[Dark RevenantX]

On Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that pits a major textbook publisher against Supap Kirtsaeng, a student-entrepreneur who built a small business importing and selling textbooks.

Like many Supreme Court cases, though, there's more than meets the eye. It's not merely a question of whether the Thai-born Kirtsaeng will have to cough up his profits as a copyright infringer; the case is a long-awaited rematch between content companies seeking to knock out the "first sale" doctrine on goods made abroad (not to mention their many opponents). That makes Wiley v. Kirtsaeng the highest-stakes intellectual property case of the year, if not the decade. It's not an exaggeration to say the outcome could affect the very notion of property ownership in the United States. Since most consumer electronics are manufactured outside the US and include copyrighted software in it, a loss for Kirtsaeng would mean copyright owners could tax, or even shut down, resales of everything from books to DVDs to cellphones.

"First sale" is the rule that allows owners to resell, lend out, or give away copyrighted goods without interference. Along with fair use, it's the most important limitation on copyright. So Kirtsaeng's cause has drawn a wide array of allies to his side. These include the biggest online marketplaces like eBay, brick-and-mortar music and game retailers, and Goodwill—all concerned they may lose their right to freely sell used goods. Even libraries are concerned their right to lend out books bought abroad could be inhibited.

John Wiley and Sons, the textbook publisher suing Kirtsaeng, has its share of backers as well, including the movie and music industries, software companies, and other book publishers. Those companies argue differential pricing schemes are vital to their success, and should be enforced by US courts. Nearly 30 amicus briefs have been filed in all.

Supporters of Kirtsaeng are mobilized, following an alarming—but not precedential—loss in an earlier case, Omega v. Costco. On a call with reporters this week, librarians and lawyers for pro-Kirtsaeng companies painted a stark picture of what might happen should he lose the case. If the appellate court ruling against Kirtsaeng is allowed to stand, they suggest copyright owners could start to chip away at the basic idea of "you bought it, you own it."

"This case is an attempt by some brands and manufacturers to manipulate copyright law, to control the distribution and pricing of legitimate, authentic goods," said eBay's top policy lawyer, Hillary Brill. "When an American purchases an authentic item, he shouldn't have to ask permission from the manufacturer to do with it what he wants."

Without "first sale" doctrine in place, content companies would be allowed to control use of their goods forever. They could withhold permission for resale and possibly even library lending—or they could allow it, but only for an extra fee. It would have the wild effect of actually encouraging copyrighted goods to be manufactured offshore, since that would lead to much further-reaching powers.

"When we purchase something, we assume it's ours," said Overstock.com general counsel Mark Griffin. "What is proposed by [the content companies] is that we change the fundamental notion of ownership rights."

Book publishers and their content-industry allies say those concerns are overblown. No assault on libraries and garage sales is forthcoming, they argue. These organizations simply have a right to set different prices abroad, without being undermined in the US by importation they say is illegal.

As an Engineering student, I do not look forward to having to pay even more for books than I do now.  But that's probably the least of my worries.

I don't see how, with the current interpretation of the case, Wiley could win.  Property ownership and the ability to sell what you own is a basic assumption (it's just short of a universal right), and removing that ability, even in a limited scope, is something I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold.

edit for link: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-means/

[Aardwolf]

Book publishers and their content-industry allies say those concerns are overblown. No assault on libraries and garage sales is forthcoming, they argue. These organizations simply have a right to set different prices abroad, without being undermined in the US by importation they say is illegal.

If it were a lesser court decision, I might go along with their "no slippery slope" claim, but the fact that it made it to the Supreme Court means it's no longer about the specific case of "Wiley vs. Kirsaeng", it's about "first sale".

[Klaustrophobia]

it's a crapshoot.  i no longer have an intrinsic expectation of the supreme court to uphold true justice.  good luck to him in the fight though.

[el_magnifico]

So... Since the basic principle of our capitalist economy is: Work -> Get money for the goods you produce -> Use the money to buy other people's work -> Repeat... What would happen if Americans were to gather together and start suing those companies en masse, claiming that the money they paid for those goods wasn't PAID, but actually LICENSED, and so they should have a say in that money's use. So, for example, Americans could decide that THEIR money shouldn't be used to pay offshore workers since, well, they obviously prefer it to remain in THEIR economical system.

I guess those big companies would have some nasty things to say about that, uh.

[Scotty]

That doesn't make any sense, and would be laughed out of court as quickly, or even more quickly than any of these first sale suits because it's entirely different.  Even though I don't support Wiley in this case, it's pretty damned obvious what's a serious issue and what's deliberately satirizing it.

