PDA

View Full Version : No more garage sales, legally???????????



SassyLady
10-07-2012, 07:02 PM
Things are becoming more insane every day. I can't sell my collection of LP's without getting permission? Seriously???




CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.
At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.


Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.
Put simply, though Apple Inc. has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.
That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.
“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”
Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.
It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04

aboutime
10-07-2012, 07:38 PM
Sassy. If the Supreme Court extends this copyright infringement idea that deeply. It will merely become another FIRST STEP toward the ultimate Government control over the privacy, and freedoms of the American people.

One step at a time is how it happens.

And one step at a time is HOW ALL OF US, will lose our Rights, Freedom, and Liberty...IF...we allow it to happen without a fight.

SassyLady
10-07-2012, 08:38 PM
I totally understand AT .... however, what are "WE" doing about it? Because thinking the SCOTUS has common sense is no longer an option. Do we continue to sell without permission and let them arrest us? I always thought that when I bought, or inherited something, it was mine to do with as I please. This makes it sound like I've just been renting something.

Take a car ... I buy it new and pay the dealer his cut. Then I sell it and pay a copyright fee. And the next guy/gal sells it and pays another copyright fee ..... it certainly would be a boon to producers to think they get a "finders" fee for the rest of the life of that piece of property.

Hell, how do you find the original copyright holder of a piece of jewelry you buy? What will this do to the pawn shop's business? LOL! It's too stupid to even comprehend.

logroller
10-07-2012, 09:06 PM
If i understand this correctly, it only applies to foreign produced goods. Wouldn't this give a huge advantage to things which are American made? I don't see how that would be to the benefit of foreign producers. I mean sure, they'd get some additional fees maybe, but it functions as a tax on those items... it would be a market disadvantage. But even if it does get affirmed, the FTC would just need to make a new rule that foreign sourced goods need to agree to the us copyright doctrine, else no go.
I say, let's wait until Scotus actually overrules their 1908 doctrine, then determine what actions are necessary.

aboutime
10-07-2012, 09:07 PM
I totally understand AT .... however, what are "WE" doing about it? Because thinking the SCOTUS has common sense is no longer an option. Do we continue to sell without permission and let them arrest us? I always thought that when I bought, or inherited something, it was mine to do with as I please. This makes it sound like I've just been renting something.

Take a car ... I buy it new and pay the dealer his cut. Then I sell it and pay a copyright fee. And the next guy/gal sells it and pays another copyright fee ..... it certainly would be a boon to producers to think they get a "finders" fee for the rest of the life of that piece of property.

Hell, how do you find the original copyright holder of a piece of jewelry you buy? What will this do to the pawn shop's business? LOL! It's too stupid to even comprehend.


Sassy. Honestly. I have no idea what anyone is, or can do about it. Right now. The SCOTUS is prepared to discuss, or rule on it. But I doubt anything substantial will take place, any time soon.
If they adhere, and follow the constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. There should be common sense conclusions, or determinations that apply very specifically to COPYRIGHT laws that already exist. And, if the SCOTUS follows the letter of the law. I seriously believe. It won't be as damaging or damning as we are now thinking it might be.

Only time will tell. But today. Everything remains as it has been UNTIL they finalize their discussions and rulings.

gabosaurus
10-07-2012, 09:41 PM
Hell, how do you find the original copyright holder of a piece of jewelry you buy? What will this do to the pawn shop's business? LOL! It's too stupid to even comprehend.

Exactly. This would be a law in name only. There is no way this would be enforceable. In the average weekend, there are more garage sales in the U.S. than there are law enforcement officers.
And then there are events like the Rose Bowl garage sale. Once a month, close to 3,000 dealers set up on the Rose Bowl parking lot.
The whole thing is a waste of time.

SassyLady
10-07-2012, 09:53 PM
If i understand this correctly, it only applies to foreign produced goods. Wouldn't this give a huge advantage to things which are American made? I don't see how that would be to the benefit of foreign producers. I mean sure, they'd get some additional fees maybe, but it functions as a tax on those items... it would be a market disadvantage. But even if it does get affirmed, the FTC would just need to make a new rule that foreign sourced goods need to agree to the us copyright doctrine, else no go.
I say, let's wait until Scotus actually overrules their 1908 doctrine, then determine what actions are necessary.

