• Court case to decide if you're allowed to resell ANYTHING with parts made overseas
    41 replies, posted
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/258276/[/url] [quote]The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad -- or almost anything else -- without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision: 1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store. 2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store. 3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S. 4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia. Here is what's going on. The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908. To use a classic example, imagine you buy a novel by Sabina Murray. Sabina owns the copyright to the book, so you can't make a copy of the book. But you bought a copy of the book, and can sell the copy to anyone who'll pay you for it. You can sell it to a neighbor, to a fellow student, or to someone else on Craigslist or on eBay. But the first-sale rule doesn't just make it possible to sell your books and other creative works like CDs, paintings, or DVDs. Almost every product made now has a copyright logo on it. That logo, alone, empowers manufacturers to sue people for copyright infringement for unlawful sales. The first-sale doctrine is one thing that makes it lawful to sell almost any good. The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act -- which gives them a right against unauthorized imports -- invalidates the first-sale doctrine. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S., even if the first sale by the copyright holder was abroad and the item was imported back into the U.S. This decision was unanimous and rejected the interpretation preferred by the U.S. government's lawyer -- and the biggest copyright holders. The legal confusion today concerns only products made abroad. Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks. John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher, sells expensive versions of the textbooks here and less expensive versions abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a foreign graduate student at University of Southern California, decided to help pay for his schooling by having relatives buy him copies of the foreign versions abroad, send them to him, whereupon he'd sell those books on eBay to willing students. He'd make money, the students would save money, but Wiley might have fewer sales of its pricey American versions. The case is styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons. Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine. For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Same for the iPods you've owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad. That means, you need to ask Apple for permission, and probably Google, whose Maps software comes bundled with the iPad, and includes Google copyrights. Under this rule, when you sell some of your stuff on eBay or Craigslist (a couch, some books, electronics, posters, an old television, a toaster), you have to look up whether it has a copyrighted logo anywhere and find out whether the product was manufactured in the U.S. or abroad.[/quote] here's a petition you can sign: [url]http://www.youvebeenowned.org/[/url]
why do people hate the world so much
[QUOTE=Noss;38194611]why do people hate the world so much[/QUOTE] They don't hate the world. They love their money.
Fuck everything.
How does shit like this get so far without being thrown out.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;38194884]How does shit like this get so far without being thrown out.[/QUOTE] lobbying
If they actually pass this, the economy will implode like a black hole.
This is such a blatant fucking idiotic idea. All these people are doing is ruining the environment for their pension, fuck them.
Well I guess all manufacturers will have to move operations back to America/respective countries if they don't want huge double-standard lawsuits.
You see guys, this is why when you're arguing re-sellable software you DON'T FUCKING COMPARE REAL STUFF TO THE VIRTUAL STUFF. Because then fucktards in government try to stamp that out.
Hahahah how the fuck are they gonna enforce that, althought i'm confident this madness will not pass... right it will not pass, right? edit actually scratch that this entire copyright business at the moment is a charade and a bad joke.
To be honest generally speaking this are lawsuits and judicature targeting commercial resale of stuff bought elsewhere and reimported. Not personal. I believe this is still the case, where the guy essentially bought books in bulk in countries where they were cheaper and then resold them in the US, undercutting the actual producer. It doesn't care about stuff you bought one piece off and want to resell it again. For the record - most EU nations do have similar legislature in effect as well.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38198077]To be honest generally speaking this are lawsuits and judicature targeting commercial resale of stuff bought elsewhere and reimported. Not personal. I believe this is still the case, where the guy essentially bought books in bulk in countries where they were cheaper and then resold them in the US, undercutting the actual producer. It doesn't care about stuff you bought one piece off and want to resell it again. For the record - most EU nations do have similar legislature in effect as well.[/QUOTE] Does that apply to used car retailers?
