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  
•       •       •

25833 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
 
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.
 
2012-10-06 09:01:32 PM
The real problem as I see it is in this particular case: Textbooks manufactured in India and China and sold in developing countries are poorly made with low quality glues, giving off horrible VOCs. I knew a guy from India who had some books from back home, I couldn't stand to be near them.

If first-sale is approved, the US market will be flooded with these poor quality - nay, poisonous - textbooks, retarding the intelligence of America's educated elite. It will be like the leaded plumbing of Rome.

Frankly I think this kid should go to jail just on the basis of that.
 
2012-10-06 09:01:40 PM

heavymetal: 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?


They aren't going after the students, per say... they are just a means to an end and a casualty of the situation. They are going after the scholarship, grant and subsidy money to which a student has access. That a student may endure financial hardship or suffer in academic performance is inconsequential to the greater goal.
 
2012-10-06 09:02:10 PM
From the amicus briefs, MPAA and RIAA along with some publishers are the ones who stand to be impacted because they sell product cheaper in other countries.
 
2012-10-06 09:03:10 PM
I believe that the correct legal terminlogy is "fark 'em".
 
2012-10-06 09:03:21 PM
Courts want to stop people from buying used goods: "RARGH HOW WILL I CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LOW MANUFACTURING GROWTH IF I DON'T BUY EVERYTHING VIA RESALE"
Courts want to stop Taxbongo from using the American people: "NO PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD RAISE MY TAXES I DON'T NEED THIS MONEY"

Never stop on shaming yourselves, stupid libs. Let's just hope they apply this retroactively so we can jail all the poor people.
 
2012-10-06 09:04:43 PM

Mike_LowELL: Courts want to stop people from buying used goods: "RARGH HOW WILL I CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LOW MANUFACTURING GROWTH IF I DON'T BUY EVERYTHING VIA RESALE"
Courts want to stop Taxbongo from using the American people: "NO PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD RAISE MY TAXES I DON'T NEED THIS MONEY"

Never stop on shaming yourselves, stupid libs. Let's just hope they apply this retroactively so we can jail all the poor people.


You are magic, my friend. Check my profile. You're on the hall of fame.
 
2012-10-06 09:05:10 PM

ZAZ: 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.


What's that? A rational evaluation of what is actually happening, without hyperbole and fear mongering?
How DARE you sir. How DARE you.
 
2012-10-06 09:06:05 PM
So if a house has a component that was made in china... be it a door hinge, floor paneling or electrical socket, can the foreign patent holder prevent you from selling your home?
 
2012-10-06 09:07:56 PM
What happened to common sense?
 
2012-10-06 09:08:02 PM
Ok, so I don't own anything. That's cool, that tells me that whatever I have that they own that might be broken...they need to fix.

FIX YOUR BROKEN shiat!

What? No, not your problem? Ok, then fark you. It's mine and therefore I can resell it.
 
2012-10-06 09:08:44 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: You are magic, my friend. Check my profile. You're on the hall of fame.


I appreciate your kind words, and I appreciate your offer, which I understand is good for one alcohol-based beverage. I am simply stating the things that are necessary to save this country. I can only hope that we ban the resale of everything, before it is too late.
 
2012-10-06 09:11:00 PM

Silly Jesus: 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


Not just poor people there, bucko.

Have you ever had to sell your house as part of a move? Wouldn't it be a PITA if you had to get the permission of the original contractor or architect before you could sell, or what if they would only let you sell it back to them. . .at whatever price they chose to buy it at?

Have you ever traded in a car when buying a new one? Imagine if you had to have permission from the maker of the car, or if they decided you could only trade it in to them, for whatever they decided to offer for it.

What if you collected rare and valuable things? Valuable baseball cards from the 1930's are still in copyright. Imagine having a card worth thousands of dollars. . .but you can't legally sell it because you have to track down the copyright holder because the original company has been bought out, merged, sold, dissolved and otherwise changed so many times over the decades. . .and what if they say no to the sale? What if they will only let you sell it back to them, at the price of their choosing, or else you can't sell it to anybody?

If you owned an original Picasso, you'd need to talk to Claude Picasso, Pablos son and the administrator of the Picasso Estate, to sell the painting legally. Again, he could say no, or he could say you could only sell it to him.

It's not just poor people, this could hurt the rich too. 

/Everybodies problem
 
2012-10-06 09:11:27 PM
If it does pass it would be worth blowing the postage sending my used product back to the head office foreign country with a note that says "I'm done with it, you deal with it"
 
2012-10-06 09:11:35 PM

bojon: From the amicus briefs, MPAA and RIAA along with some publishers are the ones who stand to be impacted because they sell product cheaper in other countries.


And the traditional way to prevent this is import duties, which are going away due to free trade agreements. Watch the corporations say that free trade should only apply to them and not average Joe and the Supreme Court might agree.
 
2012-10-06 09:13:14 PM
Damn, I guess that kind of puts my idea of bottling and selling this girls bath water in jeopardy:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-06 09:14:20 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.


My Honda Civic Si was manufactured in Canada, though it was sold to me in the United States which likely would make the "first sale" doctrine applicable to it.
 
2012-10-06 09:14:25 PM
Posible that good could come from this if SCOTUS finds for plaintiff: War on drugs ends because more money in chasing down dangerously criminal resellers.
 
2012-10-06 09:14:33 PM

AssAsInAssassin: 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.


It's not a foreign corporation. Which is why I'm puzzled at the ruling that "first sale" doesn't apply. The only thing foreign about it is where it was sold.
As for companies "overcharging" Americans - every company prices their products differently for different markets. When you make 10 times as much money, stuff costs 10 times as much. Stuff that is too expensive to sell at lower prices elsewhere don't get sold elsewhere. Businesses are about making money.
 
2012-10-06 09:14:54 PM
When they outlaw selling used belongings, only outlaws will sell used belongings.

There will just be a much greater percentage of outlaws, that's all.
 
2012-10-06 09:16:23 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.


That would certain drive up economic activity and new sales.
 
2012-10-06 09:16:39 PM
All this would do is massively expand the black market.
 
2012-10-06 09:16:47 PM
If history is any guide this will split 4-4 with Kagan being the deciding vote, As mentioned see swatch vs costco that was 4-4 with kagan staying out of it. At a guess she will vote to uphold first doctrine, but its hard to say. Strictly reading the law...it seems to me they need to vote against it, so im curious how the other 4 managed to get to common sense instead of the law.

In the end if it goes poorly congress will have to take it up. And large companies most likely will lobby against it, and only use it as a weapon very slowly. Kinda like how you boil a frog.
 
2012-10-06 09:17:27 PM

Deman: When they outlaw selling used belongings, only outlaws will sell used belongings.

There will just be a much greater percentage of outlaws, that's all.


Ebay will become an offshore tax haven.
 
2012-10-06 09:18:29 PM
In other news, people do what they want.

F*ck your corporate plutocracy.

And f*ck you too, martid4.
 
2012-10-06 09:20:34 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


You forget Scalia...
 
2012-10-06 09:21:59 PM

joonyer: In other news, people do what they want.

F*ck your corporate plutocracy.

And f*ck you too, martid4.


You sound fat.
 
2012-10-06 09:23:12 PM
The people of the country would just ignore such a law. Its pure idiocy and would, as a nice corollary, essentially destroy all of your international trade agreements in one go.
 
2012-10-06 09:24:15 PM

ZAZ: 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.


This, kind of. Wikipedia says it succinctly: "The issue comes down to whether §602(a) creates an affirmative right to bar all unauthorized importation, or does the first-sale doctrine limit the reach of §602(a), thus permitting the resale of at least some lawfully made imported copies."

What nobody on this thread has brought up is the important part: This is a case of statutory interpretation, not constitutionality. HealthCare and Citizens United were cases deciding the constitutionality of certain statutes. This case, on the other hand, involves interpreting an already constitutionally valid statute which, on the face of it, seems to outlaw the importation of foreign, copyrighted goods.

If the court upholds the lower court, they are not reversing precedent because the first-sale doctrine is a statutory right (17 USC §109(a)). The Constitution doesn't guarantee you any sort of copyright protection, only that Congress has the power to regulate it. If the statute plainly says that you can't sell imported, foreign copyrighted goods, then the Supreme Court can't decided that the statute does allow you to sell those goods. All Congress needs to do is amend the Copyright Act with two lines of text.
 
2012-10-06 09:27:54 PM

cman: 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?


Becasue cartels are ENTITLES to their closed market profits as per the GOP.
 
2012-10-06 09:30:06 PM
True story:

Friend of mine who ran an ebay business (quite successfully) bought a few cases of cool Sennheiser headphones in bulk on sale, legitimately, in the US. When trying to sell them on Ebay for a markup but still under Sennheiser's current prices, Sennheiser threatened to sue him and forced Ebay to cancel all transactions. And that's not even with this potential ruling.

Not being able to afford to go up against Sennheiser, he had to eat thousands of dollars of inventory.
 
2012-10-06 09:30:30 PM
I just copyrighted skidmarks on underwear so I'm getting a kick out of this thread. No one will be able to sell used underwear with skidmarks without prior permission if SCOTUS makes a special ruling.
 
2012-10-06 09:30:52 PM

Dimensio:

My Honda Civic Si was manufactured in Canada, though it was sold to me in the United States which likely would make the "first sale" doctrine applicable to it.


Honda can just claim (and adjust their accounting practices to reflect this) that the first sale was the sale from Honda Canada to the US dealer, with the sale being completed in Canada, then authorized by Honda for resale in the US by that dealer.
 
2012-10-06 09:32:19 PM
In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or "copies manufactured domestically" were.

What was their reasoning for pulling that out of their ass?

The only case I could see here would be if a sell explicitly requires the buyer to agree not to import that specific product into the US at the time of the sale.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 09:32:58 PM
AssAsInAssassin: 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.