The guy being sued bought textbooks overseas that were produced by an American company. The company sold them cheaper over there and the kid took advantage. Had friends and relatives buy the books, ship them to him and he sold them here for more than they were purchased for, but less than they cost here. Made millions.

Do you think it's fair for a company to demand a fee for something they were already discounting, simply because they were resold in America?

gabosaurus
10-07-2012, 10:04 PM
American pharmaceutical companies have been fighting this war for years. Because U.S. prices for prescription drugs are a lot higher than in other countries, a lot of people go to Canada and pay lower prices. Or buy them online.
The drug companies fight this by saying that foreign drugs could be unsafe. Which they aren't. My aunt in Germany has been sending my mom two prescription drugs for more than a decade. For a fraction of the costs.
The price of prescription drugs is controlled in many controlled. American companies have to jack up prices because of advertising and to pay off lobbyists and members of Congress.

At the same time, I can go online and gets CDs and DVDs from Japan and Europe cheaper than those countries can buy them domestically.

logroller
10-07-2012, 10:10 PM
The guy being sued bought textbooks overseas that were produced by an American company. The company sold them cheaper over there and the kid took advantage. Had friends and relatives buy the books, ship them to him and he sold them here for more than they were purchased for, but less than they cost here. Made millions.

Do you think it's fair for a company to demand a fee for something they were already discounting, simply because they were resold in America?

It seems to me the issue isn't where they were sold, but rather that they were imported from abroad. Seems he should have paid import tariffs, did he? I'd guess not (but shoot me a link to the appellate case, I'll check it out). Its one of those things he could have gotten away with it was just for him, but he did it as a business, and it started affecting other businesses. When those businesses have a fiduciary and legal interest in the product, they're bound to take offense to someone undermining their interests.

Say my wife brings a purse full of junior mints into a theater and proceeds to sell them to audience at more than she paid, but far less than what the theater sells them. Is that fair?

Or I buy cigarettes from a indian reservation and sell them to my friends at a party-- I'd get away with it if it was small time; try selling them online and I'd catch some heat-- guaranteed.

gabosaurus
10-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Good points, logroller. I think there has to be a distinction made between personal and mass commercial intent.

DragonStryk72
10-07-2012, 10:19 PM
Things are becoming more insane every day. I can't sell my collection of LP's without getting permission? Seriously???

You should just move east. I hear Virginia's nice this time of year. I'm sure I could somewhere for you to stay ;)

logroller
10-07-2012, 10:25 PM
Good points, logroller. I think there has to be a distinction made between personal and mass commercial intent.
We do, its called prosecutorial discretion.

gabosaurus
10-07-2012, 10:28 PM
Oh good. I need to keep the feds away from the places where obtain my music bootlegs.

SassyLady
10-07-2012, 11:26 PM
You should just move east. I hear Virginia's nice this time of year. I'm sure I could somewhere for you to stay ;)

I think we should meet up in N. Dakota ..... economy is booming I hear. I cook, you shovel the snow! :coffee:

SassyLady
10-07-2012, 11:29 PM
It seems to me the issue isn't where they were sold, but rather that they were imported from abroad. Seems he should have paid import tariffs, did he? I'd guess not (but shoot me a link to the appellate case, I'll check it out). Its one of those things he could have gotten away with it was just for him, but he did it as a business, and it started affecting other businesses. When those businesses have a fiduciary and legal interest in the product, they're bound to take offense to someone undermining their interests.

Say my wife brings a purse full of junior mints into a theater and proceeds to sell them to audience at more than she paid, but far less than what the theater sells them. Is that fair?

Or I buy cigarettes from a indian reservation and sell them to my friends at a party-- I'd get away with it if it was small time; try selling them online and I'd catch some heat-- guaranteed.

If your wife did the junior mints thing, and you did the cigarette thing, I would say both of you are very enterprising!!!

Seriously, I see your point. I just wish laws didn't get so out of hand and hurt those that don't need to be "protected" .... like people having garage sales, or people wanting to sell their cars or their artwork.

logroller
10-08-2012, 12:03 AM
If your wife did the junior mints thing, and you did the cigarette thing, I would say both of you are very enterprising!!!

Seriously, I see your point. I just wish laws didn't get so out of hand and hurt those that don't need to be "protected" .... like people having garage sales, or people wanting to sell their cars or their artwork.
Nothing against being enterprising, but it goes both ways. Certainly laws can be obstructive, but so can they circumvented; and the cycle continues.

