4 ms·

Thanks for that - I think I kind of get it. And the second sale is questionable because of a limitation of the first sale?

greenyoda 14y ago
The question is whether the first-sale doctrine (the right to freely re-sell things that you bought) applies to items originally sold outside the U.S.
GauntletWizard 14y ago
There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution. It sucks that information - There's no value in the paper, just the printing on it - can cost different amounts in different areas, but it's fairly easy to differentiate between "I bought 1-3 copies of this book in my home country, moved here, and brought them with me" and "I had my parents ship crates of books from my home country, which I resold at a profit". The gray area will remain "I personally bought something from foreign land, even though I do not reside there".
- hermanhermitage 14y ago
  Could it be sold for scrap? ie with a cover note reminding the new owner they own the physical book but be careful not to use its contents?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Sure. Then convince the court your customers were just buying paper to recycle. You could also sell burned DVDs of The Dark Knight to customers interested in expanding their plastic collection.
    - hermanhermitage 14y ago
      Don't quite follow the logic - were these books being illegally reprinted in the USA? Or were they originals?
      - ramchip 14y ago
        The logic is just that courts aren't stupid. I've noticed sometimes this tendency in programmers (and in my younger self) to see human systems like computers. A court isn't a VM running the law as a bytecode. It's a bunch of humans, and they operate on common sense, too. Often there are gray areas and it's possible to sidestep the law, but you need a minimum of plausibility... if you put a note on textbooks to say "for use as fuel only", then go and sell it to students, I doubt that'll fool anyone. It's the same thing for selling burned CDs with a note to say "for use as recycled plastic only". There's a difference between selling them by the crate to a recycling center, and letting customers buy specific titles individually. The letter of the law may not specify that difference, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
- csense 14y ago
  > There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, legally, there isn't, and shouldn't be. You should be able to build a business or nonprofit to give away, sell or lend secondhand games, books, CD's, videos, etc.
  - jborden13 14y ago
    I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building & supporting their sales channels. The assertion that people should be able to do whatever they want with products on a scale large enough to damage a manufacturer's business is flawed. I propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes. *Disclaimer, I work with manufacturers to solve these types of issues.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
      - jborden13 14y ago
        It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. > In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad. No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
        icebraining 14y ago
        There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating? No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason... Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.

greenyoda 14y ago

The question is whether the first-sale doctrine (the right to freely re-sell things that you bought) applies to items originally sold outside the U.S.

GauntletWizard 14y ago

There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution. It sucks that information - There's no value in the paper, just the printing on it - can cost different amounts in different areas, but it's fairly easy to differentiate between "I bought 1-3 copies of this book in my home country, moved here, and brought them with me" and "I had my parents ship crates of books from my home country, which I resold at a profit". The gray area will remain "I personally bought something from foreign land, even though I do not reside there".

hermanhermitage 14y ago
Could it be sold for scrap? ie with a cover note reminding the new owner they own the physical book but be careful not to use its contents?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Sure. Then convince the court your customers were just buying paper to recycle. You could also sell burned DVDs of The Dark Knight to customers interested in expanding their plastic collection.
  - hermanhermitage 14y ago
    Don't quite follow the logic - were these books being illegally reprinted in the USA? Or were they originals?
    - ramchip 14y ago
      The logic is just that courts aren't stupid. I've noticed sometimes this tendency in programmers (and in my younger self) to see human systems like computers. A court isn't a VM running the law as a bytecode. It's a bunch of humans, and they operate on common sense, too. Often there are gray areas and it's possible to sidestep the law, but you need a minimum of plausibility... if you put a note on textbooks to say "for use as fuel only", then go and sell it to students, I doubt that'll fool anyone. It's the same thing for selling burned CDs with a note to say "for use as recycled plastic only". There's a difference between selling them by the crate to a recycling center, and letting customers buy specific titles individually. The letter of the law may not specify that difference, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
csense 14y ago
> There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, legally, there isn't, and shouldn't be. You should be able to build a business or nonprofit to give away, sell or lend secondhand games, books, CD's, videos, etc.
- jborden13 14y ago
  I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building & supporting their sales channels. The assertion that people should be able to do whatever they want with products on a scale large enough to damage a manufacturer's business is flawed. I propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes. *Disclaimer, I work with manufacturers to solve these types of issues.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
    - jborden13 14y ago
      It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. > In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad. No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
      - icebraining 14y ago
        There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating? No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason... Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.