The Supreme Court will be hearing this case on Monday.

The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908. ... The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act -- which gives them a right against unauthorized imports -- invalidates the first-sale doctrine. ... Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks.

John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher, sells expensive versions of the textbooks here and less expensive versions abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a foreign graduate student at University of Southern California, decided to help pay for his schooling by having relatives buy him copies of the foreign versions abroad, send them to him, whereupon he'd sell those books on eBay to willing students. He'd make money, the students would save money, but Wiley might have fewer sales of its pricey American versions. The case is styled Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons.

Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine. For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Same for the iPods you've owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad.

That means, you need to ask Apple for permission, and probably Google, whose Maps software comes bundled with the iPad, and includes Google copyrights. Under this rule, when you sell some of your stuff on eBay or Craigslist (a couch, some books, electronics, posters, an old television, a toaster), you have to look up whether it has a copyrighted logo anywhere and find out whether the product was manufactured in the U.S. or abroad.

The idea that a company gets to tell me whether or not i have a right to sell the shit i bought and should now own is outrageous to me. Think about it. Where were the parts of your car manufactured? Should buying and selling your used car require first getting permission from the car manufacturer? What about all that stuff people put out for garage sales.

And stores where the entire business model hinges on resale of used items - think Princeton Record Exchange. Want to trade in your cds for credit towards that reinforced record bag sized pile of used CDs? Not if you don't have documentation showing you've got permission from the copyright holders, my friend.

Which brings me to my bitterness on e-books and Amazon in particular. You might have paid for that e-book, but you don't own it. Amazon and the publishers can dictate what you do with that e-book, and if they so choose, just delete it from your files. That's bullshit. Is there anyone who doesn't think that's bullshit? It's the same as Amazon showing up at your door, walking over to your bookcase, and taking your copy of Pride & Prejudice cause they found out you lent it to more than 1 person and for more than 2 weeks.

Grr...

This is the shit all those wacky "keep government out of my home" types ought to be coming out against in force. Sadly, they're too busy fighting against their own interests by opposing social service expenditures.