This seems to be an enforcement issue, not a constitutional one. FWIW, I seriously doubt this ruling will have any effect on your LP sales. Although, I believe those sell by the pound nowadays; so you might want to make sure you've had your scale checked by the dept of weights and measures. ;)

SassyLady
10-08-2012, 12:13 AM
Nothing against being enterprising, but it goes both ways. Certainly laws can be obstructive, but so can they circumvented; and the cycle continues.

This seems to be an enforcement issue, not a constitutional one. FWIW, I seriously doubt this ruling will have any effect on your LP sales. Although, I believe those sell by the pound nowadays; so you might want to make sure you've had your scale checked by the dept of weights and measures. ;)

Sometimes you crack me up! :smartass2:

DragonStryk72
10-08-2012, 03:13 AM
I think we should meet up in N. Dakota ..... economy is booming I hear. I cook, you shovel the snow! :coffee:

lol, as long as you've got a way to warm me up afterward ;)

taft2012
10-08-2012, 06:33 AM
The drug companies fight this by saying that foreign drugs could be unsafe. Which they aren't. .

And how do you know that?

You're talking about reverse-engineered knockoffs that have not undergone the rigorous FDA testing and approval process.

In the USA, even generic knockoffs have to undergo the same costly testing and approval process.

In Canada they give AIDS patients AZT manufactured in India, which has to be kept refrigerated at all times. Shipments have been seen arriving unrefrigerated, making the drug inert, if it ever was any good to begin with.

taft2012
10-08-2012, 06:55 AM
American pharmaceutical companies have been fighting this war for years. Because U.S. prices for prescription drugs are a lot higher than in other countries, a lot of people go to Canada and pay lower prices. Or buy them online.
The drug companies fight this by saying that foreign drugs could be unsafe. Which they aren't.


The second element of your fallacy is that pharmaceutical companies do not have copyrights.

They have patents.

red states rule
10-08-2012, 07:03 AM
At the same time, I can go online and gets CDs and DVDs from Japan and Europe cheaper than those countries can buy them domestically.

Why am I not surprised by this. Little Ms Liberal who lectures us how we need to support the Mom and Pop shops, and need to pay more in taxes to fund vital government service - buys her stuff on line to save money and avoid taxes

One more exmaple of a liberal living by her own set of double standards

revelarts
10-08-2012, 08:20 AM
can you guess where i stand on this one?


Sassy. If the Supreme Court extends this copyright infringement idea that deeply. It will merely become another FIRST STEP toward the ultimate Government control over the privacy, and freedoms of the American people.

One step at a time is how it happens.

And one step at a time is HOW ALL OF US, will lose our Rights, Freedom, and Liberty...IF...we allow it to happen without a fight.

That is a great line ATime, "ANOTHER 1st STEP" in the lost of our freedoms.
that's outstanding.


Sassy. Honestly. I have no idea what anyone is, or can do about it. Right now. The SCOTUS is prepared to discuss, or rule on it. But I doubt anything substantial will take place, any time soon.
If they adhere, and follow the constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. There should be common sense conclusions, or determinations that apply very specifically to COPYRIGHT laws that already exist. And, if the SCOTUS follows the letter of the law. I seriously believe. It won't be as damaging or damning as we are now thinking it might be.

Only time will tell. But today. Everything remains as it has been UNTIL they finalize their discussions and rulings.
Should have never made it to the court.



Exactly. This would be a law in name only. There is no way this would be enforceable. In the average weekend, there are more garage sales in the U.S. than there are law enforcement officers.
And then there are events like the Rose Bowl garage sale. Once a month, close to 3,000 dealers set up on the Rose Bowl parking lot.
The whole thing is a waste of time.
Like the patriot act will Only apply to terrorist ... except the 1000s of cases where it been used other wise.




It seems to me the issue isn't where they were sold, but rather that they were imported from abroad. Seems he should have paid import tariffs, did he? I'd guess not (but shoot me a link to the appellate case, I'll check it out). Its one of those things he could have gotten away with it was just for him, but he did it as a business, and it started affecting other businesses. When those businesses have a fiduciary and legal interest in the product, they're bound to take offense to someone undermining their interests.

