If you sell your used iPad, you may be a copyright criminal, says U.S. Supreme Court

At present the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a case that will affect whether you can sell that iPad of yours, or any of dozens of other products, without first getting permission from scores of "copyright holders," The Atlantic magazine reported.

If the nation's highest court upholds rulings from lower federal courts on the matter, here are a few of the things that you have possibly done recently but will no longer be permissible:

-- Sold a first-generation iPad to someone on Craigslist, even if you initially bought it from a licensed Apple dealer;

-- Sold a used Omega watch on eBay so you could buy a better (new or used) Rolex at a local jewelry store;

-- Sold an "import CD" of a band whose album was only released overseas but was purchased legally there; ditto for a copy of a foreign novel that wasn't released in the U.S.;

-- "Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia," The Atlantic reported.

Full article

So, as we can see, it's quite possible the blasphemously-named Supreme Court could be standing up for their Corporate owners/handlers once again rather than looking out for the best interest of the people.

reply to post by shaluach


That's absurd.
The most ridiculous thing ever.

You buy what you buy. If you buy it cheaper somewhere else. Well that's capitalism for you.
The courts shouldn't be involved in free market issues.

reply to post by shaluach


It is beyond foolish to attack the Supreme Court for a ruling they haven't even made yet. It is one thing to predict they will rule the way you think they will, another thing entirely to attack them for a ruling they haven't made yet. It is way beyond disingenuous to ignore the First Sale Doctrine that the reporter of the article diligently spoke to. It is a hack job to ignore that the First Sale Doctrine was established by the Supreme Court which was the same Court who made the Dred Scot ruling which was never overturned.

What this means is that if the lower courts are correct and the First Sale Doctrine only applies to products manufactured in the U.S. it is equally true that products manufactured outside of the U.S. have no legal standing just as Dred Scot (a slave seen as product) had no legal standing.

Of course, it is unlikely that such a legal strategy need even be employed and any predictions that the Court will uphold the incompetent rulings of lower courts is purely speculative and the SCOTUS is more likely to insist that the First Sale Doctrine is rooted in law and as such has a universal application to it. The core principle behind the First Sale Doctrine is that the copyright obligation has been satisfied upon its initial purpose not where the product was manufactured.

reply to post by grey580


Well, I personally, as a Christian, am against capitalism and all the evils that it stands for... BUT I do agree with you. If this ruling is made, think of the long-term consequences that are going to come along with it and how it will change the face of capitalism (for even worse) in this country and, more than likely, the world over.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Jean, I am not "attacking them for a ruling they haven't made yet." I am saying that if they DO make said ruling it will only go to further show who they represent: The Corporations, not the people.

If you actually read my statement along with the article, you'd understand that. Here's exactly what I said in case you missed it, which I think you had to have based on your comment:

"So, as we can see, it's quite possible the blasphemously-named Supreme Court could be standing up for their Corporate owners/handlers once again rather than looking out for the best interest of the people."

(Emphasis added)

reply to post by shaluach


There is no evidence to support the canard that the Supreme Court favors corporations over the People they serve. Indeed, the biggest goddamned lie perpetuated about the recent Supreme Court is that they "made corporations a person" in Citizens United of which they did not, and instead ruled in favor of the First Amendment which was a big win for the People.

Beyond that ruling this recent rulings by the Supreme Court have shown them settle once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right belonging to all people and not a collective right, in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago and in Bond v. United States the Supreme Court held that individuals have the right to challenge bogus legislation.

This is a strong record of staunch defense of the people, but all this gets ignored for a gross misinterpretation of Citizens United.

I read your statement and placing "blasphemous" before "could be" is what I am taking you to task for. The Supreme Court has more than any other branch of federal government stood in strong defense of the People while the other two run roughshod over individual rights.

I'll just leave this brilliant short video here as food for thought.

This is just absurd.

Just another reminder that the world is corrupt. The people have no power and we can't do a thing about it.

Anyone else think democracy is starting to fail?

Please....this will never happen.

Selling used goods keeps it out of the land fields.
If this ruling passes then it should work with every thing that is copy written thus killing ebay witch contributes to a big part of the economy. I do not think they will go threw with it.

What next? SWAT teams raidning yard sales, flea martets and pawn shops? I am starting to really hope the worlds does end on 12/21/12. With this crap going on it is long over due.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by shaluach

 

There is no evidence to support the canard that the Supreme Court favors corporations over the People they serve. Indeed, the biggest goddamned lie perpetuated about the recent Supreme Court is that they "made corporations a person" in Citizens United of which they did not, and instead ruled in favor of the First Amendment which was a big win for the People.

You are so brainwashed. The Citizens United ruling was a win for the people? Please! They DID make grant corporations personhood. The only good thing about that is that a lot of people who were thought conspiracy theories are stupid were able to see that elections are pretty much bought and paid for by the Elite.

Wake up.

Originally posted by AuirOverrun

Anyone else think democracy is starting to fail?

Well I'd say that democracy never existed. It's an illusion.

reply to post by shaluach

You are so brainwashed. The Citizens United ruling was a win for the people? Please! They DID make grant corporations personhood. The only good thing about that is that a lot of people who were thought conspiracy theories are stupid were able to see that elections are pretty much bought and paid for by the Elite.

Wake up.

Wake up? Are you out of your mind or just murmuring in your sleep yammering on about case law I've read and you haven't. You have no idea what was held in Citizen's United other than what the corporate media tells you. Think about that sleepy head, the corporate media wants you to believe that the Supreme Court declared corporations a person.

Wake up? Here's a wake up call for you, sport. Long before the Citizens United ruling Congress had all ready defined corporations as a "person", not once, not twice, but thrice, here, here and here!

Pffffftttttt! Look at you pretending as if you know what you're talking about, refusing to educate yourself while braying "Wake up! Wake up!"

Sigh.

It's tragic, really.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


While I applaud your knowledge in this subject and the useful links supplied, as a long time lets say "senior" member here, do you not think you got a little too riled up there? By all means, attack the post - but he's more likely to learn and expand his knowledge if you 'direct' rather than 'shove' the poster.

Otherwise, I've always had a hard time dealing with the morality of copyright. The entire model just fails on so many levels and if rife with fundamental flaws. How does a sound-wave become owned? I'm not saying artists should not be funded, but I'd love to see a movement en-mass towards a copyright free - pay what you think is right model. I don't know, its a big minefield really.

As a non-american I think that to even consider making such rulings quite ridiculous. Fair usage needs not to become to restrictive otherwise it could lead to unjust prosecutions. Alternatively, to its logical conclusion american citizens can sue for the government and corporations that data mine personal information which by said information is ownership of the people and therefore paid reimbursement should be made for the collection and usage of to all the individuals whose personal information has been used in such a capacity as to make profit from.

reply to post by Qumulys


Ah, no worries, Qumulys. While some of his info was helpful, he's one of those people who aren't even worth acknowledging. He tells me to wake up and tells me that I listen to the mainstream media (which is laughable), yet he still defends his corporate masters and regurgitates the sheeple rallying cry of "Citizens United defends free speech." He's a partisan hack trying to masquerade as the exact opposite.

And for being a "senior member" of the page, he sure knows how to take the thread completely off-topic. Once people like him start acting the way they do, I just ignore them.

I do not think this event means what you think it means.

In an eggshell: Some college kid (Supap Kirtsaeng) found out that a manufacturer of textbooks was selling them new overseas for a lot less than they were here. So he had someone overseas buy several textbooks and send them to him, and then he sold them here for a profit. That was a violation of copyright law in the intent if not the letter of the law. More info here.

For those who are familiar with the old practice of "scalping" tickets, this is the same thing. It is illegal.

The key term in this case is "goods produced overseas and imported for the purpose of resale". If you buy an Ipod and later decide to sell it, you have not imported for the purpose of resale; the resale is incidental to the ownership for the purpose of personal use. Using foreign materials in a house is different than importing the house for resale. In order to be subject to this copyright situation, an item must be imported for the sole reason of being resold (which would entail multiple units being imported) and not be imported for the purpose of being a part of something assembled in America to be resold as an assembled unit.

Non-issue here, really. just some kid who needs to take a business law course trying to make a dishonest buck.

(Incidentally, if his friends had bought a book overseas for him to use in his classes, it also would not be a violation, even if he sold it to another student after he used it.)

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

There are a lot of places in the US where scalping is legal. It depends on the city. As long as he had a sales tax license and/or whatever else he needed to open a retail business, there shouldn't have been a problem.

The books were already sold in the US so it shouldn't matter where he was getting them. In all reality, his business model is no different than that of a pawn shop.

reply to post by SilentNoise

No, not the same as a pawn shop. A pawn shop resells merchandise either sold to them or received as collateral for an unpaid loan, all with the foreknowledge of the seller that they intend to resell. Some actually operate as a retailer around here for things like firearms, but they purchase their goods from a manufacturer for resell.

This guy bought a bunch of textbooks with the express intent to resell and without informing the manufacturer of this fact. He then went into direct competition with the manufacturer by using country-specific pricing to undercut the manufacturers selling price in the USA.

While I think it is poor practice and somewhat shady of a manufacturer to set prices based on location of the purchaser, it is completely possible that the higher US prices are the result of tariffs or legal restrictions imposed on the manufacturer. By shortcutting those and importing/reselling himself, this student was profiting off and interfering with the legitimate sale of materials he did not produce without providing recompense or even getting permission from the ones who did produce the books.

Profiting off the work of another without allowing them to have any input is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government, the USA government, The United Nations, Montesano, Chevron, General Electric, WalMart, the old man three doors down, or a student. Wrong is wrong is wrong.

But even that aside, this decision does not involve selling your used Ipod or selling a house with windows made in China. It affirms the legality of copyright protection and limitation as it has been defined previously.

TheRedneck