Wait you won't be able to sell your house? How the fuck does that work? Not only is that horribly totalitarian (No you can't move, this is the house you picked, this is where you will stay [sup]rich excluded because they could just buy both houses[/sup]) but how the fuck will people get new houses? I guess you could completely strip the house of any material, but at that point it'd probably be easier to just tear it down and build a new one. Do they want a new house built for every person looking for a home? Plus this will destroy entire businesses that have been built around resale; flea markets, pawn shops, used car lots, junkyards, etc.
My guess if this motion is made, there would be a large reworking of the copyright system. There's no possible way something like this could be enforced.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;38194884]How does shit like this get so far without being thrown out.[/QUOTE] Because the laws weren't made with this shit in mind. If it gets through the supreme court (Their job is ONLY to interpret strictly), congress will probably pass a bill changing the law. Probably. I mean normally I would say they outright would, but congress is crazy nowadays. But people really need to stop crying so much about this, because it's not some evil plot. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38194927]lobbying[/QUOTE] Yeah good luck lobbying the supreme court of which 7/9 of the justices have been on it for 40+ years, who SERVE FOR LIFE AND DON'T NEED TO BE RE-ELECTED. goddamn [QUOTE=Forumaster;38194989]If they actually pass this, the economy will implode like a black hole.[/QUOTE] The market for substitute goods would probably fluctuate, but it sure ain't gonna explode. Substitute goods (as a macroeconomic phenomena) consists of [i]inferior goods[/i]. Most of those will be locally produced.
Where will our grand parents go to find other people's old junk at their yard sales then?! Everything in our country is made in China so FUCK [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] I mean, right now I'm eating a TV Dinner which came in a plastic tray made in China, out of a bowl made in China, with a fork made from you guessed it! Taiwan
I can't imagine that eBay would be very happy about this passing the Supreme Court
[QUOTE]John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher, sells expensive versions of the textbooks here and less expensive versions abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a foreign graduate student at University of Southern California, decided to help pay for his schooling by having relatives buy him copies of the foreign versions abroad, send them to him, whereupon he'd sell those books on eBay to willing students. He'd make money, the students would save money, but Wiley might have fewer sales of its pricey American versions. The case is styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons.[/QUOTE] Uh, hello? Selling things for different prices in different countries, barring differences in the exchange rate and cost to ship them, is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)"]technically illegal[/URL]. What kind of fuckjob judge didn't notice this? If the cost of the books abroad + shipping are less than the cost here (even assuming that they're manufactured abroad) then there is some shit going on. Especially if that price difference is enough to make this guy enough money to pay for his education off of the profits.
People will sell whatever shit they want and people looking to buy won't care if it its illegal or not; we have enough [I]real[/I] problems to deal with, this won't be one of them by nature of not giving a fuck and it being unenforceable in mass. All this will end up doing is make the purchases go under the table instead of on it. I would however chuckle immensely if this forced, or convinced, the US to start manufacturing everything themselves again. That possibility, miniscule as it is, ought to make the rest of the world fairly scared of this upcoming ruling.
Even though it's 5-4 conservative and obviously favors business and rich people, I can't imagine the Supreme Court actually declaring it illegal to resell your own property. They aren't that stupid.
This shit will not fly. I will open my own fucking black market shop in the basement of my house if I have to, this is fucking insane.
STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM! Nobody breaks the law on MY watch. I'm confiscating the resold goods. Now pay the fine, or it's off to jail.
So yeah uhh, let me get this right. Gamestop can't take used games (assuming the cases are made in china and shit). eBay cannot sell most used items. Craigslist cannot be used for selling most items. Used car dealers can't sell cars from other countries or cars that use foreign parts. And, assuming the DVDs/Game Disks/Cases are made in other countries, redbox will be illegal? If that's the case then jesus christ the economy would basically destroy itself in a month. I am probably wrong about one or two of those but hey!