Say my wife brings a purse full of junior mints into a theater and proceeds to sell them to audience at more than she paid, but far less than what the theater sells them. Is that fair?

Or I buy cigarettes from a indian reservation and sell them to my friends at a party-- I'd get away with it if it was small time; try selling them online and I'd catch some heat-- guaranteed.

In both those cases you would not be charged with copyright infringement .

The case could overturn old law/precedents to cover a case where the guy was just importing goods at a low cost for resale. which apparently is not a full on crime.... yet. (sounds like capitalism to me)
Seems the lawyers are pissed that they can't stop him there so have found a way to do it that will have vast unintended(?) consequences if upheld.




We do, its called prosecutorial discretion.
Or selective enforcement.
The problem is there are so many laws that your already guilty of something, they just have to find out what it is.


And I'm just past the idea that we should trust the gov't to do right thing and
"you" won't be affected.... If you've got nothing to hide... and obey the rules.
Or you only have a Small amount of pot you won't go to jail for life. that one guy was a exception.
"prosecutorial discretion"

Trust the guberment

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-08-2012, 08:29 AM
can you guess where i stand on this one?



That is a great line ATime, "ANOTHER 1st STEP" in the lost of our freedoms.
that's outstanding.


Should have never made it to the court.



Like the patriot act will Only apply to terrorist ... except the 1000s of cases where it been used other wise.





In both those cases you would not be charged with copyright infringement .

The case could overturn old law/precedents to cover a case where the guy was just importing goods at a low cost for resale. which apparently is not a crime. (sounds like capitalism to me)
Seems the lawyers are pissed that they can't stop him there so have found a way to do it that will have vast unintended(?) consequences if upheld.




Or selective enforcement.
The problem is there are so many laws that your guilty of something they just have to find out what it is.


And I'm just past the idea that we should trust the gov't to do right thing and "you" won't be affected, If you've got nothing to hide and obey the rules or only have a Small amount of pot you won't go to jail for life. that one guy was a exception.

"prosecutorial discretion"

Trust the guberment

Freakimg -A- bravo. --:beer:
Yes, trust the government that is out to destroy our basic rights. Then trust that same government with your healthcare, its not like they would ever just let you die in order to save money! No sir, they will always think of you first..-:laugh2:
Except it will be thinking of how to screw you over..-Tyr

fj1200
10-08-2012, 12:52 PM
Things are becoming more insane every day. I can't sell my collection of LP's without getting permission? Seriously???


The guy being sued bought textbooks overseas that were produced by an American company. The company sold them cheaper over there and the kid took advantage. Had friends and relatives buy the books, ship them to him and he sold them here for more than they were purchased for, but less than they cost here. Made millions.

Do you think it's fair for a company to demand a fee for something they were already discounting, simply because they were resold in America?

OK, the scenario you laid out about what he did makes sense, the OP story just doesn't seem to jibe with it.

I'd say that the company could demand a fee because they weren't produced for the domestic market. It seems the difference is not where it was made but where it was first sold.

fj1200
10-08-2012, 12:56 PM
can you guess where i stand on this one?

...

That is a great line ATime, "ANOTHER 1st STEP" in the lost of our freedoms.
that's outstanding.

...(sounds like capitalism to me)...

It's not capitalism when you violate the property rights of owners; it's a crime.


Freakimg -A- bravo. --:beer:
Yes, trust the government that is out to destroy our basic rights.

The case in my mind isn't about loss of freedoms, it's about protecting the property rights of others. SCOTUS could of course swing the first-sale principle too far the other way but I doubt it.

fj1200
10-08-2012, 01:01 PM
American pharmaceutical companies have been fighting this war for years. Because U.S. prices for prescription drugs are a lot higher than in other countries, a lot of people go to Canada and pay lower prices. Or buy them online.
The drug companies fight this by saying that foreign drugs could be unsafe. Which they aren't. My aunt in Germany has been sending my mom two prescription drugs for more than a decade. For a fraction of the costs.
The price of prescription drugs is controlled in many controlled. American companies have to jack up prices because of advertising and to pay off lobbyists and members of Congress.

That's not why drug prices are higher. They develop drugs for domestic markets and have to pay domestic testing/marketing/etc. costs. At the point that that they have priced to ensure a return on investment domestically, and pay for all the other drug development/trials/etc. that didn't make it to market, the cost differential to sell overseas is marginal; that is why they can sell cheaper to foreign markets. Essentially foreign markets are benefiting from the US paying higher drug costs.

logroller
10-08-2012, 01:11 PM
can you guess where i stand on this one?



