Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law • Hacker News Board

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#21

Post by tikhonj » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:34 PM UTC

excuse-me wrote: post #9

fleitz wrote: post #2

Wouldn't essentially everything be illegal to resell if this was approved? Couldn't Ford prevent people from selling their used cars because it contains a Ford logo, electronics, and software all of which Ford owns the copyrights to?

If at some point Ford decided it was in their interest to restrict sales of used Fords then yes they could. Although it's likely that high end makers would do so first - a supercar maker might be more interested in protecting it's brand image by keeping broken down versions of it's car off the street. Ford is more likely to suffer from the anger of departing new buyers than gain from there not being 40year old Ford p…

In fact, I think some supercar makers already do something like this--they make you sign a contract limiting how soon you can sell your car or even mandating that you allow the company to review and control whom you can sell the car to.

Of course, this only works for really expensive but limited edition cars. If there is a several year waiting list just to get the chance to drop half a million on a car, the car maker can get away with almost anything--the customer is obviously willing to go through a lot of trouble! This is designed to stop people from flipping supercars.

Also, there is a very important difference between a voluntary contract and an abuse of copyright law. Now, if every car maker mandated such a contract on every car, it would be a big issue even if it was ostensibly voluntary. In a free market, some other company not mandating such a contract would emerge; however, markets rarely function perfectly. I think this is an interesting parallel to the whole safe boot nonsense: if there was more diversity in the market it wouldn't be an issue, but the market is heavily dominated by a handful of companies, so it is an issue from a purely practical standpoint.

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#22

Post by jrockway » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:37 PM UTC

This is a good thing. If everyone selling used items has to go further underground, it will raise the price of used items. That means items will hold their value for longer, making it less attractive to simply throw things away. Longer use cycles means less trash, and that's good for the environment.

Bottom line: more money for selling your stuff, and less land being razed for landfills.

In some world, that is...

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#23

Post by excuse-me » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:56 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #21

excuse-me wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If at some point Ford decided it was in their interest to restrict sales of used Fords then yes they could. Although it's likely that high end makers would do so first - a supercar maker might be more interested in protecting it's brand image by keeping broken down versions of it's car off the street. Ford is more likely to suffer from the anger of departing new buyers than gain from there not being 40year old Ford p…

In fact, I think some supercar makers already do something like this--they make you sign a contract limiting how soon you can sell your car or even mandating that you allow the company to review and control whom you can sell the car to. Of course, this only works for really expensive but limited edition cars. If there is a several year waiting list just to get the chance to drop half a million on a car, the car maker…

On the other hand, suppose a group of car makers all coincidentally decided to impose this - purely for safety concerns.

And while they couldn't ban after market parts, they could make the engine not start if the new brakes/mufflers/cat didn't give the correct crypto response to the engine management system.

And just imagine that congress would bow down to the car makers (that it had just bailed out) and rule that you couldn't modify the engine computer - in the interests of safety of course.

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#24

Post by excuse-me » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:59 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #11

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #4

If it becomes illegal, I doubt the US government will have the money to enforce it, and neither will copyright holders. So don't worry.

It's probably unenforceable for individuals but, what about the guy who starts a business buying broken iPods, fixing them, and reselling them? He would definitely be a target.

This is supposedly the reason Apple offer free engraving on iPods. You are less likely to sell a personalized item and it's resale value is lower - so reducing the used iPod market

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#25

Post by josho » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:01 PM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #3

So many actions these days can violate copyright law. I really don't bother trying to figure out what may or may not do that. And I can only think of the absurdness of getting copyright "permission" for each holder for an iPhone, or for any device that has firmware on it. BTW: Can an attorney possibly answer this: Where is the proof of copy on an Audio CD?

Agreed. Common sense needs to prevail.

To avoid cheap text books getting dumped in the market change the Mexican version to include content relevant to a Mexican audience. Making importation into the US less appealing.

For DVDs make the default language Spanish.

For watches Add 'Omega Mexico' to the logo.

