/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10/09/0241250/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-or-not-you-own-what-you-own So if you didn't really own it, the person who built that did. And if they didn't really build that, who owns it?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I was reading about this the other day, and the implications of this decision being upheld are nearly unlimited. First of all the damage this would do to property rights would trump even the Kelo decision. Secondly, this would shut down entire segments of the economy. E-Bay, Game Stop, Rent'a-Center, Savers, The Salvation Army, used car dealerships, auction houses, etc. would all suddenly find their business models obsolete... Can you even imagine?
Just Jack Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 So if i understand this right, when it's time to get another vehicle, I could not sell my Canadian made Ford Ranger without permission from Ford?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 So if i understand this right, when it's time to get another vehicle, I could not sell my Canadian made Ford Ranger without permission from Ford? Correct.
meazza Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 So if i understand this right, when it's time to get another vehicle, I could not sell my Canadian made Ford Ranger without permission from Ford? Serves you right for buying a Canadian made car.
Just Jack Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Serves you right for buying a Canadian made car. It seemed a better choice than an American made Toyota.
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 I was reading about this the other day, and the implications of this decision being upheld are nearly unlimited. First of all the damage this would do to property rights would trump even the Kelo decision. Secondly, this would shut down entire segments of the economy. E-Bay, Game Stop, Rent'a-Center, Savers, The Salvation Army, used car dealerships, auction houses, etc. would all suddenly find their business models obsolete... Can you even imagine? Forward!
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I blame the !@#$ kid for bringing up the First Sale Doctrine to be challenged. The idiot wasn't purchasing for personal use, he was purchasing for distribution, which even under First Sale are differentiated. If the court has any sense, they'll uphold First Sale, but say it doesn't apply when you're acting as a distributor of licensed material.
dayman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I blame the !@#$ kid for bringing up the First Sale Doctrine to be challenged. The idiot wasn't purchasing for personal use, he was purchasing for distribution, which even under First Sale are differentiated. If the court has any sense, they'll uphold First Sale, but say it doesn't apply when you're acting as a distributor of licensed material. But that is what First Sale is...a defense to infringement when distributing licensed material...that would be nonsensical. We're going to get into the subjective intent of every purchaser each time an infringement suit is brought now? "Well judge I purchased it for personal use but then changed my mind...."...bleh...never going to happen. I think it's most likely they will rule in favor of the copyright holder here. They get the exclusive right to distribute/reproduce/a number of other exclusive rights. The first sale doctrine limits this exclusive right for second hand sale for goods "lawfully made under this [copyright law] title." (17 U.S.C. 109a). It's ambiguous in the text what that means..."lawfully made under this title" could mean "made in the US," "work protected under this act," "lawfully made under this title had it been applicable" etc... The basic scheme of our copyright law does allow copyright holders some flexibility to divide up markets... § 602(a)(1)—that “[importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under [the Copyright Act], of copies . . . of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the [owner’s] exclusive right to distribute copies”— ...if first sale applied to all products manufactured outside the US...that provision has little practical effect. EDIT: What they should do to protect our right to resell is hold "under this title" to include goods "lawfully made under this title [uS Copyright law] had it been applicable" so as to cover works copyrighted under foreign copyright law (including treaty countries) ... obviously countries have their own IP protection...to maximize our freedom first sale should extend to them. Of course this would limit the exclusive right to distribute and divide up markets which is built into the system as is. Hence I bet they uphold it and say you can't do it. Then write, "if globalization renders the consequences of this decision unjust/outdated then that is a question for congress" or some crap like that. Then Congress won't do anything b/c they can't do anything and if they could do anything they would do the wrong thing. Edited October 9, 2012 by TheNewBills
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 So if i understand this right, when it's time to get another vehicle, I could not sell my Canadian made Ford Ranger without permission from Ford? Correct. Let's pretend for a moment that Jack's replaces his alternator. Will he need permission from the maker of the alternator as well as Ford?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Let's pretend for a moment that Jack's replaces his alternator. Will he need permission from the maker of the alternator as well as Ford? I don't believe this rubs directly against Right to Repair statutes, so I'm going to say no. However if it's a used alternator then thescrap yard and the mechanic Jack uses will both need the permission of the manufacturer of the alternator. If Jack then decides, due to the drastically increased costs of service, that he would rather just cut his losses and sell the car for scrap he'll need to get Ford's permission.
dayman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 ....ya but keep in mind if the transaction where you obtain the alternator in the US occurs with the authority of the US IP holder...
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I don't believe this rubs directly against Right to Repair statutes, so I'm going to say no. However if it's a used alternator then thescrap yard and the mechanic Jack uses will both need the permission of the manufacturer of the alternator. If Jack then decides, due to the drastically increased costs of service, that he would rather just cut his losses and sell the car for scrap he'll need to get Ford's permission. Okay, after fixing the alternator Jack decides to pimp out his Explorer with some hydraulics, 24 inch spinners, and a subwoofer a tenth the size of Tom's ego. These are clearly not repairs. Does he need permission from the maker of these upgrades? Edited October 9, 2012 by /dev/null
dayman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Okay, after fixing the alternator Jack decides to pimp out his Explorer with some hydraulics, 24 inch spinners, and a subwoofer a tenth the size of Tom's ego. These are clearly not repairs. Does he need permission from the maker of these upgrades? No. Why would he?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Okay, after fixing the alternator Jack decides to pimp out his Explorer with some hydraulics, 24 inch spinners, and a subwoofer a tenth the size of Tom's ego. These are clearly not repairs. Does he need permission from the maker of these upgrades? No the vendor and the mechanic need to gain the permission. The cost will ultimately be passed onto Jack, however. If Jack later decides to sell the Explorer he will need to aquire the permission of all the manufacturers of the after-market upgrades as well as Ford.
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 No the vendor and the mechanic need to gain the permission. The cost will ultimately be passed onto Jack, however. If Jack later decides to sell the Explorer he will need to aquire the permission of all the manufacturers of the after-market upgrades as well as Ford. I think the legal status of having title to the car absolves the owner of the need to contact Ford.
dayman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Who buys a foreign made car and imports it to the United States himself? That is not the situation almost anybody I know is in....
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I think the legal status of having title to the car absolves the owner of the need to contact Ford. You don't hold the title, however. You have a copy of the title. Your local DMV holds the title.
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Who buys a foreign made car and imports it to the United States himself? That is not the situation almost anybody I know is in.... I can think of a couple people. Collectors, mostly. You don't hold the title, however. You have a copy of the title. Your local DMV holds the title. Legally, having a piece of paper - original or copy - that shows ownership is called holding the title. And now that I think about it...practically, too. I have the title to my car in my physical possession. The Maryland MVA doesn't. Edited October 9, 2012 by DC Tom
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Who buys a foreign made car and imports it to the United States himself? That is not the situation almost anybody I know is in.... Most everyone I know who is inactive duty military who was stationed in Europe or Asia has done this and saved thousands of dollars in the process.
Recommended Posts