That is a great line ATime, "ANOTHER 1st STEP" in the lost of our freedoms.
that's outstanding.


Should have never made it to the court.



Like the patriot act will Only apply to terrorist ... except the 1000s of cases where it been used other wise.





In both those cases you would not be charged with copyright infringement .

The case could overturn old law/precedents to cover a case where the guy was just importing goods at a low cost for resale. which apparently is not a full on crime.... yet. (sounds like capitalism to me)
Seems the lawyers are pissed that they can't stop him there so have found a way to do it that will have vast unintended(?) consequences if upheld


Youre right, there would be other laws which would apply to my examples-- simpler laws that make the protection of private rights easier. So I'll give you a more similar example, and apply the doctrines used in my examples, to justify why copyright law infringement is the best course of action.

lets say I own the rights to a book. I agree to let you have exclusive distribution rights here in the us; you pay me for that exclusivity. Then I let noir have exclusive distribution in the Europe; he too, pays me for that. Now what good would my contract with you and he be if any yahoo could just up and buy books from one domain and sell them in the other-- none whatsoever. It would be as though I had no right to decide who gets to distribute my work. Thus, copyrights provide protection for this scenario.
There are other ways this could be addressed-- an outright ban on importation of copyrighted works; the same way outside food and drink (like jr mints) are banned from being brought into a theater; or a special book tax stamp on every book a person tries to sell (as with cigarettes). So, regardless of the legitimacy of origin, the ban or tax mechanisms would be a burden to the distribution and dissemination of intellectual works. The application of such alternative mechanisms would undermine the foundational reasoning the constitution charges congress with protecting through copyrights.

Rev, I am empathetic to your ideology of liberty, freedom of expression and capital endeavor, but as the Court referenced in golan v holder, Recognizing that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright, the Court observed that the Framers regarded copyright protection not simply as a limit on the manner in which expressive works may be used, but also as an “engine of free expression.” 537 U. S., at 219.


In the case before us in the OP, he broke the law and the limited domain condition set forth in the rules of use found in the legend of the foreign editions.

Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, importing copies without the copyright owner's authorization violates the copyright owner's distribution rights under Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case during its 2012-13 term, revisiting the issue that came before it in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, SA (Costco). It issued a 4-4 split decision in Costco, with Justice Kagan recusing herself (131 S.Ct. 565 (2010)). In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court held that the first sale doctrine applies to exported copies manufactured in the US that are re-imported back to the US for sale without the owner's authorization or "round-trip" copies (Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) (Quality King)). However, courts have varied on how to apply the applicable provisions of the Copyright Act to copies made and lawfully purchased outside the US and, in particular, whether these copies are "lawfully made under [the Copyright Act]" as required under Section 109(a). http://us.practicallaw.com/9-519-7148

aboutime
10-08-2012, 03:37 PM
You should just move east. I hear Virginia's nice this time of year. I'm sure I could somewhere for you to stay ;)


DragonStryk. Right you are. Here in Virginia from the Beach to the Kentucky line. Autumn is fast approaching, and Last minute Garage Sales occur almost everywhere on Saturday, and sometimes Sunday mornings.

The only fears we have here are THE POLITICIANS who leave Washington DC, and come here to escape the Insanity of Maryland, and the NorthEast corridor.
Obama is TOO CLOSE and keeps coming here to BRIBE the Un-educated into voting for him.
As for SCOTUS.....not to worry. As we have been seeing for the last FOUR years.

Nobody obeys the Constitution, or the Laws anyhow.

gabosaurus
10-08-2012, 04:24 PM
Our government could cut drug costs by not allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs. Which, if you look at it, makes no sense. Since you can't just walk into a pharmacy and decide which prescription drug you want. A doctor has to decide for you.
So why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise? Obviously it costs them untold millions of dollars per year. Which they pass along in costs.

Drug safety standards are as rigid in European countries as they are in the U.S. I can get the same medications in Germany that I get here. They just are not as expensive.

fj1200
10-08-2012, 04:30 PM
The only fears we have here are THE POLITICIANS who leave Washington DC, and come here to escape the Insanity of Maryland, and the NorthEast corridor.
Obama is TOO CLOSE and keeps coming here to BRIBE the Un-educated into voting for him.
As for SCOTUS.....not to worry. As we have been seeing for the last FOUR years.

