Comments on: ‘You can’t resell that’ — A guide to today’s Supreme Court copyright case

By: tyler

tyler — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:31:07 +0000

You may be right that a computer built from scratch from overseas parts may still be legal to sell if the ruling is upheld, but it could become illegal to resell a name brand computer whether it was stock or modified, and any modification in the US after import but before sale may become illegal as well, all important to consider.

By: Dane

Dane — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:05:51 +0000

That’s not what it means. The law (even the 1976 version) applies to finished products, not parts. If you are buying laptops overseas, disassembling them, and “tweaking” things, then, yes, you might be in violation of copyright law. However, if you’re buying processors, boards, components overseas and building the computer, no laws have been violated/compromised.

Your claim is as ridiculous as saying “If I swap out the RAM on my computer, I’m violating this law!!!”

By: Dane

Dane — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:01:57 +0000

Mr Philip, your statement isn’t entirely accurate nor honest. The decision of the courts would not mandate pricing structure used by copyright holders overseas. Whether the copyright owners decide to pursue flattened pricing models is entirely at their discretion.

Additionally, you wouldn’t harm the US economy by killing overseas sales. To simplify the model, let’s assume three economies (rather than thousands of localized ones):

1) Source economy (say the US)
2) Inflated economy (say EU)
3) Developing economy (Asia, South America, Central Europe, etc)

The books for the second and third group are typically produced in the third group. The books for the source group are typically produced either in the first or third group.

Decision in Wiley’s favor means the following:

Manufacturers can charge higher prices for groups 1 & 2, since the Courts would have granted them permission to do so. Given that we’re in a capitalist business model, this likely means prices for books/products will rise, significantly.

Decision in student’s favor means the following:

Manufacturers will likely continue to charge current prices. If they notice large competition from imported books, they will lower their US prices and raise their foreign prices or sell outdated editions to smaller economies. Someone in the smaller economies will go and manufacture counterfeits to fill the gap. If these counterfeits are then brought into the US, Wiley would have a right to sue, based upon violation of their copyrights.

I hope that the Court overturns the lower courts.

By: lovinight

lovinight — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:20:00 +0000

Do you know what this means, if I sell custom computers, but my parts overseas and assemble it in the US, I can’t sell it! Talk about killing America, you people who support this are out of your frickin mind!

By: Adder

Adder — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:25:18 +0000

They are arguing that First Sale does not apply because the goods were not made in the US. So they are technically “counterfeit” since they are copyrighted in the US and the re-sellers have not bought US goods.

By: Adder

Adder — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:23:47 +0000

Benjamin, you can’t stop people buying things abroad at a much cheaper rate. To support local economy, those imports should be charged duty, and any sales should be taxed. But it should be fully legitimate for people to buy goods, transport them across a boarder, and sell them. It’s what technology companies do all the time. Why can’t individuals do that?
In the EU, even digital copies of books are considered “books” and “personal property” given people the right to re-sell them.

By: Benjamin Philip

Benjamin Philip — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:31:25 +0000

What the reporter doesn’t point out is that one consequence of this law is that it allows manufacturers to price goods based on what the local economy can afford. If you don’t want goods to be priced beyond the means of the citizens of poorer countries, and you don’t want to harm the US economy by killing overseas sales, you should support upholding this regulation. It will lead to an ORDERLY flattening of the global economy so that, eventually, a uniform global pricing model will be in place.

By: Nissan B Thomas

Nissan B Thomas — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:54:29 +0000

What jurisdiction does the Court have to prevent domestic sales of foreign items that were likely manufactured and distributed overseas????

By: Roland

Roland — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:02:12 +0000

If something is sold to consumers in another country, why should the US Govt. give it any protection (copyright, patent, whatever) at all? If First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply, the issue should be moot anyway.