A note for college HN'ers: you don't need foreign relatives to mail you the books. amazon.co.uk will happily ship to US addresses. It costs a little more to ship and takes a week or so longer, but you can still save a substantial amount. I bought most of my engineering texts this way.
Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#32This 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...
It may raise the price of used items, but it will also lower the recovered value of selling used items, by increasing inefficiency.
You'd get more trash, as people throw things away because they aren't work the hassle of re-selling.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#33Yeesh. 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…
First of all, the title asks about iPod and you refer to iPad. But the real question is why do you care about the possibility that consumers might pay less for their iPads? Are you trying to keep prices high?
This is a simple issue of parallel importation. Americans pay more for the same products for which people in other parts of the world, like Thailand, pay less. That's because America does not like the idea of parallel imports. Other countries allow it because it lowers the price of goods to the consumer by giving them choice. The way America enforces its prohibition on parallel imports is, you guessed it, through rules on importation.
The First Sale Doctrine is not a defense to copyright infringement under S. 106(3). See below. That is a ridiculous argument. The Cornell math student was caught red-handed, he stood no chance on appeal and does not have a chance at winning at this level either. He was making obscene amounts of money (see evidence of his dramatically enhanced net worth introduced at trial) selling books that should have never have been allowed into the country. More than enough to support paying his tuition. Hardly a starving student.
So why is the S.Ct. hearing this one? Because the District Court said something very stupid and this needs to be fixed. The First Sale Doctrine does not apply to imports. Never has, never will. See below. Yet the District Court in refuting this losing argument chose to add some new reasoning of its own, instead of relying on the statute and sufficiently similar precedent, and made the erroneous statement that imported copies made elswehere are not covered by S. 109 because of the statutory construction. As everyone can see the statute is very ambiguous with respect to "lawfully made". And it's been that way for a very long time. There's no need to open that can of worms. The First Sale Docrine simply has never had an exception for imports and it's not ever going to have one. This is because the U.S. does not want parallel imports.
The S. Ct. is going to affirm the lower court decision but they will fix the District Court's blunder in trying to intepret the statute when it was wholly unnecessary. They will make it perfectly clear that the First Sale Doctrine applies to copies of US copyrighted works no matter where they are produced. They'll find a way to do it without opening a potetial hole in the Act by applying arbitrary interpretations of ambiguous language as the lower court chose to do. In nerd speak, the District Court has introduced a potentially major security flaw that puts copyright holders at risk. And the S. Ct. is going to fix it, proactively.
Sec. 109(a) [First Sale Doctrine] "Nothwithstanding 106(3)..."
Sec 106(3) [It's infringement] "to distribute copies . . . to the public by sale"
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#34I firstly don't understand why Wiley didn't sue the guy for the importation, rather than the resale. Importing copyrighted works for anything other than personal use unambiguously requires copyright holder permission by a plain reading of 17 U.S.C. 602 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_17.txt). I think that is a bad law, but it is nevertheless an existing law.
Instead, they try to argue that it is the resale which is illegal, which requires a very creative interpretation of the law, and somehow manage to convince a federal district court and the 2nd circuit of that interpretation.
The interpretation that goods manufactured overseas are automatically not 'lawfully made under this title' is an extreme interpretation. The 2nd Circuit opinion said that 'lawfully made under this title' could mean any of '(1) "manufactured in the United States," (2) "any work made that is subject to protection under this title," or (3) "lawfully made under this title had this title been applicable."'. They decided that it means 1. However, to say that it means anything other than 3 seems to be stretching the plain text interpretation. 'Lawfully made under this law' is synonymous for 'Lawfully made, according to this law'.
They claim that the justification for their ruling is that 17 U.S.C. 602 would be inapplicable if they took anything other than interpretation 1, and so congress must have meant interpretation 1. But this is simply false by the plain text interpretation of the statute. If interpretation 3 is the right one, then it would be legal to import a copy of a copyrighted work in your personal baggage for personal use, and it would be legal to sell it in the US if you later decided you didn't want it, provided the circumstances in which that copy was made would have been legal under US law, but it would still be illegal under 17 U.S.C. 602 to import copies for the purpose of selling them, since 17 U.S.C. 109 only covers "sell[ing] or otherwise dispos[ing] of the possession of that copy or phonorecord".
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#35Yeesh. 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…
The copyright issue is that your iPod or iPad comes with a bunch of copies of software from various places pre-installed on it. That software has copyrights. So you'd potentially have to have permission from all of those copyright holders.
(But I'd think that said permission should normally already exist - else Apple would be unable to sell that hardware.)
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#36I firstly don't understand why Wiley didn't sue the guy for the importation, rather than the resale. Importing copyrighted works for anything other than personal use unambiguously requires copyright holder permission by a plain reading of 17 U.S.C. 602 ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_17.txt ). I think that is a bad law, but it is nevertheless an existing law. Instead, they try to argue that it is the res…
I have not been following the case. But normal practice is that when you sue someone, you put forth every legal argument that you can think of in the hope that at least one sticks. And any lines of reasoning that come with minimum damages are even better, because you want to sue for as much as you can. (I believe that copyright infringement comes with fairly significant minimum penalties.)
This often leads to weird counter-factual arguments of the form, "A is true, and if A is true, then my client should win. Even if A proves false, B is true, and if B is true then my client should win. Even if B is also false..." If you think A you can show that A is true, why do you need the rest? Because this is about convincing the judge, not about the rest. No matter how clearly A is true, there is a chance the judge will disagree with you, and you still want to leave them a way to rule in your favor.
Not, IANAL, this is likewise not legal advice.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the author is referring to the copyright symbol (the c with a circle around it). This article could have used more thorough proofreading and editing.
In which case the author is still wrong. The copyright logo has not been necessary to enjoy copyright protections since 1989: > The notice was once required in order to receive copyright protection in the United States, but in countries respecting the Berne convention this is no longer the case. The United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol
It is not necessary, but it is still done. Why? Because it takes away the defense, "But I didn't know that it was copyrighted!" It also makes the copyright holder easier to track down for people who want permission.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#38Yeesh. 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…
First of all, the title asks about iPod and you refer to iPad. But the real question is why do you care about the possibility that consumers might pay less for their iPads? Are you trying to keep prices high? This is a simple issue of parallel importation. Americans pay more for the same products for which people in other parts of the world, like Thailand, pay less. That's because America does not like the idea of pa…
There's a typo in the 3d para. and at the bottom. It should say 602(a) not 106(3).
106 delineates the rights. (And those rights are subject to 109.)
602 delineates what is infringement.
The dissent in the 2d Cir. case points out that 602 derives from 106. True, but there's no precedent that says 109 can subjugate 602. In fact, the S. Ct. in Quality King was quite clear: 602 is broader than 109.
If we're atlking about importing quantities of goods for resale in the U.S., either they cannot be imported or the importer will pay dearly in tariffs. That is how the major American corporations, who lobby for the the copyright laws, doing business globally wanted it. And that is how it shall be.
No court should be saying 109 trumps 602. This would open the floodgates to parallel imports. It would allow an industry to flourish that undercuts U.S. pricing, i.e. the prices American companies want to charge Americans.
These companies that sell goods in many markets worlwide are already unhappy with countries that allow parallel imports since consumers in those countries can potentially buy goods at the lowest prices worldwide, not just at the price an American company thinks consumers in that country should pay.
In sum, it destroys the differential pricing schemes these companies use to maximize profits.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#39All of the cases involve resale of items that were imported without authorization of the copyright owner. When you buy an iPod from Apple in the US, that import was authorized by Apple.
Let's analyze your statement. What does it mean to import an item for resale without the copyright owner? I see 2 scenarios. First, the importer bought the item and turns around to sell it. That's easy, I bought a DVD and now want to sell it, why should whoever I bought the DVD from have a say with what I do with it. In my opinion the same applies whether it is 1 DVD or 500. This gets real easy if you put it in terms of physical goods. I bought 500 screws from you. Why should you have any say over what I do with those screws after the purchase. If the screw has some kind of copyrighted mark on it the rules shouldn't change.
The second case is if in our purchase agreement you add stipulations on what I can do. Then that's easy too. I will buy your 500 screws for a discounted price and agree not to export the screws. If I break the contract then you can sue for breach, in the jurisdiction that we agreed to in the contract.
Neither case needs to involve the US government nor the courts to decide what is commonly understood.
Re: Selling a used iPod can violate a copyright law
#40Yeesh. 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.
Of course it makes sense, every such rule has some rational intent. The intent here is market segmentation: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
But my response to that kind of bullshit is as always: if you can make profit at price X in Mexico City and the importer can still make their profit after undercutting you in US, then you're just scalping your US customers. There should be no laws that help you do that.