decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
With all due respect.. | 367 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT
With the first sale logic so simple, so direct, and so
compelling, what puzzles me is how this case could ever have
been lost at the district court level in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

With all due respect..
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT
The First Sale case I am waiting for is Capitol v. ReDigi
(1:12-cv-00095), but I imagine we have years...

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT
One wonders then how this will affect DRM encumbered items such as DVDs.

With first sale strongly upheld, isn't DRM now more clearly an attempt to reach
passed the sale and control my use by, say, requiring that I only play the movie
using a player that, say, requires me to watch (or at least wait through) the
previews and disables certain kinds of playback?

The contract of adhesion theory, where after I buy a software package just like
I'd buy a toaster, but the publisher gets to reach passed that sale and
re-structure it as a license seems a little fishy as well. After all, the
"first" sale was the sale to the store or distributor. I am the second
or third sale when I buy.

So too and more particularly if the software was burned onto disk and packaged
by a foreign factory.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:58 PM EDT
Identify correction in title to make it easier to avoid duplicates.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT
If it's not about this article and it's not about an existing news pick then
your comment goes here.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions here
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT

Please use the title of the news pick as your title. Please include a link to the news pick in your comment. You must select HTML Format to include links in your post. You can use "Preview" to check to see if it works correctly.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT
Thank you for your support.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:59 PM EDT
Will the Court apply the same First Sale doctrine to the Roundup Ready soybean
seed case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hope for curtailing the software patent wars?
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:04 PM EDT
On pdf-page 28 of the ruling, Justice Breyer says:
Finally, the fact that harm has proved limited so far may simply reflect the reluctance of copyright holders so far to assert geographically based resale rights. They may decide differently if the law is clarified in their favor. Regardless, a copyright law that can work in practice only if unenforced is not a sound copyright law. It is a law that would create uncertainty, would bring about selective enforcement, and, if widely unenforced, would breed disrespect for copyright law itself.
Boldface added. If even 1% of the existing software patents were enforced, the software industry in the United States would cease to function.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Color me stupefait
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT
Did Wiley not have any inkling of an idea how they
were throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Or were they just benignly seeking a clear position
from the Court?

bjd



[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:01 PM EDT
What was the split of the decision?
-Clocks

[ Reply to This | # ]

tidbits with other implications
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:20 PM EDT
from page 24

Regardless, a copyright law that can work in practice only if unenforced is not
a sound copy right law. It is a law that would create uncertainty, would bring
about selective enforcement, and, if widely unenforced, would breed disrespect
for copyright law itself.



People arguing against the CFAA should quote this bit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Text purchases will be leases
Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT
Let's all remind ourselves of the previous cases like Omega v Costco which established that the First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply unless at least some identical copies are imported with Wiley's permission. That was the case here: the texts sold in the US were made overseas and imported by Wiley for sale in the US.

There is a clanger of a hint in the judgement for Wiley on how to proceed:
"Congress did not have geography in mind when writing the present version of §109(a) ... The former version referred to those who are not owners of a copy, but mere possessors who “lawfully obtained” a copy, while the present version covers only owners of a “lawfully made” copy. This new language, including the five words at issue, makes clear that a lessee of a copy will not receive “first sale” protection but one who owns a copy will be protected, provided that the copy was “lawfully made.”

This means that in order to circumvent the First Sale doctrine an obvious course is never to sell your books, but rather to lease or rent them.

For that to work properly, the lease would have to be lawful and enforceable in the first country of sale, like Thailand. Such a contract would presumably resemble a software End User Licence Agreement in both form and method of adhesion.

---
Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: albert on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT
Kudos to SCOTUS!

As I've said before, the Supreme Court seems to do better with these sorts of
cases than the lower courts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Copyright Laws come into effect next week - News at 11
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT
Wow. That was fast. Lose in the Supreme Court - donate to politicians that
night, changes to Copyright laws in effect next week.

Who says the government is inefficient? ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: Rubberman on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Let's hope that he gets his legal expenses from Wiley...
FWIW, I contributed a chapter to a graduate-level text
published by Wiley around 2000. I seem to recall it paid me
about $500 USD for the work. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whew
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:15 PM EDT
Sanity. Refreshing.

I've bought international edition textbooks (softcover, different ISBN), because
the US editions are so obscenely expensive ($200+).

I have no problem with doing this, and now the Supreme Court backs up this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Differential Copyright Terms?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:55 PM EDT
How would this apply to materials where copyright is expired over seas but not
yet in the US?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 12:11 AM EDT
Well, its about time someone started putting some brakes on copyright
maximalists who seemingly want to make any transfer of any copyrighted work, no
matter whether lawfully produced or not, an infringment.

Good for the Supreme Court!

---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something fishy here
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 04:50 AM EDT
Doesn't anybody else here find it rather amazing he made $100,000 dollars just
by reselling books? How many books did he have to sell? At a ridiculous price,
of say $20.00 for each second-hand book, that is still 5000 books?

I mean, there is something going on here.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Those who find legislative history useful"
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT

In section II-B, the opinion twice uses the phrase "those who find legislative history useful" -- are the justices implying that they don't? I thought legislative history was considered important in analyzing an ambiguous statute.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ - First Sale VS Patent Exhaustion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 02:16 AM EDT
One is patent but one is copyright, so the law is different but the concept is
similar.

Can you explain your views in relation to Apple vs Moto/Samsung In in this
context for FRAND SEP patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why would Wiley take this case all the way?
Authored by: albert on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT
Mr. Kirtsaeng was a preview of the future. Academic book publishers can charge
whatever they want. It's a neat little monopoly that's been going on for a long
time. (You want that degree, don't you? Then buy the books.)

Now, imagine 10 Kirtsaengs ($1M), 100 Kirtsaengs? You get the idea.

The profit margins must be terrific, especially if you pay the authors up front.
Printing costs are minimal if done locally. You just email the book to the
printer!

Why not just eliminate the printer, and make ebooks instead?

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's globalisation for you
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 03:48 PM EDT
It is always fun to see when a company uses globalisation to maximize its own
profit, but denies the average man on the street to do so likewise.

Nice the court put Wiley into its place. Now, what will happen next? Publishers
will joint to lobby congress and buy a few politicians to get laws into place to
outlaw that "despicable" practice by bloody foreigners. It'll cost
them a few well filled suitcases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )