[JoeProBono]

[CGASMIA68]

Holy Crap

[afraidfortherepublic]

Outrageous!

[free from tyranny]

Then what about meds??? What say you to that USSC?

[dfwgator]

The textbook publishing companies with their ridiculous overpricing brought this upon themselves.

[GeronL]

sounds like the right decision

[Sacajaweau]

Now if he copied the books and then sold them, that would be a whole different matter and a copyright violation.

[petro45acp]

First thoughts.....

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!!!!

On reflection, how is it, that creature scotus-penguinis-limpis is even dealing with international patent and trademark law? If it is USIP and proven to be USIP, then the IP owner or his agents decide if it can be sold or if royalties are required, NOT the fer govt.
KYPD what the he!! is going on here???

[ThePatriotsFlag]

...uh. Maybe it is time to start over in this great experiment. Time to find the tea, a nice harbor, and a few like-minded RE-Patriots?

[tobyhill]

Overseas company purchases a Blue-Ray Movie for $5 a copy, turns around and sells the same copy over here for $8 but a company here buys it directly from the producers for $10 a copy and the company sells it for $15. Which one will you buy?

[Stevenc131]

Copyright holders would love it if they could forbid you to sell a used DVD on eBay, which is where we would be heading if the ruling would have gone the other way.

[Will88]

This might be a blow to the charging what the market will bear strategy. Sell high in the US and other higher income nations and sell low in lower income nations. That’s how companies maximize profits by seeking the greatest volume of sales.

Since this involves RE-sale only, it’s probably a reasonable ruling as long as some don’t start importing lower priced copyrighted items on a massive scale. Then the companies would have to solve the problem by raising pricing in the lower income nation.

[tobyhill]

The keywords the SCOTUS said was “lawfully made”. Now any person can legally make a copy of anything for their own use. Now the SCOTUS just opened the door for resale for profit of that copy.

[Paine in the Neck]

This should have implications for the phone-unlocking issue.

[kidd]

This is a positive ruling.

Think about it...

First, it supports property rights.

Second, this removes the incentive for businesses to make most of their profits off of American customers. Businesses are now going to charge the entire world the same price rather than sticking it to Americans.

Expect prices of such items to drop somewhat.

[jyro]

Another win for personal freedom, the real story is that 3 voted against it. would you like to have to pay a copyright fee to sell a used car or have to pay copyright fees on your garage sale items your selling.

The concept of personal property should always be upheld in the USA.

[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.