10-10-2012, 05:25 PM | #61 | |
Guru
Posts: 808
Karma: 2260766
Join Date: Apr 2008
Device: Kindle Oasis 2
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-10-2012, 05:45 PM | #62 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
|
Advert | |
|
10-10-2012, 05:46 PM | #63 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
|
|
10-10-2012, 05:48 PM | #64 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
|
10-10-2012, 05:52 PM | #65 |
Readaholic
Posts: 5,140
Karma: 90000000
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Georgia
Device: Surface Pro 6 / Galaxy Tab A 8"
|
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 |
Advert | |
|
10-10-2012, 05:55 PM | #66 | |
Basculocolpic
Posts: 4,356
Karma: 20181319
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-10-2012, 06:09 PM | #67 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
(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.
Quote:
That kind of "reasoning" leads to "She deserved to be raped because she didn't fight back enough." Barbaric. |
|
10-10-2012, 06:20 PM | #68 |
IOC Chief Archivist
Posts: 3,950
Karma: 53868218
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fruitland Park, FL, USA
Device: Meebook M7, Paperwhite 2021, Fire HD 8+, Fire HD 10+, Lenovo Tab P12
|
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.
|
10-10-2012, 06:30 PM | #69 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-10-2012, 06:47 PM | #70 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
10-10-2012, 06:52 PM | #71 |
Well trained by Cats
Posts: 29,812
Karma: 54830978
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Central Coast of California
Device: Kobo Libra2,Kobo Aura2v1, K4NT(Fixed: New Bat.), Galaxy Tab A
|
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.
|
10-10-2012, 07:25 PM | #72 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,888
Karma: 5875940
Join Date: Dec 2007
Device: PRS505, 600, 350, 650, Nexus 7, Note III, iPad 4 etc
|
Quote:
|
|
10-10-2012, 08:49 PM | #73 |
Guru
Posts: 612
Karma: 7511929
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York, NY
Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 2
|
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!!!!!!!!! Last edited by markbot; 10-10-2012 at 08:52 PM. |
10-11-2012, 12:26 PM | #74 | |
Guru
Posts: 808
Karma: 2260766
Join Date: Apr 2008
Device: Kindle Oasis 2
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-11-2012, 03:44 PM | #75 | |
<Insert Wit Here>
Posts: 1,017
Karma: 1275899
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Puget Sound
Device: Kindle Oasis, Kobo Forma
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Kolenka; 10-11-2012 at 03:47 PM. |
|
|
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 |