Upcoming Supreme Court ruling could affect your ability to resell your own stuff!

[HawgZWylde]

Including fishing gear. Clink on the link and read, then come back and leave your thoughts...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04

[Marley]

So Wiley is the real, double douche here, gouging American students and then when beaten at their own game, suing to close the door it originally constructed. In the process, they may have ended the garage sale, Rose Bowl Flea Market and (GASP!) tackle swapmeets. Real nice.

[cutbait]

If held up....

Boycotts should be imposed to any company that doesn't wave the copyright..

If Samsung allows the Gallaxy to be resold and Apple Iphone doesn't? So long Apple

[CL SmooV]

"What are you "in" for?"

"Selling my iPhone to my neighbor."

Lol imagine that.

......USSC better toss this agenda into the garbage.

[cutbait]

"What are you "in" for?"

"Selling my iPhone to my neighbor."

Lol imagine that.

......USSC better toss this agenda into the garbage.

Great point...

[olfishergal]

They could never regulate or enforce this........So the gardner who sells his corn to a rode side stand would go to jail because his Burpee seeds were used, along with his neighbor who sold him his fishing gear......stupid idea, another waste of govt dollars. Socialism is in full force with this crap.

[smokehound]

If this passes, I'm not going to recognize it.

And when I get ticketed for it, I'm going to sell the ticket for $0.05 cents.

[Lady Quagga]

In my opinion, Mr. Kirtsaeng violated Wiley's distribution rights, and should be held liable.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Circuit's ruling was overly-broad, and could be used by copyright holders to circumvent the First-sale doctrine.

http://www.williamsmullen.com/rocketdocketiplit/?entry=321

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Importation_of_copies

This is why we can't have nice things.

(By the way, this is not a government spending or socialism issue.)

[cutbait]

In my opinion, Mr. Kirtsaeng violated Wiley's distribution rights, and should be held liable.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Circuit's ruling was overly-broad, and could be used by copyright holders to circumvent the First-sale doctrine.

http://www.williamsmullen.com/rocketdocketiplit/?entry=321

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Importation_of_copies

This is why we can't have nice things.

(By the way, this is not a government spending or socialism issue.)

Yep Product rights issue.....

What they're complaining about is Big Brothers role in enforcing, as you know

I like Smokes rebel mentality,, I'll give ya a buck for that ticket Smoke, just for spite

[pcuser]

They could never regulate or enforce this........So the gardner who sells his corn to a rode side stand would go to jail because his Burpee seeds were used, along with his neighbor who sold him his fishing gear......stupid idea, another waste of govt dollars. Socialism is in full force with this crap.

olfishergal, you need to read up on what socialism is. You seem to label everything you don't like as "socialism". You are listening to too much right wing propaganda which labels anything they don't like with that same label. This is corporate self interest taken to the extreme. This is being done by the very conservative and corporate Supreme Court. Think Alito and Roberts particularly. Think Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This is the Republican appointed 5-4 Supreme Court pursuing the right wing agenda of big corporations. Nothing more, nothing less. This is far more plutocracy than anything else. I don't even believe most Republican voters support this court's decisions. They merely voted for a party that has an agenda that really doesn't reflect much of what they wish. Nothing personal against you. Please don't feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not...

[pcuser]

In my opinion, Mr. Kirtsaeng violated Wiley's distribution rights, and should be held liable.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Circuit's ruling was overly-broad, and could be used by copyright holders to circumvent the First-sale doctrine.

http://www.williamsmullen.com/rocketdocketiplit/?entry=321

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Importation_of_copies

This is why we can't have nice things.

(By the way, this is not a government spending or socialism issue.)

You nailed it regarding governmet spending and socialism... However, I'm not so sure that Mr. Kirtsaeng violated Wiley's distribution rights. He merely took advantage of Wiley's attempt at price gouging Americans. The big drug companies do the same thing with their sales in this country verses oversea where they have reasonable regulations and negotiate better prices. There are other examples of this, however none come immediately to mind.

[cutbait]

olfishergal, you need to read up on what socialism is. You seem to label everything you don't like as "socialism". You are listening to too much right wing propaganda which labels anything they don't like with that same label. This is corporate self interest taken to the extreme. This is being done by the very conservative and corporate Supreme Court. Think Alito and Roberts particularly. Think Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This is the Republican appointed 5-4 Supreme Court pursuing the right wing agenda of big corporations. Nothing more, nothing less. This is far more plutocracy than anything else. I don't even believe most Republican voters support this court's decisions. They merely voted for a party that has an agenda that really doesn't reflect much of what they wish. Nothing personal against you. Please don't feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not...

Anyone who claims the SC is conservative and corprate should look back to the Obamacare decision..

