U.S. Supreme Court may revoke the right to resell

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Japes

Not sure what to say to this. He bought it overseas legally, and, he went through legal channels to sell merchandise that, again, he had bought legally. He did not steal it. I can't see how this ruling WON'T be overturned.

The issue isn't how he bought it. The issue is whether or not it was legal for him to import it to the US, or rather, to export it from whatever country he bought it in, which does not have a first sale doctrine.

Originally Posted by Japes

And, I don't see any mention of this ONLY applying to goods bought in countries that aren't part of the Berne convention. It says that the right of first sale ONLY applies to goods manufactured here in the US, and not "overseas." I didn't see any sort of specification of which overseas countries it did NOT apply to.

The article may say that, but the first sale doctrine is part of the Berne Convention. This would not be an issue if he'd bought the books in a country that has signed it (because he wouldn't have bought them there, as they would have been far more competitively priced). The article has a political axe to grind of its own.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why? I don't see how there is a difference in encouragment here.

Because it lowers the economic (& criminal) risk for the buyer. This means there will be more potential buyers and a higher potential resale price.

More potential buyers because the buyers no longer have to worry about repossession by the original buyer.

Higher resale price because the price is not depressed by the possibility of having to give the property back & lose what was paid.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by taustin

Yes, yes, and no. In that scenario, you are a vigilante, tampering with evidence in a crime, even if that evidence is your bike. For the law to be otherwise is to invite vigilantism, which is just not a good idea. The moment that it's up to you, and only you, to determine if that bike is your stolen bike, you have little incentive to tell the truth about it.

I happen to believe that repossessing one's own property is not an act of vigilantism. I have no problem determining what I own and what I don't own. If I'm wrong, then I suffer the consequences. (But my bike is rather unique, since I built it myself from parts of different bikes. No way I'm wrong about it.)

I also disagree with the notion that vigilantism is wrong in all circumstances. In fact, I think that a certain amount of it is necessary to sustain an orderly society. It is a mistake to turn over everything to the cops and the legal system - that sometimes just makes things worse. There is a lacuna between passivity and the law that is properly occupied by self-help.

As for tampering with evidence, get real. The purchaser is not guilty of a crime. The guy who stole the bike will never get caught. I risk losing the use of my bike for some indeterminate period of time till the legal bureaucracy gets around to telling me I can have it back - unless I get a smart cop who indirectly suggests that if I file a complaint, that will happen so maybe I should be happy to have my bike back & leave it at that.

Edit: that's not to say that there aren't risks involved with self-help. Obviously if you assault the buyer, there's a brand new crime independent of recovering your property. And if you enter someone's property to recover your bike, it's civil (but not criminal) trespass, so there might be some remote problem there. I think I'd risk that one.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by taustin

The issue isn't how he bought it. The issue is whether or not it was legal for him to import it to the US, or rather, to export it from whatever country he bought it in, which does not have a first sale doctrine.



The article may say that, but the first sale doctrine is part of the Berne Convention. This would not be an issue if he'd bought the books in a country that has signed it (because he wouldn't have bought them there, as they would have been far more competitively priced). The article has a political axe to grind of its own.

He bought the books in Thailand, which is a party to Berne (for Wiley to publish them in a non-Berne country would have been Publishing for Dummies).
The case had nothing to do with Berne; it concerned the interpretation of two (apparently) conflicting provisions of the US Copyright Act (one of them a codification of the First Sale Doctrine). If upheld by the Supreme Court, the decision would apply to copyright goods produced anywhere outside the USA.

It might or might not be upheld by the Supreme Court; the last time the issue was before that Court (2009), it did not finally decide the issue, but it was split 4-4.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taustin

The article may say that, but the first sale doctrine is part of the Berne Convention.

Which clause of the Berne Convention defines this right? The text of the convention is here.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which clause of the Berne Convention defines this right? The text of the convention is here.

The First Sale Doctrine is not part of the Berne Convention.
It is US domestic law.
It was established by a US Court decision interpreting a section of the US Copyright Act, and is now codified in another section of the US Copyright Act.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

The First Sale Doctrine is not part of the Berne Convention.
It is US domestic law.
It was established by a US Court decision interpreting a section of the US Copyright Act, and is now codified in another section of the US Copyright Act.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, because to the best of my knowledge there is no "first sale" right in European countries, and we are signatories to the Berne Convention. That's why I asked taustin if he'd be kind enough to point out where in the Berne Convention this right is granted because, like you, I don't believe that it is.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Because it lowers the economic (& criminal) risk for the buyer. This means there will be more potential buyers and a higher potential resale price.

More potential buyers because the buyers no longer have to worry about repossession by the original buyer.

Higher resale price because the price is not depressed by the possibility of having to give the property back & lose what was paid.

If I understand correctly most thefts are by drug users. The good faith principle will lead to higher price (since to low price will not let you use the good faith defence) which mean less theft to finance the drug use.

I do believe the situation is so complicated so you cannot even guess what would happen without doing empirical studies.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, because to the best of my knowledge there is no "first sale" right in European countries,

What do you mean by that? There is a right to re-sell that even holds for software.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

What do you mean by that? There is a right to re-sell that even holds for software.

I don't believe so. You cannot resell eBooks, downloaded music, etc.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't believe so. You cannot resell eBooks, downloaded music, etc.

First sale doctrine does not hold for licenses so this is not a counter example of us not having first sale doctrine. But in the recent court case in EU we got the right to re-sell software. What will happen with ebooks or if that judgement cover ebooks is unclear. I assume we will get a court case for ebooks also.

[Jozawun]

It should be noted that the case in question deals only with the US, only with physical copyrighted objects imported into the US, and only with the question of whether the right of first sale applies to all such imported goods (regardless of where they were produced), or only to goods produced in the US, then exported, then re-imported.
Mind you, when I say "only", it has the potential to shut down all those businesses which import "grey goods" if they are subject to copyright - eg, obviously books and music, but perhaps less obviously high-class jewellery and perfumes, etc.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by tompe

What do you mean by that? There is a right to re-sell that even holds for software.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't believe so. You cannot resell eBooks, downloaded music, etc.

I think Tompe's referring to a guy who resold an OEM copy of Windows, or at least the license sticker and system recovery CD. MS tried to sue him, and ended up losing because the code on the sticker had never been activated.

Which is probably why the Dell Duo I bought didn't come with a system recovery CD, so the Win7 license it came with can't functionally be resold and I can't recoup the $100 or so it added to the cost of manufacture.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by tompe

First sale doctrine does not hold for licenses so this is not a counter example of us not having first sale doctrine. But in the recent court case in EU we got the right to re-sell software. What will happen with ebooks or if that judgement cover ebooks is unclear. I assume we will get a court case for ebooks also.

We already have a case for Mp3 files, which most likely includes audiobooks, there's another thread here about it.

Not sure if the case will make it the "Supreme" Court, but I suppose anything is possible,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851

But perhaps we need a case to determine what exactly a license is, and if licenses still hold any meaning.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

I think Tompe's referring to a guy who resold an OEM copy of Windows, or at least the license sticker and system recovery CD. MS tried to sue him, and ended up losing because the code on the sticker had never been activated.

No; he's referring to a recent case where Oracle tried to stop a company reselling Oracle licences and lost. That established the principle that, within the EU, reselling software is legal.