"Copyright case could threaten eBay and garage sales"

[CaptainAmerica]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/26/14722392-copyright-case-could-threaten-ebay-and-garage-sales?lite


By Pete Williams, NBC News Justice Correspondent

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case to be argued Monday, wades into a controversy over federal copyright law that could determine the legal rights of American consumers to sell thousands of used products on eBay and at garage sales and flea markets.

The legal battle involves Supap Kirtsaeng, a student from Thailand who was surprised by the high cost of academic textbooks when he arrived in the U.S. to attend college. He asked his parents to search bookstores back home and send him much cheaper versions -- published overseas and sold at a fraction of the price -- of the same texts.

He was soon running what amounted to a small business out of his apartment, helping to pay his way through school by selling textbooks on eBay. The exact amount of his profit is unclear, but court records say it was around $100,000.
Advertise | AdChoices

The textbooks his family shipped him each bore this warning: "Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the publisher's authorization is illegal," but Kirtsaeng wasn't bothered. He concluded -- based on a search of articles on the Internet -- that he was in no legal jeopardy. The publisher of some of the books he sold, John Wiley & Sons, didn't see it that way. It sued him in federal court, and a New York jury ordered him in 2009 to pay $600,000 in damages. When he said he had nowhere near that kind of money, he had to hand over personal property, including his computer, printer and golf clubs. A federal appeals court last year upheld the verdict.

Kirtsaeng was caught between two federal laws, and he's now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to see it his way.

One longstanding provision says when the holder of a copyright offers a work for sale, its legal interest in that specific copy evaporates as the item is sold. It's called the first-sale doctrine, and it means that if you buy the latest John Grisham novel, you can sell it on a website or give it away to the church library without violating copyright laws.

But another law prohibits importing works "acquired outside the United States ... without the authority of the owner of copyright." Applying that statue, the federal courts ruled against Kirtsaeng, reasoning that "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States."

A who's who of companies and groups involved in selling used merchandise is urging the Supreme Court to overturn the publisher's victory.

EBay warns that leaving the ruling intact would be a blow to "trade, consumers, secondary markets, e-commerce, small businesses, and jobs." Goodwill Industries says the ruling would have "a catastrophic effect on the viability of the secondary market and, consequently, on Goodwill's ability to provide needed community-based services."

"There are enough copyright owners out there -- and enough crazy copyright lawsuits," says a group of book store operators in a friend of court brief. "No one should be put to the choice of violating the law and hoping they don't get caught, and losing their business."

The effect of a victory for the publisher, according to some experts in copyright law, would extend far beyond the market for books and other published materials. It could also affect sales of thousands of used consumer electronic products made outside the U.S. that contain copyrighted software, perhaps even used cars.

Kirtsaeng's lawyer makes the same expansive claim in his Supreme Court brief. "Even cherished American traditions, such as flea markets, garage sales, and swapping dog-eared books are vulnerable to copyright challenge" under the appeals court ruling, argues Josh Rosenkranz of New York.

But could that really be the outcome?

"It doesn't mean you'd have industry enforcers attending yard sales. You'd just be converting a bunch of people into law breakers," says Prof. Rebecca Tushnet, an expert on copyright law at Georgetown Law Center in Washington.

Most likely, she says, music and book publishers would be visiting stores and Internet sites that sell used materials. "Anything more organized, like eBay sales or craigslist could be disrupted," she says. "And I do think it's a very serious threat. They are very clearly willing to do this."
Advertise | AdChoices

Not so, argues Washington, D.C. lawyer Ted Olson, representing the publisher that sued Kirtsaeng. If such predictions were right, he says, "those consequences should already have occurred in response to 30 years of judicial decisions and commentary."

However the court decides the case, it will undoubtedly affect a category known as graymarket sales, in which middlemen legally buy products overseas, then make them available for sale by retailers in the U.S. who can offer the products for lower prices.

Swiss watch maker Omega and discount retailer Costco have been battling in court for years over this issue. Omega claimed Costco was improperly selling its watches acquired overseas through just such a graymarket mechanism.

Omega says its authorized US dealers charge prices "that are higher than the prices charged in other, less developed and less competitive markets." It argues that any erosion of copyright protection for overseas sales would limit a manufacturer's ability to tailor prices to global markets.

But discount retailer Costco is siding with Supap Kirtsaeng, saying it "often sells copyrighted products that, although genuine, were not purchased directly from the copyright owner."

