Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Hear First Sale Doctrine Case
Registered Coward v2 writes "The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case to determine how copyright law and the doctrine of first sale applies to copyrighted works bought overseas, then imported to the U.S. and then re-sold. The case involves a foreign student who imported textbooks from Asia and the resold them in the U.S. to help fund his education. He was sued by the publisher, lost, and was ordered to pay $600,000 in damages. Now SCOTUS gets to weigh in on the issue. 'The idea -- upheld by the Supreme Court since 1908 -- is that once a copyright holder legally sells a product initially, the ownership claim is then exhausted, giving the buyer the power to resell, destroy, donate, whatever. It's a limited idea -- involving only a buyer's distribution right, not the power to reproduce that DVD or designer dress for sale. ... The tricky part is whether that first-sale doctrine applies to material both manufactured and first purchased outside the United States. Federal law gives that authority to a purchaser's work "lawfully made under this title." Does "this title" apply to any copyrighted work — whether manufactured all or in part in the United States and around the world?"
How much of what is purchased in the US is actually made in the US?
That should be 1/2 of the problem solved.
How far down the rabbit hole will this go?
Order a car part from Germany and then find out you don't need it, can you sell it? Legally?
Yes, first sale doctrine applies in this case. It's a no-brainer. Nobody here or in the court will be thinking about whether or not the foreign student stole the textbooks - because he did not. Nobody is accusing him of copying. Nobody is saying the items are counterfeit. The whole point of this case will be to try to figure out a tricky legal way to accuse the student of stealing. That is the only reason for debate. The 'under this title' part of the reasoning for debate is moot anyway since the law is meant to be applied equally - and equal application would mean 'lawfully made under this title' when the law agrees in both governing states (which is not even being argued.)
The doctrine of first sale is a simple idea and concept - one that can apply easily in courts around the country and the world. The biggest problem we are all worried about is if our corrupt Surpreme Court will once again come up with complicated 'reasoning' to decide yet another case where the big corporation beats the young entrepreneur. If I want to copyright my apples and sell them for 1 penny in China and $3000 in Canada, why should I have any further control over the people in China realizing my ridiculous pricing? Free market capitalism and globalism needs to go both ways. If a corporation is free to charge different prices, the consumers or middle men should be free to resell them - until the price points meet market demands.
What the Supreme Court should do is morally, lawfully, and reasonably easy to decide. What they will do is a big fucking can of worms because of the current move toward corporatism.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
The Constituion contains the mechanism for amending it. It's not supposed to be done by executive order, a simple majority vote in Congress, or judicial fiat.
This is not a piece of code, it's a law. Unfortunately it needs to be interpreted and it stops working when it is interpreted badly (maybe it is like interpreted code?)
You know, like 100 bajilion dollars for downloading 10 songs still has to be interpreted as "cruel and unusual" to be unconstitutional.
Or like current administration arguing that placing you on a "kill list" is fine because it is "due process", just not judicial, reviewed or in any way transparent. But still "due".
Or judges accepting that your "documents" can't be searched, but when they are sent by email or stored on your phone, suddenly that doesn't count as "papers" because they are electronic. Similarly, you cannot be search unless a police dog barks at you/your car. Once the dog barks, the constitutional limits are lifted for some reason.
Or successfully arguing that copyright limits are "limited" as long as they are finite (so "unlimited" is unconstitutional, but extend by 20 years every 20 years is fine)
Or court accepting that administration can wait a few years until the constitutional review of a detention (Jose Padilla) and then transfer that prisoner from military to civil confinement one day before review and claim that the case is now "moot" since the prisoner is no longer in military confinement.
I could go on.