Since the manufacturers aren't taking these steps that add marginal cost to their product then clearly it isn't a significant problem. It seems so straightforward, what am I missing that the courts are struggling with.

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#26

Post by joshAg » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:11 PM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #20

> Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. This is not a good explanation. Does anyone know why exactly first-sale does not apply to products manufactured abroad?

here is a great explanation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4149211

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#27

Post by ben1040 » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

excuse-me wrote: post #9

fleitz wrote: post #2

Wouldn't essentially everything be illegal to resell if this was approved? Couldn't Ford prevent people from selling their used cars because it contains a Ford logo, electronics, and software all of which Ford owns the copyrights to?

If at some point Ford decided it was in their interest to restrict sales of used Fords then yes they could. Although it's likely that high end makers would do so first - a supercar maker might be more interested in protecting it's brand image by keeping broken down versions of it's car off the street. Ford is more likely to suffer from the anger of departing new buyers than gain from there not being 40year old Ford p…

It would be just as easy for a hypothetical Ford to do what GM did with the EV-1 -- don't sell the car and only offer it for lease.

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#28

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

josho wrote: post #25

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #3

So many actions these days can violate copyright law. I really don't bother trying to figure out what may or may not do that. And I can only think of the absurdness of getting copyright "permission" for each holder for an iPhone, or for any device that has firmware on it. BTW: Can an attorney possibly answer this: Where is the proof of copy on an Audio CD?

Agreed. Common sense needs to prevail. To avoid cheap text books getting dumped in the market change the Mexican version to include content relevant to a Mexican audience. Making importation into the US less appealing. For DVDs make the default language Spanish. For watches Add 'Omega Mexico' to the logo. Since the manufacturers aren't taking these steps that add marginal cost to their product then clearly it isn't a…

Companies routinely move their wares around the world for the best prices, as well as lay off and rehire in cheap market segments. I believe it's called wage arbitrage.

Companies will also move their headquarters to different 'tax brackets' (read: countries that offer the best deal).

To be competitive, you move non-critical stuffs to cheapest areas. Makes business sense.

YET, we peons cannot buy media outside our 'zone', thanks to DVD and Bluray zone controls. And it's illegal, as in felony, to break this crap.

YET, we peons cannot textbooks outside the zone a company ordains. Meh.

Why are companies allowed to min-max all of their operations, yet when the small guy does it, it's illegal in XYZ many ways?

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#29

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #18

daeken wrote: post #6

> Almost every product made now has a copyright logo on it. That logo, alone, empowers manufacturers to sue people for copyright infringement for unlawful sales. Logos are not copyrightable (well, you could copyright an image of one...) but fall under trademark law. I have a hard time trusting an article about this stuff that confuses copyright and trademark law; they're two completely unrelated, different beasts.

Logos are copyrightable. They are also trademarkeable. They are not, however, patentable, except to the extent that they are three dimensional, in which case they may be eligible for patent design protection. I have a hard time trusting a commenter who confuses copyright and trademark law. They are two related legal concepts that provide different types of protection for intellectual property.

My understanding was that a logo could fall in for a design patent if the logo was part of the design of the items said company sold.

For example: iPhone 3GS. Pretty mirror apple logo is Apple trademark. It is a picture, so copyrightable. And it is part of the design and 'look and feel' of an iPhone, so patentable as well.

But I'm no lawyer..

Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law

#30

Post by haberman » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:37 PM UTC

JackC wrote: post #19

Yeesh. What a mess. So first of all, let me recommend SCOTUSBlog and the actual court decision rather than the Atlantic: http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=143279 http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-... Now what's going on here: Congress said (1) you have a right to resell copies of copyrighted work "lawfully made under this Title", but (2) you can't import copyrighted work from other countries with…

> This is intended to make it possible to sell things at different prices in Mexico City and LA, which in turn makes it more viable to sell things in Mexico City at all. You may not love it, but it's at least a rational system.

Thanks for this explanation, I've despised these anti-arbitrage region-coding-like rules for a while, but when you put it this way it at least makes some kind of sense.