[el_magnifico]

That doesn't make any sense, and would be laughed out of court as quickly, or even more quickly than any of these first sale suits because it's entirely different.  Even though I don't support Wiley in this case, it's pretty damned obvious what's a serious issue and what's deliberately satirizing it.

Humor, this is Scotty. Scotty, this is humor.

[redsniper]

We've seen enough moronic ideas presented here now that we can't tell when people are joking or being completely serious anymore. See: Poe's Law.

[el_magnifico]

We've seen enough moronic ideas presented here now that we can't tell when people are joking or being completely serious anymore. See: Poe's Law.

Oh, c'mon! He admitted himself that it was obvious that I was satirizing this whole ridiculous situation.

You know what, on a second thought, you're right. My bad. I'll add a laughing emoticon to that post so we can all move forward with the actual discussion.

[Luis Dias]

They are just making pirates look like the saviours of the universe.

And gaining huge numbers. Specially amongst the younger. Good luck with that.

[Aardwolf]

Yay! Pirate party ftw!

[Nuke]

Pirates++;

[karajorma]

They are just making pirates look like the saviours of the universe.

This has very little to do with piracy.

Well not unless you consider selling your Honda second hand as piracy.

[Aardwolf]

Well, considering the industry that's taken it to the Supreme Court (textbooks) is one branch of "Big Copyright", and the people who generally say "**** you" to Big Copyright are pirates and Pirates... it's relevant enough. Especially considering what that industry itself has contributed to the conversation.

[karajorma]

That's nonsense though. It's like saying Apple vs Samsung is about piracy cause Apple own iTunes and don't like piracy.

[Aardwolf]

Actually, better argument:

This is a case of publishers vs. people underselling them for an identical product.
Piracy is a case of publishers vs. people underselling them for an identical product. Or more often, giving it away for free.

In b4 "Herp derp, outrageous oversimplification"

[Scotty]

The key difference here, however, is that the people underselling the product actually bought the product first.  That is a very important distinction.

[Aardwolf]

I said underselling, not underbuying The original uploaders bought it.

Also, people buying games after they pirated them, or pirating them to bypass DRM in a game that they bought... that's a thing.

I say "games" because that's what comes to mind, IDGAF about music/movies/tv/books (do people pirate books?)

[karajorma]

Yes but it's nothing to do with this topic. Even if it is a similar issue it's not the same one. Can you imagine Ebay getting involved in a case about piracy? Goodwill charities?

This isn't the same thing by a very, very long distance. Piracy always involves someone who had no right to the product. This is not about that.


And when you try to drag piracy into the issue you actually do a favour to Big Copyright as you call them. Because you help them cloud the issue without them even having to get their hands dirty.

[Aardwolf]

Oh, I think I see it now... you don't think this case has to do with intellectual property? Edit: nvm I have no idea what's going on in kara's head.

The whole reason the "let's get rid of first sale" idea sounds so absurd is because we're missing their side of the picture. They're trying to force people to buy directly from the publisher. "First sale" is just collateral damage.

Edit: They're trying to make the argument that the person buying second-hand "had no right to the product".

[The E]

Oh, I think I see it now... you don't think this case has to do with intellectual property?

It doesn't. This case is about the right of the producer of a good to set arbitrary restrictions on where his product ends up; in this case, regional editions of textbooks. If first sale holds true, then the producer has no control over his products after the first sale; if it doesn't, a producer has the right to restrict the flow of his wares from one arbitrarily defined area to another.

The whole reason the "let's get rid of first sale" idea sounds so absurd is because we're missing their side of the picture. They're trying to force people to buy directly from the publisher. "First sale" is just collateral damage.

They're trying to force people to buy their products only via channels approved by the producer. This means cutting off a whole lot of the disintermediating factors the Internet provides; the customer's ability to make sound economic choices by comparing offers from different vendors would be impeded. The producers in this case want the right to create regional monopolies, essentially. And we all know how good monopolies are for business.

Edit: They're trying to make the argument that the person buying second-hand "had no right to the product".

The argument they're making is that the reseller had no right to resell the goods he obtained in one region to people in another, thereby severely undercutting the producer's set prices for the region.

In the end, I think this will hinge on the whole "Licensing vs Ownership" thing that the producers of copyrighted goods have been on about for some time now. If you only buy a single, non-transferable license to a product, then reselling it is definitely forbidden; if you actually buy a single instance of a product with a full transfer of ownership rights from the producer to you, then reselling is definitely OK.