Apparently, there is case pending before the Supreme Court that could over turn the "right of first sale" for all goods that hold a US copyright, but are manufactured outside the US, which at this point is just about everything.

Here are a couple of links for those who are interested in more details:

Marketwatch: Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril

Volokh Conspiracy: Some Baffling Copyright Law

The case at hand, Kirtsaeng v John Wiley, revolves around text books, but I see no reason it would not apply to cars, clothes or anything else.

I have not seen any discussion about this topic on the site, so I am hoping that some of our more lawyerly folks will weigh in. Is this just a tempest in a teapot or is as bad as it seems?

Comments:


Israel P.
Joined
Feb '11
Israel Pickholtz

The Marketwatch article spoke of iPhones. How would the iPhone market be affected if the product carried a warning that it may not be resold except with manufacturer's permission?

The law would say "no warning = permission to sell."

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Israel Pickholtz: The Marketwatch article spoke of iPhones. How would the iPhone market be affected if the product carried a warning that it may not be resold except with manufacturer's permission?

The law would say "no warning = permission to sell." · 4 minutes ago

Ah, but the warning could be buried deep in the user agreement which nobody reads.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

Antipodius: But what if an illegal immigrant held a garage sale? Then what? And what if said undocumented worker was also a journalist?

Cats lying with dogs? Apocalypse? · 44 minutes ago

And what if the illegal immigrant was Muslim?

Richard Finlay
Joined
Aug '12
Richard Finlay

Antipodius: But what if an illegal immigrant held a garage sale? Then what? And what if said undocumented worker was also a journalist?

Cats lying with dogs? Apocalypse? · 1 hour ago

Illegal, er, undocumented immigrants are exempt from US law, I believe.  By definition, almost.

Foxfier
Joined
Apr '12
Foxfier

Misthiocracy

Israel Pickholtz: The Marketwatch article spoke of iPhones. How would the iPhone market be affected if the product carried a warning that it may not be resold except with manufacturer's permission?

The law would say "no warning = permission to sell." · 4 minutes ago

Ah, but the warning could be buried deep in the user agreement which nobody reads. · 1 hour ago

Put it in the back of the warranty book, along with the "register to get needed product updates and exclusive offers!" stuff. 

wilber forge
Joined
Oct '10
wilber forge

Another round of Copyright and Trail Lawyers looking to create a new market, nothing new there.

The first run-thru was promoted by record companies to apply Royalty payments on used records, tapes and CD's each time they changed hands.

The other odd part is that some cities attempted to require a permit for garage sales and then ban the use of cash in tranactions. Credit cards only. That proposal faded rather quickly.

Edited on October 9, 2012 at 4:09am
Brian Clendinen
Joined
Mar '11
Brian Clendinen

Actually this has more to do with import laws than anything. Other than marine law, U.S. Import Export laws are about the most archaic illogical inconsistent piece of ^&^#%  that is so called law. I had a temp job auditing import records and it is insane the regulations. 

I knew one guy who was in this business for years. His sister was an Ivy league law grade doing estate planning. They started talking so she decided to start reading the law after a few days she told her brother she had no idea how he even understood any of it.She could not make head or tails out of it.

Add into the mix copyright laws it is no wonder you have this insane law that I bet almost no-one in congress understands let alone knows that it exists.

Edited on October 9, 2012 at 4:37am
Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Brian Clendinen:

Other than marine law, U.S. Import Export laws are about the most archaic illogical inconsistent piece of ^&^#%  that is so called law. 

Hmm...

So, maybe there's a downside to 236 years of continuous stable government. It allows for the fossilization of laws?

I kid, because I love.

;-)


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Forgive me if I sound like a leftist troll.

But stories like this are one of the reasons I rail futilely against "free trade".

To pluck one example from this very thread despite our free trade agreement with Canada Americans cannot obtain medicine at bargain-basement Canadian prices. No free trade there.

So we pay bone-crushing, Constitution-wrecking, Obamacare-bringing prices for treatments that are much cheaper elsewhere on the planet.

Why?

For the same reason that this textbook publisher went to court- because people want to make money, and figure getting the government to stomp on their competition is much easier than competing. They could have lowered their prices here, and competed upon that basis.

