OT Could this be the end of EBAY?

[SD Realtor]

A pretty interesting case is coming to the supreme court right now. A possible ramification is that you may never be able to resell anything you have purchases due to copyright infringement.

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

[spdrun]

Doubt the ramifications would be anywhere close to that extreme. Though in a just world, legal trolls like the textbook company’s lawyers would be locked up for wasting public resources to compensate for their employers’ stupidity.

[SD Realtor]

However once a precedence is set for copyright infringement on resale it then simply becomes a matter of the original seller to identify and enforce.

Absolutely agreed with what you said about the stupidity of the textbook maker. Anyone who has ever gone to college has purchased cheaper textbooks. Hopefully our supreme court will see this as a waste of time.

[sdduuuude]

It can’t be copyright infringement. There is no copy being made.

This would result in the original sellers having to do one of two things:
1) Lower prices to make up for the $0 salvage value.
or
2) Explicitly allow resale when selling.

No matter what the ruling, it will be a non-issue. Only the lawyers will make money.

[Diego Mamani]

The article’s author did a poor job of explaining the issue, and explaining the courts decision’s potential implications. She went for the sensationalist approach, I think.

Textbook publishers often have cheaper versions of their books for sale in developing countries that have identical contents, but sell for a fraction of what they do in the US. In this case, a Thai student bought and imported a large amount of these books from Thailand, then sold them via eBay, reportedly racking up $1.2 million (not clear whether that was gross sales or profit).

Even if the courts side with the publisher, the decision would have to do with circumventing regular distribution channels, and will have no effect whatsoever on any of us who occasionally buy or sell used stuff.

[no_such_reality]

What’s interesting is the Wiley, the publisher, won the original case and appeal.

[Coronita]

The kid is a genious. Now why didn’t I think of that.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude]It can’t be copyright infringement. There is no copy being made.

[/quote]

Look up “first sale doctrine.” Resale of a copyrighted work is OK only because there is a law that says it’s ok. Copyright law has been around for 300 years, but the “first sale” exception has only been around since the early 1900s. At issue is whether the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured overseas. “Subject to certain limitations, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to . . . . distribute copies of the work to the public by sale, donation, rental, or lending;” (Harvard University Office of the General Counsel)

People don’t realize how amazingly broad Copyright law is. Most people engage in copyright infringement every day.

I do agree with your economic analysis. Plus, there is the likelihood that upholding the lower court’s finding would drive manufacturing overseas. Not a desirable result.

[njtosd]

[quote=Diego Mamani]The article’s author did a poor job of explaining the issue, and explaining the courts decision’s potential implications. She went for the sensationalist approach, I think.

Textbook publishers often have cheaper versions of their books for sale in developing countries that have identical contents, but sell for a fraction of what they do in the US. In this case, a Thai student bought and imported a large amount of these books from Thailand, then sold them via eBay, reportedly racking up $1.2 million (not clear whether that was gross sales or profit).

Even if the courts side with the publisher, the decision would have to do with circumventing regular distribution channels, and will have no effect whatsoever on any of us who occasionally buy or sell used stuff.[/quote]

Hmmm. I don’t think you’re right.

[paramount]

Forced Arbitration: Less Rights for consumers, more for Ebay/Paypal?

This is BS:

You will, with limited exception, be required to submit claims you have against PayPal to binding and final arbitration, unless you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate (Section 14.3) by December 1, 2012. Unless you opt out: (1) you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding and (2) you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis.

[Author]

Posts