
Supreme Court to Revisit 'First-Sale' Copyright Doctrine - sakai
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/scotus-first-sale-revisted/
======
runningdogx
This is another attempt at segmenting a market for goods depending on the
price that can be extracted for that good in a particular market, while
keeping the cheap versions from being marketable in countries with higher
discretionary income. Somewhat similar to DVD region codes, except applied to
books.

Publishers sell (or sell rights to sell) lower-quality texts abroad because
they can make a profit. Then they get pissy when people resell those
international editions in the U.S.

The market says that people want cheaper books and they don't care about
colors or paper quality. Textbooks often end up mauled after a semester
anyway. Publishers don't listen, people try to fill the void, and they get
sued.

" _While the written content of books for the domestic and international
markets is often similar or identical, books intended for international
markets can differ from the domestic version in design, supplemental content
(such as accompanying CD–ROMS), and the type and quality of materials used for
printing, including “thinner paper and different bindings, different cover and
jacket designs, fewer internal ink colors, if any, [and] lower quality
photographs and graphics._ " (from background in the 2nd circuit ruling)

<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1577369.html>

------
Natsu
The Supreme Court reverses cases it gets more often than not. But here,
there's already a circuit split. And the last case of its kind was a 4-4
split, so if you're in to reading tea leaves, this is a toss-up. But this time
I don't think that Kagan will recuse herself and I don't think that having
argued the government's side in the previous case says anything about her
personal beliefs on the matter.

In the Costco case, the problem was that the copy had to be "lawfully made
under this title." With "this title" referring to US law, foreign copies need
not apply. But that's kind of a silly technicality for the case to turn upon
and a poor reading of the phrase. It's not as though international copies are
being _unlawfully_ made, after all. There's also the Berne copyright
convention that applies pretty much everywhere, not to mention all the other
agreements (including ACTA), and the direct influence the US exerts via the
USTR and diplomatic pressure. Just look at Spain, for example, and how their
copyright laws were forcibly influenced by the US. And they're far from being
the only example.

But it may just come down to whether the justices think that the copyright
holder is being ripped off via cheap imports, or whether US citizens are being
ripped off by publishers. For the more legally inclined, Patently-O has a good
writeup. Incidentally, I seem to recall hearing that at least one of the
sitting justices reads it.

[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/04/supreme-court-to-
hea...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/04/supreme-court-to-hear-
international-copyright-exhaustion-case.html)

EDIT: I found this posted at Patently-O. It's a good analysis of the harm that
limiting copyright exhaustion to US-manufactured works would cause:

[http://acrlog.org/2011/08/30/nothing-right-about-this-
copyri...](http://acrlog.org/2011/08/30/nothing-right-about-this-copyright-
ruling/)

------
erichocean
To be clear: a private student imported eight used textbooks (legally
purchased abroad, and legally manufactured abroad), re-sold them here in the
United States, and got fined $600,000 for "damages".

The $600,000 fine was upheld on appeal.

It seems like we may have lost the thread as a country if this is indeed the
result we think is just, fair or reasonable.

~~~
junto
In the ideal capitalist's world second hand sales would be banned completely,
forcing people to always buy new.

It is pretty hard to attack the first-sale copyright doctrine head on, but you
can go after the edge cases. Slowly but surely you eat away at the fair use
concepts until there is nothing left.

We are seeing a massive shift in the concept of copyright and ownership. The
next twenty to fifty years are going to be very interesting as more and more
content becomes digitized.

Can I resell that e-book that I have already read and has been sitting on my
virtual shelf for over a year? Um, no. Dream on...

The actual first-sale doctrine is already null and void when it comes to
digital content. The media companies must be pissing themselves laughing,
whilst still charging the same price as they used to do for physical copies,
the customer is prevented from reselling that digital item.

~~~
dexen
In the ideal capitalist's world the state does not intervene into the market;
only the market forces and agreements between market players shape prices and
availability.

Note this case is not based on any agreement between publisher and the
student; instead the state is asked to prosecute him based on social contract
(copyright laws). Which social contract, as far as we can tell, is not result
of free market trade.