Once again the dictators in black robes will decide more edicts to place upon amerikans.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/26/14722392-copyright-case-could-threaten-ebay-and-garage-sales?lite



Once again the dictators in black robes will decide more edicts to place upon amerikans.
Indeed. But even more importantly, this case illustrates one of the ways how truly evil IP laws are.

[Tpoints]

Actually it doesn't. Most eBay sellers and garage sales do not sell large amounts of books imported from foreign countries. Many paranoid people think this will do away with first sale doctrine, it will not.

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually it doesn't. Most eBay sellers and garage sales do not sell large amounts of books imported from foreign countries. Many paranoid people think this will do away with first sale doctrine, it will not. It would make it a crime to resell anything that has a copyright.

[AGRP]

It would make it a crime to resell anything that has a copyright.

Only if you tread on someones profitable scam by pocketing $100,000.

[CaptainAmerica]

Only if you tread on someones profitable scam by pocketing $100,000. Oh you mean...like reselling a classic car or something of great value?

[AGRP]

Oh you mean...like reselling a classic car or something of great value?

Youre paranoid. Too much Alex Jones or something. Just because someone gets in trouble for pocketing 100k by treading on someone elses scam doesnt mean everyone will be arrested for shopping at second hand stores or selling second hand items. Theres a big difference. By the same token, I suppose everyone who travels 26 mph in a 25 mph zone will be ticketed. Run for the hills!

[CaptainAmerica]

Youre paranoid. Too much Alex Jones or something. Just because someone gets in trouble for pocketing 100k by treading on someone elses scam doesnt mean everyone will be arrested for shopping at second hand stores or selling second hand items. Theres a big difference. By the same token, I suppose everyone who travels 26 mph in a 25 mph zone will be ticketed. Run for the hills! Oh ,okay...and the u.s. supreme court didn't just redefine the word "mandate" as "taxation". What does IP debate have anything to do with AJ?

[Matt Collins]

It would make it a crime to resell anything that has a copyright.Actually the question before the court is whether or not buying copyrighted material overseas, importing it, and then reselling it is a violation of copyright law. In other words, does the first sale doctrine apply for imports.

[presence]

Youre paranoid. Too much Alex Jones or something.
[]
doesnt mean everyone will be arrested


"It doesn't mean you'd have industry enforcers attending yard sales. You'd just be converting a bunch of people into law breakers."


One more reason to stop and frisk the little guy.


Once you sell something you sell it. I really don't give two shits about:


erosion of copyright protection for overseas sales would limit a manufacturer's ability to tailor prices to global markets.

...which is what this is all about: The ability to mark shit up to Americans and sell it cheap to India; maximizing profits for the globalists on all fronts. And then legally disallow market forces to bring the US price into reality.


I don't give a fuck about protecting tailored global markets, globalists, or global corporations. I care about fair market pricing for American consumers and the rights of fellow small businesses like Kirtsaeng's to seize market opportunities.

[AGRP]

One more reason to stop and frisk the little guy.



I would like to see the backlash if someone got stopped for shopping at a second hand store. If theres anything you dont do in this country its threatening the ability of a females ability to shop.

[Bohner]

Actually the question before the court is whether or not buying copyrighted material overseas, importing it, and then reselling it is a violation of copyright law. In other words, does the first sale doctrine apply for imports.

This!!!

Though I'm personally opposed to giving corporations the power to price gouge consumers just because they live in a richer area, which this guy was cleverly able to exploit. Your ability to resell your car or have a garage sale is not necessarily in jeopardy.

[Tpoints]

It would make it a crime to resell anything that has a copyright.

No it won't. This isn't a case of somebody merely selling something that has copyright (which would be actually anything written absent explicit exception or public domain). This was a case of somebody buying books from a foreign country which were explicitly "not authorized for export", and probably "not authorized for resale in the countries other than _____". The condition of the sale was exactly that. Whether such an agreement can be enforced effectively is another question, but the condition was neither an accident nor ignorable "just because I feel like it".

[Tpoints]

Youre paranoid. Too much Alex Jones or something. Just because someone gets in trouble for pocketing 100k by treading on someone elses scam doesnt mean everyone will be arrested for shopping at second hand stores or selling second hand items. Theres a big difference. By the same token, I suppose everyone who travels 26 mph in a 25 mph zone will be ticketed. Run for the hills!

yeah, basically that's the mistake conspiracy theorists are making. the first sale doctrine is NOT under threat.