[QUOTE=The freeman;38203157]So yeah uhh, let me get this right. Gamestop can't take used games (assuming the cases are made in china and shit). eBay cannot sell most used items. Craigslist cannot be used for selling most items. Used car dealers can't sell cars from other countries or cars that use foreign parts. And, assuming the DVDs/Game Disks/Cases are made in other countries, redbox will be illegal? I am probably wrong about one or two of those but hey![/QUOTE] That's assuming this is a "Worst case scenario" I doubt it will be nearly that bad but even still it's a complete nutjob idiot idea.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38203059]This shit will not fly. I will open my own fucking black market shop in the basement of my house if I have to, this is fucking insane.[/QUOTE] This kind of shit is why I'm a Socialist, for fuck's sake.
What percentage of products have NO parts made outside of the US? And would this effect automobiles? I assume those fall under different legislation though.
[QUOTE=archangel125;38198359]Does that apply to used car retailers?[/QUOTE] With importing form outside the EU? Yes. With imports from inside one EU nation to another? No. On top of that claiming that this might potentially impact the sale of devices due to certain parts in them is quite sensation to be honest. As generally speaking the IP for each of the device is handled by the manuacturer handling you the physical product. It's a bit different with nonphysical properties though. For instead a game cd with multiple games a cd collection or a short story anthology. As the IP handling is quite different in those areas and the original IP holder keeps it and merely essentially allows the use. But again this would generally apply only to commercial import and resale of some product, not a private person dealing with their personal belonging in a scale where it is obvious that it is not done as as a commercial endeavour. There's another thing to consider - Even if a strong limitation of the first sale doctrine came into effect the important area is not where the product was manufactured, but where the first sale actually happened. If a consumer buys a product in the US, first sale rights apply to them. If the product is bought outside of the border the first sale rights may potentially be barred if the IP holder is already selling the item in the second marketplace. Honestly the article is written in a very questionable manner. [QUOTE=Snowmew;38199203]Uh, hello? Selling things for different prices in different countries, barring differences in the exchange rate and cost to ship them, is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)"]technically illegal[/URL]. What kind of fuckjob judge didn't notice this? If the cost of the books abroad + shipping are less than the cost here (even assuming that they're manufactured abroad) then there is some shit going on. Especially if that price difference is enough to make this guy enough money to pay for his education off of the profits.[/QUOTE] Actually that is not prohibited behaviour as long as said dumping doens't hurt the recipient countries businesses. [quote] A standard technical definition of dumping is the act of charging a lower price for a good in a foreign market than one charges for the same good in a domestic market. [B]This is often referred to as selling at less than "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_value"]fair value[/URL]". Under the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization"]World Trade Organization[/URL] (WTO) Agreement, dumping is condemned (but is not prohibited) if it causes or threatens to cause material injury to a domestic industry in the importing country.[/B][SUP][B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)#cite_note-bossche-0"][1][/URL][/B] [/SUP][/quote]On top of that antidumping practices are protected locally. Aka a company may defend against a foreign company dumping it's product and thus undercutting existing companies in the market. It does not essentially disallow for local companies to go dump elsewhere. And standardised regional pricing is also not entirely unusual. It's very very common in software for instance. Or why do you think all those cheap Steam cd key resale sites can exist? Those sites basically buy the keys in Russia and other east european countries and then sell it on with a profit.
It won't add to the GDP. GDP only counts for products PRODUCED in America. Thus I vote no resell.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;38203565]It won't add to the GDP. GDP only counts for products PRODUCED in America. Thus I vote no resell.[/QUOTE] Wait are you saying you agree with this? Lemme, put this another way. Say you need some extra cash, you have quite a few things laying around that you could throw on ebay, maybe make a couple hundred dollars. BUT WAIT ONE SCREW WAS MADE IN CHINA, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. (If I misinterpreted your post please ignore this) [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;38203538]With importing form outside the EU? Yes. With imports from inside one EU nation to another? No. [/QUOTE] What about American cars that use various parts imported from other countries? Like engines, suspension, tyres, etc. Which I'm pretty sure is pretty much every single one ever. [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] If this passes and it goes as far as not allowing anything with any single part made outside the country to be resold, you'd literally never be able to buy anything used, ever again. That would destroy used car dealers, pawnshops, ebay, and plenty of other things.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.