Selling or trading your stuff might become much tougher.

[Townsend]

Sharing this because it's kind of a mind blower.  If this wasn't the WSJ, I'd claim fear mongering.

Another member of the forum reiterated the point that if this is found by the SCOTUS to be correct then many companies could move production offshore and claim resell rights.


Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril


http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-10-04/finance/34240922_1_copyright-iphone-john-wiley-sons

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

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen does on the book "No Easy Day," you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.


That's being challenged now for products that are made abroad and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

"It means that it's harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them," said Jonathan Bland, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. "This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups."

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas or an Italian painter's artwork.

It has implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.

"It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can't be bought or sold here," said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.

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.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the U.S., sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

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.

"That's a non free-market capitalistic idea for something that's pretty fundamental to our modern economy," Ammori said.

Both Ammori and Bland worry that a decision in favor of the lower court would lead to some strange, even absurd consequences.

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


It could also become a weighty issue for auto trade-ins and resales, considering about 40% of most U.S.-made cars carry technology and parts that were made overseas.

This is a particularly important decision for the likes of eBay and Craigslist, whose very business platform relies on the secondary marketplace. If sellers had to get permission to peddle their wares on the sites, they likely wouldn't do it.

Moreover, a major manufacturer would likely go to eBay to get it to pull a for-sale item off the site than to the individual seller, Ammori said.

In its friend-of-the-court brief, eBay noted that the Second Circuit's rule "affords copyright owners the ability to control the downstream sales of goods for which they have already been paid." What's more, it "allows for significant adverse consequences for trade, e-commerce, secondary markets, small businesses, consumers and jobs in the United States."

Ammori, for one, wonders what the impact would be to individual Supreme Court justices who may buy and sell things of their own.

"Sometimes it's impossible to tell where things have been manufactured," said Ammori, who once bought an antique desk from a Supreme Court justice. "Who doesn't buy and sell things? Millions of Americans would be affected by this."

If the Supreme Court does rule with the appellate court, it's likely the matter would be brought to Congress to force a change in law. Until then, however, consumers would be stuck between a rock and a hard place when trying to resell their stuff.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case on Oct. 29.

[Conan71]

If it is upheld, I really don't see how manufacturers, publishers, et al would have time to enforce something like this.  One assumes that when you purchase an item it is yours to keep, destroy, use, or re-sell at a loss or profit.

I can't imagine SCOTUS upholding this, but then again they did give us Citizens United and the jacked up ruling on imminent domain.

[Townsend]

If it is upheld, I really don't see how manufacturers, publishers, et al would have time to enforce something like this.  One assumes that when you purchase an item it is yours to keep, destroy, use, or re-sell at a loss or profit.

I can't imagine SCOTUS upholding this, but then again they did give us Citizens United and the jacked up ruling on imminent domain.

They could go after eBay and Craig's list to crack down.

They may feel they have no choice but to find for it.  Then it's up to our crackerjack congress to change the law.

[Conan71]

They could go after eBay and Craig's list to crack down.

They may feel they have no choice but to find for it.  Then it's up to our crackerjack congress to change the law.

It's interesting and I'm trying to figure out how it may or may not affect my eBay business.  I deal in new old stock, used OEM, restored, and reproduction antique motorcycle parts for American motorcycles.  The company I get reproductions from makes most of their parts overseas.  However, they sell them to me for the express purpose of my business re-selling them.  Sounds like though if one of my customers attempts to re-sell a part like that they could have problems.

I honestly am not seeing the enforceability of this.  I only find it mildly amusing that the publisher in this suit is pissed because someone else figured out how to circumvent the publisher using their U.S. customers to subsidize cheaper prices for foreign customers and then profiting off of it.