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

[Giggleton]

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.

Why not just go get another bike? That's what I do.

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.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by taustin

Nice try, but nobody said that. There is a procedure to reclaim stolen merchandise. It does not involve going on to someone else's property yourself and taking it solely on your own word that it's yours. You call the cops, tell them you spotted your stolen bike (take a picture with your cell phone even, preferably of the serial number) and let them handle it. Otherwise, you get a scenario like this:

You take the bike off the porch. A neighbor, after seeing you demand the bike (and not knowing what's going on) calls the cops on you. They come and arrest you, to the extent of holding you until they verify your story. Since you're not big on doing things properly, maybe you haven't properly reported the bike stolen in the first place, and they hold you for several days while they try to verify your story. If you mouth off to them, they take their time on that verifying. Even if they like you, you may well get prosecuted for trespassing, since you had no legal right to go on the other person's property even to recover your own stolen property.

Even if you have, they've wasted several hours of their time, that could be spent investigation far more serious crimes, and because you took the boke off the other guy's property, you've made it considerably more difficult to prove to a jury he ever had it. Because of your actions, the thief may well get away with it. If that's not encouraging crime, then what is it?

Do you really need to have someone explain to you that the way you recover stolen property is to report it stolen when it is, and if you spot it, you call the authorities? So that the court can examine the facts of the case and determine that it is, in fact, your property? Do you believe that every bicycle is so obviously unique that it couldn't possibly be the same model as what was stolen, but not the same bike? Without a review by the court, all you have is vigilantism. Your scenario offers the possibility of the thief killing you when you demand the bike back, and claiming self defense, since walking up to someone on the street and demanding something from them is probably strongarm robbery even if it's something they stole from you. Does that sound like a better option to you than simply calling the cops and going through the system?

You are as usual totally missing the point. If you reread what Harmon wrote you might understand my question which was why good faith ownership or the fact that it is illegal to take things that have been stolen because they might not be your property anymore should increase crime.

You are rambling about something else.

[Apache]

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

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Apache

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

I do not see what tjis is a comment to. But when things burn up you cannot replcae it either so I do not see your point. We accept that things burn up so why is it strange that there can be other situations where we accept that things are lost?

[Giggleton]

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.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not see what tjis is a comment to. But when things burn up you cannot replcae it either so I do not see your point. We accept that things burn up so why is it strange that there can be other situations where we accept that things are lost?

So, you are robbed at gun point. An the thief takes your wedding ring, which had once been your grandmother's wedding ring. The thief sells it to someone who had no idea it was stolen. One day you see someone wearing your ring, and the ring is definitely yours as it has a unique inscription on the inside.

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.

[Japes]

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.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Daithi

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?

Exactly, and there does not seem to be any obvious right answer to that question. Diffferent legal system makes different choices. And the choice is probably influences by how the legal system works and other laws.

And if the good faith buyer own the item you can always try to buy it back or the insurance company can do that.

[Japes]

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).

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why not just go get another bike? That's what I do.

Over and over and over? Because thieves just love vicims like you. The kind who are afraid of the police themselves, too.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

You are as usual totally missing the point. If you reread what Harmon wrote you might understand my question which was why good faith ownership or the fact that it is illegal to take things that have been stolen because they might not be your property anymore should increase crime.

You are rambling about something else.

No, I'm talking about the real issue, which is that vigilantism is a bad idea. The scenario I presented is an example of how it encourages crime. You are as usual not understanding what you're reading.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not see what tjis is a comment to. But when things burn up you cannot replcae it either so I do not see your point. We accept that things burn up so why is it strange that there can be other situations where we accept that things are lost?

When something burns up, it cannot be recovered. When something is stolen, sometimes, it can be.

Do you really not understand that? Seriously?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Japes

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.

According to the court ruling, not, he didn't sell it legally.

Originally Posted by Japes

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).

It will have pretty much not effect at all, outside of a small number of people looking to get rich quick. This ruling only affects goods bought in countries that aren't part of the Berne convention (which there aren't many of), and isn't precedent anyway (and isn't likely to be).

[Japes]

Originally Posted by taustin

According to the court ruling, not, he didn't sell it legally.



It will have pretty much not effect at all, outside of a small number of people looking to get rich quick. This ruling only affects goods bought in countries that aren't part of the Berne convention (which there aren't many of), and isn't precedent anyway (and isn't likely to be).

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.

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.

[Jozawun]

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.

Correct, the case did not turn on whether the country of manufacture was or was not committed to the Berne Convention.
In fact, Thailand IS a party to the Berne Convention, and has been since 1931.