No fair use here. The defendant made about a million dollars importing foreign textbooks and reselling them. The reason you pick your Supreme Court challenges carefully is this guy doesn't get a bit of sympathy if he steps a micron outside the letter of the law. If you're eBay trying to set a favorable precedent you would rather the case involve a starving grad student selling one copy of last year's textbook which he imported because his stipend was cut. Technically it's the same legal question.
 
2012-10-06 09:35:29 PM
Textbooks are an extortion racket.
 
2012-10-06 09:35:54 PM

Generation_D: 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.


The way you see them stems from your partisan hatred of their rulings and not the actual text of their rulings. The importation of an item in regards to copyright is a different matter than simple resale. The right of resale isn't the issue.

Remember when the right-wing contingent of the court ruled that corporations can seize property under eminent domain. No? Well it must have happened because it fit your criteria perfectly.
 
2012-10-06 09:36:35 PM
Wasn't there a nice unanimous SCOTUS decision in 1988 stating that the copyright holder cannot stop people from re-importing items that the copyright holder authorized?

I think it was Quality King vs. L'anza.

The odd thing is that the US government is supporting the publisher, and wants the court of appeals decision to be affirmed.
 
2012-10-06 09:36:44 PM
For even more fun, if they do hold that first sale doctrine doesn't apply libraries would potentially be unable to lend a large portion of their collection.

Link
 
2012-10-06 09:36:49 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.


I can only imagine that it wasn't just a matter of books he needed himself for his courses that he had his relatives in Thailand send over.
It seems he found the printer and arranged to buy them direct, importing them and selling them 'used' on Ebay.
Bypass the textbook monopoly/racket and lawsuits will ensue.

/Unless textbooks have suddenly got batshait expensive.
 
2012-10-06 09:39:08 PM
I own a stuffed caiman that my father bought in Panama during WWII. If I wanted to sell it would I have to track down the little street urchin that sold it to him.
 
2012-10-06 09:39:44 PM

ZAZ: 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.


Not according to the email I got (because I'm a seller) from ebay. I've been following this for a while and I've seen it elsewhere that it would basically apply to all goods made outside the US.

Ebay, Amazon, Gamestop, Halfprice Books, clothing thrift stores, and I'm sure lots lots more businesses would either lose a big chunk of their operating revenue (Gamestop literally makes most of their profits from used games, NOT new ones). Amazon would lose a huge amount of fee revenue from sellers, and I'm guessing Ebay would go out of business in just a few short years as 80%+ of their listings were banned.

If SCOTUS is stupid enough to allow this, I'm going to be extremely grateful I didn't bank more on Ebay as a career. I already am, but in one fell swoop they can destroy the livelihoods/second job of thousands of people.
 
2012-10-06 09:40:11 PM

BMFPitt: In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or "copies manufactured domestically" were.

What was their reasoning for pulling that out of their ass?


They are trying to find a way to stop grey imports even though there is no legal way to stop them at all in your relatively true free-marker economy. There is a vast effort at trying to redefine the law, this is just a mechanism for that. There isn't really any 'reasoning' other than the desired result
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 09:41:13 PM
Lanctwa

The Second Circuit considered and distinguished that precedent. If you make something in the United States first sale applies regardless of whether the item is exported and re-imported.
 
2012-10-06 09:41:14 PM
Somehow this reminds me of the Ohio State 'scandal' where players traded their own stuff for tattoos. Apparently, this was really bad (but not illegal).
 
2012-10-06 09:41:24 PM

basemetal: [www.fwdailynews.com image 286x400]

Can't resell stuff? Don't like that idea a bit, not one bit.


Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-10-06 09:41:53 PM
You know, this would kill Good Will, Salvation Army, and other charities (some that really do good work) too.
 
2012-10-06 09:42:29 PM
The solution to this is not to allow textbooks to be sold cheaper in other countries. Sell them at the same RRP and if they can't afford that, they can *always write their own textbooks*. I'm sure they are smart enough to do it. Make it all "open source" - that way none of the authors profit.
 
2012-10-06 09:44:04 PM
cdn.macgasm.net

"Are you sure this is ISBN: 3540368396?? You want $400, right?"
 
2012-10-06 09:44:33 PM

Lanctwa: The odd thing is that the US government is supporting the publisher, and wants the court of appeals decision to be affirmed.


Really? What clown is in charge of that organization?
 
2012-10-06 09:45:07 PM
Well they already said i had to buy stuff
 
2012-10-06 09:46:41 PM

Gepetto: All Congress needs to do is amend the Copyright Act with two lines of text.


Then I would humbly suggest that folks contact their Congresscritters and tell them to do just that. Better to do so now, before the Supreme Court can be paid by every copyright owner with outsourcing on the mind to destroy over a century of statutory right, than later, when every Toyota owner loses half the value of their car to a "reseller's fee" when they sell the damn thing to some teenager.
 
2012-10-06 09:49:17 PM
Recycling would probably be affected too/
 
2012-10-06 09:51:00 PM
Resale tax is in general bullshiat. Why does one have to pay tax on a used car. Or why does these companies want to do this to us? GREED, that's why!!! America is built on greed. And as Americans we need to tell these companies and our own government to F%&K off!
 
2012-10-06 09:51:19 PM
well that's one way to get me to buy less worthless shiat.
 
2012-10-06 09:52:41 PM

narkor: The solution to this is not to allow textbooks to be sold cheaper in other countries. Sell them at the same RRP and if they can't afford that, they can *always write their own textbooks*. I'm sure they are smart enough to do it. Make it all "open source" - that way none of the authors profit.


No, the solution is to stop publishers from charging 200-300% more for a book than a similar, non-course-bound book would cost. Case in point, I had to buy a coding textbook for my Visual Basic class that was like $110 new, I got a used one for about $75 at the campus store. A similar VB book on Amazon is between $15-$35. Explain that to me without paraphrasing 'well the publisher can't sell as many because it's not a commonly used book'. Hell, the Microsoft 576 page book is only $25. Meanwhile all that cash difference is NOT going to my professor, but a faceless publisher, or in the case of the used book, the college bookstore that ripped off the last owner when he traded it in. And in my case at least, this is condoned by the state U system.

I'm not saying force mandatory, set prices by any means, but at least make them compete with the other publishers out there.
 
2012-10-06 09:53:48 PM
'Don't give me no hand me down shoes...'
 
2012-10-06 09:54:09 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.

While it's a completely separate issue, what is being overlooked is that most U.S. textbooks are sold overseas for 50% to 75% less than the U.S. MSRP.

Many countries want to use our textbooks, but they cannot afford the U.S. price. So what the publisher does, is print the textbook in black & white, uses a cheaper paper stock, and only uses soft covers. The content is 100% the same. If you put the same page from the U.S. version next to the international version, they'd be identical except that the international version is in black & white.

I'm a grad student and recently discovered this; I have saved a fortune buying the international version of textbooks that I need for class.

The obvious point, is that the textbook industry has the power to easily slash the cost of textbooks. Talk about something that demands government regulation.
 
2012-10-06 09:56:14 PM
e

FormlessOne: Gepetto: All Congress needs to do is amend the Copyright Act with two lines of text.

Then I would humbly suggest that folks contact their Congresscritters and tell them to do just that. Better to do so now, before the Supreme Court can be paid by every copyright owner with outsourcing on the mind to destroy over a century of statutory right, than later, when every Toyota owner loses half the value of their car to a "reseller's fee" when they sell the damn thing to some teenager.


In case people missed it when I linked the ebay blog thing about it, Citizens For Ownership has a petition about this; maybe not as good as flooding your Congresscritters but it's another method and doesn't require a phone call.
 
2012-10-06 09:57:03 PM

topcon: Yeah, this isn't going anywhere.


So an apple from the tree, through the shipping companies, to the store and eventually you has many custody changes. Is each instance going to require seller permission (with a royalty fee attached, of course)?

 
2012-10-06 09:57:18 PM

thornhill: The obvious point, is that the textbook industry has the power to easily slash the cost of textbooks. Talk about something that demands government regulation.


/Facepalm
 
2012-10-06 09:57:54 PM

gaspode: They are trying to find a way to stop grey imports even though there is no legal way to stop them at all in your relatively true free-marker economy. There is a vast effort at trying to redefine the law, this is just a mechanism for that. There isn't really any 'reasoning' other than the desired result


I get that, but when they do that kind of stuff they have to at least pretend there's some logic behind it when they write their opinion.
 
2012-10-06 09:58:17 PM
Realistically, if the SCOTUS overturned the first-sale doctrine, it would be enough to cause a very violent upheaval in this country. Could you imagine not being able to sell almost anything second-hand? It would cause utter economic chaos to the point of people making their disagreement in the form of bullets and other things that cause massive bodily harm. It would be suicide.
 
2012-10-06 10:00:24 PM
Also, this is similar in abstract to buying cheaper US pharmaceuticals outside the states and bringing them back in. Same drug. Much cheaper. The US has made all kind of noise about stopping that. Don't expect this to be any different.
 
2012-10-06 10:00:53 PM

ZAZ: 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.


So, free markets?
 
2012-10-06 10:02:06 PM

gaspode: There isn't really any 'reasoning' other than the desired result


This.
 
2012-10-06 10:07:05 PM
They might have a thing over CUSTOMS allowing imports if they appear to be for resale outside the permitted area. IF that is a legally binding request.

However, if resale is allowed freely in defiance of regions, this is actually suckage for other countries. These guys get steep discounts in drugs, books, equipment, goods of all types, over US pricing. If they are legally able to just turn around and resell to the US, killing their US-sale cash cow, then the companies would ask themselves if taking an item that costs $10 to make, sells for $200 in the USA, but also sells for $15 in China only to find China ordered 3x more than they could possibly USE and are killing the US sales, that maybe they should start bringing up the China price to $150 or all the way to $200.

Bottom line being that these countries may have to pay US prices, and they can't, so basically they're cut off.
 
2012-10-06 10:11:24 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.


Not just them; every flea market, yard sale and consignment store in the nation would be put out of business, not to mention every single pawn shop as well, if SCOTUS agreed with the appellate court.
 