[jclay2]

I did this when I was in High School and sold on amazon used market. Made at least 5k off of it. Was shut down when someone filed an amazon claim against me. Anyway, textbooks are the biggest scam ever. Here is how it works: Every two years, publishers "update" their textbooks with "newly discovered" material. These updates basically consist of changing the picture cover and changing question # 11 to #12 or the numbers involved to get a final calculation. You can take a look at editions that are 10 years apart and see that they are basically the same book. The departments at all the schools require the new edition, even though the cost of the back editions is often pennies on the used markets. I am now done with college, but I rarely ever bought a new edition book. There would be kids blowing 6-7 hundred dollars a semester on books, while I would spend maybe $20 for four classes.

I can't stand intellectual monopolies because they are so against freedom and human progress, it is ridiculous.

[FrancisMarion]

Textbooks are a racket. No thanks I don't need the 50th edition of Western Civ. The 44th edition will do just fine for my brain.

[Anti Federalist]

Youre paranoid. Too much Alex Jones or something. Just because someone gets in trouble for pocketing 100k by treading on someone elses scam doesnt mean everyone will be arrested for shopping at second hand stores or selling second hand items. Theres a big difference. By the same token, I suppose everyone who travels 26 mph in a 25 mph zone will be ticketed. Run for the hills!

You sound just like the people who were telling me 30 years ago that the first seat belt laws would end up in primary enforcement, road blocks checking for compliance and heavy fines.

You people lack imagination.

That said, I have little to say about this case, as I haven't looked into it much.

Bottom line is usually, whatever the worst case scenario could be, it will be that.

[Anti Federalist]

yeah, basically that's the mistake conspiracy theorists are making. the first sale doctrine is NOT under threat.

Here for 9 posts and already have hard on for the "conspiracy theorists", eh?

[AGRP]

I did this when I was in High School and sold on amazon used market. Made at least 5k off of it. Was shut down when someone filed an amazon claim against me. Anyway, textbooks are the biggest scam ever. Here is how it works: Every two years, publishers "update" their textbooks with "newly discovered" material. These updates basically consist of changing the picture cover and changing question # 11 to #12 or the numbers involved to get a final calculation. You can take a look at editions that are 10 years apart and see that they are basically the same book. The departments at all the schools require the new edition, even though the cost of the back editions is often pennies on the used markets. I am now done with college, but I rarely ever bought a new edition book. There would be kids blowing 6-7 hundred dollars a semester on books, while I would spend maybe $20 for four classes.

I can't stand intellectual monopolies because they are so against freedom and human progress, it is ridiculous.

Schools are cannibalizing themselves. It has become so expensive that it isnt worth pursuing outside of a few majors and specialized trades.

[angelatc]

Only if you tread on someone's profitable scam by pocketing $100,000.

The scam is the booksellers charging American students $150 for the exact same book they sell in third world markets for $20.00.

[angelatc]

yeah, basically that's the mistake conspiracy theorists are making. the first sale doctrine is NOT under threat.

Are you a lawyer? Because there is a very impressive list of lawyers who disagree that the first sale doctrine is not under threat.

Here's one: http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/


(http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/)
The Omega/Wiley rule is a substantial incentive to outsource manufacturing activities overseas.

So, if SCOTUS rules that materials manufactured outside the USA aren't subject to the first sale doctrine, the first sale doctrine is indeed in jeopardy.

[Tpoints]

The scam is the booksellers charging American students $150 for the exact same book they sell in third world markets for $20.00.

No, not the exact same book, certainly not the exact same freedoms. The 3rd world version is sold explicitly on the condition that they cannot be exported and resold.

They may have they same content, but they are not both free to resell in the US under first sale rule. What may surprise some people is that this issue never comes up in music, probably because the price difference isn't as wide. Movies are restricted by NTSC regions.

[Tpoints]

Are you a lawyer? Because there is a very impressive list of lawyers who disagree that the first sale doctrine is not under threat.

Here's one: http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/


(http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/)

So, if SCOTUS rules that materials manufactured outside the USA aren't subject to the first sale doctrine, the first sale doctrine is indeed in jeopardy.

Those who disagree, will say that fsr always applied to all works in all countries.

What I am saying is, anything sold in US as far as books and CDs, movies, are all still well protected by FSR. Software is not sold, and therefore does not apply.

[angelatc]

Those who disagree, will say that fsr always applied to all works in all countries.

What I am saying is, anything sold in US as far as books and CDs, movies, are all still well protected by FSR. Software is not sold, and therefore does not apply.

