3 ms·

> I responded with an email restating that the First Sale Doctrine makes such a request both nonsensical and illegal, and asked a few more questions. The rest

> I responded with an email restating that the First Sale Doctrine makes such a request both nonsensical and illegal, and asked a few more questions. The rest of the thread notwithstanding, this is not what First Sale Doctrine does, at all!

rhester 4y ago
Instead of above, if replying (for the benefit of this community) why not explain how or why you disagree?
- bawolff 4y ago
  I don't even see the above in the tweet thread, but i think its pretty obviously true that the first sale doctrine doesn't make it illegal for shopify to ask more about your business and where you are getting your products from. They don't need any excuse to ask that, they are allowed to ask their customers anything they want.
LegitShady 4y ago
If you buy goods from an authorized place and sell them, you do not require any authorization or proof to sell those 'branded' goods, because first sale doctrine means that the original seller has exhausted their legal rights to control the sale and distribution of those items. So it sort of is what first sale doctrine does. shopify is asking them to produce proof they have authorization to sell something they've already purchased and need no special rights to sell, regardless of whether they're branded or not.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  You're assuming his use of copyrighted and trademarked material is authorized. They're selling books and even soaps with "deadwood" in the name, and they / the publisher (sounds like they're both run by him?) appear to have directly lifted the photo for the cover of one of the books: https://mzs.press/The-Last-Western-Deadwood-and-the-End-of-American-Empire-p476587251 https://mzs.press/The-Last-Western-Deadwood-and-the-End-of-A... ...from here: https://deadwood.fandom.com/wiki/Deadwood_(episode)?file=Season-1-episode-1-deadwood.png https://deadwood.fandom.com/wiki/Deadwood_(episode)?file=Sea... My guess is that Seitz got nailed by trademark and copyright infringement claims and is now spinning a story about how his poor poor book shop is getting screwed over by the Big Evil Corporation, as witnessed by the very histrionic language he uses in his tweets.
  - teh_klev 4y ago
    Try reading the twitter thread: https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1541994429405331458 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15419944294053314... https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1541994429405331458 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15419944294053314...
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Trademark cannot stop someone from using that word on an unrelated product like soap. Nor can it stop someone from using a word in a book title.. Is Amazon killing the book industry? is a valid book title.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      > Nominative fair use generally is permissible as long as: > ... > (3) use of the mark does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-inte... I'm not a lawyer, but "Deadwood Soap with a Prize Inside: Dirt" sounds like it could suggest sponsorship or endorsement to me. Of course, as teh_klev pointed out, this most likely isn't the cause of the store's Shopify problems since HBO says they're OK with what the store does.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  > If you buy goods from an authorized place and sell them, you do not require any authorization or proof to sell those 'branded' goods, because first sale doctrine means that the original seller has exhausted their legal rights to control the sale and distribution of those items. Right, but it doesn't make it illegal, as stated by the seller, for Shopify to have these requirements. I'm giving the seller full benefit of the doubt that they were not selling anything that violates copyright / trademark law. The point is the doctrine still doesn't make Shopify's request or requirements illegal.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Shopify banning you for not producing documentation is not a violation of first sale doctrine. Just like a web forum banning you for posting something annoying is not a violation of your constitutional freedom of speech. The current law and constitution don't protect you from these actions.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    Nobody said its a 'violation of first sale doctrine', merely that first sale doctrine precludes a requirement to be authorized to sell legally purchased 'branded' items. Since shopify doesn't actually tell them what items are an issue, it is requiring them to compile a full accounting including 'proof' of their ability to sell all of their items within 48 hours, or else suffer financial consequences when their store is shut down. So it doesn't involve the constitution, but rather its shopify's unreasonable and unexplained policies and vague threats that are causing financial damage to this small business owner, demanding something that might not exist at all, because no special rights are required to sell 'branded products' legally purchased, and shopify will not specify what the issue is, so demands such an accounting for the entire store within an unreasonable length of time.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      >Nobody said its a 'violation of first sale doctrine' These seem to be saying that: > I’m gonna have an update for you later today on my continuing communications with @Shopify. They are now asking for purchase receipts to sell Star Wars books on their platform. This is both illegal and nonsensical. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1542533549689131009 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15425335496891310... >As detailed higher up in this thread, neither Shopify nor anyone has a legal right to demand documentation in order to sell, resell, give away, or otherwise dispose of published material, according to the First Sale Doctrine. Big thanks to Twitter mutuals for hipping me to this. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545542804860014599 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455428048600145... >I responded with an email restating that the First Sale Doctrine makes such a request both nonsensical and illegal, and asked a few more questions. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545542818424360960 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455428184243609... >"All of this was not only unnecessary but illegal as covered by the First Sale Doctrine." https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545545224235130880 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455452242351308... I agree with you that what Shopify is doing is bad and doesn't make sense. Freezing or taking money might be illegal. But I would think it's not illegal for Shopify to ban an account due to some system flagging it as suspicious, because I assume the Shopify TOS say they can do that.

rhester 4y ago

Instead of above, if replying (for the benefit of this community) why not explain how or why you disagree?

bawolff 4y ago
I don't even see the above in the tweet thread, but i think its pretty obviously true that the first sale doctrine doesn't make it illegal for shopify to ask more about your business and where you are getting your products from. They don't need any excuse to ask that, they are allowed to ask their customers anything they want.

