There is another copyright battle emerging over intellectual property, and this time you, John or Jane Q. Citizen, could be smack-dab in the middle of it, for one of the most innocuous acts you could imagine - selling your used iPad.
...
Designed here, but made overseas - that's the issue
According to reports, the Supreme Court case centers around the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. The doctrine simply means that you are allowed to buy and sell the things you purchase - even if your things have a copyright holder, you can still sell them because the copyright holder's control extends only to the "first-sale," a concept that the high court has observed for over a century.
Think of it like this. You buy a book by an author; the author owns the copyright so you can't legally make copies of the book without that author's permission. But, under the first-sale doctrine, you bought a copy of the book and sell your copy to someone else - a friend, co-worker or a willing buyer online.
In 1998, the first-sale doctrine was challenged by some copyright holders, but the Supreme Court held that it applied to all products made and sold in the U.S. The current case, however, stems from products manufactured abroad; in particular, it involved textbooks.
Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
from the people-are-going-to-create-and-share dept
Nina Paley (filmmaker, activist, occasional Techdirt contributor, and many other things) has given an interesting interview with O'Reilly's Mac Slocum, in which she talks about the concept of "intellectual disobedience" -- merging "intellectual property" with "civil disobedience." Nina argues that if you believe in creating and sharing culture these days, copyright infringement is almost necessary, and people shouldn't apologize for it, but should stand up for what they're doing:"A lot of people infringe copyright and they're apologetic ... If you know as much about the law as, unfortunately, I do, I cannot claim ignorance and I cannot claim fair use ... I know that I'm infringing copyright and I don't apologize for it."
The phrase "intellectual disobedience" has a call-to-arms ring to it, but Paley characterized it as an introspective personal choice driven by a need to create. "It's important for me as an artist to make art, and the degree of self-censorship that is required by the law is too great," Paley said. "In order to have integrity as a human being and as an artist, I guess I'm going to be conscientiously violating the law because there's no way to comply with the law and remain a free human being."
...This taxation effectively manifests as a seemingly hostile and extortionate act against consumers, and it has been legalised...-IainB (June 20, 2012, 07:21 PM)
Police Ticketing Informal Rideshare Participants Based On No Law (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120620/04285719400/police-ticketing-informal-rideshare-participants-based-no-law-to-protect-port-authority-revenue.shtml)
This probably falls into the "Read and weep" category.-IainB (June 20, 2012, 07:54 PM)
Yeah but there's a problem with that:
Antitrust.
This kind of law would absolutely crush a large portion of the US Economy, as well as making it outright impossible for anyone to start a new business.-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 09:25 PM)
"You've been owned!"
Yeah but there's a problem with that:
Antitrust.
This kind of law would absolutely crush a large portion of the US Economy, as well as making it outright impossible for anyone to start a new business.-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 09:25 PM)
Well, some things aren't patented, so you could still sell those. Farmers would be safe as they could still sell their produce, like corn and soy... Ooops. Nope. Nix that. Owned by Monsanto.
Well, at least you could still be a lumberjack. Surely that'd be OK... Oops... Nix that. Trees are owned by Syngenta.
Yep. Looks like we're completely hosed. :(-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:34 PM)
I actually have on my desk a genuine innovation, the prototype of a device I came up with a few years back that is currently undergoing a gradual R&D process whenever I can spare time and money to tinker with it more. My employer already signed off, all rights to this invention belong to me alone.
The current test type is focused on what was originally intended to be a proof of concept model, which it more than achieved successfully.
Since then I've been attempting to actually make it function properly, which would make the rights to this design worth a fortune.
But a law like this? In order to mass produce this device once the design is corrected, I would have to buy raw materials from which to make them. Those raw materials would be processed into components and assembled.
Except I would then have to sell those materials again as part of the finished product.
Hey wait you can't do that
Oh look at that. It is no longer possible to sell ANYTHING at all unless you gathered the raw materials with your own hands, because at some point along the line goods would have had to exchange hands more than once.
This law would actually be beyond unreal- it would mean a COMPLETE national economic shutdown because not only could you not sell things you bought from someone else, but you couldn't manufacture your own without having access to your own supplies of raw materials.
Even the brass that is trying to push this law wouldn't be immune to it's consequences. Apple would have to buy oil wells from which to refine plastic, and their own chipmaking facilities to make their own hardware. They wouldn't be allowed to sell their products if they contained materials that were bought from someone else, or used somebody else's designs in any way.
Amazing, I almost want to see this happen now.-SeraphimLabs (October 25, 2012, 11:56 AM)
Yeah but there's a problem with that:
Antitrust.
This kind of law would absolutely crush a large portion of the US Economy, as well as making it outright impossible for anyone to start a new business.-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 09:25 PM)
Well, some things aren't patented, so you could still sell those. Farmers would be safe as they could still sell their produce, like corn and soy... Ooops. Nope. Nix that. Owned by Monsanto.
Well, at least you could still be a lumberjack. Surely that'd be OK... Oops... Nix that. Trees are owned by Syngenta.
Yep. Looks like we're completely hosed. :(-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:34 PM)
I actually have on my desk a genuine innovation, the prototype of a device I came up with a few years back that is currently undergoing a gradual R&D process whenever I can spare time and money to tinker with it more. My employer already signed off, all rights to this invention belong to me alone.
The current test type is focused on what was originally intended to be a proof of concept model, which it more than achieved successfully.
Since then I've been attempting to actually make it function properly, which would make the rights to this design worth a fortune.
But a law like this? In order to mass produce this device once the design is corrected, I would have to buy raw materials from which to make them. Those raw materials would be processed into components and assembled.
Except I would then have to sell those materials again as part of the finished product.
Hey wait you can't do that
Oh look at that. It is no longer possible to sell ANYTHING at all unless you gathered the raw materials with your own hands, because at some point along the line goods would have had to exchange hands more than once.
This law would actually be beyond unreal- it would mean a COMPLETE national economic shutdown because not only could you not sell things you bought from someone else, but you couldn't manufacture your own without having access to your own supplies of raw materials.
Even the brass that is trying to push this law wouldn't be immune to it's consequences. Apple would have to buy oil wells from which to refine plastic, and their own chipmaking facilities to make their own hardware. They wouldn't be allowed to sell their products if they contained materials that were bought from someone else, or used somebody else's designs in any way.
Amazing, I almost want to see this happen now.-SeraphimLabs (October 25, 2012, 11:56 AM)
Which is where the notion that copyrights and patents should not be available at all to Fortune 500 companies [..]-SeraphimLabs (October 26, 2012, 11:58 AM)
I cant really see you accepting the idea of discrimination - I mean if it's allowed one way, it'll be allowed the other. Mind you, saying that, there might be a workaround...-tomos (October 26, 2012, 03:28 PM)
The obvious workaround is to simply divide up the big companies into smaller ones, because then they wouldn't be as likely to be Fortune 500. But as a side effect, their amount of pooled wealth and political sway would be greatly reduced on top of the encouraged competition.-SeraphimLabs (October 26, 2012, 03:59 PM)
In its ruling, the Court held that neither the word “under” nor any other word in “lawfully made under this title" is meant to impose “a geographical limitation” on the copyright law. “The fact that the Act does not instantly protect an American copyright holder from unauthorized piracy taking place abroad does not mean the Act is inapplicable to copies made abroad,” reads the decision. The ruling also specifically called out the submissions from “Library associations, used-book dealers, technology companies, consumer-goods retailers, and museums,” who pointed out “various ways in which a geographical interpretation would fail to further basic constitutional copyright objectives, in particular “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”-http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/56435-supreme-court-upholds-first-sale-in-landmark-kirtsaeng-ruling.html
Good news: the Supreme court upheld the first sale doctrine (overturning the Second Circuit's ruling):-mwb1100 (March 19, 2013, 04:47 PM)