Are conservatives on the court? Yes

Are liberals on the court? Yes

To say its a given conservative decision every ruling is flat out wrong

[etucker1959]

Anyone who claims the SC is conservative and corprate should look back to the Obamacare decision..

Are conservatives on the court? Yes

Are liberals on the court? Yes

To say its a given conservative decision every ruling is flat out wrong

The supreme court decision on Obamacare was a funny one to me. The supreme court had the votes to strike down Obamacare, but if they did, they feared they lose any thought they were politically unbiased. We all know they are, but they like to pretend their not.

[cutbait]

The supreme court decision on Obamacare was a funny one to me. The supreme court had the votes to strike down Obamacare, but if they did, they feared they lose any thought they were politically unbiased. We all know they are, but they like to pretend their not.


So they voted for it, so you wouldn't accuse them of bias, yet here you are accusing them of bias that they didn't do?


Hmmmmmm????

[etucker1959]

So they voted for it, so you wouldn't accuse them of bias, yet here you are accusing them of bias that they didn't do?


Hmmmmmm????

Yea I said that really bad. The point is they didn't strike it down to prove that it wasn't all about partisan polictics.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Yea I said that really bad. The point is they didn't strike it down to prove that it wasn't all about partisan polictics.

You win the prize: you are the most recent person to ask the, "Can I have dead hookers in my trunk if my taillights work and tags are current?" question.

[Skyler]

You win the prize: you are the most recent person to ask the, "Can I have dead hookers in my trunk if my taillights work and tags are current?" question.

Been watching Dexter, huh?

[DEVOREFLYER]

Yip!!!!!!!!!

[Lady Quagga]

You nailed it regarding governmet spending and socialism... However, I'm not so sure that Mr. Kirtsaeng violated Wiley's distribution rights. He merely took advantage of Wiley's attempt at price gouging Americans. The big drug companies do the same thing with their sales in this country verses oversea where they have reasonable regulations and negotiate better prices. There are other examples of this, however none come immediately to mind.

In this particular case, Wiley established two different distribution channels, one to serve the domestic market, one to serve a foreign market. The goods in question were manufactured by a foreign subsidiary, in a foreign market, for foreign distribution. The goods were labelled for foreign sales only. The intent of the copyright and the first-sale doctrine exception were to protect a copyright holder's distribution rights, while at the same time allowing you and I the ability to resell goods we have purchased. This was not a question of some college student selling his used schoolbooks for some spare cash. This was a case of an individual setting up his own domestic distribution channel to sell goods manufactured in and intended for a foreign market.

There is not much legal precedent for this, and it is right that the Supreme Court review the case. The Court could render an opinion which would find Mr. Kirtsaeng liable, while at the same time protecting legitimate resellers' rights. If they are unable to make such a ruling, they should rule on the side of caution, and in favor of Kirtsaeng. At that point, the corporate lawyers and lobbyists can harangue Congress to close the loophole.

[City Dad]

You win the prize: you are the most recent person to ask the, "Can I have dead hookers in my trunk if my taillights work and tags are current?" question.

Ya, know, I'll bet dead hookers aren't nearly as much fun as everyone thinks. Probably, they're kinda depressing to be around.
What's been your experience?

[olfishergal]

olfishergal, you need to read up on what socialism is. You seem to label everything you don't like as "socialism". You are listening to too much right wing propaganda which labels anything they don't like with that same label. This is corporate self interest taken to the extreme. This is being done by the very conservative and corporate Supreme Court. Think Alito and Roberts particularly. Think Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This is the Republican appointed 5-4 Supreme Court pursuing the right wing agenda of big corporations. Nothing more, nothing less. This is far more plutocracy than anything else. I don't even believe most Republican voters support this court's decisions. They merely voted for a party that has an agenda that really doesn't reflect much of what they wish. Nothing personal against you. Please don't feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not...



Excuse me, explain how anything that goes before the law is not paid for by us........I do not support any party but I certanily know when my rights and freedoms disappear. I don't appreciate your insuiniation that I am ignorant and need to read up........I would suggest you try and fight this crap intead of expressing your opinions and doing nothing about it except insult others.........I will say nothing more, feel free to insult away. Oh yah, I guess someone with a PHD doesn't know much......lmao.....have a good day

[olfishergal]

Supreme court huh and who is paying or that........hummmmmm

[Lady Quagga]

Excuse me, explain how anything that goes before the law is not paid for by us........I do not support any party but I certanily know when my rights and freedoms disappear. I don't appreciate your insuiniation that I am ignorant and need to read up........I would suggest you try and fight this crap intead of expressing your opinions and doing nothing about it except insult others.........I will say nothing more, feel free to insult away. Oh yah, I guess someone with a PHD doesn't know much......lmao.....have a good day

[...]

