If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Supreme Court to decide whether or not you're allowed to resell your own stuff   (marketwatch.com) divider line 269
    More: Asinine, U.S. Supreme Court, iPhone, John Wiley & Sons, friend of the courts, Association of Colleges, American Library Association, Georgetown University Law School  
•       •       •

25830 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2012 at 8:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-06 05:39:55 PM
There aint no way in hell SCOTUS would overturn the 1908 precedent. That would cause extreme chaos within our country and its economic system. SCOTUS wouldn't dare to do something that drastic
 
2012-10-06 05:43:12 PM
The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

He then sold them on eBay, making upwards of $1.2 million, according to court documents.


It's called arbitrage. Good for this kid for figuring it out. The idea that doing this would become illegal, assuming we have a freed trade agreement with the other country, it utterly biatchcakes.
 
2012-10-06 05:45:41 PM

DamnYankees: The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

He then sold them on eBay, making upwards of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

It's called arbitrage. Good for this kid for figuring it out. The idea that doing this would become illegal, assuming we have a freed trade agreement with the other country, it utterly biatchcakes.


If it were a case about pharmaceuticals and chemicals there would be a valid point as those should be held at a higher standard. But books?
 
2012-10-06 05:45:50 PM
This would be unbelievable if upheld. Can you imagine a Honda dealership? "Yeah, we'll give you $2,000 trade-in value for your 2010 Accord.". "WTF?" "OK, don't take our offer -- you're not allowed to sell it at all now".
 
2012-10-06 05:47:52 PM
Considering that 9/10 items on store shelves in America (including virtually 100% of electronic/technology related products) are made outside the USA, customers here would be unable to resell nearly everything they ever buy.
 
2012-10-06 05:49:32 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Considering that 9/10 items on store shelves in America (including virtually 100% of electronic/technology related products) are made outside the USA, customers here would be unable to resell nearly everything they ever buy.


This is exactly why I want SCOTUS to uphold foreign first-sale. Simply speaking, this would put pressure on manufacturers to move their stuff out of countries like China because they could be undersold.
 
2012-10-06 05:50:17 PM

dahmers love zombie: This would be unbelievable if upheld. Can you imagine a Honda dealership? "Yeah, we'll give you $2,000 trade-in value for your 2010 Accord.". "WTF?" "OK, don't take our offer -- you're not allowed to sell it at all now".


Actually, that may depend on where the car was built. Honda may be a Japanese company, but the car was manufactured here. So, if it's manufactured here, I can sell it again, right?

Of course, Honda will then claim that it was somehow NOT made here, but in Japan. Taken to its logical extreme, Honda would be operating here, but claiming that they are not for business purposes. And at that point, one has to ask whether they should be taxed as a domestic firm or not.
 
2012-10-06 05:52:42 PM
What a great case!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 05:53:36 PM
If the article is accurate, the court could duck the issue by looking to the place of first sale rather than the place of manufacture. Buy textbooks in Thailand, you're a smuggler. Go to Best Buy in New York and buy a camera made in China, you own it.
 
2012-10-06 05:54:59 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Considering that 9/10 items on store shelves in America (including virtually 100% of electronic/technology related products) are made outside the USA, customers here would be unable to resell nearly everything they ever buy.


Hey...wouldn't that boost the economy? I mean, apart from every flea market, auction house, and eBay?
 
2012-10-06 05:58:58 PM

dahmers love zombie: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Considering that 9/10 items on store shelves in America (including virtually 100% of electronic/technology related products) are made outside the USA, customers here would be unable to resell nearly everything they ever buy.

Hey...wouldn't that boost the economy? I mean, apart from every flea market, auction house, and eBay?


Well, that would put every single independent used car lot out of business overnight, as they'd never have any cars to sell.
 
2012-10-06 06:01:23 PM
Scheduled for October 29, 2012.
 
2012-10-06 06:05:41 PM

cman: There aint no way in hell SCOTUS would overturn the 1908 precedent. That would cause extreme chaos within our country and its economic system. SCOTUS wouldn't dare to do something that drastic


Even, if they did, which is unlikely, I don't see how it could be enforced. Not to mention companies like eBay and Craigslist would be destroyed.
 
2012-10-06 06:19:25 PM

dustman81: cman: There aint no way in hell SCOTUS would overturn the 1908 precedent. That would cause extreme chaos within our country and its economic system. SCOTUS wouldn't dare to do something that drastic

Even, if they did, which is unlikely, I don't see how it could be enforced. Not to mention companies like eBay and Craigslist would be destroyed.


I am not getting a kick out of that.
 
2012-10-06 06:21:30 PM
Also, consider that estate sales would be banned too. WTF do you do with a house full of 70 year old furniture from Aunt Sally?
 
2012-10-06 06:24:49 PM
I believe, upon reflection, that this decision would, if upheld, screw over too many rich people. Thus, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will oppose it, and at least one other justice will remain sane enough to do so as well.
 
