Originally Posted by Andrew H.
2. This ruling doesn't apply to all manufactured goods; it only applies to copyrighted items. (However, many manufactured goods may also have a copyright attached to them in some manner.)
3. This ruling doesn't apply to consumers; it applies only to distributors. (The defendant in the original case had around $1 million in revenue over a couple of years).
1. If you can have copyrighted punctuation marks, you can easily attach copyrighted material to an otherwise non-copyrighted object using the washing instructions and size tag.
2. A consumer buys and uses, then resells. How does the consumer keep from becoming a distributor under those terms?
6. So the reasoning of the appellate court is as follows: (1) the first sale doctrine only applies to "lawfully made" copies (sec. 109); (2) a copy imported into the US by a distributor without the rights to distribute the books in the US is infringing, so the copy is not "lawfully made" (sec. 602); and (3) therefore, the first sale doctrine does not apply to these items.
I guess that part makes sense to lawyers, because the idea of ex post facto
revocation of an object's being legally made is downright bizarre. "Yes, you made it legally, but because someone did XYZ with it, your right to make that object is no longer valid, for that specific object."