p.1 #1 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
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.
p.1 #2 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
I read it. It's a completely unenforceable ruling by the lower court if it ever came to pass. I think the writer has used fantasy supposition to support the article. IMO the blog seems to mix a misunderstanding of patents (iPhone) and copyright (books) then settles on talking about copyrights. At stake might be the ability for grandma to sell her handmade European jewels, or for you to sell a book printed overseas because of possible copyright infringement. Basically this would affect private commerce, destroy jobs, and make the US Supreme Court look like even bigger fools than they have been recently (Citizens United). Goodbye to Ebay, Craigslist, and similar enterprises that deal in private sales from origins unknown. The Supreme Court has more important things to mull over like taking the name of God off the paper currency because apparently We don't trust anyone.
p.1 #3 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
borderlight wrote:
I read it. It's a completely unenforceable ruling by the lower court if it ever came to pass. I think the writer has used fantasy supposition to support the article. IMO the blog seems to mix a misunderstanding of patents (iPhone) and copyright (books) then settles on talking about copyrights. At stake might be the ability for grandma to sell her handmade European jewels, or for you to sell a book printed overseas because of possible copyright infringement. Basically this would affect private commerce, destroy jobs, and make the US Supreme Court look like even bigger fools than they have been recently (Citizens United). Goodbye to Ebay, Craigslist, and similar enterprises that deal in private sales from origins unknown. The Supreme Court has more important things to mull over like taking the name of God off the paper currency because apparently We don't trust anyone.
p.1 #4 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
This like the NRA trying to scare gun owners into thinking that the United Nations can reverse the 2nd Amendment.... btw, never the case. SCOTUS will rule against it mainly because it doesn't make sense, and some of them realize they are on a short leash considering a few of their recent decisions. It seems to me, as it did the dissenting judge, that only the letter of the law was applied or considered, not the intent or the apparent consequences. I am sure that a anti-American business ruling is not in the interest of either political party or the country.
Oct 08, 2012 at 01:22 PM
sky_barker Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #5 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
Who knows what this right wing pro big business court might do. Good reason not to risk another bad appointment by voting for Romney.
p.1 #7 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
some of them realize they are on a short leash considering a few of their recent decisions.
Are you kidding me?
Who knows what this right wing pro big business court might do.
This comment is on the mark. The current Supreme Court is dominated by some of the most anti-consumer, pro-corporation justices in the country's history. They're capable of doing anything to further their right-wing extremist agenda.
p.1 #8 · Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril
And please knock off the politics else the thread will be closed right quick.
Exactly! Although I am in agreement with the other posters, this is not the place to air political views. Most of us know what's going down in Washington. Vote accordingly. This discussion is about a case soon to be decided by the Supreme Court on foreign copyright and how it might affect everyone who wants to buy and sell everyday things. The favorable lower court ruling is more in keeping with the letter of the law, whereas, IMO, the final decision should be focused on the spirit of the law. If we can all stay on-topic this discussion might be interesting.
As for the "short leash" comment I made: It was widely observed that Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, had the final say in reaffirming the Affordable Care Act legality. If he hadn't broken the split decision in its favor it would have confirmed that the court was, once again, not neutral.
