Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril

[exoflare]

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?pagenumber=1

 

[Corki]

Scary. I don’t understand one part of the story. It seems to be a copywrite law issue. How does copywrite law apply to things like “your grandmother’s antique funtiture” or “family jewels” as referenced in the article?

 

[sacred_words]

That’s insane. Last i checked, anything legally acquired and owned is covered under the First Sale Doctrine. :nope:

 

[Link0126]

They simply got upset that someone had a good idea on how to make money and became successful with it. They guy has every right to ship something in overseas and sell it here for less money. Any tariffs, customs charges etc. would apply.

This is just more lobbying from people with an interest in copyright law paying off. It’s like how the expiration terms of copyright law continue expanding every time mickey mouse is due to expire. Disney throws and fit and we see an increase favoring companies rather than the public interest.

The purpose of copyright law is to strike a balance between personal interest and public interest in a way that promotes innovation and creativity for both the public and the inventor. Considering recent supreme court rulings I don’t expect it to turn out well.

Tell me again why we should keep following this law at all?

 

[Daizies]

Scary. I don’t understand one part of the story. It seems to be a copywrite law issue. How does copywrite law apply to things like “your grandmother’s antique funtiture” or “family jewels” as referenced in the article?

I think their point was that if any item could be traced back to foreign ownership - even 200 years ago - it will then be subject to the copyright issue. It would affect all items that currently exist, not just what is sold from now on.

That’s insane. Last i checked, anything legally acquired and owned is covered under the First Sale Doctrine. :nope:

That’s the very thing that is being challenged. They are trying to eliminate the first sale principle/doctrine.

 

[sedonaman]

Scary. I don’t understand one part of the story. It seems to be a copywrite law issue. How does copywrite law apply to things like “your grandmother’s antique funtiture” or “family jewels” as referenced in the article?

It could be argued that a piece of furniture is a form of art?

 

[Quaesitor]

Seems like to me the company, in the article, Wiley, should have just raised the price of the book in Thailand to combat his ability to buy the book cheaper. It may have caused innocent people to pay more, but to try and do what they are doing through the courts is a bit too much.

 

[Seira]

What about antique, consignment, & thrift shops? Flea markets? Will they be able to resell stuff?

 

[Quaesitor]

Scary. I don’t understand one part of the story. It seems to be a copywrite law issue. How does copywrite law apply to things like “your grandmother’s antique funtiture” or “family jewels” as referenced in the article?

They are saying, at least what I took from the article, is that when you go to “resale” items manufactured outside the US, you will have to get permission from the copyright holder to sell it and then they could also ask for a percentage of what you sell it for to grant you permission to sell it in the first place. Right now I can go to Barnes and Noble and buy a book, read it take it to a used book store and resale it then use the money to buy a new book. What they seem to be warning us about is, after I read the book I would have to then ask the author / publisher for permission to resale the book to a used book store. The copyright holder could then say, I’ll give you a conditional okay to sell it for 10% of the profit and then I would have to send the money to them to complete the conditional permission. What I don’t like is that they already made their initial money of the sale of the book at Barnes and Noble so, why are they getting a second chance to bite the apple.

This is just how I see it.

 

[Quaesitor]

What about antique, consignment, & thrift shops? Flea markets? Will they be able to resell stuff?

I think it would affect them. I think that is one of the dangers of accepting this law.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

This is just more lobbying from people with an interest in copyright law paying off. It’s like how the expiration terms of copyright law continue expanding every time mickey mouse is due to expire. Disney throws and fit and we see an increase favoring companies rather than the public interest.

^This. Basically, the copyright industries (Hollywood, publishers, record labels) are bleeding to death because they failed to adapt and are desperate for anything that will keep them alive. That’s all this amounts to.

The purpose of copyright law is to strike a balance between personal interest and public interest in a way that promotes innovation and creativity for both the public and the inventor. Considering recent supreme court rulings I don’t expect it to turn out well.

Tell me again why we should keep following this law at all?

Frankly, I don’t think we should. At least not to the insane degree we’re expected to now.

