Supreme Court To Decide Whether Or Not You Own What You Own

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=2]Supreme Court To Decide Whether Or Not You Own What You Own[/h] Posted by Unknown Lamer on Tuesday October 09, @08:03AM
from the industry-argues-"ownership"-hurts-revenues dept.
Jafafa Hots writes "The Supreme Court is set to decide, in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, whether or not First Sale Doctrine applies to products made with parts sourced from outside the United States. If the Supreme Court upholds an appellate ruling, it would mean that the IP 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. Your old used CDs, cell phone, books, or that Ford truck with foreign parts? It may not be yours to sell unless you get explicit permission and presumably pay royalties. 'It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can't be bought or sold here,' said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues."

Really? Has it come to this?

I bought it. It's mine. I'll do with it as I will. Don't like it? Hey, hire another 100,000 Enforcer Drones and come stop me.
Make sure they're insured. I'll break a few on the process.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's a weird kind of issue.

Originally, as I understand it, a college student who was trying to buy the books he needed for class noticed that they sell for a lot less money in his home country. So he asked his relatives back home to buy them for him and send them to him in the USA. Then he started a small business doing that. The book publishers sued, saying he violated their copyrights by selling them. They admitted that they sell the same items outside the USA for less money. This is not uncommon, by the way. Apparently. the court agreed with the book publishers. But if this appeal is upheld, then by extension, any company which has a patent, trademark, or copyright on an item made outside of the USA could - in theory - require the purchaser to seek approval to sell it on the secondary market, or even to pay a fee to do so.

Obviously this is ridiculous on the face of it, but apparently, that is how the law was written, even if it wasn't intended that way.

So the court may uphold, but Congress would act to change the law. Or the court may overrule the lower court, in which case the student who sold books he bought outside the USA wins.

It's interesting in either case.

At the basis, there is a fundamental belief that people have that what they buy, they own. And while this is true, there are exceptions. For example, some purchase agreements (which no one reads) on software and music may stipulate that you 'own' the media itself - the disc or whatever, but you 'license' the use of the music. So no, you don't actually 'own' the music, only the disc is it on and the right to listen to it. Weird, huh?

 

[billc]

Well, vote for Gary Johnson and be sure that if Obama wins the judges he appoints would vote the wrong way on this issue. If this issue is important to you, and everyone else in the country...beware who appoints the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. You may say this won't be affected by who wins the next election, but other issues, just as important as this will be decided...who do you want making those decisions?

Do you trust congress to change the law? To change it in a way that actually addresses the issue the right way?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, vote for Gary Johnson and be sure that if Obama wins the judges he appoints would vote the wrong way on this issue. If this issue is important to you, and everyone else in the country...beware who appoints the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. You may say this won't be affected by who wins the next election, but other issues, just as important as this will be decided...who do you want making those decisions?

Do you trust congress to change the law? To change it in a way that actually addresses the issue the right way?

Run a candidate who isn't a crook and a liar and I'll vote for him or her. If you have a problem with that, blame the GOP for selecting Romney, not me. The GOP sucks and I'm supposed to kiss their *** anyway? Not happening. If all you claim comes to pass, you GOP boyos get the blame. Maybe you should run better candidates next time.

 

[cdunn]

Run a candidate who isn't a crook and a liar and I'll vote for him or her. If you have a problem with that, blame the GOP for selecting Romney, not me. The GOP sucks and I'm supposed to kiss their *** anyway? Not happening. If all you claim comes to pass, you GOP boyos get the blame. Maybe you should run better candidates next time.

Now inn't that the truth.

A case example of how horribly broken IP law is in this country, largely on account of its whole sale purchase from both parties by the media. Here's to hoping the court gets it right.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, vote for Gary Johnson and be sure that if Obama wins the judges he appoints would vote the wrong way on this issue. If this issue is important to you, and everyone else in the country...beware who appoints the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. You may say this won't be affected by who wins the next election, but other issues, just as important as this will be decided...who do you want making those decisions?