2012-10-06 06:29:05 PM
After Citizens United and the Obamacare "it's a tax, stupid" rulings, nothing this court does would surprise me.
 
2012-10-06 06:32:59 PM
www.fwdailynews.com

Can't resell stuff? Don't like that idea a bit, not one bit.
 
2012-10-06 06:34:15 PM

BarkingUnicorn: After Citizens United and the Obamacare "it's a tax, stupid" rulings, nothing this court does would surprise me.


this
 
2012-10-06 06:41:28 PM
Since banning resale would benefit corporations, as people would be forced to buy new products instead of used, I expect this will have 4 guaranteed votes banning resale from the Republicans on the court.
 
2012-10-06 06:42:01 PM
RIAA and MPAA will go crazy if "First Sale" is upheld.
 
2012-10-06 06:46:26 PM

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Considering that 9/10 items on store shelves in America (including virtually 100% of electronic/technology related products) are made outside the USA, customers here would be unable to resell nearly everything they ever buy.

This is exactly why I want SCOTUS to uphold foreign first-sale. Simply speaking, this would put pressure on manufacturers to move their stuff out of countries like China because they could be undersold.


Worse. From page 2 of TFA:

it could become an incentive for manufacturers to have everything produced overseas because they would be able to control every resale

As if US manufacturing wasn't already in the gutter.
 
2012-10-06 07:04:18 PM

DamnYankees: The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

He then sold them on eBay, making upwards of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

It's called arbitrage. Good for this kid for figuring it out. The idea that doing this would become illegal, assuming we have a freed trade agreement with the other country, it utterly biatchcakes.


It's OK when Wall Street does it.

If the SCOTUS does overturn the precedent, all this will drive these sales underground.
 
2012-10-06 07:28:50 PM

dahmers love zombie: I believe, upon reflection, that this decision would, if upheld, screw over too many rich people. Thus, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will oppose it, and at least one other justice will remain sane enough to do so as well.


I'll take this as you don't see Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito quite the same way I do. If it screwed everyone over but made corporations more money, Scalia and Thomas will vote for it and twist logic to defend it. Alito and Roberts aren't quite that bad, but both also never found a corporate right that should be denied if an individual's right was being screwed. To sum up: though this is a bizarre thing, I would not at all be surprise if our dear right wing judge contingent said all in on limiting sales to rightsholders alone, and the hell with whomever else. Its kind of what they do. Corporate rights are to be defended, people rights are to be cut into any time its possible.
 
2012-10-06 07:38:48 PM
It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain.

heh heh. Family jewels.
 
2012-10-06 07:43:19 PM
Another chance for the court to rule in favor of corporations against ordinary people. How nice.
 
2012-10-06 07:44:57 PM

cman: There aint no way in hell SCOTUS would overturn the 1908 precedent. That would cause extreme chaos within our country and its economic system. SCOTUS wouldn't dare to do something that drastic


Yes, they would and you know it.
 
2012-10-06 08:17:32 PM
If I take all my raggedy old t-shirts and cut them up and sew them into a quilt . Would I be allowed to sell that or would the t-shirts and thread be considered resale items.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 08:23:37 PM
gremlin1

The thread is not copyrighted and could be used freely. If you bought shirts overseas and used the printed patterns in a way that was not fair use, then this decision would still not affect you because you aren't going to be sued over a one-off quilt.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 08:26:58 PM

Here is the question the court has agreed to answer:

How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright's owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy "lawfully made under this title" to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner's permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?
So stop worrying about your made-in-China lead lollipops. This only affects items acquired overseas.
 
2012-10-06 08:29:28 PM
I guess this is a continuation (of sorts) from the costco vs. swatch suit. `Gray Market' Ruling Favoring Swatch Affirmed as Supreme Court Splits 4-4

"Retailers had sought to overturn the appeals court ruling because it exposes them to lawsuits if they try to exploit worldwide price differences on foreign-made products by importing them through unauthorized channels. In Costco's case, the largest U.S. warehouse club acquired the Swiss-made watches at a discount and then sold them at $1,200, or $700 below Omega's suggested retail price "
 
2012-10-06 08:41:24 PM

Bucky Katt: Another chance for the court to rule in favor of corporations against ordinary people. How nice.


This.
 
2012-10-06 08:41:32 PM
i've made several million dollars selling my used underwear on eBay. as car covers.

/you sound REALLY fat
 
2012-10-06 08:42:05 PM
The criminalization of ALL Americans continues unabated.
 
2012-10-06 08:47:15 PM

DamnYankees: The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

He then sold them on eBay, making upwards of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

It's called arbitrage. Good for this kid for figuring it out. The idea that doing this would become illegal, assuming we have a freed trade agreement with the other country, it utterly biatchcakes.