 

[Corki]

They are saying, at least what I took from the article, is that when you go to “resale” items manufactured outside the US, you will have to get permission from the copyright holder to sell it and then they could also ask for a percentage of what you sell it for to grant you permission to sell it in the first place. Right now I can go to Barnes and Noble and buy a book, read it take it to a used book store and resale it then use the money to buy a new book. What they seem to be warning us about is, after I read the book I would have to then ask the author / publisher for permission to resale the book to a used book store. The copyright holder could then say, I’ll give you a conditional okay to sell it for 10% of the profit and then I would have to send the money to them to complete the conditional permission. What I don’t like is that they already made their initial money of the sale of the book at Barnes and Noble so, why are they getting a second chance to bite the apple.

This is just how I see it.

I get that. But how is a piece of funtiture or jewelry a copywritten item? And don’t copyrights expire after about 50 years anyway? That’s how books enter the public domain. Anything that is an antique would be too old, wouldn’t it?

 

[Corki]

They simply got upset that someone had a good idea on how to make money and became successful with it. They guy has every right to ship something in overseas and sell it here for less money. Any tariffs, customs charges etc. would apply.

This is just more lobbying from people with an interest in copyright law paying off. It’s like how the expiration terms of copyright law continue expanding every time mickey mouse is due to expire. Disney throws and fit and we see an increase favoring companies rather than the public interest.

The purpose of copyright law is to strike a balance between personal interest and public interest in a way that promotes innovation and creativity for both the public and the inventor. Considering recent supreme court rulings I don’t expect it to turn out well.

Tell me again why we should keep following this law at all?

I think Wiley is just jealous. The government could collect tarriffs or even fines for illegal import but that wouldn’t get money into Wiley’s hands.

This whole textbook thing is a racket. My kids school recently went to “letting” parent purchase textbooks on the open market. The same book the school was charging $200 for was available for $50 online. The online dealer called it an “international version”. I am sure it’s the same thing this kid tapped into.

 

[Godfollower]

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?pagenumber=1

Be careful trusting this article; the reporter is clearly ignorant about the case. The issue presented is “reselling” items protected by copyright law that were manufactured abroad – which is, at least arguably, an exception to the “first sale” doctrine.

The reporter’s example, “the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain,” is stupid. Even if the jewels are so artistic that copyright can arguably be said to apply to them, that copyright has expired; moreover, as jewels, they aren’t a copy – they’re the original. The issue just wouldn’t apply.

The issue in the case (federal appellate court’s decision available here) is the anti-importation provision of the copyright statute, which reads as follows:

Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1).

Basically it prohibits the so-called grey market: rather than allow pure capitalism, we’re going to favor domestic manufacturers and allow them to charge higher prices in this country than in others. If you’re against it, talk to Congress; they’re the ones who enacted the provision back in 1976. But don’t rely on this reporter for the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

[sedonaman]

Be careful trusting this article; the reporter is clearly ignorant about the case. The issue presented is “reselling” items protected by copyright law that were manufactured abroad – which is, at least arguably, an exception to the “first sale” doctrine. …

That’s not how I read it:

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement.

So it appears the defendant initially had his relatives buy books printed in the U.S. and sold in Thailand. He then subsequently sold them at higher prices to other students when he was done with the courses. I don’t see how he could have made “upwards of $1.2M” re-selling them. I know college books are expensive, but not so that four years’ worth would go for that much. The only way he could have made that much was to buy shiploads of them in Thailand and resell them in the States, essentially running a college bookstore out of e-bay. Once he had a relationship with Thai booksellers, he needn’t bother his relatives; he could just order the books directly and have them mailed to his customers’ addresses, much like Amazon does with some of its merchandise.

But that’s only my reading between the lines of the reported story.

 

[7_Sorrows]

this is all we need. another law to make our lives more complicated than they already are.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;9869407:

Be careful trusting this article; the reporter is clearly ignorant about the case. The issue presented is “reselling” items protected by copyright law that were manufactured abroad – which is, at least arguably, an exception to the “first sale” doctrine. …

That’s not how I read it:

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement.

So it appears the defendant initially had his relatives buy books printed in the U.S. and sold in Thailand. He then subsequently sold them at higher prices to other students when he was done with the courses. I don’t see how he could have made “upwards of $1.2M” re-selling them. I know college books are expensive, but not so that four years’ worth would go for that much. The only way he could have made that much was to buy shiploads of them in Thailand and resell them in the States, essentially running a college bookstore out of e-bay. Once he had a relationship with Thai booksellers, he needn’t bother his relatives; he could just order the books directly and have them mailed to his customers’ addresses, much like Amazon does with some of its merchandise.