You didn't read the article, did you? He did not simply say "that fsr always applied to all works in all countries." He cited case law and precedents. What can you supply along those lines?

And again, just for the record, are you a lawyer? I'm not.

But it seems that what he is saying is that if the court decides for the publisher, then everything that is manufactured overseas could them come into the USA with the same caveat, and that would essentially mean the end of the First Sale doctrine.

[angelatc]

No, not the exact same book, certainly not the exact same freedoms. The 3rd world version is sold explicitly on the condition that they cannot be exported and resold.

It's the same book. Why does the 3rd world version have those restrictions?

[amy31416]

I did this when I was in High School and sold on amazon used market. Made at least 5k off of it. Was shut down when someone filed an amazon claim against me. Anyway, textbooks are the biggest scam ever. Here is how it works: Every two years, publishers "update" their textbooks with "newly discovered" material. These updates basically consist of changing the picture cover and changing question # 11 to #12 or the numbers involved to get a final calculation. You can take a look at editions that are 10 years apart and see that they are basically the same book. The departments at all the schools require the new edition, even though the cost of the back editions is often pennies on the used markets. I am now done with college, but I rarely ever bought a new edition book. There would be kids blowing 6-7 hundred dollars a semester on books, while I would spend maybe $20 for four classes.

I can't stand intellectual monopolies because they are so against freedom and human progress, it is ridiculous.


100% true.

ETA: When I taught a couple lab courses, I made the lab manual available to the students to copy. They were charging $25 for a piece of crap manual that was "published" by one of the professors. It was asinine.

I once had to purchase a textbook for a chem engineering course that was USED and over ten years old--it was 85 god damn dollars at the college bookstore. I am still pissed off about it.

I absolutely would have bought "illegal" books if I had the opportunity.

[AGRP]

It's the same book. Why does the 3rd world version have those restrictions?

I believe its essentially because its what they can afford so they have to tailor the price. Seriously. The same practice is done with prescription drugs. In other words, the system is designed to milk the middle class american consumer for all theyre worth.

[thoughtomator]

Copyright law has become so monstrous that we are better off having no copyright law at all.

Between then and now, avoid anything with a copyright on it like the plague. A copyright should be considered a significant economically negative encumbrance on a product.

[Tpoints]

It's the same book. Why does the 3rd world version have those restrictions?

Conditions of the sale, seller makes rules, take or leave it, but no, not a lawyer

[angelatc]

Conditions of the sale, seller makes rules, take or leave it, but no, not a lawyer

Ok - I thought I was missing something. Seller retains infinite control of items made in other nations. What a crappy idea that is, IMHO.

I get that the manufacturer can refuse to sell to a retailer if said retailer is intent on selling out of the assigned market. But the rest of it is just anti-American.

[angelatc]

I believe its essentially because its what they can afford so they have to tailor the price. Seriously. The same practice is done with prescription drugs. In other words, the system is designed to milk the middle class american consumer for all theyre worth.

Yes, a friend of mine is married to a high ranking pharma executive. That's exactly right. But drugs are somewhat different because the socialized health plans decide what they will pay for the pill. I don't think that the textbook market is the same, is it?

[heavenlyboy34]

You sound just like the people who were telling me 30 years ago that the first seat belt laws would end up in primary enforcement, road blocks checking for compliance and heavy fines.

You people lack imagination.

That said, I have little to say about this case, as I haven't looked into it much.

Bottom line is usually, whatever the worst case scenario could be, it will be that.
QFT. Needs repeating as often as possible so it sinks in for everyone.

[idiom]

Wait... so grey markets are illegal in America?!?! Seriously?

That's some backwater 3rd world crack that is.

[idiom]

It's the same book. Why does the 3rd world version have those restrictions?

I believe the version sold in America is the 3rd world version. The versions sold outside the US can travel around the civilized world, just not cross the border into America or they get pinged with 300% Tariff.

America, the only place I travel where I get regularly fingerprinted, invasively searched, and my bank cards and phones don't function.

[osan]

Only if you tread on someones profitable scam by pocketing $100,000.

Perhaps you need to lay off the methamphetamine. Something is interfering with your reason.

What he was doing is called arbitrage. I suggest you look it up. It is perfectly legal and morally justifiable. It is NOT a scam. Look up "scam" while you are at it because it is abundantly obvious that you do not know what it means.

Jesus in a taxicab.

