Supreme Court issues major copyright ruling on foreign sales

la times ^ | 3/19/2013 | David Savage

[Publius Valerius]

Because the first sale doctrine, as the Copyright Office has explained, is different when examining physical versus digital materials. The justification for the first sale doctrine goes away when you’re dealing with digital materials.

And the ninth circuit didn’t say that the first sale doctrine didn’t apply to digital material, it said that a software license—even if it is a license in perpetuity—is not a sale. Thus, the first sale doctrine does not apply to software.

Look, if you think the Supreme Court is going to gut copyright law so that some two-bit clown can sell an infinite number of copies of a song that he bought for $.99, you’ve got another think coming.

This case is about whether or not a product sold in a foreign country was made under the provisions of the US Copyright Act. Nothing more, nothing else. You are reading too much into this.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

This might be the death blow to all new physical media in this country. Good-bye publishing, hello streaming.

[a fool in paradise]

The Barnes and Nobel textbook racket needs to be investigated. Pricefixing is a problem. Students seek federal assistance to make their schooling costs.

[xzins]

This is ridiculous. The constitution gives the power to regulate copyrights to Congress. If they were just interpreting current law, then Congress can change the current law.

[tanknetter]

So what you’re saying is that if I exercise my right to “personal use”, which constitutes a legally-made (but unpaid for) copy, under this ruling I would then be able to sell that personal use copy down the road, without having to ask permission or pay royalties to the copyright holder?

Interesting point, but I’m not sure that’s what this ruling does ...

[tobyhill]

That is what I think the ruling actually does. Maybe unintentional but I don’t know how lower courts can rule any other way.