Posted on 03/19/2013 9:28:39 AM PDT by tobyhill
Edited on 03/19/2013 9:29:28 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court, in a major ruling on copyright law, has given foreign buyers of textbooks, movies and other products a right to resell them in the United States without the permission of the copyright owner. The 6-3 decision is a victory for a former USC student from Thailand, Supap Kirtsaeng, who figured he could earn money by buying textbooks at lower costs in his native country and selling them in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Is it still legal to copy a CD? The same fair use doctrine allows consumers to copy their music disks to computers and other devices. Because CDs don't have anything to protect them from being copied, it's also legal to distribute software for “ripping” them to a PC’s hard drive. The ripping software doesn't have to circumvent any anticopy protections.”
Now prove I didn't own it and didn't have the legal right to sell it.
And this case highlights the fact that US compannies (with or without copyright involvement) sell the same product much cheaper in many foreign nations than in the US. Again, it’s pricing at what the market will bear. If they didn’t do that, they’d sell little in many poorer nations. But US consumers are definitely subsizing those lower priced foreign sales. Probably nothing to be done about that.
But I’m with the dissenters when it comes to importing into the US and reselling. At some point people doing that are definitely in the import business and then also in the retail business in the US. I’m sure there’s a business solution to the problem if it becomes too large.
I dunno,
Microsoft has a pretty good way of protecting copyrighted material. Companies are going to have to use technology to protect its copyrights.
And I’m not sure how this ruling changes the ability of law enforcement to enforce copyright protections. It was poor before, and it’s still poor. “Joe Blow gave me his copy that he made after he legally downloaded it off the internet” was an illegal, but unenforcable, transaction before the ruling - and it still is.
No one will ever be able to prove if a copy was pirated or not.
What if someone legally downloads an MP3 at 99 cents a song and then resells it for 10 cents a song? Is that legal?
No they didn’t, and no they can’t.
Read the opinion.
I predict down the road during a political campaign they will magically come up with information that a candidate illegally downloaded something in their past.
Yes they did and this is the courts opinion.
What it changes is bearing of proof. Before law enforcement could prosecute based on just having an illegal copy but now they have to prove that the copy is illegal.
Internationally, the free market is not allowed to operate and it never will be. Too many local interests that are and often should be protected.
The copyright holder in this case will probably work something out with its foreign distributors restricting who they can sell to, or how many copies can be purchased by individuals not in the book business in that nation. Unless it's really a large scale problem, they probably wouldn't change pricing in the foreign counry.
The information in this case doesn't tell us how large scale this was. The copyright holder might have just been trying to nip something in the bud.
Indeed. But the issue that the dissent raises, which is a valid one, is that the textbooks were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act. And they were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act because the Copyright Act does not apply in foreign countries. How can a work be lawfully made under the Copyright Act when it is not subject to the Copyright Act?
Exactly and that’s why there can not be enforcement of copyright laws with items being brought here to be resold because there’s no way to tell if something is lawfully made from a different country.
Sure there is. The first sale doctrine is limited in scope. The 9th Circuit, in a well reasoned opinion, has already held that the first sale doctrine does not apply to licensed software, and the Copyright Office has taken the position that the first sale doctrine applies only to physical materials—no application to digital. This approach seems rational and will likely be adopted by the courts.
So, putting all of this together, the question is pretty simple? Did you buy the book/movie from an authorized reseller? Are you selling that same copy in the US? If so, then you are OK. If not, then you’ve got a problem.
I will say, though, that I think the dissent gets the better of the argument. But I don’t think the opinion presents the policy risks that you propose.
Whom is to say “lawfully made” in another country?
Digital material is something that is purchased so why would resale be different?
Shazam and Golly,wish Iz as smart as you.........
I should have clarified. It is illegal to copy a DVD you don’t own. I was thinking of those who copy from online sources. Sorry I had meant to make that point.
Failry large scale if done by one person.
Few are going to go read a court opinion, which can be very long. When someone posts a thread, they should summarize the pertinent information in the first comment. The LA Times article was also pretty skimpy on pertinent information.
No they didn’t. “Copies” refers to an original copy of the work that the copyright holder sold overseas (on a first-sale basis), not a copy of the work that a purchaser made of that original.
Well you certainly are no dumber than me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.