[angelatc]

Perhaps you need to lay off the methamphetamine. Something is interfering with your reason.

What he was doing is called arbitrage. I suggest you look it up. It is perfectly legal and morally justifiable. It is NOT a scam. Look up "scam" while you are at it because it is abundantly obvious that you do not know what it means.

Jesus in a taxicab.

Read it again. I think there was a hint of sarcasm, in that he was calling the restriction a scam.

[angelatc]

Wait... so grey markets are illegal in America?!?! Seriously?

That's some backwater 3rd world crack that is.

And I especially like the way that, despite the list of huge retailers that do the same thing, they decided to test case law on some young foreign exchange student who isn't able to afford a posse of experienced and connected lawyers.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yes, a friend of mine is married to a high ranking pharma executive. That's exactly right. But drugs are somewhat different because the socialized health plans decide what they will pay for the pill. I don't think that the textbook market is the same, is it?


Nah. It's market segmentation. If they are reproducing the books and selling them, that is a clear copyright violation. If they are selling them for $200 here and $50 elsewhere, you can expect a market to create a price somewhere in between.

There's a reason why it's illegal to import FDA approved drugs from other countries, even if they were manufactured in the US. The reason is market segmentation... enforced by law.

[Tpoints]

Wait... so grey markets are illegal in America?!?! Seriously?

That's some backwater 3rd world crack that is.

it's not that grey markets are illegal, it's that the original sale wasn't as simple hands off as people might think.

[Tpoints]

Ok - I thought I was missing something. Seller retains infinite control of items made in other nations. What a crappy idea that is, IMHO.

I get that the manufacturer can refuse to sell to a retailer if said retailer is intent on selling out of the assigned market. But the rest of it is just anti-American.

there's nothing anti-American about voluntary transactions and agreements made by two parties.

[Indy Vidual]

QFT. Needs repeating as often as possible so it sinks in for everyone.

Hope for America anyone?

[DamianTV]

You sound just like the people who were telling me 30 years ago that the first seat belt laws would end up in primary enforcement, road blocks checking for compliance and heavy fines.

You people lack imagination.

That said, I have little to say about this case, as I haven't looked into it much.

Bottom line is usually, whatever the worst case scenario could be, it will be that.

So what would the "Worst Case Scenario" be?

Basically, you are only allowed to buy from Corporations, and are not allowed to sell anything that you have purchased, period. That will go from music to cars to furniture. If you grew your own fruits and vegetables, you'd have to pay royalties to Monsanto because they own the copyright on life itself. That is, if growing your own fruits and vegetables were not already against the law of Monsanto.

Basically, if you arent financially supporting the Corporate Superstate, you'll be in violation of the law.

Does that sound enough like a Worst Case Scenario, or should we continue to figure out how it could actually get even worse?

[osan]

No, not the exact same book, certainly not the exact same freedoms. The 3rd world version is sold explicitly on the condition that they cannot be exported and resold.

Such a condition is mostly unenforceable between the parties to the contract. More significantly, once the buyer sells the merchandise, the new buyer is in no way bound by the terms of a contract to which he is not a party. I would also point out that "cannot be exported and resold" is very plausibly taken to imply "never", which in turn implies a perpetuity that as I recall is a big no-no in American law.

The plaintiffs here are basically saying that when you buy, you do not really own. If they win, I suspect they will lose because people will not be happy about paying to rent.

[DamianTV]

Like Corporations give a shit if we are happy or not as long as they make money. If they take our money by an agreement, or by legal enforcement of a contract, they dont care, as long as they get theirs. Remember our Food Chain, above Govt and God is Corporations, in the eyes of the Corporations.

[angelatc]

there's nothing anti-American about voluntary transactions and agreements made by two parties.

You'd possibly have a valid point if we were not talking about third parties.

[AGRP]

You sound just like the people who were telling me 30 years ago that the first seat belt laws would end up in primary enforcement, road blocks checking for compliance and heavy fines.

You people lack imagination.

That said, I have little to say about this case, as I haven't looked into it much.

Bottom line is usually, whatever the worst case scenario could be, it will be that.

Really? Feeble little grannys will be arrested for shopping at church fund raisers? Thats quite an imagination.

[AGRP]

Yes, a friend of mine is married to a high ranking pharma executive. That's exactly right. But drugs are somewhat different because the socialized health plans decide what they will pay for the pill. I don't think that the textbook market is the same, is it?