Do you trust congress to change the law? To change it in a way that actually addresses the issue the right way?

Who do I want making those decisions?

Someone who knows the Constitution, understands the Constitution, respects the Constitution, and doesn't creatively interpret the Constitution.

Neither Obama or Romney qualify under those terms.

As to do I trust Congress?

Bill, that's like asking if I enjoy being roasted alive and basted in au ju while a cranberry stuffing is crammed up me.

In case anyone has to think on that one, the answer is "No".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Who do I want making those decisions?

Someone who knows the Constitution, understands the Constitution, respects the Constitution, and doesn't creatively interpret the Constitution.

Neither Obama or Romney qualify under those terms.

As to do I trust Congress?

Bill, that's like asking if I enjoy being roasted alive and basted in au ju while a cranberry stuffing is crammed up me.

In case anyone has to think on that one, the answer is "No".

Great imagery!

I'm hearing this a lot from Romney supporters about now. Either "Vote for us, we suck less!" Or, "We suck, but if you don't vote for us, you get Obama and that would be catastrophic!" I reject both arguments. If the GOP messed up by making Romney their candidate, that's their problem. Any bad things which happen as a result of that are their fault, and their fault alone. I will not take the blame for not endorsing their idiotic moves. If Obama wins re-election and takes this nation on a sleigh-ride through Hell, then the GOP will be dismantled, and should be. The Tea Party did this, those giant bags of ***.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, vote for Gary Johnson and be sure that if Obama wins the judges he appoints would vote the wrong way on this issue. If this issue is important to you, and everyone else in the country...beware who appoints the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. You may say this won't be affected by who wins the next election, but other issues, just as important as this will be decided...who do you want making those decisions?

Do you trust congress to change the law? To change it in a way that actually addresses the issue the right way?

Romney hates property rights as much as Obama. You don't even own yourself according to Romney's biotech donors.

 

[WC_lun]

The court must rule in favor of what they determine the law to say, but this is just against common sense. When you realize it is because a book company was basically hiking prices up for American consumers and didn't want this student cutting into that inflated profit, it becomes a sad thing.

 

[cdunn]

Great imagery!

I'm hearing this a lot from Romney supporters about now. Either "Vote for us, we suck less!" Or, "We suck, but if you don't vote for us, you get Obama and that would be catastrophic!" I reject both arguments. If the GOP messed up by making Romney their candidate, that's their problem. Any bad things which happen as a result of that are their fault, and their fault alone. I will not take the blame for not endorsing their idiotic moves. If Obama wins re-election and takes this nation on a sleigh-ride through Hell, then the GOP will be dismantled, and should be. The Tea Party did this, those giant bags of ***.

When you're chasing a weed, make sure you get the roots and the stem, not just the fruit. I am too young to know exactly when it happened, but it has certainly been in full flower since the election of Clinton. When they could not defeat the man in an election, we had the impeachment show trial; this had nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with otherizing the Democratic Party. The Tea Party is merely the latest flower of the venom - The roots, I suspect, lie in the decision so long ago to chase the southern strategy, and the implicit otherization of large blocks of the rest of America, blended with the lovely pungent fertilizer of the Religious Right's inherent authoritarianism. The refusal to admit that they may have made a mistake, the doubling down on failed policies, the fetishization of the military and the eargerness to start wars, the privledge of dogma over practicality in decision making, the utter refusal to even try to cooperate with the Democratic party for effective governance, the constant, decades long purging of "RINOs" for ever more dogmatic legislators, the push to suppress the vote, the worship of idol figures such as Reagan, Ryan, Limbaugh.. these are all gifts of the authoritarian, who seeks to be protected and ruled by his chosen authority... who has very probably been the man who stood up and said, "Yes, I am the authority." This rot is at the very core of the Republican party, and the very same rot is the key to its current effectiveness as an opposition party.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When you're chasing a weed, make sure you get the roots and the stem, not just the fruit. I am too young to know exactly when it happened, but it has certainly been in full flower since the election of Clinton. When they could not defeat the man in an election, we had the impeachment show trial; this had nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with otherizing the Democratic Party. The Tea Party is merely the latest flower of the venom - The roots, I suspect, lie in the decision so long ago to chase the southern strategy, and the implicit otherization of large blocks of the rest of America, blended with the lovely pungent fertilizer of the Religious Right's inherent authoritarianism. The refusal to admit that they may have made a mistake, the doubling down on failed policies, the fetishization of the military and the eargerness to start wars, the privledge of dogma over practicality in decision making, the utter refusal to even try to cooperate with the Democratic party for effective governance, the constant, decades long purging of "RINOs" for ever more dogmatic legislators, the push to suppress the vote, the worship of idol figures such as Reagan, Ryan, Limbaugh.. these are all gifts of the authoritarian, who seeks to be protected and ruled by his chosen authority... who has very probably been the man who stood up and said, "Yes, I am the authority." This rot is at the very core of the Republican party, and the very same rot is the key to its current effectiveness as an opposition party.

