http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-o...CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s busy agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.
There's a big difference between selling the odd thing you've had for personal use for a while ... versus bringing in millions of dollars worth of parallel imports to compete with the original licence holder.
There's a big differenceThe principle is the same tho. Copyright law "protects" the profits of the producer from competition. Producers of new vehicles and books certainly face competition from used vehicles and books. It's simply an extension of this protection to make all resale of copyrighted or patented products illegal. imh, non-patent lawyer, opinion, this is a less radical shift than the SCOTUS decreeing that governments can use their eminent domain power to sieze property for the benefit of private, for profit, interests, when the Constitution clearly requires the power only be used for "public use".Steve
Copyright law "protects" the profits of the producer from competition.Incorrect. Copyright law protects the author from having copies of his or her own work sold by others. Others are free to compete as much as they like provided they produce their own work.imh, non-patent lawyer, opinion, this is a less radical shift than the SCOTUS decreeing that governments can use their eminent domain power to sieze property for the benefit of private, for profit, interests, when the Constitution clearly requires the power only be used for "public use".Correct but, like yours, it's just my opinion.Desert ("Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.") Dave
"Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box."Unfortunately, one type of technology nullifies and defeats all four of the boxes at once:Unmanned drones.Think about it.:-o
>>>Copyright law "protects" the profits of the producer from competition.<<<Incorrect. Copyright law protects the author from having copies of his or her own work sold by others.And it is copies of the protected work that we are talking about, used copies.Example: an episode of Gilligan's Island is broadcast on the network in 1966, and the producers of the episode receive their royalty.For the next 45 years, every time that episode was broadcast in syndication, the copyright holder received another royalty.When the episode was made in the 60s, VHS tape and DVD didn't even exist. But in the 80s, the ep was put onto tape, and the copyright holder had his hand out again. And when the ep was put on DVD, the right holder had his hand out again. In the right holder's mind, a used DVD on eBay prevents the sale of a new DVD, regardless whether the eBay DVD is an original, licensed copy or a bootleg copy, so he is "cheated" out of his royalty.Around 1980, I saw a factory made, licensed copy, of a theatrical film on VHS tape, with a notice that the purchase of the tape was, in fact, a license to watch the film for 10 years, after which, the tape was to be returned to the producer because the license to view will expire.The SCOTUS has upheld the "fair use" docturine for decades. First in the suit against Xerox because photocopiers could potentially be used to copy protected works, then against Sony, because a Betamax could be used to copy protected works. SCOTUS held that it was permissable for individuals to copy protected works for their personal, private use.The MPAA, for decades, was trying to have a royalty fee charged on all recordable media, the proceeds of which, to be distributed among a cadre of right holders. Attempts to charge royalties on blank cassette tapes and VHS tapes failed because there was no way to determine in advance, if a blank tape would be used to copy protected work. The suit against CD-Rs did succeed however. For a while, there were CD recorders made for use with component stereo systems. These CD recorders would only record to special "music" CD-Rs on which the royalty had been collected. I can see the right holder's argument, especially that purchase, like in the case of that 1980 VHS tape, is actually the purchase of a limited right of use, that does not transfer to subsequent purchasers of the physical media.And forget about the resale restriction only applying to products produced outside of the US. US products would be covered by the same ruling within about 3 nanoseconds. Pick your argument: "equal protection under the law", "encourages US companies to move production offshore" or "'cause we say so".Unlike the "public use" requirement for eminent domain, which SCOTUS has invalidated, there is no "fair use" limit on Federal power to enforce patents and copyrights.Article. I.Section. 8.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...In the United States, for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application on which the patent was granted and any prior U.S. or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications from which the patent claims priority. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest earliest filing date as above (excluding provisional applications) or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may be had for certain administrative delays. For design patents (patents based on decorative, non-functional features) the term is 14 years from the issue date.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patentDuration of copyrightWorks created in or after 1978 are extended copyright protection for a term defined in 17 U.S.C. § 302. With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta...Good news! Those 1980 "designer jeans" you have stashed are now free of patents and can be sold.Bad news: I would not be able to sell my 1998 Civic for another 6 years, when the patents on the engineering features expire, and then only after I pry out the fuel injection system, because the software will be copyrighted for another 100 years.<insert rant about private interests' capture of government powers here>Steve
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.You will be able to recommend 4 more posts today. (explain this)And it is copies of the protected work that we are talking about, used copies....Good news! Those 1980 "designer jeans" you have stashed are now free of patents and can be sold.Bad news: my designer jeans don't fit me anymore.