But that’s only my reading between the lines of the reported story.

From the appellate court’s opinion:

The “first sale doctrine” in copyright law permits the owner of a lawfully purchased copy of a copyrighted work to resell it without limitations imposed by the copyright 212*212 holder.[1] The existence of the doctrine dates to 1908, when the Supreme Court held that the owner of a copyright could not impose price controls on sales of copies of a copyrighted work beyond the initial sale.[2] Congress codified the doctrine in successive Copyright Acts, beginning with the Copyright Act of 1909.[3]

The principal question presented in this appeal is whether the first sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), applies to copies of copyrighted works produced outside of the United States but imported and resold in the United States. Under another basic copyright statute, it is ordinarily the case that “*mportation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under [the Copyright Act], of copies… of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the [owner’s] exclusive right to distribute copies…”[4]

Defendant contends, however, that individuals may import and resell books manufactured abroad pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which provides that “the owner of a particular copy … lawfully made under [the Copyright Act], or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.”

Defendant’s claim is an issue of first impression in our Court.[5]*
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added), certiorari granted, 132 S. Ct. 1905 (Apr. 16, 2012).

The circuit court’s opinion concludes as follows:

To summarize, we hold that (1) the first sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States

; (2) the District Court did not err in declining to instruct the jury regarding the unsettled state of the first sale doctrine; and (3) the District Court did not err in admitting evidence of Kirtsaeng’s gross revenues.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

You just can’t trust the reporter’s version, at least not with respect to this particular article.

 

[sedonaman]

From the appellate court’s opinion:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added), certiorari granted, 132 S. Ct. 1905 (Apr. 16, 2012).

The circuit court’s opinion concludes as follows:

You just can’t trust the reporter’s version, at least not with respect to this particular article.

So what does, “Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement” mean? How could books be “sold abroad” if they are printed in Thailand and sold in Thailand?

 

[Godfollower]

So what does, “Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement” mean? How could books be “sold abroad” if they are printed in Thailand and sold in Thailand?

Wiley prints some books in the U.S. and sells them in the U.S.

Wiley also prints some books in Thailand and sells them in Thailand (“abroad” from the perspective of a U.S. court).

Here’s the appellate court’s description of the process:

Plaintiff-appellee John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“plaintiff” or “Wiley”) is the publisher of academic, scientific, and educational journals and books, including textbooks, for sale in domestic and international markets. Wiley relies upon a wholly-owned subsidiary, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. (“Wiley Asia”), to manufacture books for sale in foreign countries.[6] While the written content of books for the domestic and international markets is often similar or identical, books intended for international markets can differ from the domestic version in design, supplemental content (such as accompanying CD-ROMS), and the type and quality of materials used for printing, including “thinner paper and different bindings, different cover and jacket designs, fewer internal ink colors, if any, [and] lower quality photographs and graphics.” Joint App’x at 18. The foreign editions, moreover, are marked with a legend to designate that they are to be sold only in a particular country or geographic region. One example of such a designation reads as follows:

Authorized for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East Only.

This book is authorized for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East only [and] may not be exported. Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the Publisher’s authorization is illegal and is a violation of the Publisher’s rights. The Publisher may take legal action to enforce its rights. The Publisher may recover damages and costs, including but not limited to lost profits and attorney’s fees, in the event legal action is required.
Joint App’x at 406 (emphasis in original).

 

[sedonaman]

Wiley prints some books in the U.S. and sells them in the U.S.

Wiley also prints some books in Thailand and sells them in Thailand (“abroad” from the perspective of a U.S. court). …

How would the average reader know this? IMHO, books printed in Thailand and sold in Thailand are not sold “abroad”; they are sold domestically, just within a different domestic market. In any event, it still looks like this was a big operation for him to make as much as they claim he did, and is probably why it attracted attention.

Here’s the appellate court’s description of the process: …

If the reporter had done his job, we wouldn’t have to weed through all that to find out what went on. But then again, with the New York Times, for example, even good news is bad news: jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly082505.php3.