Don't think I hold any special love for the Democrats either. Both parties suck. Both ideologies are bankrupt. The leadership of both are interested in nothing but power and will do anything to get it. They all belong in prisons. A pox on both their houses.

 

[oftheherd1]

When you're chasing a weed, make sure you get the roots and the stem, not just the fruit. I am too young to know exactly when it happened, but it has certainly been in full flower since the election of Clinton. When they could not defeat the man in an election, we had the impeachment show trial; this had nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with otherizing the Democratic Party. The Tea Party is merely the latest flower of the venom - The roots, I suspect, lie in the decision so long ago to chase the southern strategy, and the implicit otherization of large blocks of the rest of America, blended with the lovely pungent fertilizer of the Religious Right's inherent authoritarianism. The refusal to admit that they may have made a mistake, the doubling down on failed policies, the fetishization of the military and the eargerness to start wars, the privledge of dogma over practicality in decision making, the utter refusal to even try to cooperate with the Democratic party for effective governance, the constant, decades long purging of "RINOs" for ever more dogmatic legislators, the push to suppress the vote, the worship of idol figures such as Reagan, Ryan, Limbaugh.. these are all gifts of the authoritarian, who seeks to be protected and ruled by his chosen authority... who has very probably been the man who stood up and said, "Yes, I am the authority." This rot is at the very core of the Republican party, and the very same rot is the key to its current effectiveness as an opposition party.

I stand in awe sir.

 

[WC_lun]

When you're chasing a weed, make sure you get the roots and the stem, not just the fruit. I am too young to know exactly when it happened, but it has certainly been in full flower since the election of Clinton. When they could not defeat the man in an election, we had the impeachment show trial; this had nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with otherizing the Democratic Party. The Tea Party is merely the latest flower of the venom - The roots, I suspect, lie in the decision so long ago to chase the southern strategy, and the implicit otherization of large blocks of the rest of America, blended with the lovely pungent fertilizer of the Religious Right's inherent authoritarianism. The refusal to admit that they may have made a mistake, the doubling down on failed policies, the fetishization of the military and the eargerness to start wars, the privledge of dogma over practicality in decision making, the utter refusal to even try to cooperate with the Democratic party for effective governance, the constant, decades long purging of "RINOs" for ever more dogmatic legislators, the push to suppress the vote, the worship of idol figures such as Reagan, Ryan, Limbaugh.. these are all gifts of the authoritarian, who seeks to be protected and ruled by his chosen authority... who has very probably been the man who stood up and said, "Yes, I am the authority." This rot is at the very core of the Republican party, and the very same rot is the key to its current effectiveness as an opposition party.