Nope. They went to court- and may win a decision that hands the government yet more power, without the general public even hearing about it or congress debating it.

What does this have to do with "free trade"?

This: When US trade policy benefits shareholders in politically connected corporations that arrangement is sacrosanct, as in our present "free trade" policy. If events turn out such that the general public might benefit at the expense of those corporations expect continual legal issues.


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

So in this case Mr. Kirtsaeng legally bought textbooks elsewhere for sale here, lowering prices for Americans- supposedly the great and wonderful reason for free trade.

Yet he is in court- and has already lost, failing a reversal by SCOTUS. 

The common thread is that if the interests of the wealthy corporate  stock-owning political class are threatened- again, I beg pardon if I sound like a leftist troll- expect the US government, one way or another, to get involved.

And if you're a middle-class American expect to lose out on the deal.

So the American customers of Mr. Kirtsaeng will get to pay more for their textbooks- and any potential American worker who might have been involved in producing those textbooks gets to lose also, because it was cheaper to do that out of the country. 

This sort of arrangement isn't anything like actual free trade, in my opinion- nor is in the interests of the American people as a whole.

It's just rent-seeking by the political class. And I oppose it, obviously.

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Xennady: Forgive me if I sound like a leftist troll.

But stories like this are one of the reasons I rail futilely against "free trade".

To pluck one example from this very thread despite our free trade agreement with Canada Americans cannot obtain medicine at bargain-basement Canadian prices. No free trade there.

Agreed, the "free trade" label is incorrectly applied to the trade agreements signed these days.  Better to use the phrase that was used in the days of Sir Wilfred Laurier - "reciprocity".

That being said, I think it's impossible (that's right, impossible! SO SAY I!) to argue that these agreements aren't superior to no agreements, where there is no bilateral restriction against tariffs of any sort.

Some bi-lateral restrictions on tariffs is better than no restriction on tariffs.


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Misthiocracy

That being said, I think it's impossible (that's right, impossible! SO SAY I!) to argue that these agreements aren't superior to no agreements, where there is no bilateral restriction against tariffs of any sort.

Heh. I'll make that argument, or at least make an attempt.

I think you are essentially arguing that bad law is better than no law. If free trade trade is such a wonderful thing than many foreign countries should have adopted it and simply done away with tariffs. Per theory they should prosper. Yet instead they negotiate for years, producing lengthy legal documents governing trade with the wanna-be global hegemon- Uncle Sugar.

Mr. Bastiat is spinning in his grave- or should be.  And the American people get nothing like "reciprocity" as Uncle Sugar sees itself not as the party negotiating on behalf of the American people but- again- as the global hegemon, responsible for making the world a better place. Cue singers singing Kumbaya and holding hands now.

 Americans just don't rate, compared to that worthy goal. 

Or at least that happy story. Again, I suspect the real deal is just rent seeking by the political class.

No thanks.

 

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Maybe something this massively stupid will wake the country up to the threat of the law and the government's constant and growing interference with the marketplace . 

We need to separate the two , stop trying to legislate commerce and get back to caveat emptor . 

Look the EU constitution, this is the dream of the progressives in America. If we're not careful...

Edited on October 9, 2012 at 6:13am
Palaeologus
Joined
Jul '10
Palaeologus

Oh, this is just... bunk.

So some publishers want to offer specifically discounted editions of their crappy books (made even crappier!) to crappy countries (see: India) so the local third-world students living on $10 a month might be able to read a book... and we are pitching a fit because a bunch of OWS spoiled brats want to buy at the same price?

Boo-frickin'-hoo.

It will have no impact on garage sales or lemonade stands. It isn't that these books were published overseas... the point is that they were published for a poor, overseas audience only.

This is the same adolescent garbage we hear regarding drug "re-importation." There are no free rides folks.

Does anyone believe that Canada would have great (legal! legal!) drugs to sell at low prices if the U.S. didn't do the bulk of the research? Does anyone believe that there would be cheap "South Asian" editions of textbooks if the U.S.  weren't buying huge from publishers?

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Xennady

If free trade trade is such a wonderful thing than many foreign countries should have adopted it and simply done away with tariffs. Per theory they should prosper. Yet instead they negotiate for years, producing lengthy legal documents governing trade with the wanna-be global hegemon- Uncle Sugar.

