If We Buy It Do We Really Own It?
By James Donahue
With the U. S. Supreme Court making rules strongly favoring big corporate interests a lot of Americans should have been concerned about a case recently decided by that judicial panel . . . Citizens For Ownership Rights.
That case, called Kirtsaeng V. John Wiley & Sons, involves Supap Kirtsaeng, a University of Southern California student who earned money for college by purchasing discounted textbooks abroad and selling them on line for less than the college bookstores were charging. Kirtsaeng was sued by the book publisher who claimed that copyright laws prohibited him from doing what he was doing. The lower courts ruled that because the books were manufactured abroad, he was in violation of the U.S. copyright law. The publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was awarded $600,000 in damages.
The case eventually made its way before the Supreme Court.
The concern about this matter involved the complexities of international manufacture and trade of copy-written items like published books, recordings, films and videos.
The problem is that most of the goods we buy in American stores today are manufactured on foreign shores. If we buy a CD or video in Walmart, chances are good it was made in China. If we later wish to sell it at a garage sale in our front yard, or on E-Bay, could the ruling against Kirtsaeng come into play?
It was clear that the people’s property rights were under attack and in need of protection. Those property rights state that consumers who purchase legitimate goods are assured that these goods can be resold, given away and used in any manner we see fit. Once we buy it, we own it.
At least that is what we have always believed.
Who can imagine a corporate challenge to this basic rule to our way of life? Imagine what a court ruling against Kirtsaeng might have on Internet sales, at flea markets and garage sales across the land? The classified ad page on our local newspapers would be affected. The purchase and trade of many used goods might have unexpectedly become an illegal act.
We thought we had this question settled a century ago. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the people’s right to control their own property in 1908, and that right was codified in the Copyright Act in 1976. We have always owned the stuff we buy. Who would even question this?
So here is the looming scenario. A victory for copyright extremists in the Kirtsaeng case would have put pressure on legislators to restore the first sale doctrine with newly written legislation. A victory for owner’s rights would probably have caused the extremist losers to put their massive lobbying resources into action to overturn such a decision in Congress. It could be a fierce battle that few people watching from the outside will even understand until it is too late.
The theft of music and videos via the Internet has stirred the copyright holders and producers of these works to lobby on multiple fronts for the power to control everything from the Internet to the electronic devices people use to access music and movies. It has been a complex problem that cannot be resolved easily. As a published author this writer understands this problem in a very personal way.
So how did the high court rule? It came before those judges in 2013 and the judges ruled 6-3 to reverse the lower court ruling, thus protecting Kirtsaaeng's sale of "lawfully-made copies purchased overseas" protected by the first-sale doctrine.
The opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, found that the doctrine applies to all copies legally made anywhere, not just in the United States, in accordance with U.S. copyright law. Thus if a copy of a book is made and sold by an overseas publishing house, it can be resold in the U.S. without permission from the original publisher.
Justice Elena Kagan, who concurred but wrote a separate opinion, suggested that Congress should change the law to reverse the decision.
By James Donahue
With the U. S. Supreme Court making rules strongly favoring big corporate interests a lot of Americans should have been concerned about a case recently decided by that judicial panel . . . Citizens For Ownership Rights.
That case, called Kirtsaeng V. John Wiley & Sons, involves Supap Kirtsaeng, a University of Southern California student who earned money for college by purchasing discounted textbooks abroad and selling them on line for less than the college bookstores were charging. Kirtsaeng was sued by the book publisher who claimed that copyright laws prohibited him from doing what he was doing. The lower courts ruled that because the books were manufactured abroad, he was in violation of the U.S. copyright law. The publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was awarded $600,000 in damages.
The case eventually made its way before the Supreme Court.
The concern about this matter involved the complexities of international manufacture and trade of copy-written items like published books, recordings, films and videos.
The problem is that most of the goods we buy in American stores today are manufactured on foreign shores. If we buy a CD or video in Walmart, chances are good it was made in China. If we later wish to sell it at a garage sale in our front yard, or on E-Bay, could the ruling against Kirtsaeng come into play?
It was clear that the people’s property rights were under attack and in need of protection. Those property rights state that consumers who purchase legitimate goods are assured that these goods can be resold, given away and used in any manner we see fit. Once we buy it, we own it.
At least that is what we have always believed.
Who can imagine a corporate challenge to this basic rule to our way of life? Imagine what a court ruling against Kirtsaeng might have on Internet sales, at flea markets and garage sales across the land? The classified ad page on our local newspapers would be affected. The purchase and trade of many used goods might have unexpectedly become an illegal act.
We thought we had this question settled a century ago. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the people’s right to control their own property in 1908, and that right was codified in the Copyright Act in 1976. We have always owned the stuff we buy. Who would even question this?
So here is the looming scenario. A victory for copyright extremists in the Kirtsaeng case would have put pressure on legislators to restore the first sale doctrine with newly written legislation. A victory for owner’s rights would probably have caused the extremist losers to put their massive lobbying resources into action to overturn such a decision in Congress. It could be a fierce battle that few people watching from the outside will even understand until it is too late.
The theft of music and videos via the Internet has stirred the copyright holders and producers of these works to lobby on multiple fronts for the power to control everything from the Internet to the electronic devices people use to access music and movies. It has been a complex problem that cannot be resolved easily. As a published author this writer understands this problem in a very personal way.
So how did the high court rule? It came before those judges in 2013 and the judges ruled 6-3 to reverse the lower court ruling, thus protecting Kirtsaaeng's sale of "lawfully-made copies purchased overseas" protected by the first-sale doctrine.
The opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, found that the doctrine applies to all copies legally made anywhere, not just in the United States, in accordance with U.S. copyright law. Thus if a copy of a book is made and sold by an overseas publishing house, it can be resold in the U.S. without permission from the original publisher.
Justice Elena Kagan, who concurred but wrote a separate opinion, suggested that Congress should change the law to reverse the decision.