Topic: If You've Ever Sold a Used Nintendo Device, You May Have Violated Upcoming United States Copyright Law

@tbd: my understanding is that it applies to anything that is copyrighted by an overseas company, even if it was sold in the US like normal.

@Wheels2050: What I got from the article was that it concerned devices that had been copyrighted and authorized for sale overseas only. For example, my copy of Ouendan 2 says "For sale and use in Japan only. Commercial use unauthorized, copy and rental prohibited." There are plenty of devices and products that are printed with such language (in fact, all of my NA-purchased DS titles say they're for sale and use in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Latin America only), produced and made for sale only in certain regions. The textbooks and watches cited as examples in the article would have fallen under that guideline easily as they were made for sale and purchase in another country, they were brought to the US, and then they were sold by others in competition with the same exact product that the company was attempting to sell in the US. They made those products and specifically designated them for sale someplace else in the world; that's how the article came across to me when I read it.

^It's not clear, actually. One court said "It's only for copyrighted material made for sale overseas" while another said it's for "any copyrighted material that was made overseas". I think it's actually the latter being dealt with by the Supreme Court, but I'd have to double check.

EDIT: "Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad."

That's straight from the article the OP gave us. I'll look up another article to make sure it's not bad reporting.

EDIT 2: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/us-supreme-court-t...
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-10-12/finance/34240922_1...
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-to-decide-a...

Most of these say the same thing, though the last one is the best read. However, that may just be people parroting, since the case they're dealing with involves textbooks that weren't meant for U.S. sale, so I can see where you're coming from, TBD. If the Supreme Court doesn't just throw it out, I think they may just apply it to copyrighted material not meant for U.S. distribution. I still hope they don't, though. I get most of my imports used...

@Mickeymac: Sorry, it sounds like sensationalist parroting to me, and it doesn't quite match the cases involved, that's why i read it the way i did. those articles also aren't taking into account the fact that the cases being decided were between people purposely purchasing these goods for resale here in the US as opposed to the average joe who bought an iPad for personal use while in China and wants to get rid of it a few years later now that he's home. I can't see Apple coming down on that one person or such a suit holding water in court; there's a big difference between the potential cases.

Hmm, in any case it's somewhat worrying. Granted, I'll be back in Australia soon so it may not impact me that much, but this could set an unfortunate precedent.

I'm not normally one to bang on about people's eroding rights, but this has the potential to be quite bad (from my admittedly limited understanding of the situation). I thought that the first sale doctrine was a basic tenet of copyright law, and I think it's a good one. Once you've bought something, it should be yours to do with as you wish (as long as you're not breaking any other laws by doing so), with some exceptions for certain classes of goods.

I digress a bit, but this has become a bit of a problem with copyright law. Even 10 years ago there was a court case in Australia regarding copy protection for some sort of digital media (I think it was music, but I can't be sure). The case was regarding the legality of making personal backups of media, and thus concerning fair use laws. The judge made the point that, if copy protection exists (which is illegal in Australia to circumvent, I believe, or was at the time) then it causes problems down the track. Once the copyright licence on the media (say, the songs, if it was a music CD) has expired, copyright law says it then enters the public domain and can be freely distributed. However, to do so, one first has to circumvent the copy protection, which would still be illegal.

Thus, in practice, one COULD legally distribute the copyrighted material once that copyright has expired, but to do so one first has to break a different law regarding copy protection.

Long story short, it seems - from my completely uneducated, in legal terms, point of view - that technology and the ease of importing goods these days are proceeding far too quickly for copyright law to keep up.

You can still sell it even if it does say that. Courts have held that the First Sale Doctrine trumps a company stamping that on a package. That applies to hardware, anyway. Software is a bit murkier.

right when i was just about to import an italian toilet!

@theblackdragon So I can still buy a Sega Genesis if this passes?
I'm completely lost on this.

Well, in my opinion, if you don't understand exactly what a law or reform is going to do, don't support it.

All I can say on this matter is that it's a stupid move by the government if this thing passes. As @theblackdragon says, It will just be hurting imported sales.

Still ain't gonna happen. If we couldn't buy old antiques from the old days, that could also cause problems with archeologists.

just caught a class a felony for italian toilet importing.
see yall in 30 years.

@ogo: hey, since you're in the clink an' all, can i use your toilet? it sounds fancy :3

+1

you camped out in my ice box, and took my sugar wafers but my fancy toilet? who do you think yo...
er...okay no problem

"Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine."

A description of the still-used first sale doctrine: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/titl... The only exception to date is rental services.

"The Supreme Court’s decision will impact the domestic and international availability of copyrighted products. The outcome will affect the applicability of the Act to foreign-made goods imported and distributed within the U.S."

Here's the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (11-697).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-697

"Kirtsaeng sold these textbooks on commercial websites such as eBay.com and used the profits to reimburse his family and to pay for his education. According to testimony from Kirtsaeng during the jury trial, he earned $900,000 in revenues from the textbook sales."

This person found a loophole, and exploited it. The suing company didn't like that, so they went after him.

The significance of all of this tieing together, though...

"Proponents of Kirtsaeng’s argument state that Wiley’s interpretation would give rise to a chilling effect on the operations of public institutions and charitable organizations. For example, Goodwill argues that the first-sale doctrine sustains the secondary goods market because it allows resellers to sell goods at cheap prices without worrying about copyright infringement. If Wiley’s interpretation is upheld, Goodwill and its customers will be burdened with the task of investigating the origins of their goods, leading to a decrease of the benefits of Goodwill’s operations. Others contend that if § 109(a) were interpreted so that the first-sale doctrine applies only to products manufactured in the U.S., then museums, galleries, and libraries will have difficulty exhibiting foreign art or lending international materials because these institutions will have to obtain copyright licenses, which require extensive negotiations.

Opponents of Kirtsaeng’s argument contend that limiting the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to domestically manufactured goods would not inhibit the availability of foreign artworks or other cultural materials in the U.S. They argue that Wiley’s interpretation still allows for importation and distribution of foreign goods as long as the distributor obtains the copyright owner’s permission. If and when the copyright owner authorizes the importation and sale of the goods IN THE U.S., only then will the first-sale doctrine apply, and the copyright owner will no longer hold exclusive rights to distribute the imported goods."

This does not just apply to one product, it could be extended to apply to ANY product. It DOES apply to ANY sales within the United States. If the Supreme Court passes this, then a major precedent will be set that companies / corporations control ALL aspects of the sales of ANY of their goods not manufactured SOLELY in the United States. The end user forfeits any and ALL rights of ownership of the bought product to the whims of the company or corporation.

Most game products are manufactured in Eastern Asia, therefore, if not in this case, then possibly in the future, the definition could be extended to include ANYTHING not 100% produced in the United States, but is sold in the United States under a copyright and / or trademark.

That's exactly one of the points being made. Without "extensive negotiations", museums would, from now on, be completely at the mercy of whichever company or corporation laid claim to any item to bid for procurement, IN ADDITION to existing processes. A company or corporation could acquire a copyright and / or trademark at will- then no matter where a museum piece goes, it belongs to the company or corporation in full.

The ones who originally crafted, found, or otherwise acquired the items would lose ALL legal ownership of their own works, unless the company / corporation bid otherwise.

You cant violate copyright laws that havent been implemented yet.

Please, GreenDream, I understand you're upset, but we only need one topic for this. Let's keep the discussion to this one. Thanks in advance!