MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse

from the a-bit-of-an-exaggeration dept

We've written a few times about the upcoming Kirtsaeng case before the Supreme Court concerning first sale rights. If you don't recall, the 2nd Circuit appears to have wiped out the first sale doctrine for content purchased outside the country that you want to resell within the US. As we noted, there are significant worries about how such a ruling could really harm innovation. At issue was a guy who bought textbooks abroad and resold them in the US (for less than the cover price that the publishers wanted students to buy). The courts basically found that because the textbooks were made outside the US, they weren't "lawfully made under this title," which is some clumsy phrasing that's at issue here.

Of course, thanks to our copyright maximalism, under Kirtsaeng, if a product is made outside the US and then imported, US copyright law appears to apply to almost everything that's copyrightable... except that first sale rights go away. If that seems dangerous, you get a sense of how important the Supreme Court's ruling in Kirtsaeng can be, hopefully by bringing back some sanity, and showing that if you legally purchase some digital content you have the right to resell it.

It appears that the RIAA and MPAA are pretty scared about this possibility. They've filed quite the amicus brief in the case claiming that buying goods overseas and selling them in the US is the equivalent of piracy. No joke:

Copyright protection is essential to the health of the motion picture and music industries and the U.S. economy as a whole. Like the sale of “pirated” copies, unauthorized importation of copies of protected works made overseas and intended only for sale in a foreign market can undercut or eliminate the economic benefit that Congress intended to provide under the Copyright Act.

Oh, and it gets worse. You see, if that darned first sale is allowed on foreign goods, why (*gasp*) the MPAA and RIAA might actually have to deal with people buying goods in one market and selling them elsewhere. Horrors!

Extending the first sale doctrine to copies made abroad for distribution in a foreign market could impede authors’ ability to control entry into distinct markets, limit their flexibility to adapt to market conditions, or undermine territorial licensing agreements. If accepted, Kirtsaeng’s view of the first sale doctrine could thus prevent U.S. copyright holders from obtaining the economic reward Congress intended to provide under U.S. law to motivate investment in creative activity.

Now that's an interesting interpretation of copyright law. The RIAA and MPAA are arguing that if they can't block people from importing the versions they sell overseas, it will somehow motivate less investment in creative activity. Really?

Here's the real problem: the RIAA and MPAA want to have their cake and eat it too. If products bought abroad and then imported into the US don't get first sale rights, then it seems only reasonable that they shouldn't get US copyright protection either. Part of the deal with copyright protection in the US is that as part of it, you accept that buyers have first sale rights that allow them to resell what they legally purchased. What the RIAA and MPAA are attempting to do here is to take away the public's right to resell what they've legally purchased, because it might interfere with one aspect of their preferred business model.

Of course, what this really comes down to is that the RIAA and MPAA absolutely hate the idea that they might have to compete in a global market. They more or less admit this in the brief, suggesting that prices are cheaper elsewhere in the world because copyright law sucks in other places... and allowing cheap goods into the US means that they don't get the "separate benefit" of expansive US copyright law:

When copyright owners distribute tangible copies of creative works in a foreign market, they recoup the economic benefit made possible by the copyright law of that country, which may be substantially less generous or well enforced than U.S. copyright law. They do not realize the separate benefit Congress intended them to derive from their U.S. copyright. If those copies are imported into the United States without permission, the copyright owner might never obtain that full benefit.

Boohoo. You sell into one market, people buy, they sell into a different market. Every other business in the world has to deal with exactly that. Why should the RIAA/MPAA get special treatment?

Oh, and of course, they rush to play up how much "harm" this would do if they can't overprice content in the US (what this is really about) by trotting out the same debunked stats about just how important they are -- even to the point of suggesting that allowing people to resell goods they legally bought elsewhere would have deleterious consequences for the entire US economy.

Those harms, in turn, could have deleterious consequences for the U.S. economy as a whole. As of 2010, the motion picture and television industry supported 2.1 million jobs and nearly $143 billion in total wages in the United States.... In addition to the major motion picture studios, the industry supports a nationwide network of nearly 95,000 businesses throughout the 50 States. Id. The music industry employed over 25,000 paid employees as of 2004.... The industry supports many smaller businesses such as retail stores, distribution companies, recording studios, and music professionals. The retail trade alone generates over $7 billion from the sale of sound recordings... Maintaining robust copyright protection is thus crucial to preserving not only the health of these creative fields themselves, but also their substantial contributions to the national economy.

That the actual evidence suggests something quite different is, of course, not mentioned. That the overall music and movie industries have been growing quite nicely, even as copyright is more and more ignored, is not mentioned. That more content is being produced and more money is being made... is not mentioned. Inconvenient facts are not allowed.

The filing at one point gets so snarky that it claims that those arguing the other side are using the word "arbitrage" as a euphemism (for what?!), rather than as an accurate description of what happens to normal economies that can't set up protectionist tariffs on importation of goods.

The whole thing shows the same myopic thinking of the RIAA and MPAA -- that anything that threatens their chosen obsolete business model simply must be illegal. Because having the courts and Congress prop up old business models must be better than actually innovating and (*gasp*) letting people resell what they legally bought.

Filed Under: copyright, economy, first sale, foreign works, kirtsaeng
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Libraries Worried About Potential Supreme Court Ruling Concerning Legality Of Selling Imported Omega Watches

from the greymarket-libraries dept

Earlier this year we discussed an important upcoming Supreme Court case between Omega (the watch company) and Costco over whether or not it can be considered copyright infringement to resell legally purchased watches that were bought overseas. The concept sounds crazy, right? What does reselling foreign watches have to do with copyright? Well, the details are a bit complicated, but basically lots of companies hate the concept of first sale rights (the ability to resell something you've legally bought) and have tried all sorts of tricks to try and block those rights. In this case, Omega inscribed a tiny globe on the back of its watches (where no one will ever see it) solely for the purpose of copyrighting that design and using it to try to stop resale. Of course, once again, the first sale doctrine does allow for resale, but here's where Omega got sneaky. It pointed out that the first sale doctrine technically only applies to copies that are "lawfully made under this title." Omega's argument is that because the copyrighted globe design was made outside of the US, the copy was not made under US law... and thus (voila!) there are no first sale rights on any copyrighted product made outside of the US.

Amazingly, the court agreed. Even more amazing? The Obama administration argues that the court decided correctly, in part because the recent ProIP Act (which gave us our friendly IP Czar) ever so slightly changed the rules on importing and exporting copyrighted goods... removing first sale rights from foreign goods.

The implications, if this is true, are immensely problematic. A coalition of libraries has now filed a detailed amicus brief in the case (pdf) noting what a massive problem it would be if the lower court ruling is upheld:

Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit's rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit's narrowing of Section 109(a) only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a "lending license" whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States.

How ridiculous is it that copyright law -- which was originally put in place "for the encouragement of learning," might now make it much more difficult to encourage learning through libraries.

Now, some will obviously state that this is a problem for Congress, not the courts, to fix. And, to some extent that is true. But the Supreme Court is also supposed to make sure that the laws that Congress has put in place are interpreted in line with the Constitution. In this case, copyright law is being so abused as to clearly have nothing to do with its intended purpose, and thus the court can and should note that this interpretation of copyright law is clearly outside the bounds of what Congress could have possibly meant.

Filed Under: copyright, first sale, foreign works, libraries, supreme court
Companies: costco, omega