Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing
from the phew dept
For a few years now, we've been following the Kirtsaeng case, in which a student was sued by publisher John Wiley & Sons for buying cheap (legal) textbooks abroad, and then reselling them in the US for profit. Wiley claimed this was copyright infringement, while the student, Sudap Kirtsaeng, argued that the first sale doctrine applied. First sale gives you the right to resell, say, a book that you legally bought without having to get permission from the copyright holder. Under copyright law, it says that the first sale doctrine applies to any product "legally made under this title." Wiley argued that goods made abroad were not legally made under US law since they were made abroad (even though, obviously, it wanted the rest of copyright law to apply to it once those works came to the US). We were guardedly optimistic after the oral hearings at the Supreme Court, in which the Justices explored the "parade of horribles" that might happen if Wiley won. And while what happens at oral arguments frequently doesn't seem to have any bearing on the eventual situation, in this case, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Kirtsaeng, saying that it is silly to interpret the first sale doctrine the way Wiley does, and that there is no evidence that such "geographical restrictions" make sense, or that Congress intended such a result.In our view, §109(a)’s language, its context, and the common-law history of the “first sale” doctrine, taken together, favor a non-geographical interpretation. We also doubt that Congress would have intended to create the practical copyright-related harms with which a geographical interpretation would threaten ordinary scholarly, artistic, commercial, and consumer activities.... We consequently conclude that Kirtsaeng’s nongeographical reading is the better reading of the Act.To get technical, the key issue in the dispute was that two different sections of copyright law could be read to conflict. Section 109 defines the First Sale doctrine while Section 602 defines importation of works. Kirtsaeng focused on 109, while Wiley insisted that 602 is more important. The Supreme Court -- by a six to three margin -- side strongly with Kirtsaeng. The majority was written by Justice Breyer, who is consistently good on intellectual property issues, while the dissent was led by Ginsburg, who is consistently bad on copyright issues (Scalia and Kennedy sided with Ginsburg). Thankfully the "good" side won out today.
The language of §109(a) read literally favors Kirtsaeng’s nongeographical interpretation, namely, that “lawfully made under this title” means made “in accordance with” or “in compliance with” the Copyright Act. The language of §109(a) says nothing about geography. The word “under” can mean “[i]n accordance with.” 18 Oxford English Dictionary 950 (2d ed. 1989). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 1525 (6th ed. 1990) (“according to”). And a nongeographical interpretation provides each word of the five-word phrase with a distinct purpose. The first two words of the phrase, “lawfully made,” suggest an effort to distinguish those copies that were made lawfully from those that were not, and the last three words, “under this title,” set forth the standard of “lawful[ness].” Thus, the nongeographical reading is simple, it promotes a traditional copyright objective (combatting piracy), and it makes word-by-word linguistic sense.The ruling goes on to lay out historical and logical reasons why first sale should apply. It's a good read. It looks like Breyer relied, in part, on the American Library Association's concern for how a ruling against First Sale would cause serious harm to libraries, which would have to somehow figure out ways to get permission on any book they had that was printed outside the US. He similarly cites concerns of used book dealers and the tech industry that this would get in the way of all sorts of reasonable transactions.
The geographical interpretation, however, bristles with linguistic difficulties. It gives the word “lawfully” little, if any, linguistic work to do. (How could a book be unlawfully “made under this title”?) It imports geography into a statutory provision that says nothing explicitly about it. And it is far more complex than may at first appear.
To read the clause geographically, Wiley, like the Second Circuit and the Solicitor General, must first emphasize the word “under.” Indeed, Wiley reads “under this title” to mean “in conformance with the Copyright Act where the Copyright Act is applicable.” Brief for Respondent 15. Wiley must then take a second step, arguing that the Act “is applicable” only in the United States. Ibid. And the Solicitor General must do the same. See Brief for United States 6 (“A copy is ‘lawfully made under this title’ if Title 17 governs the copy’s creation and the copy is made in compliance with Title 17’s requirements”). See also post, at 7 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (“under” describes something “governed or regulated by another”).
One difficulty is that neither “under” nor any other word in the phrase means “where.” See, e.g., 18 Oxford English Dictionary, supra, at 947–952 (definition of “under”). It might mean “subject to,” see post, at 6, but as this Court has repeatedly acknowledged, the word evades a uniform, consistent meaning. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 245 (2010) (“‘under’ is chameleon”); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 135 (1991) (“under” has “many dictionary definitions” and “must draw its meaning from its context”).
A far more serious difficulty arises out of the uncertainty and complexity surrounding the second step’s effort to read the necessary geographical limitation into the word “applicable” (or the equivalent). Where, precisely, is the Copyright Act “applicable”? The Act does not instantly protect an American copyright holder from unauthorized piracy taking place abroad. But that fact does not mean the Act is inapplicable to copies made abroad. As a matter of ordinary English, one can say that a statute imposing, say, a tariff upon “any rhododendron grown in Nepal” applies to all Nepalese rhododendrons. And, similarly, one can say that the American Copyright Act is applicable to all pirated copies, including those printed overseas. Indeed, the Act itself makes clear that (in the Solicitor General’s language) foreign-printed pirated copies are “subject to” the Act.
Technology companies tell us that “automobiles, microwaves, calculators, mobile phones, tablets, and personal computers” contain copyrightable software programs or packaging. Many of these items are made abroad with the American copyright holder’s permission and then sold and imported (with that permission) to the United States. A geographical interpretation would prevent the resale of, say, a car, without the permission of the holder of each copyright on each piece of copyrighted automobile software. Yet there is no reason to believe that foreign auto manufacturers regularly obtain this kind of permission from their software component suppliers, and Wiley did not indicate to the contrary when asked. Without that permission a foreign car owner could not sell his or her used car.Breyer dismisses the idea, presented by Wiley, that because this "parade of horribles" hasn't happened yet, it won't happen in the future if the ruling had gone the other way. The ruling notes that this is still somewhat unsettled law, but that large parts of the economy clearly rely on the first sale doctrine, and upsetting that apple cart could have dramatic impact. It also rejects other spurious arguments, including a favorite of copyright maximalists, that the first sale doctrine on such works prevents copyright holders from doing differential pricing. The court rightfully questions what this has to do with copyright:
Wiley and the dissent claim that a nongeographical interpretation will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for publishers (and other copyright holders) to divide foreign and domestic markets. We concede that is so. A publisher may find it more difficult to charge different prices for the same book in different geographic markets. But we do not see how these facts help Wiley, for we can find no basic principle of copyright law that suggests that publishers are especially entitled to such rights.The dissent obsesses over this issue of differential pricing, despite it having little to do with copyrights and simple serves to reinforce the idea -- as seen in previous copyright rulings, including Eldred -- that Justice Ginsburg seems to have a bit of a blindspot in copyright cases, such that anything that helps copyright maximalists is automatically seen as "good."
[....] the Constitution’s language nowhere suggests that its limited exclusive right should include a right to divide markets or a concomitant right to charge different purchasers different prices for the same book, say to increase or to maximize gain. Neither, to our knowledge, did any Founder make any such suggestion.We have found no precedent suggesting a legal preference for interpretations of copyright statutes that would provide for market divisions.
To the contrary, Congress enacted a copyright law that (through the “first sale” doctrine) limits copyright holders’ability to divide domestic markets. And that limitation is consistent with antitrust laws that ordinarily forbid market divisions.
But, perhaps more importantly, Justice Ginsburg repeatedly cites various international trade agreements in arguing that her position is the correct one. With this ruling decided as is, copyright maximalists will no doubt seek to have Congress change the law in their favor -- especially now that comprehensive copyright reform is back on the table. But, as a part of that, you can absolutely expect to see this issue pop up in various international trade agreements as well. Copyright maximalists will seek to force Congress' hand in suggesting that first sale rights do not transfer over for goods made in foreign countries. This is something that we're all going to have to pay close attention to in the coming years.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, first sale, foreign goods, international exhaustion, kirtsaeng, resale rights, sudap kirtsaeng, supreme court
Companies: john wiley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Glad to see some common sense being applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No more appeals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I liked this part
To the contrary, Congress enacted a copyright law that (through the “first sale” doctrine) limits copyright holders’ ability to divide domestic markets. And that limitation is consistent with antitrust laws that ordinarily forbid market divisions.
Sorry Wiley, there is no 'right to segment markets'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I liked this part
And we know what happened when prices of textbooks were too high in other countries, don't we?
The government authorized purchasing pirated textbooks because they were cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
I imagine this is less true in markets where Wiley charges a low price, and that professors there might be open to, e.g., teaching a course using free alternative materials found online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I liked this part
In the short term, maybe. But prices will come tumbling down the second they realize that people aren't buying them and that only the parallel market is profiting from that (quite stupid) decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
They COULD drop their prices accordingly and make even MORE money. I mean, seems to me that Kirtsaeng was just doing what the Free Market dictates.
Price of Product X is Y.
People need X, there's no competition, so they're forced to pay price Y, which is very high.
Now, someone comes along and finds the same product at price N, which is far under what they are in market C (home market), so the person buys the product at price N and sells for price Z, which is higher than what they bought it for, but less than price Y.
Suddenly, there's competition and people want the objects at price Z not Y.
So, Wiley can raise the prices in the foreign countries to price Y, OR they can LOWER the prices of books in market N (The US) to price Z, thus allowing MORE people to get the product in question (books).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
I think you underestimate the markup they're putting on the books in the US. They'd probably make more money by keeping the prices as they are here, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I liked this part
What I do care about is government enforced restrictions on where and with whom I do business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I liked this part
In a free market, everything is sold for the maximum price the market will stand. This is fundamental economics. And the whole point of Wiley's lawsuit was to interfere with the free market. If they had the freedom to increase prices overseas, they surely would have done so, but the foreign market would not, and will not, stand it.
The most likely outcome is that US and overseas prices will stay the same. A healthy grey import business will develop, and the publishers' next move will be against the foreign buyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
I believe supermarkets would disagree with this statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I liked this part
How do you figure? If you're talking about putting things on sale or coupons, I don't think that really invalidates his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I liked this part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, can laymen import medicinal drugs into the US?
Questions, questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real deterrent to this practice would be import duty and the cost of logistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was one of the worst pushes against the 'used' goods market recently. But they'll not stop trying. In an ideal world they'll not only stop you from selling your stuff but they'll also make you pay multiple times for the same content. It's already happening.
This is something that we're all going to have to pay close attention to in the coming years.
Disturbingly close. Keep your eyes open folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All I know is thank God they got this right. It's a start that hopefully some lower judges can use to keep moving things in the right direction in regards to companies segmenting the world to artificially inflate prices. It's a global market and about time copyright was exposed to competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm as skeptical as you though that we will ever see a common-sense approach to copyright, when the vocal minority (Lobbyists) seem to be paying their way in still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the court acknowledges that this may end differential pricing. Enjoy the collateral damage. I don't see publisher's allowing grifters like Kirtsaeng to make $1.2 million by undercutting their US market with their own textbooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is he a grifter? the dictionary definition is someone who deceives someone else in a financial transaction. Kirtsaeng didn't pretend he was the publisher. He legally bought the books abroad and then legally sold them in the US. So how did he grift?
Oh wait...I see now. He provided competition. That's how he grifted. Customers who wanted to legally buy Wiley's books now have the option of going to someone else to get a better deal, instead of having to suffer through high prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now; tell me what you think is going to happen next to prices of Wiley textbooks in these markets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, the Free Market is a great thing when it works right.
And, speaking of the Free Market, there's something you seem to forget.
If people want something enough, they will get it. By hook or by crook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Professors choosing what books to use, almost zero competing on who sells the newest edition in a reasonable area and a "black market" for used books from earlier students.
The "free market" you are talking about is limited to non-university use. It is about what the professors want in quality and what he feels he can demand from students that determine what the books cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is generally low level stuff and in countries without WIPO exposure. Basketcase, Third World countries where most of the population is illiterate isn't much of a threat to the market for advanced scientific texts. Most of the education of the populace that has any advanced education is done abroad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wiley (stupid and short-sightedly) will raise their prices in the smaller markets.