2012-10-06 10:13:38 PM

ElLoco: heavymetal: 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?

They aren't going after the students, per say... they are just a means to an end and a casualty of the situation. They are going after the scholarship, grant and subsidy money to which a student has access. That a student may endure financial hardship or suffer in academic performance is inconsequential to the greater goal.


I getyour sarcasm and tha is the point. Scholarship students, the really smart ones, and the ones with rich parents are fine. Stuff like this screws over the "borderline" college student. Smart enough to pass and get a job in the field, but not smart enough for a scholarship and not from a wealthy enough family to have their way paid.

Call me wierd, but we should make college easier to access and not harder.
 
2012-10-06 10:15:58 PM

ZAZ: 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.


All that shiat at Walmart is manufactured abroad and imported into the US. Is that not acquired overseas?
 
2012-10-06 10:16:35 PM
Considering this would destroy the entire used book/movie/game industry, I'd have to say that this shiat will not stand.
 
2012-10-06 10:17:23 PM

andyofne: ZAZ: 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.

All that shiat at Walmart is manufactured abroad and imported into the US. Is that not acquired overseas?


Trick question.
None of that stuff survives one owner.
 
2012-10-06 10:25:44 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.


This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.
 
2012-10-06 10:28:27 PM
BEST ANSWER


Gepetto: ZAZ: 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.

This, kind of. Wikipedia says it succinctly: "The issue comes down to whether §602(a) creates an affirmative right to bar all unauthorized importation, or does the first-sale doctrine limit the reach of §602(a), thus permitting the resale of at least some lawfully made imported copies."

What nobody on this thread has brought up is the important part: This is a case of statutory interpretation, not constitutionality. HealthCare and Citizens United were cases deciding the constitutionality of certain statutes. This case, on the other hand, involves interpreting an already constitutionally valid statute which, on the face of it, seems to outlaw the importation of foreign, copyrighted goods.

If the court upholds the lower court, they are not reversing precedent because the first-sale doctrine is a statutory right (17 USC §109(a)). The Constitution doesn't guarantee you any sort of copyright protection, only that Congress has the power to regulate it. If the statute plainly says that you can't sell imported, foreign copyrighted goods, then the Supreme Court can't decided that the statute does allow you to sell those goods. All Congress needs to do is amend the Copyright Act with two lines of text.

 
2012-10-06 10:29:30 PM

cedarpark:

/Unless textbooks have suddenly got batshait expensive.


Where you been? 1975 I paid $120 for "Radioisotope Methodology" by Chase and Rabinowitz.
 
2012-10-06 10:30:18 PM

Benjimin_Dover: Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.

This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.


That was my next question... how much of that shiat is protected under copyright and how much under trademark laws and how much under patent law?
 
2012-10-06 10:31:30 PM
Big news today: Giant corporations don't like competition and will stomp on your grandma's estate sale to stop it.
 
2012-10-06 10:33:53 PM
Americans must pay premium prices for higher education. Otherwise the poor would have a better chance to compete with the rich for jobs.
 
2012-10-06 10:34:28 PM
But when you buy something from a store, it's already not the first sale. Target bought this iPad I'm using to type this ofrom Apple. Unless you buy right from the manufaturer it's not a first sale.

Would Apple need to get permission from The makers of parts for their products to sell them to consumers?
 
2012-10-06 10:42:59 PM

Cyclometh: But when you buy something from a store, it's already not the first sale. Target bought this iPad I'm using to type this ofrom Apple. Unless you buy right from the manufaturer it's not a first sale.

Would Apple need to get permission from The makers of parts for their products to sell them to consumers?


whoa.
 
2012-10-06 10:44:52 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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?


Not if they declared it as something intended to be marketed only in a 10' radius of the dealer where you bought it. That's the insanity that upholding this could unleash.
 
2012-10-06 10:44:54 PM

Cyclometh: But when you buy something from a store, it's already not the first sale. Target bought this iPad I'm using to type this ofrom Apple. Unless you buy right from the manufaturer it's not a first sale.

Would Apple need to get permission from The makers of parts for their products to sell them to consumers?


It's been mentioned above, but this is stuff protected by copyright, not just anything made overseas and purchased. Right of First Sale means that if you write a book, record a song, or make another work protected by copyright and I buy a copy (first sale), I can then lend my copy to people, sell my original copy, or do a few other things with it (the list escapes me) without infringing on your copyright. I can't make a bunch of copies and sell them for profit, because your copyright protects you and First Sale doesn't extend that protection to me.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-06 10:46:45 PM
Would Apple need to get permission from The makers of parts for their products to sell them to consumers?

They already do that for copyrightable things. Any acquisition of intellectual property by Apple has all sorts of negotiated terms and conditions and warranties and indemnification in both directions.  Same with any big corporation.
 
2012-10-06 10:48:28 PM
Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.
 
2012-10-06 10:54:30 PM

Benjimin_Dover:
This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.


But the logo on the car is subject to copyright. Perhaps the unique letter and number combination on the VIN plate...
 
2012-10-06 10:56:08 PM
Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.

And that is why Mr.Gates has all that money. Microsoft doesn't sell a program it sells a license to use that program. Be thankful you don't have to pay to renew the license like you do for your car.
 
2012-10-06 10:56:13 PM
Black markets ALREADY exist and it's legal to sell shiat now.

The more copyright lawyers push, the more laws free men will have to break to be free.
 
2012-10-06 10:56:15 PM
You need to have money to make money. If you're poor and find a way to make money we will make it illegal.
 
2012-10-06 10:59:17 PM
Yawn. Just one more of the thousands of laws that I ignore (and violate if I feel like it).
 
2012-10-06 11:00:04 PM

thornhill: 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.

While it's a completely separate issue, what is being overlooked is that most U.S. textbooks are sold overseas for 50% to 75% less than the U.S. MSRP.

Many countries want to use our textbooks, but they cannot afford the U.S. price. So what the publisher does, is print the textbook in black & white, uses a cheaper paper stock, and only uses soft covers. The content is 100% the same. If you put the same page from the U.S. version next to the international version, they'd be identical except that the international version is in black & white.

I'm a grad student and recently discovered this; I have saved a fortune buying the international version of textbooks that I need for class.

The obvious point, is that the textbook industry has the power to easily slash the cost of textbooks. Talk about something that demands government regulation.


Engineering textbooks can be slightly iffy at times because US textbooks will jump between the use of metric and English units while international versions are pure metric. Or course what I've started seeing a lot at my college is people will buy old versions of the text book (can be gotten for dirt cheap, used as reference material) and just take photos of the needed questions out of a new book with their iphones and such.
 
2012-10-06 11:00:37 PM

gremlin1: Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.

And that is why Mr.Gates has all that money. Microsoft doesn't sell a program it sells a license to use that program. Be thankful you don't have to pay to renew the license like you do for your car.


Give it time.

I can't remember the article, but there was something that automakers were up to that pointed exactly in that direction.

Anyway, I expect that the on-board systems will eventually start requiring a license to run... and be in total control of the vehicle. (i.e. can't drive at all unless you have paid your OnStar subscription)
 
2012-10-06 11:00:41 PM
The very same people that complain and rant about 'government interference' in the free market are the ones DEMANDING the government protect them from 'unfair' competition. Their very livelihoods depend on taxpayers footing the bill for copyright and trade protection that cost billions, but since it butters their bread it is A-OK with them. Without government 'interference' their business model would be completely kaput as there is no way their business model would function if they had to foot the bill for that kind of protection on their own.
 
2012-10-06 11:04:46 PM

buzzcut73: Benjimin_Dover:
This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.

But the logo on the car is subject to copyright. Perhaps the unique letter and number combination on the VIN plate...


The simple counter to that is the logo wasn't bought or sold. The car was and the receipt would be proof. Nothing mentioned on my receipt when I bought my cars. The logo was attached to the car and can remain the property of the copyright holder. The logo is just along for the ride.
 
2012-10-06 11:04:49 PM

ZAZ: 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.


Thank you very much for bringing an informed perspective to the conversation. You are truly a resource.
 
2012-10-06 11:05:58 PM
Yet, we don't have the right to take their job. I don't know (but there are a lot of smart Farkers on here) is there anyway to get a SC Justice off their job? (probably not of the right-wing would be rallying around it yearly)
 
2012-10-06 11:07:03 PM

gremlin1: Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.

And that is why Mr.Gates has all that money. Microsoft doesn't sell a program it sells a license to use that program. Be thankful you don't have to pay to renew the license like you do for your car.


=============

Yeah, ultimately the joke was on Billy. I was so pissed about not being able to resell something I had paid for, I went to Demonoid and helped myself to cracked versions of Bill's software. Bill's asshole-ism is what encouraged me to join the ancient brotherhood of pirates. Yar-matey!
 
2012-10-06 11:09:34 PM
Here's my answer:

Stop me.


No, really. I dare you. Stop me.

Not just me. Stop the millions of other Americans selling their stuff on Craigslist, or in the classifieds, or by putting up a sign in the local grocery store.

Stop us. We double-dog dare you.

Honestly... What are you going to do? Have cops follow up on fliers, classified ads, garage sales, yard sales, resale shops, Goodwill stores, and used book stores?

Are you going to have resale gestapo locking people up or fining us for selling "contraband" iPods and textbooks and Xbox 360s?

Do you remember the "war on drugs" and how that worked out for the justice system and prison system?

Yeah... So I f♥cking DARE you to stop me from selling my PSP or my copy of Red Dead Redemption or my Android phone. Try it. See how much of a mess you get on your hands.
 
2012-10-06 11:10:51 PM

Fissile: Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.


Key difference here: You do not own that software and thus cannot re-sell it. It is licensed to you and that license specifically prohibits resale.

I sell used desktops and laptops on a scale large enough to attract Microsoft's attention. Let me tell you, navigating the vagaries of Windows licensing without being sued into bankruptcy is no mean feat. They actively troll my retail stores and place online orders in the hopes they can get an employee to violate licensing terms because in their eyes computers are either to be destroyed once the first owner is done with them or they want another $50 - $70 every time a box with a Windows Certificate of Authenticity attached is resold.

