Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wrong. If it's sold in the US, first sale applies. That's why it's called the 'first sale' doctrine, not the 'first manufacture' doctrine. I already have books that were printed in Mexico and China, and you probably do too.


Please read the Second Circuit's decision, particularly pages 16 and 17. The Second Circuit did not agree with your intuition about this point.

You can find the decision at

https://www.eff.org/files/Wiley-v-Kirtsaeng_2ndCir_8-15-11.p...


I apologize for not responding in more detail, but it's late. I would be glad to continue this conversation, though. In brief, I'd argue that in its opinion (on page 16 at 12-14), the 2nd circuit is treating 'lawfully made' as encompassing not merely the manufacture, the but the publication and offering for sale to the public (as mentioned at the bottom of page 13).

The idea that this would eviscerate the first sale doctrine makes no sense, since publishers who aimed to circumvent it would have to publish their work elsewhere, import it for sale into the US, and then deny that the work had been published in the US (and abandon the protection of US copyright law in the process). The law does not compel absurd results, and I don't see courts buying into the idea that American Book Co. promotes and offers a book for sale in the US with US pricing, LoC catalog data and all the rest, while simultaneously denying that it had published the book in the US. This would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; as the court observes in footnote 40, Kirtsaeng's reading would require copyright holders to either keep the material off the market altogether or to sell it only in places that are not signatories to Berne.

I haven't sat down and read your brief yet, and probably won't get around to it until next week; the last time I took a look at these issues was 6 months ago, so I apologize for this highly abbreviated argument. In a nutshell, though, the idea that first sale should apply to all works published outside of and imported into the US requires courts to accept the view that American law travels wherever Americans and American commercial relations go, such that if an American desires to buy something American law is unilaterally imposed on a foreign seller. That would be derogation by the back door, as it were.

PS, in response to the plaint that a win for Wiley would make the resale of artworks, storage in libraries, and so on impractical for any and all works of foreign origin, I would refer you to the reciprocal arrangements summarized in http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf and point out that the text of the copyright act already explicitly provides for such situations, something which is usually waved aside in the parades of horribles.


The american law wouldn't be imposed on the seller. They'd merely have to accept the limitations of their county's law on the buyer, with regard to their inability to prevent resale.

Which isn't as much forcing our law on them as not letting them force theirs on us by attaching it to a sale.

Anyways, the entire issue is a red herring created by fraudsters. There are already the concepts of renting or licensing which are limited. Sale is unlimited. Anything else is false advertising.

To retain resale rights simply don't sell something. If that isn't enough for you (in the generic) you're a criminal.


Given the practice of tax dodging, how many items are really sold in the US by US webstores? Are you sure that all those amazon books are sold "in the US" and not from Ireland or some small island somewhere?


If the transaction is initiated by a US consumer inside the US, it's considered to be a US sale. If you dig into the case law on this, you'll find that the concept of first sale doctrine is perfectly well understood by the legal establishment and is not about to shrivel up and blow away.

There's an excellent (albeit technical) introduction to these issues in the 9th circuit's ruling on Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.. Read up also on some of the journal articles from the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_.... and if you're really itnerested, dig into the amicus briefs.


The Second Circuit specifically disagreed with the Ninth Circuit on this point, distinguishing its holding from the Ninth Circuit's in Omega.


As someone from Ireland, I'll tell you amazon, despite having s large EU office here and their AWS European region here, do not actually sell much here. There is no amazon.ie, you must buy from the UK amazon.co.uk or the US amazon.com. If you have a kindle, you must use the US amazon.com kindle store. If you have a customer service complaint about your kindle you have to eventually find a US customer service number.

Not to negate your general point though.


In the US they are still sold onshore at present. Although the state they are sold from is an issue. This could change though of course.


Hint: the case at hand is specifically asking the Supreme Court to overrule the first sale doctrine.


This is not even wrong.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: