The end of internet sales, yard sales and my job?
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
If the supreme court decides that selling secondhand items copyrighted abroad cannot be legally sold within the United States, people like myself might me looking for a new jobs. Almost anything any of us sell second hand- be it books, iPods, clothes or musical instruments- are made at least in part overseas and this law would make that illegal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... aw/258276/
If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law
The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad -- or almost anything else -- without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.
2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.
3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.
4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Here is what's going on.
The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908.
To use a classic example, imagine you buy a novel by Sabina Murray. Sabina owns the copyright to the book, so you can't make a copy of the book. But you bought a copy of the book, and can sell the copy to anyone who'll pay you for it. You can sell it to a neighbor, to a fellow student, or to someone else on Craigslist or on eBay.
But the first-sale rule doesn't just make it possible to sell your books and other creative works like CDs, paintings, or DVDs. 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.
The first-sale doctrine is one thing that makes it lawful to sell almost any good. The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act -- which gives them a right against unauthorized imports -- invalidates the first-sale doctrine.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S., even if the first sale by the copyright holder was abroad and the item was imported back into the U.S. This decision was unanimous and rejected the interpretation preferred by the U.S. government's lawyer -- and the biggest copyright holders.
The legal confusion today concerns only products made abroad.
Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks.
John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher, sells expensive versions of the textbooks here and less expensive versions abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a foreign graduate student at University of Southern California, decided to help pay for his schooling by having relatives buy him copies of the foreign versions abroad, send them to him, whereupon he'd sell those books on eBay to willing students. He'd make money, the students would save money, but Wiley might have fewer sales of its pricey American versions. The case is styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons.
Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine. For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Same for the iPods you've owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad.
That means, you need to ask Apple for permission, and probably Google, whose Maps software comes bundled with the iPad, and includes Google copyrights. Under this rule, when you sell some of your stuff on eBay or Craigslist (a couch, some books, electronics, posters, an old television, a toaster), you have to look up whether it has a copyrighted logo anywhere and find out whether the product was manufactured in the U.S. or abroad.
The lower court decision did acknowledge "the force of the concern" that the rule would lead more companies moving manufacturing abroad, and noted that the law was particularly unclear. But it decided that, if its interpretation of the law should lead to these bizarre conclusions, Congress could sort it out later, which is little comfort considering Congress has a lot to do, and relies on courts not interpreting laws in ways that lead to completely absurd results.
The Omega example comes from a real decision in a California case from the Ninth Circuit. Omega, the Swiss maker of fancy watches, sued Costco, a major retailer, for selling real Omega watches that had a copyrighted logo underneath the watch face. A distributor bought the Omega watches abroad and eventually Costco bought them to sell at a price still lower than what you would pay at an Omega store here in the U.S.
To ensure that Americans pay more for Omegas than people in other parts of the world, Omega sued Costco. That court decided that anything manufactured abroad and authorized only to be sold abroad, not in the U.S., is not subject to the first-sale doctrine in the U.S. The Supreme Court decided to review the Costco v. Omega case back in 2010, but deadlocked at four votes against, four in favor, with Justice Elena Kagan having to sit out the decision because of previous government work on the case.
There is actually a third court decision out there, from the Third Circuit that suggests a different answer. In this case, Sebastian Int'l v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd., the court was somewhat reluctant to accept the limitation of the First Sale doctrine only to products manufactured in the U.S. The court also expressed concern about courts unilaterally strengthening copyright protections to address the issues raised by "gray markets."
Three courts came out three different ways because the language of the law is confusing and it appears to lead to "absurd" results (in the Ninth Circuit's words).
But the Supreme Court doesn't have to impose an absurd result on the nation. The first-sale doctrine reflects basic common sense -- and follows from the logic of treating copyrights and other "intellectual property" with no more protection than regular property. Ever since the end of Medieval feudalism, and the writings of John Locke, we have understood the importance of being able to buy and sell one's own property, including books and watches, both for reasons of economics and liberty.
The Court has several legal justifications for reaching the right result. Courts are supposed to interpret laws to avoid "absurd results" and to avoid constitutional problems -- such as infringing on the free speech rights of Americans that want to buy and sell their own books and creative works that are published abroad and taking away the property rights, without compensation, of the millions of Americans who buy and sell their own stuff every day, in person and online.
Ultimately the Court must choose between bringing copyright law into the Internet age or consigning us all to the dark ages. I hope they choose wisely.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... aw/258276/
If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law
The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad -- or almost anything else -- without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.
2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.
3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.
4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Here is what's going on.
The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908.
To use a classic example, imagine you buy a novel by Sabina Murray. Sabina owns the copyright to the book, so you can't make a copy of the book. But you bought a copy of the book, and can sell the copy to anyone who'll pay you for it. You can sell it to a neighbor, to a fellow student, or to someone else on Craigslist or on eBay.
But the first-sale rule doesn't just make it possible to sell your books and other creative works like CDs, paintings, or DVDs. 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.
The first-sale doctrine is one thing that makes it lawful to sell almost any good. The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act -- which gives them a right against unauthorized imports -- invalidates the first-sale doctrine.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S., even if the first sale by the copyright holder was abroad and the item was imported back into the U.S. This decision was unanimous and rejected the interpretation preferred by the U.S. government's lawyer -- and the biggest copyright holders.
The legal confusion today concerns only products made abroad.
Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks.
John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher, sells expensive versions of the textbooks here and less expensive versions abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a foreign graduate student at University of Southern California, decided to help pay for his schooling by having relatives buy him copies of the foreign versions abroad, send them to him, whereupon he'd sell those books on eBay to willing students. He'd make money, the students would save money, but Wiley might have fewer sales of its pricey American versions. The case is styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons.
Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine. For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Same for the iPods you've owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad.
That means, you need to ask Apple for permission, and probably Google, whose Maps software comes bundled with the iPad, and includes Google copyrights. Under this rule, when you sell some of your stuff on eBay or Craigslist (a couch, some books, electronics, posters, an old television, a toaster), you have to look up whether it has a copyrighted logo anywhere and find out whether the product was manufactured in the U.S. or abroad.
The lower court decision did acknowledge "the force of the concern" that the rule would lead more companies moving manufacturing abroad, and noted that the law was particularly unclear. But it decided that, if its interpretation of the law should lead to these bizarre conclusions, Congress could sort it out later, which is little comfort considering Congress has a lot to do, and relies on courts not interpreting laws in ways that lead to completely absurd results.
The Omega example comes from a real decision in a California case from the Ninth Circuit. Omega, the Swiss maker of fancy watches, sued Costco, a major retailer, for selling real Omega watches that had a copyrighted logo underneath the watch face. A distributor bought the Omega watches abroad and eventually Costco bought them to sell at a price still lower than what you would pay at an Omega store here in the U.S.
To ensure that Americans pay more for Omegas than people in other parts of the world, Omega sued Costco. That court decided that anything manufactured abroad and authorized only to be sold abroad, not in the U.S., is not subject to the first-sale doctrine in the U.S. The Supreme Court decided to review the Costco v. Omega case back in 2010, but deadlocked at four votes against, four in favor, with Justice Elena Kagan having to sit out the decision because of previous government work on the case.
There is actually a third court decision out there, from the Third Circuit that suggests a different answer. In this case, Sebastian Int'l v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd., the court was somewhat reluctant to accept the limitation of the First Sale doctrine only to products manufactured in the U.S. The court also expressed concern about courts unilaterally strengthening copyright protections to address the issues raised by "gray markets."
Three courts came out three different ways because the language of the law is confusing and it appears to lead to "absurd" results (in the Ninth Circuit's words).
But the Supreme Court doesn't have to impose an absurd result on the nation. The first-sale doctrine reflects basic common sense -- and follows from the logic of treating copyrights and other "intellectual property" with no more protection than regular property. Ever since the end of Medieval feudalism, and the writings of John Locke, we have understood the importance of being able to buy and sell one's own property, including books and watches, both for reasons of economics and liberty.
