10-12-2012, 10:32 PM | #91 | |
Banned
Posts: 1,687
Karma: 4368191
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oregon
Device: Kindle3
|
Quote:
I mean the law is of course subjective. It might be subject to the collective mental constructs of the majority, but it is still subjective. |
|
10-13-2012, 05:38 AM | #92 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
Quote:
You are rambling about something else. |
|
10-13-2012, 06:57 AM | #93 |
Readaholic
Posts: 5,159
Karma: 90000000
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Georgia
Device: Surface Pro 6 / Galaxy Tab A 8"
|
Somethings have sentimental value and that makes them irreplaceable. Your great Grandmother's Platinum and Diamond Engagement Ring for example. And deciding the value on it would be difficult. You would not be able to replace it without having it custom made. If there aren't any high quality, closeup photos and an appraisal, with a well written description, good luck on that.
Apache |
10-13-2012, 09:21 AM | #94 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
Quote:
|
|
10-13-2012, 11:42 AM | #95 |
Banned
Posts: 1,687
Karma: 4368191
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oregon
Device: Kindle3
|
So I went to this website to read some opinions,
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...iley-sons-inc/ All it really did was make me question the logic behind deciding the distribution of knowledge based upon logical arguments, it seems a bit circular to me. Anyway, this whole reselling digital content thing will probably come to some kind of real impasse soon enough. |
10-13-2012, 12:21 PM | #96 | |
Publishers are evil!
Posts: 2,418
Karma: 36205264
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Device: Various Kindles
|
Quote:
Your ring is not the same as being lost. If you lose something there is a chance you can find it. In this case you did find. Your ring isn't destroyed either. You just found it. The thief harmed the person who he robbed, and I can understand the sentiment that the harm should end at this point. It shouldn't be right to now harm the person who bought the ring in good faith by forcing them to give back the ring and be out the money they paid for it. Someone is going to get hurt. There is just no way around it. So which one should it be? The person who was robbed or the person who bought stolen property? Who would you rather be, the person who was robbed of an heirloom, or the person who has to give back jewelry and now be out the purchase price? It would suck to be either one, but loosing the heirloom is worse. So I believe that the right thing to do is to give the person back their heirloom. Last edited by Daithi; 10-13-2012 at 12:24 PM. |
|
10-13-2012, 12:52 PM | #97 |
Addict
Posts: 303
Karma: 1033852
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: Sony PRS-350,Sony PRS-950,Pocketbook 360+,B&N Nook Simple Touch Reader
|
Unless I'm mistaken, the ebay case had nothing to do with the fact that these were "grey market" goods, and everything to do with the fact that ebay did not police the sale of counterfeit goods. The sale of grey market merchandise is and has been (for a looong time) perfectly legal.
I'm in the perfume business, so I have first hand knowledge. I have a perfume store and website and we sell "grey market" merchandise. All name brands. We sell NOTHING counterfeit (and would never). I believe someone mentioning case law from about thirty or so years ago, which opened up the grey market, as follows (in a nutshell). The perfume companies (Gucci, Dior, Chanel, etc, etc, etc), tried suing a retailer of grey market perfumes, and lost, because, most of these goods are obtained legally (albeit often times going against the perfume companies' contracts with duty free distributors and other distributors oversees). In other words, Gucci sells to Duty Free ABC and in their contract, it states that these items can ONLY be sold at retail. Duty Free ABC disregards this and begins wholesaling/exporting this merchandise to the US. While it might be against their agreement with Gucci, it wasn't against the law. Gucci was within their rights to sue Duty Free ABC for damages and was also within their rights to stop selling to them but they could do NOTHING against the people buying and reselling the items. Right of first sale. I bought it legally and can sell it now as well. |
10-13-2012, 01:03 PM | #98 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
Quote:
And if the good faith buyer own the item you can always try to buy it back or the insurance company can do that. |
|
10-13-2012, 01:15 PM | #99 |
Addict
Posts: 303
Karma: 1033852
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: Sony PRS-350,Sony PRS-950,Pocketbook 360+,B&N Nook Simple Touch Reader
|
I think we have gotten sidetracked. Buying/Selling stolen property is a COMPLETELY separate issue. The issue at hand here is simply the fact that this person bought product legally (albeit overseas) and sold it legally. To me, honestly, it's completely absurd. If this ruling is upheld, not only would it likely kill all manufacturing here domestically, but, it would kill alot of the import/export trade. It would also hurt the consumer in that, for example, you might no longer be able to find discounts on just about anything (perfumes, in my specific case...my business).
|
10-13-2012, 01:46 PM | #100 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
|
10-13-2012, 01:47 PM | #101 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
|
|
10-13-2012, 01:49 PM | #102 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
Do you really not understand that? Seriously? |
|
10-13-2012, 01:53 PM | #103 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-13-2012, 01:59 PM | #104 | |
Addict
Posts: 303
Karma: 1033852
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: Sony PRS-350,Sony PRS-950,Pocketbook 360+,B&N Nook Simple Touch Reader
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-13-2012, 06:00 PM | #105 | |
Fanatic
Posts: 519
Karma: 2693434
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Device: Cybook Gen 3, Pocketbook 902, Sony 650
|
Quote:
In fact, Thailand IS a party to the Berne Convention, and has been since 1931. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Government Supreme Court Decision regarding the Affordable Care Act | Dulin's Books | Other Books | 0 | 06-30-2012 03:09 PM |
US Supreme Court mentions Kindle | Madam Broshkina | Amazon Kindle | 9 | 03-26-2009 10:30 AM |
Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster | Bob Russell | Lounge | 2 | 06-28-2005 01:16 AM |