I have to say I agree with this. The sad thing about it is our country needs strong, common sense, conservative voices to be the foil against too rapid change and increased government beuracracy. Unfortunately, we are left with what you describe above. The Democrats are not perfect by a long shot, but they have not let thier party be completley taken over by the far side of the left. There are plenty of what have been described moderate Democrats. Twenty years ago, those same people would have been considered conservative themselves. Heck, in today's Republican party, Mr Reagan would be viewed as too liberal to win his party's nomination for much of anything, much less president. I really hope future elections bring out the more moderate voices in the Republican party, so the actual bussiness of governance, instead of the bussiness of grabbing power at any cost, can start happening again.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Just in case anyones following along, and wasn't able to find/understand what the official case states, here's a link
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_697
this site gives an unbiased view of the facts of any case by the supreme court.

 

[billc]

The truth about the "southern strategy," and one part of the political magic trick that the democrats pulled off...

http://blackquillandink.com/?p=6082

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.
And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.
The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”
This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.
Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.
“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”
At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the
“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.
Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.
“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.
In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

The democrat party has, since the days of slavery, been the party of racism. When they couldn't stop the newly freed slaves and their Republican allies from voting and pursuing their new freedom at the ballot box, through violence and intimidation, they realized that if they couldn't get black votes, they would lose their power. So, they decided to buy the votes of all minorities, hence, LBJ's great society. They have since moved on to being the party of all racism, and use the accusation of racism to attack anyone who would try to remove their candidates from office.

The "dog whistle," which is supposed to be a "republican," tool, is in reality a democrat tool. They blow the "dog whistle," when they have a republican they want to attack. They find some innocent word or phrase uttered by the Republican or conservative, blow the "dog whistle," which directs the activists and main stream media supporters to pile on the victim in question, and tries to intimidate anyone else who might think to voice honest opinions in the political debate. The tea party is one of the main targets of this "dog whistle," attack. They are not racist in action or philosophy, they are non-violent and seek limited government. At their creation the democrats realized they were a major threat and blew the "dog whistle," to direct their members to attack it ruthlessly.

Here is a tea party speaker...oh no, he's an "African," American...does that mean he is a racist against himself???

And here he is again, (I really like Alphonso Rachel and his video commentaries...he pulls no punches...so I'll post another of his videos... he also mentions the earliest version of the "dog whistle," in this video...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XAQJ-s6CfY&feature=related

The real authoritarian party is the democrat party, they are the ones who use violence, through their union allies and left wing activists in the OWS movement and other left wing groups, to intimidate their opponents. The democrat party wants government to be huge and all controlling, hence the passing of obamacare with no Republican support or input, they simply pushed it through. The desire to control what you eat, what you use, toilets, light bulbs, washing machines, how you use your private property, through the E.P.A. and other government agencies, is more than enough evidence of their authoritarian direction. Look at the worst regulations that afflict private citizens and you will see democrats supporting it. Look at their appointees to the supreme court in the Kelo decision, the Heller decision and Citizen united and any decision between increased government and increased freedom and the leftist Justices always, always, side on increasing government size and power. So no, the Republicans may be greedy, and often corrupt, but the democrats are the true authoritarians.

The voter i.d. movement is the latest movement to be "dog whistled," by the democrats. Any poll you look at shows that all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin, support showing i.d. to vote to protect the vote. The democrats use voter fraud to win close elections, look at the Al franken election or bush vs. gore and you can see this. Voter i.d. laws make cheating more difficult. Since most Americans support voter i.d. use at the polling place, they blew the "dog whistle," to intimidate people who support voter i.d. Now their activists and their media allies know to throw out charges of racism to silence and intimidate people who support protecting the ballot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html

The latest public opinion poll I've conducted with colleagues at the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication (CPC) finds that Americans strongly support voter identification laws--those which require individuals to show government issued identification when they vote.
But we also find that support for the laws depends on how they are presented to public. When ID laws are framed using arguments in support of the laws, or an argument stating that fraud is rare, the public tends to favor them at high levels.

This support for the voter i.d. laws is why the democrats use the "dog whistle," to attack it because so many African Americans actually support the voter i.d. laws...they need to convince them it is racist to support them...

hence...

Yet, when voter ID laws are framed as taking away voting rights, the public is significantly less likely to favor them.