Those markets can't afford the prices, which will force those in the markets to start creating their own equivalent books (legally). The first ones may not be quite the quality that Wiley currently provides, but they will quickly rise to the level. The new publishers from the smaller markets will then realize there's a large an inviting market (North America) that they can enter by selling an equivalent product for a much lower price. Wiley will be forced to lower their prices, or go out of business, because of perfectly legal competition that they created by refusing to adjust to the market.
"Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? It is the sound of inevitability."
Economics tells us that the price of a good moves toward its marginal cost. What you see about to happen is economics in action. You can keep denying the water is rising. You can keep filling sandbags (copyright law) to wall it off. Eventually you run out of sandbags, and then its too late to save your house, when you could have used all the time you spent building the levee to move out of the flood plain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are your assumptions about the size of those markets? What is your assumption about the cost and even capacity to produce a world-class text from within one of those markets? Do you see any barriers to entry for foreign text book producers to the US market? Do you think everyone doesn't see how full of shit you are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That they may be small in terms of the US market right now, but growing rapidly.
What is your assumption about the cost and even capacity to produce a world-class text from within one of those markets?
India, population 1.2 billion. China, population 1.3 billion. Add in the rest of south and east Asia and you're over 3 billion. If you think they're not in need of low-price, quality textbooks then you're crazy. If you think they can't produce something as high quality as a US or other western nation publisher, then you're operating under a bias.
Do you see any barriers to entry for foreign text book producers to the US market?
Of course there are barriers - I never said or implied otherwise. But they are not insurmountable, and the textbook market is ripe for disruption from competition on many fronts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To these guys, grifters are people who interfere with publishers' business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, Wiley is going to lose even more if they decide to do what you think they're going to do, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's merely doing what's been done for ages: buy low, sell high.
Or is that only legal when it is the mega-corporations doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It will not end differential pricing. It probably will, however, make the differentials smaller. But that just brings things into line with how it works for any goods NOT covered by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
------------------
Gotta admire the plucky ignorance of an AC up there: "so has a date been set yet for the first appeal?"
------------------
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
If Mike supports copyright, why are the pirates here? They take him same as I do: PRO-PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you keep using words you don't understand.
To quote the Princess Bride...
"You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Grifting:
Noun
1.(sometimes used with a plural verb) a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling, etc.
2.money obtained from such practices.
Hmm... Where's the dishonesty here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
As compared to the many many times you've proven yourself ignorant of everything you rant about?
I wouldn't call six against three being so close a ruling, so I don't know where you got that from.
Again, what grifting? It's legal to buy books abroad and its legal to sell them at home. Just because he did it as a business doesn't change that. He saw there was a demand for these books but not at the prices that Wiley was demanding, so he found a way to satisfy that demand.
Are you now arguing that anyone wanting to sell books should write one first? So what...the bookshop down the road must have a bestseller before they're allowed sell?
Again, Kirtsaeng wasn't in the business of writing books. He was in the business of buying stock and selling. Same as most other businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
If Jeff Bezos wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If William J. Lynch, Jr wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If Mike Duke wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
Cause I mean, come on guys, Kirtsaeng is obviously different than Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Walmart. He's reselling legally purchased books, and they are reselling legally purchased books. The difference is as plain as the logic in ootb's comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
Resellers and distributors do in fact do work and take risks, sir. Ask your local retailer. Ask anybody who sells on eBay for a living.
What is offensive about you is your contempt for capitalism, private ownership and the idea of really working for a living.
If you do not understand why reselling is not grift, you cannot be anti-piracy.
You fool no one. You do not speak for artists, rightsholders or working people. You are pus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
if the Music/Movie industry wants to profit from selling movies and music, they should first write songs and star in movies they wrote find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and them not getting money back and so on The rampant grifting where others do all the work ( like writers, musicians and actors) and take all the risks ( without Hollywood accounting) needs to be outlawed".
there fixed it for you OOTB
OOTB is a fucking freetard and ADMITS it
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
Blue, this guy PAID the publisher's asking price (albeit in a different country). How does that even come close to "grifting"?
In your crazy little world do you consider used car salesman grifters too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
He's paying the market price for the book in his country, so Wiley ALREADY got paid what they asked for!
He then resells it at a higher price in the US, but still makes a profit since it's a lower price than what Wiley charges in the US!
