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

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Daithi

That makes sense, but what about trademarks? From the articles it sounds like this applies to trademarks as well, so cars, iPhones, and pretty much all goods with a trademark would be affected.

I'm unaware of any trademark statute or case decision in the US that has involved the first sale doctrine. I also don't see companies attempting to pull down listings of used items on eBay or Craig's List just because they include trademarks. A quick look will show that there are thousands (if not more) at any given time.

Trademark law isn't designed to protect IP owners, unlike copyright and patent law -- it's to protect consumers from being confused as to which product originates from which company. I don't see how disallowing reselling of any item with a trademark (which is pretty much almost any packaged consumer good) would further that goal. A Toyota is a Toyota whether you buy it from a dealer or from Craig's List. Trademark law only comes into play when a car that's not really a Toyota is sold as one.

Not allowing most consumer goods to be resold because they include a trademark (or trade dress, presumably) would be such a huge upset to commercial markets that I just don't see any court making such a decision.

[taustin]

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?

So whoever it was stolen from is out of luck, eh? They get screwed, even after the thief has been identified adn the stolen goods found?

[taustin]

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.

The law is the same in the US, and most of the western world. Is it not so in Sweden? Do you _really_ just get screwed if something is stolen from you, even if you find the thief and locate the stolen items? Really?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

If you're the victim you will obviously be recompensated by your insurance company.

Financially, perhaps. Your insureance company can't replace a family heirloom's personal value with mere money, though.

[Apache]

In the US, if you buy stolen merchandise and did not pay a fair market price, you can be charged with buying stolen merchandise. And that can be a dangerous because of differing perceptions on what an item is worth. Jewelry is a good example. The standard for the industry is triple cost for new jewelry. You can buy it used for the scrap value which is actually less than cost. A 14K ring is only 58.5% gold. The rest is alloys. Any diamonds, in the ring, do not have a scrap value but is still less that retail.
Apache

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by taustin

The law is the same in the US, and most of the western world. Is it not so in Sweden? Do you _really_ just get screwed if something is stolen from you, even if you find the thief and locate the stolen items? Really?

Nope, you get the insurance money. If you purchased something in good faith, is it repossessed and returned to its original owner without any compensation to the person who bought it in good faith?

To be perfectly honest, I would imagine that the laws would be just the opposite. In Sweden it is very near impossible to own a handgun, so you can't defend your property. Hence, it would make sense to get stolen items returned, no questions asked. In the US you have much better access to weapons and you have, I believe, laws that lets you use them to defend yourself and your property. Hence, a thief takes a much bigger risk and if you do get something stolen and a third party acquires this in good faith your inability to defend your property would mean that you forfeited the right to repossess it.

[taustin]

(Apparently, at least one person here disagrees with you on what Swedish law actually says, and he's quote chapter and verse of the law, so I find your entire position rather unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Nope, you get the insurance money. If you purchased something in good faith, is it repossessed and returned to its original owner without any compensation to the person who bought it in good faith?

To be perfectly honest, I would imagine that the laws would be just the opposite. In Sweden it is very near impossible to own a handgun, so you can't defend your property. Hence, it would make sense to get stolen items returned, no questions asked. In the US you have much better access to weapons and you have, I believe, laws that lets you use them to defend yourself and your property. Hence, a thief takes a much bigger risk and if you do get something stolen and a third party acquires this in good faith your inability to defend your property would mean that you forfeited the right to repossess it.

That's complete horseshit, in every respect, so far as US law (there is no US law regarding stolen property, there are 50 seperate state laws, which are generally very similar, but not identical) is concerned. Laughably so.

That kind of "reasoning" leads to "She deserved to be raped because she didn't fight back enough." Barbaric.

[CWatkinsNash]

I shot soda out my nose laughing at the notion that my rights to my property are affected by a) whether the thief took more of a risk stealing it and b) whether or not I chose to (or was able to) exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. It's also worth noting that gun rights vary among states as much as other laws do.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by taustin

(Apparently, at least one person here disagrees with you on what Swedish law actually says, and he's quote chapter and verse of the law, so I find your entire position rather unbelievable.

It is not unbelievable since what is described is exactly how it was in Sweden until relatively recently. And even now good faith can give you ownership if the "crime" is not theft or robbery.


It is not obvious which principle is best here which is shown by different countries having different laws. It is nothing absurd with the principle that good faith give you ownership. It is just another choice you can make in a law system.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is not unbelievable since what is described is exactly how it was in Sweden until relatively recently. And even now good faith can give you ownership if the "crime" is not theft or robbery.

It's hard to imagine a legal system so screwed up that you could be talking about something that would qualify as "buying stolen goods" (which is what was being discussed) that was not taken from the actual own by theft or robbery.

Originally Posted by tompe

It is not obvious which principle is best here which is shown by different countries having different laws. It is nothing absurd with the principle that good faith give you ownership. It is just another choice you can make in a law system.

