The Right to Own Property Being Decided

[rstrong]

Right now the Supreme Court is hearing Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, which concerns the right of a student, Supap Kirtsaeng, to import textbooks from overseas and sell them in the USA.

Wiley, a textbook publisher, argues that even though the books Kirtsaeng is selling are his property, that they have the right to dictate how and whether he may pass it on.

Normally, copyright is limited by "first sale" -- once a copyrighted work has been sold once, it is the new owner's property. But Wiley argues that works that are manufactured offshore (nearly everything) are not subject to first sale. That means that everything from lending library books to selling used CDs to selling, giving away or lending practically every kind of electronics (all of which have copyrighted software that comes from offshore) will only persist with the permission of rightsholders, who can withhold it, or charge arbitrary sums for it.

While this case is specifically about textbooks, there's more at stake. Many goods are manufactured overseas and have some components or logos on the packaging that are subject to copyright law. The Swiss watchmaker Omega successfully sued Costco for copyright infringement because the retailer was reselling genuine Omega watches, purchased abroad, that happened to have the Omega logo on them. Because the Omega watches at issue were made outside of the United States, the court held that the first-sale doctrine could not act as a defense and that Costco was liable for infringing Omega's rights.

What the Omega/Costco case means is that you may not have the right to own and sell much of your own property. It means that while corporations have the right to send jobs overseas to where the labor is cheaper, consumers do NOT have the right to purchase the same goods from overseas where the prices are cheaper.

If the Supreme Court rules in Wiley’s favor, U.S. copyright holders will likely ensure that as many of their works as possible are manufactured outside the United States, so that they, too, can escape that pesky first sale doctrine.

Elecronic Frontier Foundation: Your Right to Own, Under Threat

[nobody]

If the first seller has the right to sell a book with copy rights then the buyer retains the right to re-sell it.
If the first seller does not have the right to sell a book then the buyer has no right to the book.
To knowingly buy and recall those books is being a fence.

[rstrong]

Wall Street Journal: High Court Rules in Favor of Book Reseller

er, You can get to the page via Google, but there's a paywall when you visit the same link directly.

ars technica: Supreme Court upholds first-sale doctrine in textbook resale case

[bannination]

That's ok, they'll just start licensing the books. No right to sell.

[rstrong]

Yup. Textbooks with shrink-wrap license agreements already exist. E-Textbooks that stop working at the end of a semester already exist. This is the point where they become the rule rather than the exception.

[bannination]

Yup. Textbooks with shrink-wrap license agreements already exist. E-Textbooks that stop working at the end of a semester already exist. This is the point where they become the rule rather than the exception.

Yup! As if college students aren't milked enough here in the good ole USA.

[rstrong]

Right now the Supreme Court is hearing Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, which concerns the right of a student, Supap Kirtsaeng, to import textbooks from overseas and sell them in the USA.

Wiley, a textbook publisher, argues that even though the books Kirtsaeng is selling are his property, that they have the right to dictate how and whether he may pass it on.

Normally, copyright is limited by "first sale" -- once a copyrighted work has been sold once, it is the new owner's property. But Wiley argues that works that are manufactured offshore (nearly everything) are not subject to first sale. That means that everything from lending library books to selling used CDs to selling, giving away or lending practically every kind of electronics (all of which have copyrighted software that comes from offshore) will only persist with the permission of rightsholders, who can withhold it, or charge arbitrary sums for it.

While this case is specifically about textbooks, there's more at stake. Many goods are manufactured overseas and have some components or logos on the packaging that are subject to copyright law. The Swiss watchmaker Omega successfully sued Costco for copyright infringement because the retailer was reselling genuine Omega watches, purchased abroad, that happened to have the Omega logo on them. Because the Omega watches at issue were made outside of the United States, the court held that the first-sale doctrine could not act as a defense and that Costco was liable for infringing Omega's rights.

What the Omega/Costco case means is that you may not have the right to own and sell much of your own property. It means that while corporations have the right to send jobs overseas to where the labor is cheaper, consumers do NOT have the right to purchase the same goods from overseas where the prices are cheaper.

If the Supreme Court rules in Wiley’s favor, U.S. copyright holders will likely ensure that as many of their works as possible are manufactured outside the United States, so that they, too, can escape that pesky first sale doctrine.

Elecronic Frontier Foundation: Your Right to Own, Under Threat

Huh. After Omega won in court, it went up to the Supreme Court. After a tie there, it got kicked back down to a district court which decided against Omega. Omega appealed, and lost.

Techdirt: Court Soundly Rejects Watchmaker's Attempt To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Sale Of Its Watches At Costco

[bannination]

I'm actually shocked..... O_o