Supreme court huh and who is paying or that........hummmmmm

I still don't see how this subject has anything to do with (a) socialism or (b) wasteful government spending.

The Supreme Court's responsibility is to review cases exactly like this one. That there is very little in the way of established precedent on this matter makes it even more important that they do review this case and render an opinion. This isn't a parking violation or fix-it ticket they will be hearing arguments on.

If anything, this could prevent wasteful government spending, as it would eliminate the need for a government agency to review an new avalanche of distribution-rights claims from copyright holders against legitimate resellers.

[DEVOREFLYER]

But, but, but how will all them damnn lawyers make any money. I am for eliminating all the lawyers, then most of our problems would be solved and everything would cost less!!!!

[City Dad]

But, but, but how will all them damnn lawyers make any money. I am for eliminating all the lawyers, then most of our problems would be solved and everything would cost less!!!!

Oh, no, no, no, no, no... We don't want to get rid of the lawyers - we want to ENSLAVE them!!! Hand them leaf-blowers and bid them work off their debt to society!!!

[Lady Quagga]

Oh, no, no, no, no, no... We don't want to get rid of the lawyers - we want to ENSLAVE them!!! Hand them leaf-blowers and bid them work off their debt to society!!!

That's going waaaaaay too easy on them. I can think of something much better for their sins.

Have them craft tort reform.

[Skyler]

That's going waaaaaay too easy on them. I can think of something much better for their sins.

Have them craft tort reform.

Let the fox guard the henhouse much?

[olfishergal]

and please be careful of invasive species such as Quaggas, of course all of this is free right?? amazing friggin amazing that one cannot express opinions without attack. Perhaps more reading is in store.......what was the name of that Nazi book?

[Lady Quagga]

Let the fox guard the henhouse much?

Hey now, I didn't say we wouldn't go over their work. Just make them do the heavy lifting! :Dancing Banana:


and please be careful of invasive species such as Quaggas, of course all of this is free right?? amazing friggin amazing that one cannot express opinions without attack. Perhaps more reading is in store.......what was the name of that Nazi book?


http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Godwins_Law.jpg

[cutbait]

Hey now, I didn't say we wouldn't go over their work. Just make them do the heavy lifting! :Dancing Banana:




http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Godwins_Law.jpg

I think everyone of these political posts has it? eventually it will spread to other boards..

Soon the Irvine guys will be calling the pay increase debates "nazi" like?

[Skyler]

May as well seal the deal. This thread is boring anyway...

http://theosophical.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/baby-hitler2.jpg

[/thread]

[HawgZWylde]

In this particular case, Wiley established two different distribution channels, one to serve the domestic market, one to serve a foreign market. The goods in question were manufactured by a foreign subsidiary, in a foreign market, for foreign distribution. The goods were labelled for foreign sales only. The intent of the copyright and the first-sale doctrine exception were to protect a copyright holder's distribution rights, while at the same time allowing you and I the ability to resell goods we have purchased. This was not a question of some college student selling his used schoolbooks for some spare cash. This was a case of an individual setting up his own domestic distribution channel to sell goods manufactured in and intended for a foreign market.

There is not much legal precedent for this, and it is right that the Supreme Court review the case. The Court could render an opinion which would find Mr. Kirtsaeng liable, while at the same time protecting legitimate resellers' rights. If they are unable to make such a ruling, they should rule on the side of caution, and in favor of Kirtsaeng. At that point, the corporate lawyers and lobbyists can harangue Congress to close the loophole.

Absolutely. Dang Quagga, we're setting precedent by agreeing you know. This is one big can of worms eh? I think the court will rule on the side of caution, then let congress fill in the blanks, as they should. I'm no attorney but the ramifications of this could get quite large and should be looked at very closely by the people (congress). Not a group of judges...

[HawgZWylde]

May as well seal the deal. This thread is boring anyway...

http://theosophical.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/baby-hitler2.jpg

[/thread]

Dude, not before I can at least respond to my own thread.
Boring? I didn't think so, I'm going to be selling a bunch of stuff in the near future in advance of moving to a more "sane" state...

[etucker1959]

Dude, not before I can at least respond to my own thread.
Boring? I didn't think so, I'm going to be selling a bunch of stuff in the near future in advance of moving to a more "sane" state...

So the grass is going to be greener on the other side of the country. Make sure you give us weekly reports, no not about the fish, but about the people. lol

[Marley]

That's going waaaaaay too easy on them. I can think of something much better for their sins.

Have them craft tort reform.

Or stipulate "Loser pays."

[Marley]

...
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Godwins_Law.jpg

See, I KNEW it! Hitler really was a pu... oops, I can't say that here. My bad!