Ah, but since the signing off the original Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, Soviet Canuckistan has been negotiating and signing free trade agreements at a blistering pace (well, blistering when compared to other government projects).  

During the same time period, Soviet Canuckistan's federal finances have seen remarkable health,  AND Soviet Canuckistan has weathered the financial crisis better than most of the OECD.

Surely, the fact that these trends happened during the same time period cannot be coincidence.  SURELY!

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
Valiuth
Palaeologus: Oh, this is just... bunk.

Yes poor babies thinking they actually own the things they legally buy. I mean crazy right? Is it illegal to import foreign published books, movies, games or other media? So if I purchase foreign copies why should I not be able to resell my property at profit?  

The text book publishers have a good racket going for them. Every year or two they come out with new glossy editions to give us what they had in previous editions. Now Universities deserve plenty of blame for allowing this grafting but I guess it's their professors who write the books. The US gets the latest in drugs at a premium price, but text books aren't drugs. The most cutting edge classes don't use text books they read current scholarly articles (in science at least). 

This is a money making game propped up by our copyright regime. When hoisted by their own petards they go running to daddy government to save them from inadvertent competition. If this interpretation stands it will just become another law with arbitrary enforcement, to jerk consumers around. 


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Misthiocracy

Ah, but since the signing off the original Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, Soviet Canuckistan hasbeen negotiating and signing free trade agreements at a blistering pace (well, blistering when compared to other government projects).  

Did you read your link?

Six agreements since NAFTA, which happened in the last century - and one of those agreements is also listed as up for "modernization". All with international powerhouses such as Costa Rica. Yeah-start singing Kumbaya now- or not. Per free trade dogma as I've seen expressed at this site Canada should not bother to negotiate- Canada should just unilaterally eliminate trade barriers.

Yet somehow that hasn't happened, despite Bastiat. And I would be remiss if I did not note that Canada has the nice happy ability to earn money by exporting oil to the US- quite like Saudi Arabia- which surely cannot be coincidence re the wonderful health of the federal finances of Canada.

SURELY!

Palaeologus
Joined
Jul '10
Palaeologus

Valiuth

Palaeologus: Oh, this is just... bunk.

Yes poor babies thinking they actually own the things they legally buy. I mean crazy right? Is it illegal to import foreign published books, movies, games or other media? So if I purchase foreign copies why should I not be able to resell my property at profit?  

The text book publishers have a good racket going for them. Every year or two they come out with new glossy editions to give us what they had in previous editions. Now Universities deserve plenty of blame for allowing this grafting but I guess it's their professors who write the books.

Aren't you a GA? It is always a racket to folks who make squat on the deal.

Good for you though! You're standing up for people who make sure subsistence-level peasants in 3rd world nations don't benefit from charity. Upper-middle class crybabies in Lincoln Park unite! Congrats, hero.


Joined
May '11
ctlaw

Valiuth

 So if I purchase foreign copies why should I not be able to resell my property at profit?  

What if you purchased knockoffs in a country with no copyright law? Those would have been legally purchased in that country.

What if you purchased them in a country where el Dictator nationalized the copyrights of an American author? Could el Dictator just start running the presses tomorrow to supply the world with copies of the latest Twilight book?

What if you purchased them in a country where el Dictator threatened to nationalize the copyrights of an American author unless the author agreed to let el Dictator's friend publish at a discount and reduced royalty?

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Xennady

Misthiocracy

Ah, but since the signing off the original Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, Soviet Canuckistan hasbeen negotiating and signing free trade agreements at a blistering pace (well, blistering when compared to other government projects).  

Did you read your link?

Six agreements since NAFTA, which happened in the last century - and one of those agreements is also listed as up for "modernization". All with international powerhouses such as Costa Rica. Yeah-start singing Kumbayanow- or not. Per free trade dogma as I've seen expressed at this site Canada should not bother to negotiate- Canada should just unilaterally eliminate trade barriers.

Yet somehow that hasn't happened, despite Bastiat. And I would be remiss if I did not note that Canada has the nice happy ability to earn money by exporting oil to the US- quite like Saudi Arabia- which surely cannot be coincidence re the wonderful health of the federal finances of Canada.

SURELY! · 6 hours ago

You wound me.  I am felled.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In