I have no idea, but all monopolies are the same. This kid is essentially the equivalent of a small time drug dealer who treaded on the wrong drug cartel. You mess with the bull, youre going to get the horns.

[Dr.3D]

Don't see how this could affect Ebay or garage sales, it's not like most people are selling bootleg products like that kid was.

[cornell]

It's not a bootleg product. It's a perfectly legal textbook, it just was printed in a foreign country and intended for sale in a foreign country (at a far lower price than in the United States of course)

[Tpoints]

Such a condition is mostly unenforceable between the parties to the contract. More significantly, once the buyer sells the merchandise, the new buyer is in no way bound by the terms of a contract to which he is not a party. I would also point out that "cannot be exported and resold" is very plausibly taken to imply "never", which in turn implies a perpetuity that as I recall is a big no-no in American law.

The plaintiffs here are basically saying that when you buy, you do not really own. If they win, I suspect they will lose because people will not be happy about paying to rent.

the buyer is not authorized to sell, as he agreed not to sell it. To say that the new buyer is not bound because he didn't agree to the original contract, is to say that if a thief sells his loot, the buyer is clean hands. And yes, it implies never, the same way any law or agreement does, you can take it or leave it.

You can interpet it any way you like. Either they're saying "you buy but not own" or "you didn't buy" or "you bought, but you agreed to uphold the terms, otherwise feel free to walk away if such a condition is unacceptable to you".

[Tpoints]

You'd possibly have a valid point if we were not talking about third parties.

actually, it wouldn't matter. You do not relieve responsibility by simply adding a party and claiming ignorance. The agreement explicitly prohibits having a 3rd party, this is no different than confidentiality agreements. You don't get to "voluntarily" "decide" to leak the confidential information after agreeing not to, and then say "hey, leave the 3rd person alone, he never agreed to keep anything confidential, and who are you to tell me what I can't do with information I justly acquired?"

[PaulConventionWV]

You sound just like the people who were telling me 30 years ago that the first seat belt laws would end up in primary enforcement, road blocks checking for compliance and heavy fines.

You people lack imagination.

That said, I have little to say about this case, as I haven't looked into it much.

Bottom line is usually, whatever the worst case scenario could be, it will be that.

That's a very negative view of the world. Even in cases like this, I don't act like the worst case scenario is what will always happen. Hell, I don't like any cops, but I have run into some decent ones despite the fact that the situation could have been much worse. From the facts of this case, the first sale doctrine doesn't look to be in any danger yet. The textbooks clearly warned against exportation of the product, so even if the market is a little distorted because of the way textbooks are handled, I don't think any draconian laws are going to come of this.

That said, I do think it's about time they started making a move on garage sales. I wouldn't be surprised if and when they eventually start enforcing harsher restrictions on those. Can't allow people to operate a business out of their front yard. Only multi-million dollar corporations can sell shit that people don't need because it's "new" and increases the turnover/waste of the American consumer that needs to buy new clothes every few days, new furniture every few weeks, new light bulbs every couple of months. The consumerist society in this country is crazy, but I don't see this as any major tipping point.

[PaulConventionWV]

Like Corporations give a shit if we are happy or not as long as they make money. If they take our money by an agreement, or by legal enforcement of a contract, they dont care, as long as they get theirs. Remember our Food Chain, above Govt and God is Corporations, in the eyes of the Corporations.

I don't know why everyone thinks corporations are so evil. The way I see it, government created this environment for corporations. They're the ones who usurped the power, not the corporations themselves. They are just feeding off the environment that the government has created, like any corporation would in order to maximize its profits. Corporations being entangled in government is mostly a fault of the government.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I guess libraries should be shutdown, because you know, so many people are reading those books without paying for a copy each time a different person reads them!

[Tpoints]

I guess libraries should be shutdown, because you know, so many people are reading those books without paying for a copy each time a different person reads them!

if first sale doctrine and fair use were not in place, then yes, that would be the logical conclusion. However, it's far from that case.

[osan]

Don't see how this could affect Ebay or garage sales, it's not like most people are selling bootleg products like that kid was.

You not seeing the possible and unintended consequences is part of the problem. How many court decisions have lead to results nobody anticipated? Enough to warrant stern caution and wariness in such matters. Slippery and latent slopes exist and we are sliding down them now at breakneck speed.

[idiom]

Its illegal to parallel import into Australia, but perfectly legal to do so into New Zealand. Somehow these countries rate next to each other on the economic freedoms chart.

This has nothing to do with copyright whatsoever.