This could get interesting: Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4. At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products. Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale. Put simply, though Apple Inc. /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL -2.04% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution. That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it. “It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.” Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale. Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril - Jennifer Waters's Consumer Confidential - MarketWatch
The general public shouldn't have the ability to buy and sell used items anyway. All that should be handled by the government.
A nice step toward not actually owning anything. How nice. It is basically rent to never own since we make nothing here any more. I can't see this being upheld, but you never know. It sure would make selling on eBay a stupid thing to do. They already get over a 10% cut. Now add on an extra payment to some other company. Wow. Totally not in the interest of the public.
The libs and cons will both have a field day butchering this one. Ginsberg et al are not gonna do anything to help corporations. And Scalia and Roberts will mock it on economic liberty grounds. It may get a vote or two in the center--Kennedy, perhaps.
Not sure I follow why this only affects things made abroad. Seems like this is basically rewarding companies for outsourcing.
On the other side of the coin, it may also encourage reduced outsourcing. If people can more freely resell domestic items, they might be more likely to purchase them. Not that I agree with this bill, but just a thought.
Don't think so, because the company doesn't have to take their cut. This just gives them the option, provided the product is made outside the US.
A conscientious consumer would take that into account, especially if resale is a likely possibility, and buy American to avoid the extra hassles associated with foreign produced products, even if the hassles aren't guaranteed. Granted, a conscientious consumer isn't necessarily common so I doubt it would sway a company's decision on where to produce. Just push the popular appeal and people will buy anything they think will make them cooler.