I think it should go without saying: F*ck them in the ear.
 
2012-10-06 11:14:02 PM
HALT, CITIZEN! PUT DOWN THE BANANARAMA CASSETTE TAPE AND BACK AWAY FROM THE CARD TABLE SLOWLY WITH YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!
 
2012-10-06 11:14:30 PM

BafflerMeal: True story:

Friend of mine who ran an ebay business (quite successfully) bought a few cases of cool Sennheiser headphones in bulk on sale, legitimately, in the US. When trying to sell them on Ebay for a markup but still under Sennheiser's current prices, Sennheiser threatened to sue him and forced Ebay to cancel all transactions. And that's not even with this potential ruling.

Not being able to afford to go up against Sennheiser, he had to eat thousands of dollars of inventory.


Orly?

He had no way of selling them within the same range as other Sennheiser dealers? Just had to throw 'em away and chalk up the loss?

Curious.

/Shenanigans.
 
2012-10-06 11:18:54 PM
therobinreport.com

Welcome to Fark?

Ya'll need to read s'more before you get all 'internet mad' at stuff.
 
2012-10-06 11:20:54 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


Also, GOOD LUCK trying to enforce it. There are literally hundreds of garage and yard sales every week, just in Orange County. How many nationwide. Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Oh, wait, this would be a PERFECT job for an expanded TSA.

Because terrorists.
 
2012-10-06 11:25:37 PM
That sound you hear in the distance is a million pawn shop owners, thrift store operators, and antiques pickers organizing into a powerful lobby force.
 
2012-10-06 11:27:38 PM

thornhill: So what the publisher does, is print the textbook in black & white, uses a cheaper paper stock, and only uses soft covers.


Mostly they reduce the massive overhead they charge, because that market will not stand it.
 
2012-10-06 11:30:59 PM

ghostofreasonpast: That sound you hear in the distance is a million pawn shop owners, thrift store operators, and antiques pickers organizing into a powerful lobby force.


Don't forget the (legitimate) ebay and other online resellers. By which I mean not the scammers, so pretty much everyone else.
 
2012-10-06 11:33:17 PM

basemetal: [www.fwdailynews.com image 286x400]

Can't resell stuff? Don't like that idea a bit, not one bit.


Not that he ever ends up selling anything anyway. "This is worth ten times what I paid! I think I'll keep it! Now I'm broke again!"
 
2012-10-06 11:34:38 PM
There is absolutely zero chance we have to worry about this. It would be the last nail in the coffin of our current leadership, and they're not that stupid.
 
2012-10-06 11:36:16 PM
When are people finally going to get pissed off? And just as always, you will sit there on your 'puters and let the corporations and lawyers fark you in your ass with their 12" cock of authority. Then as long as you get your subsidies, welfare, and "entitlements" you basically shut the fark up and ask for more cock. You will buy what they say, and eat what they tell you.

When will this end? Freedom is in the toilet, we get raped before flying, and authority figures are throwing normal citizens around like we no longer have rights. And they get away with it. The TSA steals your money and computers RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. They media and government encourages your neighbors to fear you and have you spy on each other. When was the last time you moved somewhere and all your new neighbors came over with cookies to meet the "new folks"?

When are people finally going to speak up? En Masse? Why is everyone just letting this shiat happen?

And finally, make sure to be a good American and make sure to keep voting for "politicians" instead of people that have the actual skills and understanding to even try to fix this mess we are all in. Listen to all the wonderful speeches and debates that were wrote and coreographed by their wonderful highly specialized staff. One of which is sure to have public psychology skills. Skills that work on YOU.

This was posted by a HUMAN that still believes in the original, honest American Dream he experienced when he was young. A time when the country was still UNITED because we actually were, and not TOLD TO BE by the media because it is the next "thing". A HUMAN that cries when he sees what the world's governments and corporations have done. A HUMAN that is well educated enough to know our environment is truly farkED and nothing will be done.

And it all seems to spawn to a single relation:

Money vs. What is right. It is not often when those two overlap.
 
2012-10-06 11:39:09 PM
RICO Act Violation?
www.mrsjanuary.com
 
2012-10-06 11:39:26 PM

A Shambling Mound: Fissile: Years ago I bought a computer that came bundled with Windows Office 2000. My employer required that I use Windows Office 2003 when I utilized my home computer for business tasks. My employer provided me with a licensed copy of Windows Office 2003 to install on my home computer. Now I had the disc for Office 2000 that was no longer installed on my computer, or any other computer for that matter. I put the Office 2000 disc up for sale on eBay, since the disc CAME BUNDLED WITH A COMPUTER THAT I PAID FOR. The auction was pulled 3 days later. I received a notice from eBay stating that as per Microsoft licensing agreements, I was not allowed to resell OEM Microsoft software.

Key difference here: You do not own that software and thus cannot re-sell it. It is licensed to you and that license specifically prohibits resale.

I sell used desktops and laptops on a scale large enough to attract Microsoft's attention. Let me tell you, navigating the vagaries of Windows licensing without being sued into bankruptcy is no mean feat. They actively troll my retail stores and place online orders in the hopes they can get an employee to violate licensing terms because in their eyes computers are either to be destroyed once the first owner is done with them or they want another $50 - $70 every time a box with a Windows Certificate of Authenticity attached is resold.

I think it should go without saying: F*ck them in the ear.


=============

Right. I understand that I purchased a license to install one copy of the software. That copy had been uninstalled. A new version of that software had been installed in its place, and the license fee for that new version was was paid.

Now let's say my employer had purchased a new computer for me that came bundled with Office 2003. Let's further assume that I retained my old computer which came bundled with Office 2000. Both licenses allowed for installation of one copy of the respective software. In this case, two copies of software were paid for, and two copies were installed.

That's not what happened. My employer paid for only a new copy of Office, not a new computer. The old copy of Office....license fee paid....was uninstalled, and the new copy....license fee paid.... was installed. In this case, I had two paid copies of Office, but only one was installed and being used. Now if I had sold that disc to someone else, it would have been the same for Microsoft. They received payment for one copy of Office 2000, and only one copy was installed under that license. They received payment for one copy of Office 2003 and only one copy was installed under that license. The only difference under this scenario is that I would have received a partial reimbursement for the license fee that I paid to Microsoft from the new license holder. No, you can't assume that the person who would have purchased the copy of Office 2000 would have purchased a Office 2003 if they were unable to obtain a copy of an older version.

The above is an example of pure greed on the part of Gates, and it's that petty corporate greed which pushed me over to the dark side of software piracy. I have no regrets. Fark 'em.
 
2012-10-06 11:41:46 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is absolutely zero chance we have to worry about this. It would be the last nail in the coffin of our current leadership, and they're not that stupid.


Really?
 
2012-10-06 11:46:00 PM
"Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the U.S., sued him for copyright infringement."

I've got this fabulous idea... Ya know, instead of biatching about this now, why don't we sell things overseas for the same farking price as you do in the USA? Problem solved in this particular case!
 
2012-10-06 11:50:48 PM
Doesn't the "first sale" happen when the retailer buys it from the publisher/wholesaler? If so, wouldn't that make it illegal for retailers to sell anything?
 
2012-10-06 11:52:42 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is absolutely zero chance we have to worry about this. It would be the last nail in the coffin of our current leadership, and they're not that stupid.

Really?


Yeah, they like to pretend they're that stupid for the dolts who vote this way or that, but they wouldn't actually let this happen, because the shiat would fly. Enough of the intelligent people would get outraged beyond belief that it'd be all over.
 
2012-10-06 11:55:15 PM
In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or "copies manufactured domestically" were.

Then there is the old sticky hmmmmmm... this part was made in China, this part was made in Japan, this part was made in Taiwan, this part was made in India... huh? Who the fark do I owe what?
 
2012-10-06 11:58:38 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.


You do understand that Honda dealerships are not owned by Honda and are owned by independent dealers who make money on used car sales. Honda has a vested interest in people selling their used cars back to the dealership to purchase new cars...
 
2012-10-07 12:01:10 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is absolutely zero chance we have to worry about this. It would be the last nail in the coffin of our current leadership, and they're not that stupid.

Really?

Yeah, they like to pretend they're that stupid for the dolts who vote this way or that, but they wouldn't actually let this happen, because the shiat would fly. Enough of the intelligent people would get outraged beyond belief that it'd be all over.


I'd say you're right, except for the very invasive physical search, background check, credit check, and interrogation I was required to submit to in order to take my last airline flight a year or two back. If you can make people submit to being fondled in public and interrogated, what the f**k is left? seriously, what indignity do you think is going to cause the great mob to rise up?

/when I say last, I mean it. Never. Ever. Again. Getting searched and having no right to say "get the f**k off me, s**thead!" isn't something I ever expected to experience, unless I was a criminal suspect, which I ain't.
 
2012-10-07 12:04:27 AM

KawaiiNot: What happened to common sense?


It isn't.....
 
2012-10-07 12:08:06 AM

MisterTweak: I'd say you're right, except for the very invasive physical search, background check, credit check, and interrogation I was required to submit to in order to take my last airline flight a year or two back. If you can make people submit to being fondled in public and interrogated, what the f**k is left? seriously, what indignity do you think is going to cause the great mob to rise up?


The difference is that flying isn't every day of everyone's life. You're right in the aspect that they're trying to make us accept this treatment as a frog in slowly boiling water, but this would be too much too fast.
 
2012-10-07 12:10:51 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is absolutely zero chance we have to worry about this. It would be the last nail in the coffin of our current leadership, and they're not that stupid.


================

Wouldn't be the first time such a "solution" was proposed.

"I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all
products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would
be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After
the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally "dead" and would be controlled
by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread
unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and
marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept
going and employment regularized and assured for the masses."