Anyone remember this exchange between obama and the republicans...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.
The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.
At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: “This is a grave situation facing the country.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a "broader group."
After Friday's meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.
But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

 

[WC_lun]

The Southern Strategy has already been admitted to by Republicans. Your link fu cannot change history.

I remember the stimulus package not being as large as Obama first wanted it in a nod to Republicans. Economist still say it should have been more. Despite that, most economist say the stimulus helped the economy.

 

[arnisador]

Originally, as I understand it, a college student who was trying to buy the books he needed for class noticed that they sell for a lot less money in his home country. So he asked his relatives back home to buy them for him and send them to him in the USA. Then he started a small business doing that.

This happened to me on my textbook--most sales in S. Korea, shipped here after being sold on Amazon etc. Cost me a fair amount of cash. I didn't complain--you can't fight economics--but I wasn't very happy about it either.

It's not a simple issue--it breaks down into different types of merchandise.

 

[arnisador]

Well, vote for Gary Johnson and be sure that if Obama wins the judges he appoints would vote the wrong way on this issue. If this issue is important to you, and everyone else in the country...beware who appoints the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. You may say this won't be affected by who wins the next election, but other issues, just as important as this will be decided...who do you want making those decisions?

Do you trust congress to change the law? To change it in a way that actually addresses the issue the right way?

Why is it so clear to you that there's a single right way?

 

[arnisador]

The court must rule in favor of what they determine the law to say, but this is just against common sense. When you realize it is because a book company was basically hiking prices up for American consumers and didn't want this student cutting into that inflated profit, it becomes a sad thing.

It's the same thing with pharmaceuticals--sold much more cheaply in poorer countries then sold via the Internet here.

If the pharm. companies don't sell a drug in a given country, the govt. will ignore the patent and produce it themselves under the same privilege the U.S. govt. reserves to itself to ignore patents. If the pharm. companies don't sell a drug at a locally "affordable" price in a given country, the govt. will ignore the patent and produce it themselves under the same privilege the U.S. govt. reserves to itself to ignore patents. This has played out recently in Thailand and Brazil.

So they have to sell them there cheaply or lose all profits on them and watch their patents be ignored. It's a no-win situation.

Books/music/movies are somewhat similar--but here they'll be photocopied (books) or digitally copied by individuals and resold in that form instead. The govt. will ignore it, esp. in the case of needed textbooks. India was long notorious for people photocopying textbooks rather than buying them. If they don't sell the stuff cheaply, they'll make no money at all--and see the notion of thievery of their intellectual property reinforced, which will make it ever harder to stop it.

The prices are high here, yes, but they always were. What you're seeing is the pressure of sovereign govts. to ignore, or choose not to enforce, patents and copyrights. Unless you're willing to bomb Thailand for making a U.S. firm's blood pressure meds. rather than buying them at U.S. prices, this has been the best solution that had been found--make some money there and discourage the notion that just stealing the ideas was OK. Pre-Internet, it was fairly stable. Now, on this flat earth, not so much.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Only question I have is this: Were those legitimate copies or bootlegs? If they are legit, then it sucks that royalties were lost, but blame it on the publisher not a smart shopper. If they were bootleg then throw the book (no pun intended) at the shmuck.

If I buy something, I can resell it. Period.
If I buy a cd, a video tape, a dvd, a bluray, or a photo, I can resell that physical item.
I can even legally burn a copy or 2 of those for my own use while I own the original. (If I sell or otherwise give the original away, I am required to destroy or pass along the archival copies as well).

If you buy a photo print from me, you can sell, give away, eat even that print, and don't owe me a cent more.
You can't scan it, take it to Walgreens and scan it and make 50 copies, or submit it to National Fluffigraphic, unless you have my permission.
But you can sell it.
At a profit even.
and not owe me any more money.

So, in this case, I see only 1 right way. That's to continue to allow us to resell what we obtain legally without additional obligation.

As to lost revenues, add in a restricted edition clause or something to your contracts. There are existing legal means to achieve restricted sales. Like changing the page order for international editions so they don't work for US students.