It's a choice you make in a socialist, even communist legal system, in which the idea of personal property ownership is weak, at best, or non-existent.

Very few people who have anything like the idea of living in such a system.

I do find it absurd that if you have something stolen from you, you have no right to recover it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

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

No because of the Trademark (violation) that wrongfully appears on the item. Ther are pictures of US Customs smashing (with a large machine), counterfiet goods found in shipments entering the USA. Note: the goods could be 100% Genuine, but infringe on a The contracted Importers contract. Asah Pentax issued an Exclusive to Honnywell to sell the Pentax neme. Akai did Similar with Roberts. You could not import the parent brand.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I'm unaware of any trademark statute or case decision in the US that has involved the first sale doctrine. I also don't see companies attempting to pull down listings of used items on eBay or Craig's List just because they include trademarks. A quick look will show that there are thousands (if not more) at any given time.

Trademark law isn't designed to protect IP owners, unlike copyright and patent law -- it's to protect consumers from being confused as to which product originates from which company. I don't see how disallowing reselling of any item with a trademark (which is pretty much almost any packaged consumer good) would further that goal. A Toyota is a Toyota whether you buy it from a dealer or from Craig's List. Trademark law only comes into play when a car that's not really a Toyota is sold as one.

Not allowing most consumer goods to be resold because they include a trademark (or trade dress, presumably) would be such a huge upset to commercial markets that I just don't see any court making such a decision.

There were a bunch of takedowns involving Trademarked goods from fashion companies such as Gucci et al... they were on the basis that only people they licensed could sell such goods and the eBay sellers weren't licensed... mainly because the eBayers were discounting and were argued to be devaluing the trademarked goods...

[markbot]

Strange. How is this different from an import/export business? Someone sets up a firm in the US to import the books and then resell.

There must be more too this...this analysis doesn't make any sense. There must be a problem with authorization of selling the foreign book in the US....having nothing to do with the first sale doctine. However, if the publisher setup overseas and sold into the US then I think circumstances would be different and people could resell.

The publisher of the overseas book and the US publisher must be different entities, even though it is the same book. The foreign entity must not have the right to sell their version of the book in the US.

In any case, copy rights should be 25 years from the death of the author or 50 years from publishing, whichever comes first...or shorter...NOT INFINITE!!!!!!!!!

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by elcreative

There were a bunch of takedowns involving Trademarked goods from fashion companies such as Gucci et al... they were on the basis that only people they licensed could sell such goods and the eBay sellers weren't licensed... mainly because the eBayers were discounting and were argued to be devaluing the trademarked goods...

Those are "grey market" goods and their legal status (what a court is willing to enforce) continues to be fluid. But I'm sure those weren't owners of a single item selling it used, but mass importers trying to get around licensing restrictions.

The whole issue of items bought outside the US is pretty far astray from what the first sale doctrine was intended to protect under copyright law.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

I would be curious, being of a fairly logical mindset, to know what the difference is. The publishers are setting up a system vulnerable to arbitrage, and expecting laws to protect them from the downside. How does that square with a free market economy, and how does protecting publishers promote any sort of public good?

Two key issues:

Arbitrage is brought into play because of multiple sovereign systems. Specifically, multiple nations with different laws, regulations, currencies and economies. The publishers either have to live with the fact that arbitrage is a real problem, or support the idea of a one-world economy. Without a one-world government to back it up, it's really hard to create a one-world economy. And unfortunately, arbitrage in this case is more due to the irrational idea that the text books need to be affordable in markets that normally cannot afford them at a fair market price that the publisher would normally sell them for. So the prices vary based on the economy buying them.

The only thing protecting publishers here is copyright, which is supposed to promote a public good. i.e. the exchange of a time-limited monopoly as an incentive to create new works. You can argue that has been twisted and distorted over the years, but what is happening here is that publishers are using their rights given to them by copyright law, backed up by contract law to fight arbitrage of their goods. Unfortunately, this ability is a side-effect of copyright itself. When you can dictate how copies are made, that means you can dictate the conditions under which they are still "valid" copies. Note this can also be considered beneficial in protecting content targeted at the public domain (i.e. GPL), because without that ability, the GPL loses a lot of it's power to enforce the "keep it public" clauses in the license.

Without the ability to fight arbitrage, these publishers would not be selling these goods at such a price difference in these markets. Basically they are playing the statistics to get some % margin at the end of the day, while at the same time adapting to the current market realities of industrialized nations vs "emerging markets".

As for how this squares with a free market? It doesn't. The global economy is not a free market in any sense of the idea, because you have competing sovereign interests. And it's damn tough to make it one when nationalities and other irrational aspects of humanity get in the way.

Unfortunately, I don't see this as going too well for the defendant who has been appealing the case. It really depends on the details of the contracts/etc under which the copies in Thailand were made.