Bernard London
 
2012-10-07 12:14:46 AM
I might consider voting Republican if they actually decide to get rid of all these damn laws and restrictions. I'm small govt in the sense that I want them off my ass and it would be a pretty sad day for America and capitalism if we lose the right to sell our property. Govt should be about helping the people not trying to screw us over.
 
2012-10-07 12:18:42 AM
mw3.wsj.net

10/10

Epic trolling.
 
2012-10-07 12:19:39 AM

Fissile: Bernard London


Just because it's a quote doesn't mean it's a thought of substance. The concept, when considering current manufacturing capacity, economics, and basic logic, is beyond asinine.
 
2012-10-07 12:21:11 AM

TheJoe03: I'm small govt in the sense that I want them off my ass and it would be a pretty sad day for America and capitalism if we lose the right to sell our property.


Republicans haven't been for small government in a long time, not when they're in office anyway... Campaign promises, that's another story.
 
2012-10-07 12:21:47 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

ALL THINGS ISSUE FORTH FROM MONOLITH CORP AND WE ALONE CAN SELL! YOU MUST BUY AND BUY AND DISPOSE OF THAT WHICH YOU NO LONGER WANT! HARRUMPH!
 
2012-10-07 12:22:55 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: TheJoe03: I'm small govt in the sense that I want them off my ass and it would be a pretty sad day for America and capitalism if we lose the right to sell our property.

Republicans haven't been for small government in a long time, not when they're in office anyway... Campaign promises, that's another story.


That's why I used the word "actually".
 
2012-10-07 12:23:23 AM
uhm... Inherited items would not be covered by this, as if you inherit you are not the purchaser.
non watch Jewelry is not covered by copyrights.

but the cheap tobacco would be stopped, so it has that going for it.
 
rpm
2012-10-07 12:25:04 AM
Benjimin_Dover:
This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.

No, but the software you need for a modern car to work is.
 
rpm
2012-10-07 12:26:08 AM

madgordy: Jewelry is not covered by copyrights.


No, but the design on the back is
 
2012-10-07 12:30:36 AM

Oznog: They might have a thing over CUSTOMS allowing imports if they appear to be for resale outside the permitted area. IF that is a legally binding request.

However, if resale is allowed freely in defiance of regions, this is actually suckage for other countries. These guys get steep discounts in drugs, books, equipment, goods of all types, over US pricing. If they are legally able to just turn around and resell to the US, killing their US-sale cash cow, then the companies would ask themselves if taking an item that costs $10 to make, sells for $200 in the USA, but also sells for $15 in China only to find China ordered 3x more than they could possibly USE and are killing the US sales, that maybe they should start bringing up the China price to $150 or all the way to $200.

Bottom line being that these countries may have to pay US prices, and they can't, so basically they're cut off.


no

The US is a population of 300 million, the rest of the world is more than 6 billion, even if they never sold another book in the US they'd still make more money selling the book for 20 bucks a copy every where else.

The reason the price in these countries is 20 bucks is because that's the global market rate - ie the price they can charge before people pirate it and the gov looks the other way. In the US and other western nations the Gov is more likely to be favourable to campaign donations so you get laws to isolate from the global market rate and allow them to charge 200 bucks for a 10 dollar book.
 
2012-10-07 12:33:57 AM

GAT_00: 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.


Nah, if you couldn't resell, you wouldn't buy new stuff as often.
 
2012-10-07 12:35:04 AM

KawaiiNot: What happened to common sense?


It's hanging out with the $1.2 million a corporation feels entitled to.
 
2012-10-07 12:40:12 AM

Benjimin_Dover: Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.

This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.


If SCOTUS lets this by, cars will be copyrighted by Christmas time, trust me.
 
2012-10-07 12:43:11 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fissile: Bernard London

Just because it's a quote doesn't mean it's a thought of substance. The concept, when considering current manufacturing capacity, economics, and basic logic, is beyond asinine.


==========

Different method, but the same objective of the current proposal: Destruction of secondary and tertiary markets for consumer goods.
 
2012-10-07 12:55:05 AM

ZeroCorpse: Honestly... What are you going to do? Have cops follow up on fliers, classified ads...


This happens.
 
2012-10-07 12:55:52 AM

ZAZ: 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.


A: Section 602(a)(1) does not apply. By offering to sell his goods, the copyright's owner gave implicit permission for his works to be imported - assuming a legal transaction occured. Section 109(a) applies as it always has: you bought it, you own it - again, assuming a legal transaction and the item is not other wise prohibited to own in the United States.

Just a guess. Off to the Holidayy Inn Express I go!
 
2012-10-07 12:57:54 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Benjimin_Dover: Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.

This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.

If SCOTUS lets this by, cars will be copyrighted by Christmas time, trust me.


It applies to Copyrighted items PURCHASED overseas, imported to the US and re-sold.

Goddamn...you people need to read some shiat...

Nobody is going to be raiding your yard-sale or hauling you off to jail for putting your mountain bike on Craigslist.
 
2012-10-07 01:01:30 AM
if the Scotus find against this woman it will likely written in very very specific terms to keep it from being a dangerous precedent.

I honestly feel though they will find in favor of the young woman. The damage potential if they do not is incalculable Ebay and criags list would be dead , Amazon would take a heavy blow. Garage sales would be illegal as would for the most part be flea markets.

and thats just for starters.
 
2012-10-07 01:02:22 AM
Hell, the only reason this is coming up, is because the government can't figure out how to
TAX this "industry" (garage sales). I know some places around town that have a "sale"
every weekend. Easy under the table income. Once the government figures out a way
to tax it, then "they" will be happy.
 
2012-10-07 01:06:26 AM

grimlock1972: if the Scotus find against this woman it will likely written in very very specific terms to keep it from being a dangerous precedent.

I honestly feel though they will find in favor of the young woman. The damage potential if they do not is incalculable Ebay and criags list would be dead , Amazon would take a heavy blow. Garage sales would be illegal as would for the most part be flea markets.

and thats just for starters.


Well fear not. With the 12 million high paying jobs Romney is going to give us, we can afford to buy new from now on.

*eagle tear*
 
2012-10-07 01:07:28 AM
example fifteenbajillion of why legal articles should be written by people with understanding of the law.

And the court should uphold the lower courts on this.
 
2012-10-07 01:08:35 AM
I proudly display my international edition textbooks in class with the labels that say "not to be imported to the United States" Fark em. I did look up the law before I bought my first book, however.

Genetics, 9th ed- $125 domestic. Genetics, 8th edition international- 8 bucks. 95%+ the same. Don't remember how much 9th ed was, I got through.

In many cases, the international editions may not be in color, are softcover, or may have fewer pictures. Other times, they are damn near unchanged except for the cover. I only wish I could do that with all my books.
 
2012-10-07 01:11:30 AM

cman: 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?


Regardless if it is pharmaceuticals, cars, books, music, anything else the reasoning is the same. The corporations have government establish conditions under which they may charge very high prices for their goods in the US. The problem is they haven't convinced all governments to create these conditions thus there are free(r) markets around the world where they must compete for customers. In those markets prices are lower for the same goods. They then need government in the USA to block the secondary importation of these same goods to maintain their artificially high profit margins.

If the USA did not operate under a corporatist economic model, but instead a free market model, there would be no profit in importing goods from other countries. It is only because of the artificial price supports in the USA that there is any money in doing so.
 
2012-10-07 01:14:10 AM
File off the country of origin and plead ignorance.
 
2012-10-07 01:17:00 AM
Hagenhatesyouall
THIS is truly a SCOTUS Derp test, if there EVER was one!
[Derp pic]
Can't wait to see if they pass.

Having a five-four vote for this seems unlikely. It Would be a wonderful test to see what members want to write a non-ideological, corporate love letter to the American public.
 
Esn
2012-10-07 01:17:03 AM

ZeroCorpse: Here's my answer:

Stop me.


No, really. I dare you. Stop me.

Not just me. Stop the millions of other Americans selling their stuff on Craigslist, or in the classifieds, or by putting up a sign in the local grocery store.

Stop us. We double-dog dare you.

Honestly... What are you going to do? Have cops follow up on fliers, classified ads, garage sales, yard sales, resale shops, Goodwill stores, and used book stores?

Are you going to have resale gestapo locking people up or fining us for selling "contraband" iPods and textbooks and Xbox 360s?

Do you remember the "war on drugs" and how that worked out for the justice system and prison system?

Yeah... So I f♥cking DARE you to stop me from selling my PSP or my copy of Red Dead Redemption or my Android phone. Try it. See how much of a mess you get on your hands.


You don't know the history of the Soviet legal system, I see. The principle is as follows: make unenforceable laws that make just about every citizen a criminal. Of course nobody is going to take them seriously, neither the police nor the public. But if there is somebody who you want "disappeared", you have a legal reason to put them in jail.

That's how this is going to work.
 
2012-10-07 01:17:26 AM

sprgrss: example fifteenbajillion of why legal articles should be written by people with understanding of the law.

And the court should uphold the lower courts on this.


Oh thank god somebody else sees it!!

this thread is making me feel likes it's bizarro day on Fark or something. Or there's some joke I'm not in on... "Hey, let's greenlight this 100% troll article about the gub'mint taking your stuff and everybody get all serious and wadded up about it. People that don't know it's a joke will FREAK OUT!!! Ha!!"

Oh... and...

Agreed... Defendant is FARKed.
 
2012-10-07 01:17:56 AM

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.


F*ck that, every swap meet and antique store would go under. A lot of people survive on buying crap, cleaning it up and selling it at a slight markup. Overturning the 1908 ruling would be the final deathblow to our economy.
 
2012-10-07 01:23:09 AM

Benjimin_Dover: Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.

This applies to copyrighted items. Cars aren't copyrighted.


Ask the airbrush store owner tom davidson about cars being copywritten. He was selling black outlines of popular cars. No logos, no names, just a black iron on outline and several car companies "may have" contacted him about the shape of the cars being copy write protected and stopped him from selling his product.
 
2012-10-07 01:23:22 AM
fark this shiat. This is so ridiculous I felt like I was suddenly reading The Onion.
 
2012-10-07 01:23:29 AM

thornhill: 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.

While it's a completely separate issue, what is being overlooked is that most U.S. textbooks are sold overseas for 50% to 75% less than the U.S. MSRP.

Many countries want to use our textbooks, but they cannot afford the U.S. price. So what the publisher does, is print the textbook in black & white, uses a cheaper paper stock, and only uses soft covers. The content is 100% the same. If you put the same page from the U.S. version next to the international version, they'd be identical except that the international version is in black & white.

I'm a grad student and recently discovered this; I have saved a fortune buying the international version of textbooks that I need for class.

The obvious point, is that the textbook industry has the power to easily slash the cost of textbooks. Talk about something that demands government regulation.


It's government regulation and interference that got it this way in the first place. If they had to compete for text book sales there would be cheaper options. Rich kids could by the full color editions while everyone else got the B&W editions.
 
2012-10-07 01:26:47 AM

gremlin1: 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.


That's technically illegal already. By modifying the copyrighted works, you are creating a "derivative work", which can't be sold without permission.
 
2012-10-07 01:27:36 AM

DamnYankees:
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.


Grey imports of jeans into the EU were banned under copyright law.
 
2012-10-07 01:53:18 AM
Can you imagine using Silk Road and bitcoins to buy old paperbacks and used CDs instead of LSD and fake IDs? I'd chuckle at that.
 
2012-10-07 01:57:00 AM

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


It upheld Obamacare. Nothing is safe any more.
 
2012-10-07 02:01:22 AM

Fissile: Right. I understand that I purchased a license to install one copy of the software. That copy had been uninstalled. A new version of that software had been installed in its place, and the license fee for that new version was was paid.


If you bought the machine with Windows and Office already on it, what happened was that the manufacturer of your PC purchased OEM licenses of Windows and Office, which under the terms of the license were transferred to you when you bought the machine. The key thing to note here is that Microsoft's OEM licenses are sold for about half the price of their retail licenses in compensation for the loss of the right to install them on another machine, which effectively means you can't resell them either. For instance, at Newegg I can get a (non-transferable) Windows 7 Pro OEM license for $139.99, but if I want a (transferable) full retail license, it jumps to $274.99.  If you keep your machine until the software is obsolete it's a great deal, but not so much if you upgrade your hardware fairly often. Microsoft would do well to remove a lot of the confusion regarding how they license their products.
 
2012-10-07 02:07:27 AM

Esn: ZeroCorpse: Here's my answer:

Stop me.


No, really. I dare you. Stop me.

Not just me. Stop the millions of other Americans selling their stuff on Craigslist, or in the classifieds, or by putting up a sign in the local grocery store.

Stop us. We double-dog dare you.

Honestly... What are you going to do? Have cops follow up on fliers, classified ads, garage sales, yard sales, resale shops, Goodwill stores, and used book stores?

Are you going to have resale gestapo locking people up or fining us for selling "contraband" iPods and textbooks and Xbox 360s?

Do you remember the "war on drugs" and how that worked out for the justice system and prison system?

Yeah... So I f♥cking DARE you to stop me from selling my PSP or my copy of Red Dead Redemption or my Android phone. Try it. See how much of a mess you get on your hands.

You don't know the history of the Soviet legal system, I see. The principle is as follows: make unenforceable laws that make just about every citizen a criminal. Of course nobody is going to take them seriously, neither the police nor the public. But if there is somebody who you want "disappeared", you have a legal reason to put them in jail.

That's how this is going to work.


Yeah hows about I fix that for you to reflect reality.
We have these anti-drug laws that are bullshiat. Also these anti-terror measures are bullshiat too. Not to mention 'piracy'. But these things are wearing thin and people are expressing displeasure at the heinous over-extension of Gov't authority. These laws don't cover enough of us to cull the trouble makers. If you don't proudly wear the shackle of American "Freedom" you will be forced at gunpoint to wear the irons of American "Justice"

That's how this already works.
 
2012-10-07 02:07:49 AM

ZeroCorpse: Yeah... So I f♥cking DARE you to stop me from selling my PSP or my copy of Red Dead Redemption or my Android phone. Try it. See how much of a mess you get on your hands.


Esn: You don't know the history of the Soviet legal system, I see. The principle is as follows: make unenforceable laws that make just about every citizen a criminal. Of course nobody is going to take them seriously, neither the police nor the public. But if there is somebody who you want "disappeared", you have a legal reason to put them in jail.

That's how this is going to work.


Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged', 1957)

/Damnit, I just quoted Ayn Rand
//I feel so dirty
 
2012-10-07 02:17:45 AM
There are actually a lot of other, better articles out there about this, thought they don't seem to agree on the overall impact of this case in the end.

Frankly I still think it's crap even if it is decided it's only on goods purchased outside the country. If I want to resell a book I bought while I was in England twelve years ago, now I won't be able to? Horse shiat. I've owned it for a third of my life, whatever British publisher sold it to the store I bought it from should NOT get a say in what I do with it now.

Plus, over time copies of books, music, games, whatever deteriorate or get damaged, reducing the overall number of them in the world. There has to be some consideration of the cultural value of such items if it ends up there are only a few left over time. Look how many items even from WWI-WWII are considered rare and valuable enough to display in museums like the Smithsonian, because while they were common place when made, most of them are gone now.
 
2012-10-07 02:41:11 AM
Mike_LowELL 2012-10-06 09:08:44 PM

I am simply stating the things that are necessary to save this country. I can only hope that we ban the resale of everything, before it is too late.

MIKE DANG IT, HERE IS MY WHOLE FRiKKIN TRUCKLOAD OF HALLUCINOGENIC JELLY BEANS.

farm6.static.flickr.com

EAT THESE AND QUIT HUFFING YOUR MICROSCOPIC IRREGULAR SCREWS. 
 
2012-10-07 02:42:55 AM
For Sale:

Blank sheet of printer paper.
(Will throw in for free an out of print copy of
The Hobbit from Unwin Press.)


Price: $15.00 
 
2012-10-07 02:43:50 AM

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, sounds like a great way to jump start the economy!

:-D
 
Esn
2012-10-07 02:52:06 AM

simon_bar_sinister: Yeah hows about I fix that for you to reflect reality.
We have these anti-drug laws that are bullshiat. Also these anti-terror measures are bullshiat too. Not to mention 'piracy'. But these things are wearing thin and people are expressing displeasure at the heinous over-extension of Gov't authority. These laws don't cover enough of us to cull the trouble makers. If you don't proudly wear the shackle of American "Freedom" you will be forced at gunpoint to wear the irons of American "Justice"

That's how this already works.


I'm not disagreeing with you there. The US already has the highest proportion of its population in jail in the world (out of the countries that give out that data, anyway), so it's well on the way.

The only way to fix this is to decentralize the distribution of power. This is something that both Occupy and the Teabaggers agree on, but they have different opinions about the way to get there, and think that the solutions of the other guys will have exactly the opposite effect.
 
2012-10-07 02:55:06 AM

ZAZ: AssAsInAssassin: 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.

No fair use here. The defendant made about a million dollars importing foreign textbooks and reselling them. The reason you pick your Supreme Court challenges carefully is this guy doesn't get a bit of sympathy if he steps a micron outside the letter of the law. If you're eBay trying to set a favorable precedent you would rather the case involve a starving grad student selling one copy of last year's textbook which he imported because his stipend was cut. Technically it's the same legal question.


The defendent engaged in the act of capitalism. Buy low sell high. It's a basic premise of the free market
 
2012-10-07 03:03:42 AM
Because high tariffs are no longer enough to keep the comatose US economy on life support.
 
2012-10-07 03:11:58 AM

cman: 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?


the first sale doctrine shouldn't apply to things you are personally concerned about, like drugs and patented chemicals?
that's an interesting argument for distinguishing between legally protected products that and adding proprietary protections that don't actually even exist in this country. I'd like to call you a moron.
 
2012-10-07 03:23:32 AM
I say (in the wise words of comedian Ralphie May's 2yr. old son August)

"F... IT"

Keep things simple.

Just OUTLAW ALL TEXTBOOKS!

The "ability to think" has been being "discouraged" for quite some time now.

That frog's been being brought to a boil since they stopped teaching Logic in schools.

Why continue to pretend otherwise? 
 
2012-10-07 03:56:35 AM
From the actual case:

JOHN WILEY SONS INC v. KIRTSAENG

JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Supap KIRTSAENG, doing business as Bluechristine99, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 09-4896-cv.

Argued: May 19, 2010. -- August 15, 2011

The principal question presented in this appeal is whether the first sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), applies to 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․"

Seems that the real issue was the wholesale importation of the books.
 
2012-10-07 04:16:03 AM
Isn't it generally the copyright holder's responsibility to make a claim for copyright violation? If so, this is mostly going to affect people who deal in high volume or high priced merchandise. Selling your foreign purchased items on eBay might become difficult if your description tips off their magical detection software, but no one is going to stop you having a yardsale. Too difficult and costly to bring suit against a thousand different people selling one item each. Also doesn't do much for your company's goodwill.
 
2012-10-07 04:54:40 AM
OUTLAW EVERYTHING!
 
2012-10-07 05:28:23 AM

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.


It's not about enforcing it on anyone who violates it. It's about having something on the books that makes all of us guilty, and arresting whoever they feel like.

SCOTUS is a kangaroo court, so expect anything and everything from them.
 
2012-10-07 05:34:06 AM

Esn: simon_bar_sinister: Yeah hows about I fix that for you to reflect reality.
We have these anti-drug laws that are bullshiat. Also these anti-terror measures are bullshiat too. Not to mention 'piracy'. But these things are wearing thin and people are expressing displeasure at the heinous over-extension of Gov't authority. These laws don't cover enough of us to cull the trouble makers. If you don't proudly wear the shackle of American "Freedom" you will be forced at gunpoint to wear the irons of American "Justice"

That's how this already works.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. The US already has the highest proportion of its population in jail in the world (out of the countries that give out that data, anyway), so it's well on the way.

