The right to sell your stuff used is being challenged in the US Supreme Court.

[TheForce]

Arguments are being heard before the Supreme court beginning Oct 29 that will make it illegal to sell used possessions made or originally sourced overseas. The basis for the argument is from differences in the US vs. foreign copyright law, dating back as far as 1908. What the law will require is if you have an item that has any resource or manufacturer overseas, you will be denied the legal authority to sell the item without permission from the original owner of the item. Under current copyright, the original owner's rights only extent to the first sale. For example, you can buy a new book and later sell that book as a used book without the need to get permission from the original owner. What this change would do is make it illegal to sell the used piece if it was made overseas unless you got permission or paid royalties to the original owner. I don't fully understand why this only affects foreign made products but that pretty much affects everything we have in the US. I suppose we will found out when this case specifics hits the news and the details of what the Supreme court is hearing is made public.

This sounds crazy insane and hopefully will be shot down but if it doesn't, we could see a whole new black market, places like ebay would demand proof of permission to sell. Large markets such as used foreign cars would be affected, Dealers would be put out of business. Pawn shops would be all made instantly illegal. Antique business would be gone.

Some additional info and quotes pulled from a Market Watch article:

"It means that it's harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them," said Jonathan Band, 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."

"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 America 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 United States.

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

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, 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 commented.

If the Supreme Court does rule with the appellate court, it's likely that 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.

 

[primestar31]

This will never pass. How could it? Even Salvation Army and Goodwill would have to go out of business. Ebay would be toast, and every little guy would just go on selling their stuff at garage sales and flea markets.

 

[jayn_j]

This will never pass. How could it? Even Salvation Army and Goodwill would have to go out of business. Ebay would be toast, and every little guy would just go on selling their stuff at garage sales and flea markets.

Not a issue about 'passing'. This is the supreme court looking to support (or hopefully overturn) a lower court ruling that basically gives businesses control over the resale market of their products.

 

[Teehar]

I wouldn't be shocked if they pass it but,extremely pissed off if they do.That becoming a law might be one thing that leads to a revolt!Sure you can buy something but you may not sell it.

 

[TheForce]

While I defer to Rocky as our resident expert in matters of the court, I think this is not the SC making a law but rather deciding on an interpretation of the current copyright law.

The copyright law, including the DMCA has been resting on shaky grounds for decades. There is very little enforcement and the general attitude of Americans, is that of possession is 99% full ownership regardless of copyright control. There is little to no respect for DMCA as evidenced for the number of times ordinary citizens violate it and don't consider they have done anything wrong. They even openly admit violation of the law. Technology has given people in general the means to execute copyright and DMCA violations with ease. The SC may rule on this in favor of the the lower courts but unless there is any kind of enforcement it will be not worth the paper it's written on.

Personally, I think the DMCA should be overturned and the traditional copyrights be changed to have a finite life span, like patents, then become public domain. Let trademarks have an expiration too but require a renewal process if the trademark is currently in commercial use.

 

[Teehar]

While I defer to Rocky as our resident expert in matters of the court, I think this is not the SC making a law but rather deciding on an interpretation of the current copyright law.

The copyright law, including the DMCA has been resting on shaky grounds for decades. There is very little enforcement and the general attitude of Americans, is that of possession is 99% full ownership regardless of copyright control. There is little to no respect for DMCA as evidenced for the number of times ordinary citizens violate it and don't consider they have done anything wrong. They even openly admit violation of the law. Technology has given people in general the means to execute copyright and DMCA violations with ease. The SC may rule on this in favor of the the lower courts but unless there is any kind of enforcement it will be not worth the paper it's written on.

Personally, I think the DMCA should be overturned and the traditional copyrights be changed to have a finite life span, like patents, then become public domain. Let trademarks have an expiration too but require a renewal process if the trademark is currently in commercial use.

Consumers will start seeing things differently if that is upheld,enforced.I mean why buy something if you don't really own it,and by own I consider doing with it what the consumer wishes.Companies may find that cheaper prices and leasing will be all consumers are willing to pay for with those rules.

 

[John Kotches]

Not a issue about 'passing'. This is the supreme court looking to support (or hopefully overturn) a lower court ruling that basically gives businesses control over the resale market of their products.

Forgive my apparent ignorance, but doesn't the act of purchasing an item make the item no longer the business' product?

This is beyond bad for both consumers and the market IMO. It totally destroys the long standing concept of individual ownership and anything less than a unanimous decision in the consumers interest is going to cause problems in many unforeseen ways.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jayn_j]

Forgive my apparent ignorance, but doesn't the act of purchasing an item make the item no longer the business' product?

Uh John, I was responding to the previous comment where Primestar31 stated "This will never pass". That implies that it is congress acting and not the Supreme Court ruling.

We don't disagree. However the court has recently ruled on software resale going against license agreements, so I wouldn't say this is a given decision yet.

 

[John Kotches]

Jay:

I'm not picking on you. We're actually discussing this at the office now. It's a slow day at work


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peter Parker]

This will never pass. How could it? Even Salvation Army and Goodwill would have to go out of business. Ebay would be toast, and every little guy would just go on selling their stuff at garage sales and flea markets.

Since this isa copyright case I don't think that the effect wululd be quite as wide as some of you fear. I still don't think it isa great idea but I don't see it affecting manufactured goods etc.

 

[jayn_j]

Almost all consumer electronics have some degree of firmware embedded that could be copyrighted. The key would be if you are forced to click a license agreement when first powering up the device.

 

[TheForce]

This can affect just about anything man made. There were changes in the copyright law many years ago that granted copyrights to anything without the need to specify the traditional claim to the copyright. For example, if I build a gadget that is painted and sell it to you. I own the copyright to that gadget. There are few exceptions that also seem strange such as you can't copyright a title. Items that can be copyrighted are jewelry, artwork, and as you said anything that contains embedded code, music, images, including video, film, and other pictures. Plus it does not have to be an exchange for commerce. Giving away a copyrighted item is also not permitted under the distribution clause in the copyright act. Take an automobile for example. A case can be made that the automobile has embedded copyrighted artwork in the fabrics, paint job as well as firmware in the control systems. Thus the entire item ( car) is restricted by the copyright law.
I have a plastic bottle of water here. Do you know that the painted label on the bottle of water has a copyright statement on it? Therefore the complete item, bottle of water, is restricted by the copyright law!

I think the original article on this said that if the SC rules that the law must stand, then consumer selling of used merchandise will remain illegal. Then Congress will need to go in and fix the law with changes before the market for used sales can be reinstated. Considering the efficiency of Congress, this could remain illegal as long as forever.

 

[jayn_j]

Well, there have been some contradictory decisions as well:

Here is a ruling from the 9th District Court of Appeals
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/04/08-55998.pdf

It concerns whether unsolicited promotional CDs can be resold under the first sale doctering, or if they are protected by the copyright statement on the label. The court ruled that a limited distribution license cannot be enforced simply by placing it on the material.

 

[gabshere]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/11-00697qp.pdf

 

[Peter Parker]

Almost all consumer electronics have some degree of firmware embedded that could be copyrighted. The key would be if you are forced to click a license agreement when first powering up the device.

Perhaps true but ther posters have indicated it could be aplied far nore broadly even citing enforcements that would hurt the original manufacturer as much as the person trying to sell the product. I doubt it would be enfirced in that manner.

 

[truckracer]

Looks like a bs law to just help further shut down the economy.

 

[Ramy]

Well hopefully it won't pass.