The Court has several legal justifications for reaching the right result. Courts are supposed to interpret laws to avoid "absurd results" and to avoid constitutional problems -- such as infringing on the free speech rights of Americans that want to buy and sell their own books and creative works that are published abroad and taking away the property rights, without compensation, of the millions of Americans who buy and sell their own stuff every day, in person and online.
Ultimately the Court must choose between bringing copyright law into the Internet age or consigning us all to the dark ages. I hope they choose wisely.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Kids in some schools aren't even allowed to have bake sales anymore :shock: can you even believe that shit?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/18/ne ... ationwide/
New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide
By
Published September 18, 2009 | FoxNews.com
ADVERTISEMENT
Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15 million, thanks to a new government campaign.
The "Resale Round-up," launched by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, enforces new limits on lead in children's products and makes it illegal to sell any items that don't meet those limits or have been recalled for any other reason.
The strict standards were set in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of high-profile recalls of Chinese-made toys.
The standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well.
"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."
In order to comply, stores, flea markets, charities and individuals selling used goods — in person or online — are expected to consult the commission's 24-page Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers (pdf) and its Web site for a breakdown of what they can't sell.
Violators caught selling anything on the enormous list face fines of up to $100,000 per infraction and up to $15 million for a related series of infractions.
CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large companies with serious infractions.
"CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year history against companies," Wolfson told FOXNews.com. "CPSC is not seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not resell recalled products."
But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction for families and small resellers.
"Most people having garage sales at this point don't have much anyway, so to have a fine levied against them is tantamount to harassment," Massi told FOXNews.com. "And if you or I asked 100 people about this, they would never even know the law exists."
Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an impact.
"The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the law," Mays told FOXNews.com. "Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price, for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about 2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban — that amounts to just over one dollar per toy."
When FOXNews.com came to his garage sale, vendor Ilan Broochian said the same was not the case for his household.
"You fine me in today's economy $1000 dollars and that would hurt me," Broochian said. "So, just make the fine bigger to them; don't take their responsibility and put it on me."
VIDEO: FOXNews.com Visits the Broochians' Garage Sale
"It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on unsuspecting households," another garage sale organizer, Patti Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. "I think I speak for many people when I say that the government spends too much time interfering in the individual citizen's personal life and this is almost bordering on the ridiculous ... what if it opens up a Pandora's box of litigation brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?"
Wolfson says the law may be tough, but it's necessary to keep consumers — and especially children — safe.
"Many children have choked and died on small parts that have broken off or been incorporated into toys," Wolfson told FOXNews.com.
He noted that dozens of children have swallowed powerful magnets that fell out of magnetic toys and have needed open-chest surgery as result.
"We don’t make haphazard decisions about risks here at CPSC," he said. "So much of what we do here and what this new law aims to achieve is looking at issues where children have been hurt previously."
But critics say the Resale Round-up is just another example of the government overstepping its boundaries.
"It's absurd when nanny-state bureaucrats want to regulate things we buy at mom-and-pop shops or second-hand stores," Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told FOXNews.com. "Consumer product safety is best left to a free market where suppliers can compete based on reputation and track records. American grown-ups aren't stupid, and they know they need to be careful about what they buy for their children from complete strangers at no-name stores."
Toy industry expert and TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne says the law is well-intended, but it may be taking things too far.
"The overall law I think is awfully broad and doesn't take all of the science into effect," he told FOXNews.com. "You can't consume lead by touching something and putting your finger in your mouth. That's not how it happens. The lead has to be injested and has to be injested in particles small enough to enter the bloodstream or on a material in the stomach where it will be digested in the stomach acids and go into the bloodstream — and that's never happened from toys."
In cases where toys have injured children, Byrne said the injuries often resulted from misusing the product.
"In virtually all the cases of magnet swallowing these were things that were swallowed by kids that were below the age grade, or in the case of the older kids they were pretending to have tongue piercings. By banning magnets, you're not going to stop that level of play," Byrne said.
PHOTOS: Controversial Recalls
"When you bring something into your home there should be an assumption of risk," he added. "And if you have a child under 3 and you bring in something age graded for 5 and up – who's responsibility is that? I think it's the parents'."
And toys aren't the only issue. Byrne said the biggest challenge now is for all school products.
"If I've got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting lead in any amount from something like that is virtually non-existent," he said. "It's a level of political grandstanding to say 'we're taking care of everything,' but the science clearly demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have significantly worse health problems than lead."
The Resale Round-up has led some resale stores and charities to stop accepting children's goods altogether, something President and CEO of Goodwill Industries Jim Gibbons said has some clients concerned.
"I saw on blogs, consumers saying, 'Don't take away my ability to shop at Goodwill for children's clothing – this is how I clothe my kids and get them to school,'" Gibbons told FOXNews.com.
The problem, he said, is every not-for-profit and 'mom and pop thrift shop' has different capabilities and resources and a broad-brush approach may leave them unable to provide services.
Still, Gibson said, Goodwill generally has been able to continue serving its communities, and he believes CPSC is working hard to take a law "that was probably written in haste" and implement it in an effective manner.
"They're really committed to common-sense approaches and working in good faith with at least the social services kind of thrift segment," he said. "And we've been working very proactively with them to make sure that folks at Goodwill are educated, have access to the CPSC guidelines and are making themselves available for as much training as CPSC can provide as they try to figure out how to work with this legislation."
F
Unfucking believable!
I suppose a kid could have a lemonade stand:
"Lemonade, 6 oz. /$18.00 All proceeds go to my lawyer who can prove that the lemons are USDA Florida grown, paper cups hand made in Fond du Lac, WI, and the stand was hand crafted from wood my dad got from the cedar that died in our backyard."
"Where's you get the nails and the felt pen for the sign, kid? Come with us!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
sell used books until you are the outlaw book dealer
frickin this country done lost its marbles many years ago
not a whole hell of a lot surprises me anymore when it comes to government-diarrhea
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I totally love that idea, Chadwick. I might have to change the name of my little business to "Outlaw Books".
....
....
....
....
....
....
....On second thought.... that might lead books to getting outlawed. :(
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
...and the Hamburglar outfit so all they have to do is take off the mask before throwing me in jail.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
by the way, does anyone besides me remember crawling around in this claustrophobic abominations in 90 degree heat as a kid? It was a 2 foot diameter pipe with no lighting that you hand to climb up and then you just kind of rolled around in the bun because even six-year old couldn't sit up right. If a kid decided he didn't want to come out, the parents would have to get the jaws of life. I see the current 3-story slides into a pool of balls and just have to shake my head.
my favorite was the giant grimace that you shook from side to side.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
not if the lemons come from Ecuador, Argentina and Brasil, as my lemons do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L478SB2uoOM
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What the state and fed government have done to Abner Shoenwetter and Jack Barron it's outrageous!!!!!
The couple from California had it coming though!
i buy a lot of my books second hand. id be happy to hand over the original price to the author id we happened to cross paths.,, but until that happens i dont think i should be penalised because of my recycling.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And catefrances, I could never afford to do this on a regular basis, but I've actually sent a few dollars to less known and likely underpaid authors when I've found a used copy of a book of theirs I really liked. I've met authors in the store and apologized to them for the fact that they don't receive royalties for copies of their books we sell and every time they've said (basically) "That's ok, I received my percentage the first time [as in the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law] and I'm glad to see the book on your shelf." Two of those authors very happily signed copies of one of their books for me- Dorothy Bryant, James DenBoer, and Louis S. Warren. Author Sherman Alexie and others have written about liking used book stores themselves. I think it is important to support lesser known musicians, artists and writers at least as much as mega-stars such as our beloved you-know-who (and I'm sure they'd agree).
But the issue here is maintaining the right to resell just about anything. Losing that right would be disastrous to many small business owners and harmful to people who are in desperate need of cash who sell used goods at flea markets or garage sales- I've done that a few times myself as have many of you.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"