The only way to fix this is to decentralize the distribution of power. This is something that both Occupy and the Teabaggers agree on, but they have different opinions about the way to get there, and think that the solutions of the other guys will have exactly the opposite effect.


I disagree with them both.
1) Permanently remove ALL current "leadership".
2) Start over with the original documents. NO legalese definitions. You want to go tailor definitions to your advantage? You will have to change the language, get those changes into common use.
3) Any one who tries to advance a hyper-lib or neo- con agenda, when judged by random citizens will be publicly vivisected.

Results guaranteed and will remain in public memory longer than Paine's Common Sense.
 
2012-10-07 05:34:36 AM

Esn: ZeroCorpse: Here's my answer:

Stop me.


No, really. I dare you. Stop me.

Not just me. Stop the millions of other Americans selling their stuff on Craigslist, or in the classifieds, or by putting up a sign in the local grocery store.

Stop us. We double-dog dare you.

Honestly... What are you going to do? Have cops follow up on fliers, classified ads, garage sales, yard sales, resale shops, Goodwill stores, and used book stores?

Are you going to have resale gestapo locking people up or fining us for selling "contraband" iPods and textbooks and Xbox 360s?

Do you remember the "war on drugs" and how that worked out for the justice system and prison system?

Yeah... So I f♥cking DARE you to stop me from selling my PSP or my copy of Red Dead Redemption or my Android phone. Try it. See how much of a mess you get on your hands.

You don't know the history of the Soviet legal system, I see. The principle is as follows: make unenforceable laws that make just about every citizen a criminal. Of course nobody is going to take them seriously, neither the police nor the public. But if there is somebody who you want "disappeared", you have a legal reason to put them in jail.

That's how this is going to work
.


Bingo!
 
2012-10-07 05:36:26 AM

iollow: 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.

It's not about enforcing it on anyone who violates it. It's about having something on the books that makes all of us guilty, and arresting whoever they feel like.

SCOTUS is a kangaroo court, so expect anything and everything from them.


If they uphold the ruling then that means that if you call up your friend in the United Kingdom and have him ship you 100 copies of the Hobbit by Unwin Press and sell them here in the U.S. you would then be in violation of the law. If, however, you purchased a copy from someone over there, read it, and then resold it on e-Bay you would not be in violation of the law. It was the importation with the distribution of the books. He really was not reselling it the same way someone sells on old, unwanted book or DVD on ebay or even clears out their collection of imported LPs and sells them in a yard sale.

Also, care to give some examples of the Supreme Court being a kangaroo court making everyone guilty just so they can arrest whoever they feel like?
 
2012-10-07 05:48:07 AM
Speaking as somebody who wrote a 15 page paper critisizing the second circuit's decision in this case while getting my GED in law last year, the woman who wrote that article has no idea what the fark she is talking about.
 
2012-10-07 05:49:54 AM

crabsno termites: cedarpark:

/Unless textbooks have suddenly got batshait expensive.

Where you been? 1975 I paid $120 for "Radioisotope Methodology" by Chase and Rabinowitz.


At first I was going to call bullshiat on this one given that you paid an equivalent of around $520. Then I saw this article on the most expensive college textbooks in America.  At the top is a philosophy text for $1450. $500 for grad-level chemistry is at number 13.
 
Esn
2012-10-07 05:55:38 AM

simon_bar_sinister: Esn: simon_bar_sinister: Yeah hows about I fix that for you to reflect reality.
We have these anti-drug laws that are bullshiat. Also these anti-terror measures are bullshiat too. Not to mention 'piracy'. But these things are wearing thin and people are expressing displeasure at the heinous over-extension of Gov't authority. These laws don't cover enough of us to cull the trouble makers. If you don't proudly wear the shackle of American "Freedom" you will be forced at gunpoint to wear the irons of American "Justice"

That's how this already works.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. The US already has the highest proportion of its population in jail in the world (out of the countries that give out that data, anyway), so it's well on the way.

The only way to fix this is to decentralize the distribution of power. This is something that both Occupy and the Teabaggers agree on, but they have different opinions about the way to get there, and think that the solutions of the other guys will have exactly the opposite effect.

I disagree with them both.
1) Permanently remove ALL current "leadership".
2) Start over with the original documents. NO legalese definitions. You want to go tailor definitions to your advantage? You will have to change the language, get those changes into common use.
3) Any one who tries to advance a hyper-lib or neo- con agenda, when judged by random citizens will be publicly vivisected.

Results guaranteed and will remain in public memory longer than Paine's Common Sense.


By "all current leadership", are you arguing for confiscating the wealth of the most wealthy and redistributing it?

Because, see, the Occupy folks would say that extreme wealth allows people to have extreme influence on society, so they would include those people among the "leaders".
 
Esn
2012-10-07 06:02:23 AM
...and they would say that you cannot remove those people from power unless you remove their wealth, because wealth is what allows them to influence the lives of other people - which is the same thing as leadership.
 
2012-10-07 06:13:33 AM

Esn: ...and they would say that you cannot remove those people from power unless you remove their wealth, because wealth is what allows them to influence the lives of other people - which is the same thing as leadership.


Nope I don't care if they hide their wealth in a hollow mountain. Just PERMANENTLY remove them. If one facilitated the nation bankrupting schemes, executed them or was a direct beneficiary, remove them. Hold them up to the future as the prime example of why this should never be attempted again.
 
Esn
2012-10-07 06:19:32 AM

simon_bar_sinister: Esn: ...and they would say that you cannot remove those people from power unless you remove their wealth, because wealth is what allows them to influence the lives of other people - which is the same thing as leadership.

Nope I don't care if they hide their wealth in a hollow mountain. Just PERMANENTLY remove them. If one facilitated the nation bankrupting schemes, executed them or was a direct beneficiary, remove them. Hold them up to the future as the prime example of why this should never be attempted again.


OH! You mean KILL them. Okay.
 
2012-10-07 07:15:27 AM
Fissile:

I don't know why you think I'm arguing with you about whether or not software licensing sucks, I was just explaining that it's an entirely different thing from the subject at hand. I also don't know why you think your inability to re-sell something makes it okay to steal all of your software from here on out either, but hey, whatever.
 
2012-10-07 07:21:47 AM

Mrbogey: Lanctwa: The odd thing is that the US government is supporting the publisher, and wants the court of appeals decision to be affirmed.

Really? What clown is in charge of that organization?


forums.pelicanparts.com
 
2012-10-07 07:55:24 AM
The appellate court ruling sucks for anyone wanting to re-sale items....but good in a way that it would pretty much kill Free Trade....which has been an abject failure.

I am sure those with their Milton Friedman-fetish will whine and cry...but there is no evidence that Free Trade works....no one can ever quote you 'Facts"...just rehashed theory.

This ruling by SCOTUS could totally kill foreign goods sold in America...which would put millions of Americans back to work as manufacturing would return to the US
 
2012-10-07 07:56:06 AM
So basically it's this: I buy from Amazon this imported projector:
ecx.images-amazon.com

It retails for $200 approximately, comes with an extra bulb, and all the fixings that a $700-1000 projector has. Say it comes to end-of-life for me, and decide to sell it on Ebay, even at a resale price ($100). If this law passes, it might be considered a "first-sale" since I imported the item, and cannot even give it away? Fark that with a 10-meter cattleprod!

/owns two of them, fun times.
 
2012-10-07 07:59:18 AM
Way back when it looked like HIllary might become President, I said, "Let her win and she will destroy the Democrat Party."
Instead obama won and hes doing it. Passing this law will provoke the Second Revolutionary War.
 
2012-10-07 08:14:19 AM

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


fark, Bush v. Gore ring a bell???

Short attention spanned motherfarkers...
 
2012-10-07 08:14:28 AM
When you make it illegal to sell things that have a high demand only two things happen: You create a black market, and a shiat load of violence.
 
2012-10-07 08:15:48 AM

brewswane: Way back when it looked like HIllary might become President, I said, "Let her win and she will destroy the Democrat Party."
Instead obama won and hes doing it. Passing this law will provoke the Second Revolutionary War.


You're an idiot, and your lack of grammatical skills automatically invalidates anything you say, dumbass.
 
2012-10-07 08:16:02 AM
If you outlaw flea markets, only outlaws will have flea markets.
 
2012-10-07 08:46:47 AM
Couldn't the court rule that the sales are first sales since the books were imported for the purpose of selling them and making a profit? They were brand new still, not used. Could a line be drawn between this and buying your own textbook overseas, using it for your class, then selling it as used when you are done with it?
 
2012-10-07 08:52:19 AM

ZAZ: 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.


Great idea. Nobody buys anything from overseas, do they? Oh wait, eBay...

Why isn't anybody talking about the environmental impact? All that perfectly good kit going into landfill, and everybody having to buy new, when they'd be happy with used? Not pretty.
 
2012-10-07 08:56:49 AM
Never in the history of ever have so many people so thoroughly misunderstood anything.
 
2012-10-07 08:59:02 AM

Fissile: Right. I understand that I purchased a license to install one copy of the software. That copy had been uninstalled. A new version of that software had been installed in its place, and the license fee for that new version was was paid.

Now let's say my employer had purchased a new computer for me that came bundled with Office 2003. Let's further assume that I retained my old computer which came bundled with Office 2000. Both licenses allowed for installation of one copy of the respective software. In this case, two copies of software were paid for, and two copies were installed.

That's not what happened. My employer paid for only a new copy of Office, not a new computer. The old copy of Office....license fee paid....was uninstalled, and the new copy....license fee paid.... was installed. In this case, I had two paid copies of Office, but only one was installed and being used. Now if I had sold that disc to someone else, it would have been the same for Microsoft. They received payment for one copy of Office 2000, and only one copy was installed under that license. They received payment for one copy of Office 2003 and only one copy was installed under that license. The only difference under this scenario is that I would have received a partial reimbursement for the license fee that I paid to Microsoft from the new license holder. No, you can't assume that the person who would have purchased the copy of Office 2000 would have purchased a Office 2003 if they were unable to obtain a copy of an older version.

The above is an example of pure greed on the part of Gates, and it's that petty corporate greed which pushed me over to the dark side of software piracy. I have no regrets. Fark 'em.


The truth is, there's no way for Ebay to tell if you resold it or not. Since most people DO install software they own at some point, its safe to assume that it has been.
 
2012-10-07 09:08:26 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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?


Give it away - 1 item per person but charge $250 admission to come in the house to choose.
 
2012-10-07 09:47:03 AM
Silverstaff: 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.


And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Ok yeah, this shiat is going down, it has been foreseen biatches
 
2012-10-07 09:48:10 AM

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.


Yeah, changing this rule would be a serious threat to the entire industrialized world. Half of the retail sector would immediately go black market overnight. It would kill IRS revenue, cripple China's industrial capability and result in several million theft charges a day. The Supreme court would never do that.
 
2012-10-07 10:03:16 AM
Coming soon from the mind of Scalia: Transfer of any currency or items between individuals is illegal without expressed written consent from a major corporation. Violation of this law will result in immediate forfeiture of all possessions and 10 years prison labor in the state-run Burger Kings.
 
2012-10-07 10:23:24 AM

simrobert2001:

The truth is, there's no way for Ebay to tell if you resold it or not. Since most people DO install software they own at some point, its safe to assume that it has been.


=================

I included a picture of the disc in my auction. The pictures clearly showed that the disc came bundled with a Dell computer.....the disc sleeves were marked as such. I also stated that this product had been uninstalled, and was not currently installed on any computer, which was the truth. I'm guessing that Microsoft has employees who do nothing except troll auction sites for such things, and then send off complaints to the respective sites demanding removal of the item. Just amazing. MS is so paranoid about their licensing agreements, they will go after people who attempt to get a few bucks back on something they bought for a home computer. By checking my feedback, they could have seen that I was not in the business of selling computer stuff. Just really, really petty on the part of Gates.
 
2012-10-07 10:44:30 AM
Amusing how often big business tries to claim that the "free market" does not apply to individuals.
 
2012-10-07 11:35:21 AM
So, realistically, if the SCOTUS rules on this measure.

What does that mean? Is this kind of law going to be totally unenforceable or what?

Cops showing up at garage sales? I mean, really.
 
2012-10-07 12:25:50 PM
So no more Pawn Stars?

spacebison.com
 
2012-10-07 12:48:05 PM

MarkEC: Couldn't the court rule that the sales are first sales since the books were imported for the purpose of selling them and making a profit? They were brand new still, not used. Could a line be drawn between this and buying your own textbook overseas, using it for your class, then selling it as used when you are done with it?


Depends. Do you want a free market or not?
 
2012-10-07 12:48:27 PM

LaughingRadish: crabsno termites: cedarpark:

/Unless textbooks have suddenly got batshait expensive.

Where you been? 1975 I paid $120 for "Radioisotope Methodology" by Chase and Rabinowitz.

At first I was going to call bullshiat on this one given that you paid an equivalent of around $520. Then I saw this article on the most expensive college textbooks in America.  At the top is a philosophy text for $1450. $500 for grad-level chemistry is at number 13.


That's why I named the book. Was a hell of a lot of money for a poor grad student in those days. Ramen noodles - YUUUUMMMMM!
 
2012-10-07 12:50:15 PM

OhioUGrad: Yet, we don't have the right to take their job. I don't know (but there are a lot of smart Farkers on here) is there anyway to get a SC Justice off their job? (probably not of the right-wing would be rallying around it yearly)


"Hey, left-wing. We can now hold year-round rallies against SC Justices. Interested?"
"Nah, we love Thomas and Roberts and would never complain about them or any other conservatives."

Yeah, that's how it'd go. It's not like the left-wing have a history of street protests or anything.
 
2012-10-07 01:28:32 PM
I wonder how this applies to collectors items, like rare guitars, or antiques?
 
2012-10-07 01:33:59 PM

Fissile: nothing except troll auction sites for such things, and then send off complaints to the respective sites demanding removal of the item. Just amazing. MS


ACtually, When you bought the PC, it came bundled with Microsoft's User agreement, in which you agreed not to sell the item.
 
2012-10-07 02:18:38 PM
So, is this why we can't have nice things?
 
Zon
2012-10-07 02:35:01 PM

Warlordtrooper: MarkEC: Couldn't the court rule that the sales are first sales since the books were imported for the purpose of selling them and making a profit? They were brand new still, not used. Could a line be drawn between this and buying your own textbook overseas, using it for your class, then selling it as used when you are done with it?

Depends. Do you want a free market or not?


Depends. How free are we talking here?

/a completely free market is a terrible idea. We need regulations to protect people from the indirect harms of companies as they seek profit, and to make investments with indirect benefits since companies won't make them (precisely because they don't directly yield a profit).
 
2012-10-07 02:44:05 PM

simrobert2001: Fissile: nothing except troll auction sites for such things, and then send off complaints to the respective sites demanding removal of the item. Just amazing. MS

ACtually, When you bought the PC, it came bundled with Microsoft's User agreement, in which you agreed not to sell the item.


================

Which is why I have refused to pay for Microsoft products since then. Fortunately, Microsoft's hegemony over the PC world seems to be drawing to a close. Fact is that MS is a three product company: Windows, Office and Xbox. All the other stuff they attempted turned out to be money losing duds. Now that the world of electronics is going the way of portable devices, MS doesn't seem to be able to get any traction.

BTW, we'll see if evil dweeb Gates is really going to give away his billions, like he promised. I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
2012-10-07 03:05:50 PM
It's about time they closed this loop-hole.

FREEDOM!
 
2012-10-07 04:10:05 PM

Fissile: Which is why I have refused to pay for Microsoft products since then. Fortunately, Microsoft's hegemony over the PC world seems to be drawing to a close. Fact is that MS is a three product company: Windows, Office and Xbox. All the other stuff they attempted turned out to be money losing duds. Now that the world of electronics is going the way of portable devices, MS doesn't seem to be able to get any traction.

BTW, we'll see if evil dweeb Gates is really going to give away his billions, like


Actually, Its still profitable by a few billions. And bill gates no longer owns microsoft. He has shares in it. He is in fact, giving it away.

Link
 
2012-10-07 04:31:55 PM

Gyrfalcon: F*ck that, every swap meet and antique store would go under. A lot of people survive on buying crap, cleaning it up and selling it at a slight markup. Overturning the 1908 ruling would be the final deathblow to our economy.


What about the impact of another million well-paid law enforcement jobs to enforce the ruling?
 
2012-10-07 06:10:08 PM

thornhill: If you put the same page from the U.S. version next to the international version, they'd be identical except that the international version is in black & white.


This isn't quite true. My Griffiths quantum textbook international edition was always a few page numbers ahead of what the professor was saying, even though the content was the same.
 
2012-10-07 06:45:16 PM

Oldiron_79: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


Yeah... either that or an SS number.
 
2012-10-07 07:09:05 PM

Zon: Warlordtrooper: MarkEC: Couldn't the court rule that the sales are first sales since the books were imported for the purpose of selling them and making a profit? They were brand new still, not used. Could a line be drawn between this and buying your own textbook overseas, using it for your class, then selling it as used when you are done with it?

Depends. Do you want a free market or not?

Depends. How free are we talking here?

/a completely free market is a terrible idea. We need regulations to protect people from the indirect harms of companies as they seek profit, and to make investments with indirect benefits since companies won't make them (precisely because they don't directly yield a profit).


In a free market if I find that person A is selling at a price lower than what the market will ask for, I buy it and resell it at a profit. Buy low sell high. This is how the free market works. These companies want a free market when it comes to what benefits them but refuses the same free market when it hurts them.
 
2012-10-07 07:18:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: In a free market if I find that person A is selling at a price lower than what the market will ask for, I buy it and resell it at a profit. Buy low sell high. This is how the free market works. These companies want a free market when it comes to what benefits them but refuses the same free market when it hurts them.


Well, duh!
 
2012-10-07 08:27:04 PM

Warlordtrooper: Zon: Warlordtrooper: MarkEC: Couldn't the court rule that the sales are first sales since the books were imported for the purpose of selling them and making a profit? They were brand new still, not used. Could a line be drawn between this and buying your own textbook overseas, using it for your class, then selling it as used when you are done with it?

Depends. Do you want a free market or not?

Depends. How free are we talking here?

/a completely free market is a terrible idea. We need regulations to protect people from the indirect harms of companies as they seek profit, and to make investments with indirect benefits since companies won't make them (precisely because they don't directly yield a profit).

In a free market if I find that person A is selling at a price lower than what the market will ask for, I buy it and resell it at a profit. Buy low sell high. This is how the free market works. These companies want a free market when it comes to what benefits them but refuses the same free market when it hurts them.


Sometimes you want to dump on the market for strategic reasons. See Russia dumping platinum or gold on the market.
 
2012-10-07 11:04:05 PM
Go ahead, attack the secondary markets in a recession. Let us know how that works out for you.

/anybody want to buy some second hangd hanging rope?
 
2012-10-08 08:48:03 AM

Oznog: If they are legally able to just turn around and resell to the US, killing their US-sale cash cow, then the companies would ask themselves if taking an item that costs $10 to make, sells for $200 in the USA, but also sells for $15 in China only to find China ordered 3x more than they could possibly USE and are killing the US sales, that maybe they should start bringing up the China price to $150 or all the way to $200.

Bottom line being that these countries may have to pay US prices, and they can't, so basically they're cut off.


They get cut off or we stop getting killed with excessive and unwarranted costs. Corporations created a world market for things like employment, regular people should be able to benefit from the world market as well. If I have to compete with employees from India, why shouldn't the things I buy also compete with things from India?
 
2012-10-08 09:24:59 AM
How's that deregulation working for you, corporations?
 
Displayed 269 of 269 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report