Nobody obeys the Constitution, or the Laws anyhow.

:facepalm99:


Our government could cut drug costs by not allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs. Which, if you look at it, makes no sense. Since you can't just walk into a pharmacy and decide which prescription drug you want. A doctor has to decide for you.
So why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise? Obviously it costs them untold millions of dollars per year. Which they pass along in costs.

Drug safety standards are as rigid in European countries as they are in the U.S. I can get the same medications in Germany that I get here. They just are not as expensive.

You get the same :facepalm99: that at gets.

logroller
10-08-2012, 05:54 PM
Our government could cut drug costs by not allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs. Which, if you look at it, makes no sense. Since you can't just walk into a pharmacy and decide which prescription drug you want. A doctor has to decide for you.
So why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise? Obviously it costs them untold millions of dollars per year. Which they pass along in costs.

Drug safety standards are as rigid in European countries as they are in the U.S. I can get the same medications in Germany that I get here. They just are not as expensive.
Same reason companies can advertise products to children: they can, and do, influence the actual decision makers.

Nukeman
10-08-2012, 07:08 PM
Our government could cut drug costs by not allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs. Which, if you look at it, makes no sense. Since you can't just walk into a pharmacy and decide which prescription drug you want. A doctor has to decide for you.

They advertise on television due to the new laws and regulations governing how the companies interact with Drs. and their offices. It used to be they would do "lunch and learns" where the sales rep would bring in lunch and give a presentation to the office concerning new drugs and how they worked . OUR govt decided that the Drs. may be swayed by lunch or a pen or pamphlet, so those are NOT allowed anymore, however a Federal representative can have himself and family flown to the Caribian for a extended vacation by a lobbyist!!


So why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise? Obviously it costs them untold millions of dollars per year. Which they pass along in costs. Since they no longer are allowed to "advertise" in the Drs. office they go right to the consumer who can ASK for a specific drug and see if it is right for them, also their Dr. watches TV and gets some information from there as well, you know that information that our federal govt decided was best NOT given to the people who need it!!!


Drug safety standards are as rigid in European countries as they are in the U.S. I can get the same medications in Germany that I get here. They just are not as expensive. NOT really!!!! Ever hear of thalidomide. That was ONE drug the US pushed through after EXTENSIVE testing in Canada.

A lot of countries do not have medical liability like we have in the US that is why medical tourism is so much cheaper in certain countries and some of those are European. As well as experimental tratments. A lot of countries believe YOU take reposnsibility NOT the medical institution and so you take your own life in yoru hands when trying "unproven" drugs and techniques...

A lot of countries will set caps on drug charges so that is another reason for "cheaper" drugs in foreign countries, IF they would all agree on a certain price we could cut our prices by a huge margin and they would have to pay a little more but their govt refuses to allow higher prices... That is socialized medicine. If you believe there will be continued advancement without revenue than your are mistaken so you better hope WE in the US continue to pay high prices otherwise there will NOT be any new drugs....

Little-Acorn
10-08-2012, 08:17 PM
Even if the Supremes find it illegal to resell copyrighted or patented foreign-produced goods in this country without the original producer's explicit permission... it would be interesting to see how anybody polices that decision.

SassyLady
10-08-2012, 11:34 PM
lol, as long as you've got a way to warm me up afterward ;)

Hot cider?

gabosaurus
10-08-2012, 11:41 PM
Hot cider?

Lean cuisine? :p

DragonStryk72
10-08-2012, 11:54 PM
Hot cider?

Actually, cider is one of my favorite drinks, so there. I even enjoy it in the alcohol form.

SassyLady
10-09-2012, 12:03 AM
Actually, cider is one of my favorite drinks, so there. I even enjoy it in the alcohol form.

Hot cider it is then........Now to clean up those messy snow covered boots ...



3977

DragonStryk72
10-09-2012, 03:10 AM
Hot cider it is then........Now to clean up those messy snow covered boots ...



