US Supreme court in case styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

 

Held: The "first sale" doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.

 

What this means is that a buyer of a copyrighted work, such as software, made and purchased lawfully anywhere in the world and imported into the US can be disposed of by the buyer in the secondary market without regard to the monopoly rights of the copyright holder, in the same way as a work purchased in the US.

 

scott s.

.

*subscribed*

 

This will be a hottie...

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Ohhhh.... Are we here again? Nice to see that a good decision was made.

I was wondering when someone would post this.

Ohhhh.... Are we here again? Nice to see that a good decision was made.

 

I do not know what circumstances this decisions was made under, but I am not sure I agree with the implications.  In principle and I believe and support that the oringal copyright owner (the company) should not have control of a product after it is sold beyond those inherent to the copyright (i.e., no one can buy a movie and copy 10 times). 

 

However, I do not believe the USA has any business whatsoever in addressing laws abroad and simply put should mind its own business.  For the record, I am a proud American, but proud as I am there are some things I don't support.

You can sell it, but the copyright owner (manufacturer or creator) is not required to re-license it or support it...

 

DJ

We have crossed paths with this subject before, and there are still complications....

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/389128-internet-providers-to-begin-warning-customers-that-pirate/page-2?hl=first+sale+doctrine#entry2504801

Before we get too excited this judgement relates to the First Sale doctrine In the USA this doctrine still only applies to products that are owned. It doesn't apply to products, like computer programs, that are acquired by "rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership".

 

US law differs from that in the EU where it's now lawful to sell licenced software (subject to conditions) together with the rights and obligations in the original EULA. 

Before we get too excited this judgement relates to the First Sale doctrine In the USA this doctrine still only applies to products that are owened. It doesn't apply to products, like computer programs, that are acquired by "rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership".

 

US law differs from that in the EU where it's now lawful to sell licenced software (subject to conditions) together with the rights and obligations in the original EULA. 

 

Which Is essentially the loophole I pointed out in the other thread.

I'm not sure I understand the ramifications of this. The OP states this includes copyrighted work like software, yet we know most software in not owned, just licensed. Does this apply to things like CDs, DVDs, books, and such?

 

I'm not sure I understand the ramifications of this. The OP states this includes copyrighted work like software, yet we know most software in not owned, just licensed. Does this apply to things like CDs, DVDs, books, and such?

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/03/20/the-supreme-courts-first-sale-ruling-will-spur-price-competition-in-the-short-run-but-enjoy-it-while-it-lasts/

 

The authors opinion is that first sale doctrine is doomed, but take that with a grain of salt when you think of his intended audience and the venue in which he is writing. I tend to prefer less defeatist viewpoints.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/4123740/supreme-court-upholds-first-sale-rights-abroad

Thanks Devon, that link really helped me understand what we're talking about here.

I'm not sure I understand the ramifications of this. The OP states this includes copyrighted work like software, yet we know most software in not owned, just licensed. Does this apply to things like CDs, DVDs, books, and such?

 

It doesn't apply in the US to anything that is obtained by "...by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it."

 

As i said, it's now different in the EU where the European Court ruled that, subject to conditions, software leases are effectively sales so that the software can be sold subsequently. Gven that the US Supreme Court said in it's latest judgement: 

 

 

Putting section numbers to the side, we ask whether the "first sale" doctrine applies to protect a buyer or other lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully manufactured abroad. Can that buyer bring that copy into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner? Can, for example, someone who purchases, say at a used bookstore, a book printed abroad subsequently resell it without the copyright owner’s permission?

 

In our view, the answers to these questions are, yes.

 

it may only be a matter of time before the US follows the EU.

It doesn't apply in the US to anything that is obtained by "...by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it."

 

As i said, it's now different in the EU where the European Court ruled that, subject to conditions, software leases are effectively sales so that the software can be sold subsequently. Gven that the US Supreme Court said in it's latest judgement:

 

 

 

it may only be a matter of time before the US follows the EU.

Unfortunatly, corporations are increasingly resorting to working through captive government agencies to circumvent such eventualities. They avoid direct blame by working as so called as "industry advisors" to write "recommendations" that are then inserted nearly verbatim into international treaty's to nullify or override existing law's they don't like.

 

Hence the rising barrage of trade agreements like ACTA, SOPA, CETA and seemingly a zillion others with nasty things hidden inside designed not to come to light until after they are signed and binding.

 

The US might publicly follow in the EU's footsteps on this, only to find itself bound by an overriding trade agreement written by corporations, standing quietly behind tame politicos, and enacted with little or no public oversight/input.

 

Checkmate.

 

The Forbes article said as much, just more obliquely.