Not exactly the same. This case involves the SAME publisher selling at different prices in different countries. No Copyright was broken in EITHER country where the product was originally sold. So one has to ask if what the copyright owner was doing in the FIRST place was moral/legal, and who was actually getting ripped off? ?I am not against having copyrights and creative people getting paid for their work. I am just wondering how to justify this price difference when it is significantly greater than the cost of re-shipping the books back to the USA? There MAY be justification for it... are the books printed in two different places? Yet that isn't a matter of the writer getting another dime... it has to do with the employees involved in actually producing the printed books. This is interesting, to be sure... but it may not be precedent for a more general rule.
BJI am just wondering how to justify this price difference when it is significantly greater than the cost of re-shipping the books back to the USA?I must admit to being torn between is it right and fair that the copyright holder has the right to sell his product at any price he chooses in any country he wants to or does he have to sell it at a lower price because the authorities in any particular country determine that the price is too high ?? Generic drugs are a classic case in point. Why should an American drug company not be able to sell their drugs at any price they think fit ?? The original drug is their intellectual property and just because NZ thinks the price is too high and buys a direct copy, which is what generic drugs are, doesn't make the theft of the intellectual property right. It is a pretty strong argument. On the other hand I see the point that screwing the customer by forbidding parallel importing, for example, thus forcing the sale through a company appointed single agent is morally wrong but that is more of a Government control issue than a copyright issue. Both Australia and New Zealand have been screwed outrageously by foreign companies selling through single agents but the internet has changed that forever. I recently found a Braun shaver foil from Amazon was nineteen USD. That same shaver foil bought through a local shop was seventyfour AUD. In the end I found an internet source at close to the Amazon price - and incidentally when I tried to buy through Amazon as I had done previously the sale was blocked. Obviously Braun have closed the loophole that allowed Amazon to sell down here. Likewise the regional DVD encoding is a blatant attempt by copyright DVD holders to force the public to buy DVD's at an exalted price to skim the market. I say attempt because I simply bought an all-region Chinese DVD player. RegardsHarmy
harmy I recently found a Braun shaver foil from Amazon was nineteen USD. I buy my cat's flea medicine (Revolution) from Australia because in the US it is a (vet) prescription drug which artificially raises the price.I think we need to go in the direction of freedom. The original seller can set any price they want and the buyers can resell anywhere they want.Peter
I buy my cat's flea medicine (Revolution) from Australia because in the US it is a (vet) prescription drug which artificially raises the price.Peter, whatever you do....dont kill your cat.....Dave
I must admit to being torn between is it right and fair that the copyright holder has the right to sell his product at any price he chooses in any country he wants to or does he have to sell it at a lower price because the authorities in any particular country determine that the price is too high ??Drug prices have been a hot issue in the US for several years. The exact same US made, patented, drug can be bought for significantly less in Canada or Mexico, because the drug companies negotiated the price with those country's national health systems. People in the US want to reimport the US made drugs from Canada because the price is lower. Of course, the US drug companies oppose that idea and use the government to prevent it.Prescription Drug Re-ImportationQuestion and Answer Sheet What is the law in the U.S. regarding re-importation of prescription drugs?It is against current U.S. law to re-import prescription drugs (the legal exceptions are that drugsmanufactured in the U.S. may be re-imported by the original manufacturer or if the drug is requiredfor “emergency medical care”). It is also illegal to advertise or otherwise promote re-importeddrugs.http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/international/...I have been pondering what a US with "IP rights" run amok would look like.Assessing royalties on used cars would be a snap. Automakers would require their vendors assign IP rights, giving the automakers complete IP control. As each sale of a car requires the issuance of a new title, and since the Constitution says IP enforcement is the government's job, the DMV becomes the royalty collector: X% for styling IP for 14 years, Y% for engineering IP for 20 years, and Z% for software copyright for 120 years. Horray! The Benz Motorwagen is now IP free and can be sold without royalty. Everyone else pays.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent-Motorwagen'course, just a matter of time until some beancounter at GM decides that their royalty is due when the license plate is renewed every year.Renting a video is also a snap. Every time Netflix drops a DVD in the mail, or streams a program to a subscriber, it electronicly transmits the royalty to the right holder.Buying an existing building gets more complicated. The archetect's work is free after 14 years. The IP on the building materials is free after 20 years, but many items within a building have a service life of 20 years or less, so in a 30 year old house, makers of the furnace, paint, carpet, roof shingles and more will have their hands out as those components will have been replaced. Buyers will have to pay for an "IP audit" to determine what royalties are due, and to who. The royalties will be collected by the County Registrar of Deeds, again, because the Constitution says enforcement is the government's job.For small items that are sold between private parties, the resale market will simply be shut down as the transactions cannot be tracked like auto and real estate transactions are, and the rights holders would be afraid of "being cheated".Making all this happen is a minor step for a SCOTUS that has conferred upon corporations the free speech rights of individual people.Steve
Peter,Our dog has a hormone problem after we got her spayed. The solution was something called Proin. The vet was charging us around $30/bottle, so we found a vet supply house in Nebraska that sold it for $9/bottle - but we needed a prescription. After much hemming and hawing, the vet sent them a prescription. After about 2 years of this, we talked to the vet and negotiated a price of around $15 / bottle. We prefer a local supplier, but we did want him to make some money.PM
We prefer a local supplier, but we did want him to make some money.PMIf it was something more serious than a once-a-month flea treatment, I suppose I would want to keep the vet in the loop.Peter
For thousands of years, farmers saved part of their crop as seed for next year's planting.But now seeds are patented. The US' quisling government in Iraq crafted a law:Order, 81 states, "Farmers shall be prohibited from reusing seeds of protected varieties." In amongst the other comprehensive measures curtailing Iraq's right to its own production sources, Order 81 gives companies the right to own any seed that is not of traditional stock.http://libcom.org/news/article.php/iraq-intellectual-propert...No more saving seed from your own crop for planting. Pay the tithe to Monsanto every year.Steve
What is amusing is the way they're willing to sue farmers who never planted their seeds, but wound up with them mixed into their crop anyway. We had their representatives here in NZ claiming we would "miss the bus" if we persisted in preventing their use here. The response was basically that we would rather not be hit by it. I do not regard them kindly. "Roger Nelson told AgWeek: "A farmer can go out and buy brand new, conventional seed and you can't get any written guarantees that they're GMO-free. If we liked the conventional variety we're using, we might save some of it for seed in 2002. Under a current ruling out of Canada, if that seed contained some Roundup Ready genes, we'd be infringing on Monsanto's patent. It's insanity.""http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
If it was something more serious than a once-a-month flea treatment, I suppose I would want to keep the vet in the loop.Well, not so serious, but messy. W/ this hormone imbalance the dog "leaks" urine, typically when she wakes up from a nap.PM
No more saving seed from your own crop for planting. Pay the tithe to Monsanto every year.We save seeds from the garden. We planted heritage varieties of green beans. The bean seeds are drying in a tray on the window sill in the sun room. No copyright/patent protection on these varieties<g>.PM
What is amusing is the way they're willing to sue farmers who never planted their seeds, but wound up with them mixed into their crop anyway. iirc, the same thing has happened in the US. The farmer next door plants Monsanto seed and the wind carries the pollen over to the conventional corn, so the farmer ends up "infringing" the Monsanto patent.Steve
No more saving seed from your own crop for planting. Pay the tithe to Monsanto every year.Steve Steve,I just cut my intake of GMOs......I started particularly with wheat.......I feel a million times better.......for those who have a weight problem....study the wheat free diet......makes a world of difference.....The GMOs will prove to be carcinogens.......can we sue Monsanto later??????Dave
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |