Possible end of import gaming/free commerce in the US?

[Op Intensify]

Just WOW. Even worse than SOPA and PIPA, when you consider every implication this holds for society in general.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... aw/258276/

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad -- or almost anything else -- without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:

1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.

2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.

3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.

4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.

Here is what's going on.

The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908.

[njiska]

I very much doubt you'll see any change to the law, but if you do it'll be a sad day for the US economy. You can't keep squeezing water from a stone.

[Teufel_in_Blau]

lol, land of the free.

But as njiska already said I highly doubt something that stupid would ever turn into a law. Because being able to sell stuff you bought is just common sense.

[neorichieb1971]

The internet governs this type of thing. As long as the internet is here you can sell what you like.

As usual there are people trying to control something that is uncontrollable. Whats next population control?

[Acid King]

As usual there are people trying to control something that is uncontrollable.

When has that ever stopped them?

[Op Intensify]

As usual there are people trying to control something that is uncontrollable. Whats next population control?

Well, China did it first.

[CMoon]

Really absurd this got far enough to even be news. As said above, it is so restrictive as to be uncontrollable. Note that taken to the extreme this would make things like yard sales illegal without involving copyright holders. These people need to recognize their old model doesn't work and change it instead of attempting to pass laws that make us all out to be pirates/criminals.

[Op Intensify]

Yard sales are already illegal where I live, and have been forever. The local police overlook them unless a problem comes up, because they're considered an important part of the community.

[Blackbird]

I'm so sick and tired of copyright trolling. The system is hopelessly broken and abuseable. We should do away with it already.

[GaijinPunch]

These people are dipshits. The resale market fuels the first-sale market. If people can't resell their items, they're not going to "upgrade" very often.

[xbl0x180]

These people are dipshits. The resale market fuels the first-sale market. If people can't resell their items, they're not going to "upgrade" very often.

You know, there's a silver lining to consumerism coming to a grinding halt

[BulletMagnet]

These people are dipshits. The resale market fuels the first-sale market. If people can't resell their items, they're not going to "upgrade" very often.

Until our corporate overlords get this concept (among many, many others) through their skulls or their bought-and-paid-for enablers in government finally stand up and say "seriously, what in heaven's name are you guys thinking?" the line between consumerism and de facto slavery will keep getting thinner.

[Ed Oscuro]

Here's hoping somebody on the supreme court is a libertarian, at least

I don't see this going through, myself. If it is done, I think you'll see a constitutional amendment put forward to fix it.

I'm not surprised this is about a textbook case, though.

[DJ Incompetent]

How has Friendly not posted in this thread?

[Ex-Cyber]

The Supreme Court could conceivably uphold this, but in that case Congress would probably amend the law to override the ruling (provoking this response is sometimes even the stated purpose of "stupid" court rulings). This interpretation would screw over way too many businesses for Congress to let it stand. It would basically give manufacturers a license to engage in price fixing and the de facto ability to outright ban sales of their products by unapproved resellers.

[Ed Oscuro]

I went out in search of the divide in the 2010 Costco vs. Omega case, the predecessor to this case. (here, here, and here for some commentary.) Strangely, nobody seems to have gone on record in saying what they voted for.

(Democratic) Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case because she was one of the U.S. Solicitor Generals in the 2008 circuit court case. Presumably, since she supported the government's case supporting Swatch (the owner of Omega), she would actually have voted to form an illiberal 5-4 majority in favor of Swatch.

I am totally baffled at how the liberals (Democrats) on the S.C. could have voted for Swatch in this case. I am also equally baffled at how the conservatives would be the only ones on the right side of this issue. Unfortunately, we don't know why they might be on the right side of the issue, because all the Supreme Court said in the case was "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." That is the whole of the Court's decision, which may be one of the shortest in its history!