a Supreme Court ruling may stop you from reselling just about anything

[Mousey]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

...
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, ....

 

[Zepher]

This would only affect the US yeah?

 

[Balthazar]

Bully copyright corporations will be put in their place soon. P!ssing off internet users is one thing, but if/when they enter the real world and start messing with the property right, which is a constitutional right in the US, they are going to find a whole other crowd in their path.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Rather than importing the cheap books and reselling them, why not sell them direct from Thailand? It just means the student will have to wait till the graduate, or spend a year or two doing it before they begin studies. It seems the case relies on the fact that the books are bought and imported by the "first owner", and it is subsequent sale that is going to be restricted. If sold direct to students from Thailand, the student would then be the "first owner".

It also seems that a right to "raid the trash" also exists, so once used, the student could leave it lying around "as trash" for a new undergraduate to "find and refurbish for further use" without an actual sale taking place. A "nod and a wink" unwritten understanding within the student community would help this work.

This workaround could end up being WORSE for the publishers than turning a blind eye to the current reselling situation. They also might find it harder to set a high US pricing point after a court has ruled that after paying such a high price, you still don't OWN the item, but merely "rent" it until you are done with it, and then have to throw it in the trash, or return it to the producer.

After all, would you pay the same to "license" a book from the library until you had read it, or to BUY the book and keep it as yours to do with as you want after you have read it. Their target may well be those who make a business of importing and selling, but the idea of ownership will change for EVERYBODY.

In the end, it won't work, because even if they win, it will not have any effect on pirate copies, and if anything, will push even more hard up students towards looking at the pirated market, losing the publisher even the revenue from the far east copies.

It's like King Canute ordering the tide not to come in.