Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds First Sale Doctrine
langelgjm writes "In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court today vindicated the first-sale doctrine, declaring that it "applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad." The case involved a Thai graduate student in the U.S. who sold cheap foreign versions of textbooks on eBay without the publisher's permission. The 6-3 decision has important implications for goods sold online and in discount stores. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion (PDF) that the publisher lost any ability to control what happens to its books after their first sale abroad."
will not stop the publishers from making DMCA requests / filling strikes that can cost you $35 a pop.
Like, seriously? The supreme court saw reason and is judged in favor of the consumer?! Will wonders ever cease!
I think I speak for every politician and lobbyist when I ask "Who the hell are these nine impostors, and what have they done with the real Supreme Court justices?"
Quoting the judge: 'the publisher lost any ability to control what happens to its books after their first sale abroad'
I'd like to see this concept applied to anything that is purchased outright. If the publisher lost the ability to control what happens to the book then shouldn't Microsoft lose the ability to control what happens to an XBox after first sale? Modifying the hardware of something that you own should NOT be against the law.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger push towards e-books. That is a way around the "problem" for the publishers.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Now lots of online businesses peddling second hand goods will spring up in no time.
What about pdf books and eBooks? Can they be traded online or offered free by the legitimate purchaser?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
you can already resell your Oxycontin scripts on the street. i know of people who may or may not make $1000 a month doing so.
but copyright is the least of your problems
This may be one of the most important decisions this court has gotten right in years. This was absolutely huge because of the implications of what would have happened if it had gone the other way. This is critical in terms of the idea of actually owning what you buy, without this manufactures could simply make things out of country and avoid first sale rights. This could have affected pretty much every aspect of Americans daily life and is a good first step in restoring Intellectual Property sanity.
It's funny how property rights have historically been a right wring agenda item until they are shown to be just as important to the left as well...
If they wrote it....they'll want the latest edition.
--- Mercutio was right.
There will be a huge push now for electronic books under the guise of "convenience" but what it really comes down to is that they will want to "license" the book rather than sell it. At the same time, the electronic versions will simply continue to make the publishers less and less relevant especially for new titles.
may be found at this link. Surprisingly, Scalia was the only justice from the conservative wing to dissent.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?"
Yes, it did. BUT, you're wrong about one thing. It isn't the "physical product" that is at issue here. it's the copyrighted work.
This has BIG implications for copyrighted works. In essence, it upholds the 100-year-old rule that says publishers' "terms" bedamned: if you bought it, it's YOURS. You can sell it, burn it, or whatever you want.
Although lower courts have upheld First Sale Doctrine re: copyrighted software for resale on Ebay and Amazon, it was reaffirmed here by the Supreme Court.
So unless you have an existing contract with the publisher when you buy software, you can pretty much ignore their "license agreement". You bought it, it's yours. Once you have paid for it, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of any "license agreement" inside the box or in a popup window. But you still can't legally distribute copies without the copyright holder's permission.
Legally it wasn't so clear-cut. The case hinged on the wording of the Copyright Act, which grants first-sale doctrine to copies "lawfully made under this title [the Act]." The crucial debate was over the word under. Wiley alleged, and the lower courts agreed, that "under" meant "under the jurisdiction of": since the books were produced outside the US, they were made outside the jurisdiction of the Copyright Act and thus not made under the Act. Kirtsaeng alleged that "under" meant "corresponding to the rules set forth in" and thus the doctrine applied. SCOTUS held with Kirtsaeng.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Many here do not understand event the definition of capitalism:
private ownership and operation of property
that's all it is.
Denying people's right to private ownership and operation of property is denying capitalism. It's a good thing that this judge went in the right direction, but what is troubling is that this was ever even a question: can people own property?
Can people own and operate private property? Can you sell your own stuff that you made or bought? Isn't that a strange thing to ask in a society that is supposedly capitalist? But of-course it is not a strange thing to ask, because the society is no longer capitalist. Capitalism really exists as a concept in a free market economy, because capitalism in fact requires individual freedom. Denying freedom to the individuals will automatically deny capitalism and what do you have when you do not have capitalism because you do not have freedom?
