3 ms·

If the "Eastern Economy Edition" (EEE) prints of textbooks are similar to the ones that Kirtsaeng sold on ebay, the books may have a sale restriction based on r

If the "Eastern Economy Edition" (EEE) prints of textbooks are similar to the ones that Kirtsaeng sold on ebay, the books may have a sale restriction based on region - a clause on the book that says something like "this book may only be sold <here> and <there>". Kirtsaeng probably violated that clause ... if it was present. If that was the case, it may be interpreted as copyright violation, I think, if there is considerable monetary impact on the copyright owner on account of such a resale. The article presents the case as a general assault on resale, but I believe it may be judged more along the lines of "does such resale prevent the copyright holder from financially benefiting from the artifact?" If I hold one EEE copy of a textbook that I sell on ebay, the financial impact to the publisher is insignificant than if I mass imported EEE copies for sale in the US. Though the sale act is the same in both these cases, I think only the mass sale may count as copyright violation. Perhaps I'm dreaming, but it doesn't look like the general ability of people to sell their stuff second hand (bought wherever) is likely on the table here at all. (I'm not a lawyer. Just speculating about what aspects of copyright might be involved.)

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>it may be interpreted as copyright violation // This hinges on the "first sale" doctrine and what's called "exhaustion of rights". The idea is that once you've sold an object under copyright you've exhausted (ended) your financial rights to that object and so it can be resold, lent, etc. without your permission. IMO an attempt to create a regional sale restriction to overload copyright should be treated with contempt and the copyright should be rescinded. Copyright is [supposedly] granted by the state on behalf of the citizens/subjects afterall; such attempts to extend the rightsholders rights at the expense of the public should be limited. IIRC cases of this kind in the UK have been challenged under trademark law, where selling of "grey imports" of Levi jeans - for example - have been prevented as the producers (or their local agents) have argued successfully for trademark violation / passing-off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import Parallel imports are like off-shoring for consumers.
- Evbn 14y ago
  > Copyright is [supposedly] granted by the state on behalf of the citizens/subjects afterall; such attempts to extend the rightsholders rights at the expense of the public should be limited. Note how this argument clearly fails to apply across national borders where there is no common "state".
  - glesica 14y ago
    Yeah, maybe cross-border copyright shouldn't even exist... I don't see anything in the constitution about enforcing international copyright law within the United States. And even if it is part of an agreement with another country, it still can't violate the constitution, so the imported IP laws still have to encourage creation, right? Or are we not textualists? :-) Frankly, I don't really care whether it's legal/constitutional or not. I'm more worried about whether it's a good idea. And if free trade is a good idea, then I see no problem with what the defendant did. So Wiley charges more in Thailand, big deal. That just means that the Thai publishing industry will have more of an advantage. Markets are (in theory) dynamic all the time, not just when it is convenient for the big boys.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >so the imported IP laws still have to encourage creation // International treaties [arguably] do this by providing access for local producers of works to an international market. If you're a major media exporter then gaining protection in other states is going to be a net benefit even though you have to agree to protect foreign works to do that. >if free trade is a good idea, then I see no problem with what the defendant did // It's a big "if". Are there any states that truly stand behind free trade?
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    International treaties form a sort of virtual state out of the countries that ratify/adopt the treaty. The Berne Convention, as one example, extends the auspices of the state to the international arena. You provide benefit to your citizens by ratifying the treaty - protection of your works overseas - but you "pay" for that by also protecting the works of those from other countries. There are other treaties in this area, such as TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. TL;DR I don't think it's as clear as you suggest.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>it may be interpreted as copyright violation // This hinges on the "first sale" doctrine and what's called "exhaustion of rights". The idea is that once you've sold an object under copyright you've exhausted (ended) your financial rights to that object and so it can be resold, lent, etc. without your permission. IMO an attempt to create a regional sale restriction to overload copyright should be treated with contempt and the copyright should be rescinded. Copyright is [supposedly] granted by the state on behalf of the citizens/subjects afterall; such attempts to extend the rightsholders rights at the expense of the public should be limited. IIRC cases of this kind in the UK have been challenged under trademark law, where selling of "grey imports" of Levi jeans - for example - have been prevented as the producers (or their local agents) have argued successfully for trademark violation / passing-off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import Parallel imports are like off-shoring for consumers.

Evbn 14y ago
> Copyright is [supposedly] granted by the state on behalf of the citizens/subjects afterall; such attempts to extend the rightsholders rights at the expense of the public should be limited. Note how this argument clearly fails to apply across national borders where there is no common "state".
- glesica 14y ago
  Yeah, maybe cross-border copyright shouldn't even exist... I don't see anything in the constitution about enforcing international copyright law within the United States. And even if it is part of an agreement with another country, it still can't violate the constitution, so the imported IP laws still have to encourage creation, right? Or are we not textualists? :-) Frankly, I don't really care whether it's legal/constitutional or not. I'm more worried about whether it's a good idea. And if free trade is a good idea, then I see no problem with what the defendant did. So Wiley charges more in Thailand, big deal. That just means that the Thai publishing industry will have more of an advantage. Markets are (in theory) dynamic all the time, not just when it is convenient for the big boys.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >so the imported IP laws still have to encourage creation // International treaties [arguably] do this by providing access for local producers of works to an international market. If you're a major media exporter then gaining protection in other states is going to be a net benefit even though you have to agree to protect foreign works to do that. >if free trade is a good idea, then I see no problem with what the defendant did // It's a big "if". Are there any states that truly stand behind free trade?
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  International treaties form a sort of virtual state out of the countries that ratify/adopt the treaty. The Berne Convention, as one example, extends the auspices of the state to the international arena. You provide benefit to your citizens by ratifying the treaty - protection of your works overseas - but you "pay" for that by also protecting the works of those from other countries. There are other treaties in this area, such as TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. TL;DR I don't think it's as clear as you suggest.