10-08-2012, 01:25 PM | #31 |
Publishers are evil!
Posts: 2,418
Karma: 36205264
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Device: Various Kindles
|
I remember something similar happening in the drug industry. The drug manufacturers were selling drugs in Canada for far less than they sold the exact same drugs in the U.S. People were going across the border (or ordering across the Internet) drugs in Canada to get them cheaper. I remember there was a big stink about the practice but I don't remember how it was resolved. Maybe that was one of the reasons for the Medicare expansion providing prescription drugs occurred.
Last edited by Daithi; 10-08-2012 at 01:30 PM. Reason: I forgot a word -- do you know which one? |
10-08-2012, 01:39 PM | #32 | |
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Posts: 1,212
Karma: 6244877
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Coastal Texas
Device: Android Phone
|
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
10-08-2012, 02:25 PM | #33 |
Member Retired
Posts: 1,999
Karma: 11348924
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Limbo
Device: none
|
True, the evil ones that govern Americans are fundamentally not so different from the evil ones governing us. The greed for power is the same and corporations know it.
|
10-08-2012, 02:29 PM | #34 | |||
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
1. This case doesn't have anything to do with juries. While the first trial was a jury trial, jury didn't make this ruling, it was made by the trial court and then affirmed by the appellate court. Essentially, the trial court didn't allow the jury to decide whether the "first sale" doctrine should apply; it's this ruling that the appellate court upheld. The petitioners want a new trial.
2. This ruling doesn't apply to all manufactured goods; it only applies to copyrighted items. (However, many manufactured goods may also have a copyright attached to them in some manner.) 3. This ruling doesn't apply to consumers; it applies only to distributors. (The defendant in the original case had around $1 million in revenue over a couple of years). 4. The backdrop of the case is this: the defendant came from Thailand to study in the US. While here, he discovered that textbooks were much cheaper in Thailand, so he organized his relatives and friends there to buy up the books and ship them to him; he sold them on ebay and the like, and had revenue of around $1 million. I'm not sure what his profit was. 5. The case is really about two statutory provisions in the copyright act. 17 USC sec. 601(a)(1) says this: Quote:
The "first sale" clause (17 USC sec. 109) says this (I've omitted some irrelevant parts dealing with restored copyright: Quote:
While this seems pretty straightforward, the issue is actually a little more complicated (which is probably why the supreme court is taking the case). In 1998, they decided Quality King Distributors v. L'Anza. This case involved a manufacturer who sold copyrighted items made in the US to a distributor with distribution rights in the UK. The distributor sold the goods to a distributor in Malta, and the goods made their way to a distributor in the US, who sold them in California. In this case, the court decided that the first sale doctrine *did* apply. It noted, though, that this case was about an item manufactured in the US, exported to the UK, and then eventually reimported. It stated that it didn't necessarily apply to a copyrighted item manufactured in a foreign country and reimported. It also included this comment, as dicta: Quote:
Here is a link to the Quality King case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2,15&as_vis=1 (Note that Quality King discusses the interplay of a lot of other copyright provisions; my version above is somewhat simplified.) |
|||
10-08-2012, 04:03 PM | #35 | ||
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Posts: 1,212
Karma: 6244877
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Coastal Texas
Device: Android Phone
|
Quote:
2. A consumer buys and uses, then resells. How does the consumer keep from becoming a distributor under those terms? Quote:
|
||
Advert | |
|
10-08-2012, 05:00 PM | #36 | |
Guru
Posts: 895
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: na
|
Quote:
However, there's nothing wrong/illegal* with importing for your own use and I would imagine if you later sell it on there is nothing wrong either. What would be an issue is if you sell it on, buy another, sell it on, buy another. Then you're not doing it for personal usage, you're doing it for making money. It's the same with how people selling their used goods on ebay don't have to declare it as an income for tax purposes. However, there's a point where selling items on ebay becomes classed as a business venture and then you're going to be in trouble if you don't start declaring your income. in my not so legal opinion, that point is likely where selling a used PS3 that you imported on ebay is fine, selling more than one could be a grey area, selling multiple/unused/imported playstations, watch out There may or may not be a earning threshold too, I don't sell on ebay so have never looked into it. * imho, but then I'm not a lawyer so don't do as I say Last edited by JoeD; 10-08-2012 at 05:03 PM. |
|
10-08-2012, 05:23 PM | #37 | ||
DRM hater
Posts: 945
Karma: 2066176
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
Device: Nook ST glow, Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/0...gerous-message Quote:
|
||
10-08-2012, 06:12 PM | #38 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,812
Karma: 26912940
Join Date: Apr 2010
Device: sony PRS-T1 and T3, Kobo Mini and Aura HD, Tablet
|
Quote:
Manufacturerers do not have to sell drugs to Canadian Pharmacies, but obviously they have reasons for doing so. Reasonable profit being better than no profit at all perhaps. Helen |
|
10-08-2012, 07:06 PM | #39 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,806
Karma: 13500000
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Device: Boox PB360 etc etc etc
|
Quote:
another example of this difference. i moderate a car club forum. on the forum if you are modding your car and have some parts you don't need you can sell those parts from your car. or if you wreck your car and want to "part it out" thats allowed to. for free you can post it up and sell the bits. however if you are a salvage/junk yard sort of operation and you buy up a bunch of wrecks and sell parts as part of that business you may not post them for sale for free. you must pay a fee to support the site. one is an individual consumer, the other is a business. |
|
10-08-2012, 07:39 PM | #40 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,034
Karma: 39379388
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
|
10-08-2012, 08:12 PM | #41 |
Groupie
Posts: 154
Karma: 2054094
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Device: Kindle Voyage, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (for PDFs)
|
This is known in finance as arbitrage. Traders routinely exploit the fact that a good sold on one exchange might be priced differently on another, and they take advantage of that fact to (hopefully) score a profit. I added the "hopeful" bit, since you have to be fast enough to capitalize on the imbalance.
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? |
10-08-2012, 08:19 PM | #42 |
Readaholic
Posts: 5,137
Karma: 89858112
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Georgia
Device: Surface Pro 6 / Galaxy Tab A 8"
|
Even some of the "Big Corporate Jewelry Stores" have sold gray market name brand watches. I know of a few who sold Seiko's manufactured for sale in The Middle East and Asia. They did not tell their customers and instead of a three year warranty they were stuck with one year. Seiko gives a 3 year warranty. Read it. It states that you get the first year world wide. The remaining two years are only good in the country the watch was manufactured for.
Apache |
10-09-2012, 12:42 PM | #43 |
Guru
Posts: 808
Karma: 2260766
Join Date: Apr 2008
Device: Kindle Oasis 2
|
|
10-09-2012, 01:50 PM | #44 | |
Publishers are evil!
Posts: 2,418
Karma: 36205264
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Device: Various Kindles
|
Quote:
As I'm rereading the articles, it sounds to me that if I buy a product overseas then First Sell doctrine doesn't apply to me. If I buy the product in the U.S. then I do maintain the rights of First Sell. However, this leads to gray areas such as, do I have the right of First Sell if I buy something in the U.S. but unknown to me the person I bought it from imported it and didn't have the right of First Sell. 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. Last edited by Daithi; 10-09-2012 at 01:55 PM. |
|
10-09-2012, 02:07 PM | #45 |
Evangelist
Posts: 420
Karma: 8522810
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Device: Kindle PW3
|
What's the EEA?
|
|
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 |