Well, you may still end up with some people owning and operating private property but not all people being able to do it, because the governing principles changed to deny all people equal protection against government intervention by law.
It is when you do not have equal treatment of people in the context of their relationship with their government by law when you really no longer have free market but you also lose the principles of capitalism for most people.
Again: capitalism is ownership and operation of private property. This is a basic fundamental right, all other rights are only an extension of this one right. If you have no right to own and operate private property, you will not be able to have resources, you will not even be allowed to own and operate your own body. And that's true even today, look at this lack of capitalism, lack of free market and thus lack of freedom even to do what you want with your own body. All these government officials telling you what you must or are not allowed to do, eat, smoke, drink, ingest, who you can and cannot have sex with, etc.
Unfortunately it is now news when a judge actually protects individual freedoms in a rare case of outbreak of common sense or decency or something like that, it's no longer the rule, it's the exception.
You can't handle the truth.
The breakdown of votes is very different to what I'm used to seeing on Supreme Court cases – you've got Breyer, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, and Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg in dissent. That's really weird; usually you've got Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on the conservative wing voting together, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor as the liberal bloc. Kennedy is a bit of a swing vote, though he's gone more with the conservatives recently, and Scalia used to occasionally vote with the liberals on civil liberties cases, but he doesn't any more and is now pretty much an elderly partisan crank. Roberts occasionally crosses the line (as with the decision upholding PPACA) but it's rather unusual to see so much intermixing between the liberal and conservative blocs.
Just goes to show that copyright as a political issue doesn't neatly break down along existing partisan lines.
What happens when you import a pound of marijuana from a country where it's legal to a country where it's illegal?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
It's funny -- there are all kinds of incentives for big business to move jobs offshore, or import cheap labor, but when the general public makes use of the same process, they complain. And they got 3 judges on their side, including a "liberal" judge (Ginsburg) and a lieralish judge (Kenedy) and of course Scalia. Expect a legislative solution to be purchased soon so that this "egregious" decision can be fixed and we can go back to falling wages and increasing corporate profits.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Err, electronic versions make them more relevant. Lazy college professors require you to purchase the online license from publishers like those in question(Wiley) because the website comes setup already with all the quizzes, homework, and tests preconfigured. This is basically standard in every university and community college I've researched in the past 6 years or so. It's too easy for the professor to pass up
If only they wrote a dissenting opinion. I guess we'll never know what they were thinking!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Guise of convenience? I'm pretty sure they really are more convenient...
Electronic copies can be more convenient. But currently, they are not. Why are they not more convenient? Well let me see if I can find a source... Oh yes here it is:
I can easily break the DRM on my books so that I have backups...
If you notice, this person here has to run cracking software just to get their files to play nicely and not destroy itself if this person tries to do the basic tasks of backup or use on an 'unauthorized device'.
You see, they can be more convenient, but they are not. The eBook market is a minefield of incompatibility and artificial restriction. It takes away huge capabilities present in real books, and offers it back in a crippled/reduced capacity and calls it a 'bonus feature'.
Want to give your book to a friend? Hand it to them. Done.
Want to give your eBook to a friend? Well, first lets understand what format of eBook you have, which vendor did you purchase it from. Depending on the vendor, and their software, you might be able to lend it, but only once, or not at all. I'm not sure. Oh wait, your friend is using this specific type of software right? Oh he isn't? Well, guess you can't lend it to him. So he wants to use the software, hope he agrees to all the terms and conditions associated with the use of such software.
Am I exaggerating? A little... No wait, I'm not exaggerating at all, it really is a mass of incompatible formats, competing ecosystems, overly-limited 'rights', and flawed laws which make even your simple 'remove the DRM' action illegal (depending on how cranky a prosecutor is on a given day)
eBooks SHOULD be more convenient, but right now they certainly are not.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
They generally make decisions that are pro-establishment. Part of that is because the establishment has better lawyers (business v. individual cases) or the non-establishment is unsympathetic (criminals) or the establishment has some influence on which cases come up (if it loses in the Circuit Court of Appeals, the SG's office decides whether to appeal based on whether or not they think the case is a good test case--so the first circuit case for whether it's okay to record police officers on Boston Common, for example, doesn't get appealed because it's not a good test case for the government) or the justices have experiences on the prosecutorial side of the system and so tend to favor it.