3977

lol, yeah, I don't think we'd ever get to the cleaning part dressed like... not that I'd be at all upset by that.;)

SassyLady
10-09-2012, 03:14 AM
lol, yeah, I don't think we'd ever get to the cleaning part dressed like... not that I'd be at all upset by that.;)

So, North Dakota isn't looking too bad right about now! :batteyes:

revelarts
10-10-2012, 01:56 AM
Youre right, there would be other laws which would apply to my examples-- simpler laws that make the protection of private rights easier. So I'll give you a more similar example, and apply the doctrines used in my examples, to justify why copyright law infringement is the best course of action.

lets say I own the rights to a book. I agree to let you have exclusive distribution rights here in the us; you pay me for that exclusivity. Then I let noir have exclusive distribution in the Europe; he too, pays me for that. Now what good would my contract with you and he be if any yahoo could just up and buy books from one domain and sell them in the other-- none whatsoever. It would be as though I had no right to decide who gets to distribute my work. Thus, copyrights provide protection for this scenario.
There are other ways this could be addressed-- an outright ban on importation of copyrighted works; the same way outside food and drink (like jr mints) are banned from being brought into a theater; or a special book tax stamp on every book a person tries to sell (as with cigarettes). So, regardless of the legitimacy of origin, the ban or tax mechanisms would be a burden to the distribution and dissemination of intellectual works. The application of such alternative mechanisms would undermine the foundational reasoning the constitution charges congress with protecting through copyrights.

Rev, I am empathetic to your ideology of liberty, freedom of expression and capital endeavor, but as the Court referenced in golan v holder, Recognizing that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright, the Court observed that the Framers regarded copyright protection not simply as a limit on the manner in which expressive works may be used, but also as an “engine of free expression.” 537 U. S., at 219.


In the case before us in the OP, he broke the law and the limited domain condition set forth in the rules of use found in the legend of the foreign editions.
http://us.practicallaw.com/9-519-7148

Hmm, thanks for the Empathy log.
but your empathy won't keep anyone out of court or jail.
Changing the rules in this fashion changes the game. How many lawyers, prosecutors and pressured bureaucrats will turn this to there use when needed?

your empathy and reassurances of all is well and it's just the same as this old thing but it's just NEW, and for the good of the community, don't set my mind at ease at all.

And Log, just wonder, have you taken taken anything like, Community indoctrination Courses, that's not the formal name of them but that's the intent.
I've heard that some bureaucrats are trained to go into locals and basically schmooze up the leadership, the prominent and the politically active citizens to get them to buy into various government agendas like adopting federal school policies. Basically leading the leaders to "consensus". And to believe the best about things that if they'd scratched the surface they would have never really agreed too. But it's all very gracious but insidious.
The Former undersecretary of education under Reagan says shes was trained to do it and had it done to her when she was a school board member. But it's not limited to the dept of Ed.

Have you ever been trained to do that kinda thing?

red states rule
10-10-2012, 03:43 AM
Things are becoming more insane every day. I can't sell my collection of LP's without getting permission? Seriously???

People will ignore this. If I buy something I can sell it

With all the problems facing this country, why the hell are we wasting time with crap like this?

logroller
10-10-2012, 04:21 AM
Hmm, thanks for the Empathy log.
but your empathy won't keep anyone out of court or jail.
Changing the rules in this fashion changes the game. How many lawyers, prosecutors and pressured bureaucrats will turn this to there use when needed?

your empathy and reassurances of all is well and it's just the same as this old thing but it's just NEW, and for the good of the community, don't set my mind at ease at all.

And Log, just wonder, have you taken taken anything like, Community indoctrination Courses, that's not the formal name of them but that's the intent.
I've heard that some bureaucrats are trained to go into locals and basically schmooze up the leadership, the prominent and the politically active citizens to get them to buy into various government agendas like adopting federal school policies. Basically leading the leaders to "consensus". And to believe the best about things that if they'd scratched the surface they would have never really agreed too. But it's all very gracious but insidious.
The Former undersecretary of education under Reagan says shes was trained to do it and had it done to her when she was a school board member. But it's not limited to the dept of Ed.

Have you ever been trained to do that kinda thing?

By explaining the reasoning behind the law, I might keep people out of court or jail who were guilty mostly of ignorance. :thumb:

The statute being challenged, 17 USC § 602 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/602), has been challenged and upheld (under subtly different circumstances); so I'd guess it will be again. However, it was aded in 1976, so I'm not sure how new or game changing I'd consider this case.

