.

In the real world we have 7.8% U-3 unemployment [1] and 14% U-6 [2] unemployment. With a whole load of people in the past several years who have pretty much given up finding a job (google: participation rate).

When pawn shops, used car dealerships and the like go out of business, it will crater the economy. Sure it may take a couple of years, but it will probably result in at least 10% more unemployment... and the "job makers" aren't going to be able to employ those folks.

[1] http://www.davemanuel.com/2012/10/05/whats-that-unemployment-rate-drops-to-78/
[2] http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/u6-unemployment-rate/

Re:This is misleading--it is channel enforcement

[deimtee]

The licensed producer for an area can't sell outside that area. If he does, he breaks copyright law because his contract only lets him sell within that area, and copies produced for sale outside the area are unlicensed.
Once he sells the copies however, the people he sells to have no such contract, and as they are not producing copies they are not subject to copyright law.
The reason bookshops also obey these rules is due to the crazy sale or return system, which means that they don't effectively buy a book until they sell it. This involves them in the contract mess, and subjects them to the same rules.
This whole "physical goods owner also has a licence we control" bullshit is being pushed by the IP holders, and has no basis unless you sign a contract before the sale.
Copyright is the right to control manufacture of copies, once made and sold your control of that copy is gone.

The verdict is already in:

[macraig]

This corporate-allied Supreme Court is certain to allow what amounts to economic double jeopardy: allowing rights holders and manufacturers to profit not just once from production of an item but every single time it changes hands. Doesn't that sound vaguely familiar? It should: it's almost like a subscription.

Revolution is not the way

[redlemming]

My hope is that the Court will do the opposite and make it clear that people have the right to re-sell what they've already paid for.

As an exercise of free speech, I am going to say that right already exists. In fact, it's one of the most fundamental rights that can exist in any free country: the Right To Transfer items that one buys is certainly a form of reasonable conduct (provided the item is transferred in full), and the Right to Reasonable Conduct is indisputably a fundamental human right, arguably THE single most important fundamental right.

As these particular rights are not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, they necessarily arise under US law as rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment and "reserved to the people" under the 10th Amendment. James Madison deliberately made the Bill of Rights an open-ended document because he anticipated these kinds of situations would eventually occur.

In other words, businesses do not have a legal right to artificially segment markets. There is no such thing as an "Asian Edition" of a book, in the sense of an edition that can only be sold in Asia. There is no such thing as a "region code", in these sense of a mark on an item that indicates it can only be sold in certain parts of the world.

All legal professionals in the USA are required to swear oaths to uphold the law. The Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land and supersedes all laws below the level of the Bill of Rights. If these oaths of office have any meaning at all, then by bringing this case, the legal professionals representing the publisher violated these oaths. In ruling as they did, the lower courts and the appeals courts violated these oaths. If the Supreme Court justices were to uphold this illegal ruling, then the Supreme Court justices would be in violation of THEIR oaths.

We can assert the equivalent of the Nuremberg precedent in this case, as another right arising under the 9th Amendment. Just as military officers are expected to refuse to obey illegal orders, civil officials and legal professionals are expected to refuse to enforce OR MAKE USE OF illegal laws or precedents, and any law or precedent that infringes fundamental rights is by definition illegal.

Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. A legal system that is, or even merely seems to be, complex, confusing, or contradictory, or one that makes people afraid of engaging in reasonable conduct, necessarily creates a long term demand for the services of legal professionals, leading to massively increased job security and income (if the complexity increase fast enough, the supply will never keep up, especially when the legal professionals can artificially limit the supply). As such, the behavior of legal professionals who make the legal system have these attributes does not merely involve a minor, technical, or accidental violation of their oaths, but rather involves EXTREMELY serious unethical conduct. I emphasize EXTREME because this kind of behavior affects everyone else in society.

Such a violation can only carry one penalty: the persons involved are immediately and permanently disqualified from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or engaging in the practice of law, or receiving any form of pension or other benefit from the United States government. Any member of government who permits an oath-breaker to stay in office becomes an accessory to the original violation.

This penalty for violating fundamental rights also means that legal professionals in the highest office are also in positions of conflict of interest with respect to their oaths. After all, these people have typically made many decisions during their careers before reaching the highest office, and if these earlier decisions were later found to involve violations of an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights, these people would necessarily l

Re: electronics? try damn near everything.....

[toddestan]

No, what would happen is that when you get tired of your car for whatever reason, you take it back to the dealer where you purchased it from where they would be happy to waive the reselling fee if you trade it in on a new car of the same brand. So there would still be a used market of some sort, but under complete control of the manufacturers.

The answer is in the question.

[RockDoctor]

'It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can't be bought or sold here,'

1. That would indeed be an absurd result.
2. Lawyers are involved, in high concentrations.
3. Therefore, an absurd result is guaranteed.

QED.

All I'm gonna say is:

[poofmeisterp]

Tell people they can't do something and they multiply their efforts by ten fold to do said something.

I needn't say more.

Flash forward 2 years...

[poofmeisterp]

Slashdot story: "All forms of bar code have been numerically exhausted; IPv4 addresses still available."

Will make people go against the government

[syleishere]

Just as raising prices on cigarettes would do nothing more than make them get them underground and despise the government, this will just turn the profits underground and under the table as well. They not going to police every garage sale , and certainly internet websites would pop up overnight allowing anonymous contacting of said products. Its really an issue of corporate greed vs blue collar empathy, they work hard for their money and have to be told now they can't sell their own posessions, I don't think so.