So, if Wiley lowers the price in the US to what Kirtsang paid (which still gives them a profit), they undercut Kirtsang and he'll be out of business.
What am I missing, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for…
I'll bookmark this quote the next time you have a garage sale (or yard sale, stoop sale, boot sale, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
As a market developer I deal with this issue all the time, people/companies trying to make use of different price levels in different countries. Usually they are big international companies by the way, that have a good view of what the same product costs in other countries.
As an employee of a company that likes to stay out of court we have standing orders NOT TO INTERFERE with that. As soon as we've sold the product, we can't put any restrictions on where they use it or what they do with it because that would be illegal and a fast track to a lawsuit.
What Wiley is doing is trying to get the court to put illegal restrictions on their products. Sounds like the grift of all grifts to me, if it had succeeded that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should make region unlocking legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Good Decision
(Emphasis mine) Am I to take from this that you believe Ginsburg is only bad on copyright sections of "intellectual property" law, or is this merely avoiding the use of the term a second time? That is to say, is Ginsburg a poor judge of copyright law while being somewhere from indifferent to good on patents; or were you just being editorially inaccurate for the sake of avoiding repetition?
Please don't read any unintended snark into my question. I just think it is uncharacteristic of this site and you in particular to misuse these terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Good Decision
The latter. I find that she has a blind spot on copyrights, but is "indifferent" on patents. Breyer, on the other hand, tends to be pretty good on both copyrights and patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't the book makers have had a better argument that since it was PURCHASED outside the country, the right of resale was void, not that it was MANUFACTURED outside?
Not that I wanted that argument to work, either. I love this verdict, and am glad the second-sale doctrine is upheld, but I find it odd they went after "manufactured overseas" and not "purchased". You'd think they'd have better grounds that if the purchase wasn't made on U.S. soil that the purchase isn't recognized by the U.S., and thus there wasn't a "first sale" to trigger the "second sale" right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well that would be one way of enabling customs and the DHS to get rich, nothing you bought while overseas is recognised as yours on entry to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, what I was saying was that if a company can prove that you purchased an item out of the country and that you were attempting to resell that within the US, I was asking if anyone knew enough about the law to see if that would have been a stronger grounds for the plaintiffs to take. Since a lot of our laws are probably designed around the exchange of money between two people within the country, any sale done outside would - in my mind - be exempt from a LOT of US protections, the least of which I'd suspect is second-sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, if you buy an Aston-Martin automobile in England, then ship it to the US, you can't re-sell it in America because it wasn't purchased here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the wording of the law said first sale applies to things "lawfully made under this title". Even when using creative interpretations like they tried to do, they have to work with what the law actually says. If the law said "lawfully sold under this title" then that's what they'd be arguing instead (and they'd still be wrong, because as the Supreme Court ruled here, "under this title" does not refer to a physical location.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. Would have been interesting to see them try this the other way, but I'm still glad that it ruled in our favor. Now, if only we can get a ruling regarding all this about software and the likes, maybe I can sell my overbloated Steam catalog of summer sales purchase mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/03284416803/court-tells-omega-copyright-is-not-sw ord-rejects-attempt-to-control-grey-market-as-copyright-misuse.shtml
Basically, the ruling so far is that Omega was misusing copyright in order to restrict importation of its watches. Which means that Omega is ultimately losing that case.
There is still one more appeal, but with this Supreme Court Ruling in play it is unlikely that Omega will prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age-related
"Note that the vote went along age lines not political. All of the older justices were for strong copyright and the younger ones were against."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme -court-rules/?comments=1&post=24108187#comment-24108187
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Alliance is a liar on the Kirtsaeng
http://www.copyrightalliance.org/2013/03/supreme_court_reverses_kirtsaeng
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Alliance is a liar on the Kirtsaeng
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Copyright Alliance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Copyright Alliance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SCOTUS Rulings
Decisions from SCOTUS are generally non-appealable. When they issue a ruling, it sticks unless Congress changes the law that it applies to.
I doubt that Kirtsaeng would be interested in doing so anyway, being the victor in this case. Besides, it's expensive to keep doing this kind of appealing. Don't think that either party wants to continue to hemorrhage money for lawyers all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.pijip-impact.org/events/kirtsaeng-v-wiley/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]