LegitShady 4y ago

If you buy goods from an authorized place and sell them, you do not require any authorization or proof to sell those 'branded' goods, because first sale doctrine means that the original seller has exhausted their legal rights to control the sale and distribution of those items. So it sort of is what first sale doctrine does. shopify is asking them to produce proof they have authorization to sell something they've already purchased and need no special rights to sell, regardless of whether they're branded or not.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
You're assuming his use of copyrighted and trademarked material is authorized. They're selling books and even soaps with "deadwood" in the name, and they / the publisher (sounds like they're both run by him?) appear to have directly lifted the photo for the cover of one of the books: https://mzs.press/The-Last-Western-Deadwood-and-the-End-of-American-Empire-p476587251 https://mzs.press/The-Last-Western-Deadwood-and-the-End-of-A... ...from here: https://deadwood.fandom.com/wiki/Deadwood_(episode)?file=Season-1-episode-1-deadwood.png https://deadwood.fandom.com/wiki/Deadwood_(episode)?file=Sea... My guess is that Seitz got nailed by trademark and copyright infringement claims and is now spinning a story about how his poor poor book shop is getting screwed over by the Big Evil Corporation, as witnessed by the very histrionic language he uses in his tweets.
- teh_klev 4y ago
  Try reading the twitter thread: https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1541994429405331458 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15419944294053314... https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1541994429405331458 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15419944294053314...
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Trademark cannot stop someone from using that word on an unrelated product like soap. Nor can it stop someone from using a word in a book title.. Is Amazon killing the book industry? is a valid book title.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    > Nominative fair use generally is permissible as long as: > ... > (3) use of the mark does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-inte... I'm not a lawyer, but "Deadwood Soap with a Prize Inside: Dirt" sounds like it could suggest sponsorship or endorsement to me. Of course, as teh_klev pointed out, this most likely isn't the cause of the store's Shopify problems since HBO says they're OK with what the store does.
tehwebguy 4y ago
> If you buy goods from an authorized place and sell them, you do not require any authorization or proof to sell those 'branded' goods, because first sale doctrine means that the original seller has exhausted their legal rights to control the sale and distribution of those items. Right, but it doesn't make it illegal, as stated by the seller, for Shopify to have these requirements. I'm giving the seller full benefit of the doubt that they were not selling anything that violates copyright / trademark law. The point is the doctrine still doesn't make Shopify's request or requirements illegal.
Thorrez 4y ago
Shopify banning you for not producing documentation is not a violation of first sale doctrine. Just like a web forum banning you for posting something annoying is not a violation of your constitutional freedom of speech. The current law and constitution don't protect you from these actions.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  Nobody said its a 'violation of first sale doctrine', merely that first sale doctrine precludes a requirement to be authorized to sell legally purchased 'branded' items. Since shopify doesn't actually tell them what items are an issue, it is requiring them to compile a full accounting including 'proof' of their ability to sell all of their items within 48 hours, or else suffer financial consequences when their store is shut down. So it doesn't involve the constitution, but rather its shopify's unreasonable and unexplained policies and vague threats that are causing financial damage to this small business owner, demanding something that might not exist at all, because no special rights are required to sell 'branded products' legally purchased, and shopify will not specify what the issue is, so demands such an accounting for the entire store within an unreasonable length of time.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    >Nobody said its a 'violation of first sale doctrine' These seem to be saying that: > I’m gonna have an update for you later today on my continuing communications with @Shopify. They are now asking for purchase receipts to sell Star Wars books on their platform. This is both illegal and nonsensical. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1542533549689131009 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15425335496891310... >As detailed higher up in this thread, neither Shopify nor anyone has a legal right to demand documentation in order to sell, resell, give away, or otherwise dispose of published material, according to the First Sale Doctrine. Big thanks to Twitter mutuals for hipping me to this. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545542804860014599 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455428048600145... >I responded with an email restating that the First Sale Doctrine makes such a request both nonsensical and illegal, and asked a few more questions. https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545542818424360960 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455428184243609... >"All of this was not only unnecessary but illegal as covered by the First Sale Doctrine." https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/1545545224235130880 https://twitter.com/mattzollerseitz/status/15455452242351308... I agree with you that what Shopify is doing is bad and doesn't make sense. Freezing or taking money might be illegal. But I would think it's not illegal for Shopify to ban an account due to some system flagging it as suspicious, because I assume the Shopify TOS say they can do that.