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

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

What's the EEA?

European Economic Area = EU + Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Daithi

More importantly, why should it matter? If I buy something, it is mine. It shouldn't matter if I bought it in Thailand or Texas. Unless I was required to sign some agreement that I wouldn't resell the item I bought then it should be mine to do with as I please. Of course, in the case of books, I own a copy of that book and not the right to the text and thoughts, so I can't make copies of it and sell it, but reselling the copy (the actual book) that I bought should be my right. Otherwise, I don't really own the item that I bought.

There is no "really owning" anything. Ownership means you have a collection of rights, but those rights are always a subset of all possible rights. I own my house and the property it's on...but I don't have the right to tear my house down and put up a gas station.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Daithi

More importantly, why should it matter? If I buy something, it is mine. It shouldn't matter if I bought it in Thailand or Texas. Unless I was required to sign some agreement that I wouldn't resell the item I bought then it should be mine to do with as I please. Of course, in the case of books, I own a copy of that book and not the right to the text and thoughts, so I can't make copies of it and sell it, but reselling the copy (the actual book) that I bought should be my right. Otherwise, I don't really own the item that I bought.

One example of a situation where you don't have resale rights would be if you were to buy a counterfeit item which is violating someone's trademark. You don't have the right to legally resell it, even if you bought it totally innocently.

[Kumabjorn]

Not even if you explicitly resell it as a counterfeit item?

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One example of a situation where you don't have resale rights would be if you were to buy a counterfeit item which is violating someone's trademark. You don't have the right to legally resell it, even if you bought it totally innocently.

That's a good point. If I innocently bought something that was stolen I wouldn't have the right to resell it either. Nor would I have the right to resell a book of which someone made an unauthorized copy. I don't know if these examples apply here though. In this case, someone bought something legally. He did own it. It wasn't stolen or counterfeit or copied illegally. There was nothing wrong with his purchase. Yet, the people who sold him the goods are retroactively making the claim he can't sell the goods, and courts are agreeing. I just don't think that's right.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I just don't think that's right.

US courts lost sight of what's right and ethical at least three years ago. Its just now that everything else is catching up.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Daithi

That's a good point. If I innocently bought something that was stolen I wouldn't have the right to resell it either.

This baffles me, if you were in good faith when you acquired the item, wouldn't you be allowed to treat it as your own?

[Hamlet53]

Originally Posted by Daithi

The first trial was a jury trial. The appeal went to the Second Circuit so it was just decided by judges. Here is a better link on the case. This article also says, "[Due to this ruling] the first sale doctrine would not apply to goods made overseas." However, I don't know if this would really apply to all goods, or just copyrighted goods.

I find the implications discussed in the last couple of paragraphs in that citation (Judge Murtha's dissent) most troubling.

Originally Posted by teh603

US courts lost sight of what's right and ethical at least three years ago. Its just now that everything else is catching up.

It is pretty well certain that this ruling will be upheld my the current US Supreme Court by at least five of the nine justices. Corporations are specially privileged people my friend.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

This baffles me, if you were in good faith when you acquired the item, wouldn't you be allowed to treat it as your own?

Certainly not under UK law. If you buy stolen goods, you have no right to keep them, even if you're a completely innocent party who bought the items in good faith. They still belong to the original owner.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly not under UK law. If you buy stolen goods, you have no right to keep them, even if you're a completely innocent party who bought the items in good faith. They still belong to the original owner.

And yet you have a thriving eBay in the UK, no?
If the law is written that way, and I know you know your UK laws, I would never dare buy anything used, not even things like used cars from authorized sellers, they migh have unwittingly bought a stolen (knicked?) car.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

And yet you have a thriving eBay in the UK, no?
If the law is written that way, and I know you know your UK laws, I would never dare buy anything used, not even things like used cars from authorized sellers, they migh have unwittingly bought a stolen (knicked?) car.

Yes, people do indeed get stolen cars which they have bought in good faith, confiscated from them.

But how could it be otherwise? You're not suggesting that the original owner, who has something stolen from him, no longer owns it, are you?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But how could it be otherwise? You're not suggesting that the original owner, who has something stolen from him, no longer owns it, are you?

Yes, that was exactly how it worked until a couple of years ago in Sweden. And I assume there are countries were it still work that way. If you had no reason to suspect that the item was stolen (good faith) you own it.

And the guy that got the item stolen still cannot do what he wants with the item. It might still be illegal to for example to remove your stolen bicylce if you find it.

[Kumabjorn]

It is actually still that way in Sweden, but the requirements for showing good faith are a lot stricter than they used to be. If you bought something for half the re-sale value you were still within the confines of good faith, these days, not so much. If you're the victim you will obviously be recompensated by your insurance company.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

It is actually still that way in Sweden, but the requirements for showing good faith are a lot stricter than they used to be. If you bought something for half the re-sale value you were still within the confines of good faith, these days, not so much. If you're the victim you will obviously be recompensated by your insurance company.

Well, good faith is not enough if the original owner lost the thing through theft or robbery. See 1986:796 paragraph 3.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I find the implications discussed in the last couple of paragraphs in that citation (Judge Murtha's dissent) most troubling.

Same here. There's little enough reason to make anything in the US compared to China or elsewhere, and this looks like it would give businesses even more reason to go elsewhere.

Depending on how the final opinion is written, it could kill US manufacturing, and with it the bulk of the US economy.