All these companies are just pissed because they're being exposed for just HOW MUCH they overcharge us, the American consumer for their shiatty goods and services. ESPECIALLY in the textbook cartel...erm, I mean market.
 
2012-10-06 08:48:39 PM
Yeah, this isn't going anywhere.
 
2012-10-06 08:49:01 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: The criminalization of ALL Americans continues unabated.


I'm sort of hoping to see the court do this.

250 years has been a fine run for a good constitution, maybe I'm old enough to not mind seeing a little refreshing of the tree of liberty.

/visions of being cast as the Randy Quaid role in ID4.
 
2012-10-06 08:49:42 PM
So how will Wal-Mart re-sell anything?
 
2012-10-06 08:50:08 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: DamnYankees: The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

He then sold them on eBay, making upwards of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

It's called arbitrage. Good for this kid for figuring it out. The idea that doing this would become illegal, assuming we have a freed trade agreement with the other country, it utterly biatchcakes.

All these companies are just pissed because they're being exposed for just HOW MUCH they overcharge us, the American consumer for their shiatty goods and services. ESPECIALLY in the textbook cartel...erm, I mean market.


"This edition is completely different than last year's. Now it's Helvetica font instead of Tahoma"
 
2012-10-06 08:52:42 PM
The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to the U.S. 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 U.S.

I guess this is a bit of a "threadjack" but on topic of the article.

You would think we would want to encopurage students in the U.S. to get a good education and go to college. It benefits our entire nation. So why do companies feel it is OK to fleece the Amercian student ot of every penny possible making it harder to get an education?

When the common person finds a way to game the system to their advantage like this or ordering drugs from Canada, the "job creators" get all in a tizzy about it and do what they can to stop it. When the "job creators" do it at the "common person's" expense, we're just supposed to grab aour ankles and take it.

This is the SCOTUS that gave is "Citizens United" so I wouldn't putit past them to uphold this.
 
2012-10-06 08:54:28 PM
Seems to me that this is only a problem if I bought my item out of the US and then wanted to sell it as a "first sale" in the US. Even of the supremes uphold it, it only affects you if you're acting as an importer.
 
2012-10-06 08:54:32 PM
Who has to give permission, especially in cases of things made from component parts? Let's say I buy a custom-built computer from a local store. The case, motherboard, hard drive, memory, CPU, ect. are all different brands and makers.If I want to resell the computer, do I have to get permission from that store, or from each company that made component parts? What happens if that store closes?

It's like the "grandma's furniture" problem noted in TFA: who the heck would you go to even for permission? A house full of furniture bought in the 1940's and 1950's, who the heck knows where that furniture was bought, if those places even exist, and who would even own the "copyright" on that furniture to allow for resale?

What about houses? Do you get permission from the contractor that built it? The architect that designed it?

Basically it would ban eBay, Craigslist, every single used car lot in the country, every flea market/peddler's mall, yard sales, all clothing consignment/secondhand stores (goodbye Goodwill/Salvation Army stores), and pawn shops.

Yeah, that would be mayhem.
 
2012-10-06 08:55:39 PM
Fark. Is this shiat for real?
 
2012-10-06 08:55:40 PM
Who resells stuff? I've never resold anything. If I don't need it anymore I throw it away or give it away.

/poor people problems
 
2012-10-06 08:56:08 PM
Wow, that's Farked up. At first, I could barely believe an appellate court would side with a foreign interest over an American citizen, in defiance of the well-established case law regarding Fair Use. By what US law does a foreign corporation get its own special anti-constitutional privileges?

Then I remembered the last 20 years or so, and went "Ohhhh... Right."

/Should have been a follow-up tag. Saw the original story back when.
 
2012-10-06 08:57:28 PM
That thing you bought...you don't own that!
 
2012-10-06 08:59:18 PM
Hey, we don't own our own identities --big business and the government buy and sell our personal information all the time -- why should we own our own possessions?
 
2012-10-06 08:59:35 PM
I think the court may be full of whores, but I'm honestly not sure they're THAT crazy. Overturning would completely destroy the marketplace, and make things even more expensive for companies as well as consumers and raise WAY too many issues to be resolved (Which one of Picasso's descendents is allowed to authorize me to resell his work? Does 6th cousin trump great-great-grandaughter-in-law in the event of a conflict? If I die and bequeath said painting to a public museum, does the family get the right to size assets from the government?) .

I'll go with 6-3 in favor of upholding, with at least 1 of the 3 dissenting votes taking the Citizens United caveat: "It has the potential to hurt lots of people and put far too much power into too small of hands, but I don't think it would happen, so do it anyways"
 
2012-10-06 08:59:59 PM
farking lawyers!

i691.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-06 09:00:37 PM
THIS is truly a SCOTUS Derp test, if there EVER was one!


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com


Can't wait to see if they pass.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report