No more garage sales, legally???????????

[SassyLady]

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/you...ril-2012-10-04

[aboutime]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good points, logroller. I think there has to be a distinction made between personal and mass commercial intent.

[DragonStryk72]

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]

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]

Oh good. I need to keep the feds away from the places where obtain my music bootlegs.

[SassyLady]

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!

[SassyLady]

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.