As for indoctrination classes, does a university education count? :coffee:

red states rule
10-10-2012, 04:23 AM
By explaining the reasoning behind the law, I might keep people out of court or jail who were guilty mostly of ignorance. :thumb:

The statute being challenged, 17 USC § 602 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/602), has been challenged and upheld (under subtly different circumstances); so I'd guess it will be again. However, it was aded in 1976, so I'm not sure how new or game changing I'd consider this case.

As for indoctrination classes, does a university education count? :coffee:






So you support the government telling people they cannot sell something they legally bought and paid for?

logroller
10-10-2012, 04:30 AM
People will ignore this.
or not


If I buy something I can sell it

What about prescription medicines-- you can buy those, but there are conditions attached to the sale.


With all the problems facing this country, why the hell are we wasting time with crap like this?

What do you mean, due process or protecting intellectual property?

The Constitution affords us both.

red states rule
10-10-2012, 04:34 AM
or not



What about prescription medicines-- you can buy those, but there are conditions attached to the sale.



What do you mean, due process or protecting intellectual property?

The Constitution affords us both.

you really are gasping at straws. I would not try to sell drugs - that is done just fine by the OWS hippies

I am not surprised you seem to support this since libs already have made it clear people really do not own their homes/property as libs think they can tell them what they can and cannot do with it

logroller
10-10-2012, 06:02 AM
you really are gasping at straws. I would not try to sell drugs - that is done just fine by the OWS hippies

I am not surprised you seem to support this since libs already have made it clear people really do not own their homes/property as libs think they can tell them what they can and cannot do with it
Apparently you grasped more straws than I-- you built a strawman.
I didn't say you'd sell drugs; I said you could buy them legally with a script; concluding that buying them legally does not convey a right to sell them legally.

I don't see how this is a partisan issue rsr. Do conservatives not think intellectual property owners have a right to restrict who sells their property where?

Let's say a Walmart is selling a tv for $159 dollars. Could I buy 5 of them and then go into another Walmart, who is selling it for $179, and sit in the aisle with a for sale $169 sign-- or do you think Walmart can make me stop?

fj1200
10-10-2012, 08:28 AM
So you support the government telling people they cannot sell something they legally bought and paid for?

That's not the issue in this case; the books were not legally bought.

SassyLady
10-10-2012, 07:24 PM
That's not the issue in this case; the books were not legally bought.

They weren't? Where did you read that? I thought the kid had his friends and relatives buy them retail overseas for him, and had them shipped here....and then he sold resold them. I wonder if he sold them as new or as used? Would that make a difference?

KitchenKitten99
10-10-2012, 09:43 PM
...
Or I buy cigarettes from a indian reservation and sell them to my friends at a party-- I'd get away with it if it was small time; try selling them online and I'd catch some heat-- guaranteed.
The penalty for this is higher than most because to sell tobacco, you need a state-issued license. Get caught without one and you face huge fines and even potential jail time in some states.

fj1200
10-11-2012, 08:38 AM
They weren't? Where did you read that? I thought the kid had his friends and relatives buy them retail overseas for him, and had them shipped here....and then he sold resold them. I wonder if he sold them as new or as used? Would that make a difference?

Yeah, that's illegal; Or is at least the question before the court. He circumvented the publisher/copyright holder as it pertains to domestic markets.

fj1200
03-19-2013, 12:21 PM
I'm honestly surprised.

Court Backs Student in Textbook Copyright Case (http://news.yahoo.com/court-sides-student-case-over-textbooks-142006545.html)
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that textbooks and other goods made and sold abroad can be re-sold online and in discount stores without violating U.S. copyright law.In a 6-3 opinion, the court threw out a copyright infringement award to publisher John Wiley & Sonsagainst Thai graduate student Supap Kirtsaeng, who used eBay to resell copies of the publisher's copyrighted books that his relatives first bought abroad at cut-rate prices.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion for the court that once goods are sold lawfully, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, publishers and manufacturers lose the protection of U.S. copyright law.
"We hold that the 'first sale' doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad," Breyer said.
...
In a dissent for herself and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ignoring Congress' aim of protecting "copyright owners against the unauthorized importation of low-priced, foreign-made copies of their copyrighted works."
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said in a separate opinion that Congress is free to change the law if it thinks holders of copyrights need more protection. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas also were part of the court's majority.

Odd pairings of who voted with whom IMO.