However, they're also nine people looking at the law and making decisions based on what seems to make sense to them, in situations where the law can be read to favor either side. Kind of like where all of the courts of appeals had said that committing a crime "with a firearm" included even having a firearm in your pocket at the time a crime was committed. The Supreme Court overturned every circuit because it was an idiotic reading of the law.
Here, the law is more ambiguous--the question turned on whether a duplication in a foreign country, where the U.S. Copyright Act did not apply, was a duplication "under" the U.S. Copyright Act. Because duplications under the act are susceptible to the first sale doctrine.
The Court held it was a duplication "Under" the act.
The federal government protects the profits of big pharma by banning the re-importation of medications and medical devices sold in other countries. Hopefully this ruling sets a precedent for a challenge to that ridiculous prohibition. There's no valid reason that a drug should sell for $X in the USA and sell for a tiny fraction of that price just over the border.
Funny how the government is all in favor of "free trade" until it threatens some deep-pocketed special interest group.
"I mean, in all seriousness - I go to the toystore and buy a boxed set of Monopoly for $10. I turn around and resell it to you for $15, that's none of their business - I paid them the price they asked, legally."
Yes, the history of this is interesting. The manufacturers of just about every kind of product in existence, at one time or another, has tried to put restrictions on the after-sale use of their products. Even hammers and shovels. They tried putting "agreements" on the labels, inside and outside the packages, etc. The courts ruled, in EVERY case except (recently) software, that if you walk into a retail store (or mail order), and plunk down your money, it is YOURS and you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of any "agreement" on or in the package.
The only reason software has been an exception has been corporate lobbying. And I'd sure like to see that go away. I don't understand why software should be any different from any other copyrighted work. And in fact it wasn't, until pretty recently.
A little more than 100 years ago, software became common, in the form of those paper rolls of music for player pianos. They are software, in every real sense. Publishers didn't like that people were copying them with paper punches. (Sound familiar? That's what Bill Gates took exception to when his company sold a BASIC interpreter for the Altair on paper tape.) And they tried to put restrictions on their use after first sale, arguing that they were different from other published works, because they controlled a machine. The courts said no. The form of the work didn't matter. Paper rolls with holes in them were nothing more than a different form of the published sheet music.
So what's different with today's software? Nothing. Software is also a written work. Some coder(s) had to sit down and write it. And yes, it might control a machine (a computer), but so did player piano rolls, and punch cards for looms 200 years ago. Same same.
And based on my meeting with a publisher rep yesterday (I work in education, publisher was Pearson) the book is only "yours" for a year. Retake the course, or take the next level up course more than a year later, and you can't even use your "own" book for reference/refresher.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Convenience? eBooks may be much, but convenient, they are not. Well, at least the ones that are for sale.
A dead tree edition is convenient. My buddy needs to look something up or wants to read it? Here's the book, return it when you feel like it. The only equipment he needs to read it is a pair of working eyes and the knowledge how to translate the printed symbols into meaningful expressions (aka "reading").
With an eBook, first of all the question arises if we have the same kind of reader. If not, well, there's a pretty good chance that he won't even be able to read it, even if I can give it to him, which is anything but a given either because of omnipresent DRM.
If you were talking about some kind of open document then yes, I could easily agree, they're very convenient. I have the PDF version of quite a few papers that I need on my laptop, and it's heaps easier to take those along when I travel. I can also easily hand over a copy to people who want to read them as well (before anyone asks, yes, I do have the right to do so). I can store thousands of pages that would fill a laptop case by themselves and have still lots of room for more and for other stuff.
That would be very convenient if it applied to other documents as well. But eBooks are usually not really like that. They are locked down by artificial restrictions that strip them of the convenience they COULD have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Honestly, DRM is the problem. Let's say that we have no DRM, but we still have different standards. Let's say we're talking about pictures, instead of books. Well, you have PNG, JPG, GIF.... Hrmm it appears it's pretty trivial to have one player that can handle all the formats when you don't have the DRM restrictions. The formats would need to differentiate themselves in functionality, or the best would win. The main differentiation right now is the DRM schemes.