A Severe Crimp in the Used Instrument Market

[daveboling]

There is a story on the Market Watch page of the Wall Street Journal website regarding an upcoming case for the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-r ... 2012-10-04

For many of us, including myself, who may plan to purchase second-hand instruments (Harrington and Coyne just can't meet delivery schedules like they used to ), an adverse ruling in this case could put a severe crimp in the growth of the traditional music community, or a stimulus to the black market. As you would expect, Ebay is quite concerned, and has files a friend of the court brief.

dave boling

[Cayden]

Absurdity. So much for the world push for sustainability. I guess the owners of any foreign made vehicles will be in a hurt should this be upheld. Such efforts to manipulate world markets and our personal freedoms should not be tolerated. This would in fact lead to a major increase of black market sales.

Cayden

[Tor]

Yep, it'll backfire tremendously. As soon as you feel a legitimate need to move to the black market (as will happen here, because people will feel that the criminal part is to prohibit them to sell something they legally own), you can as well keep hanging around on that black market. It's been legitimized by lawmakers, so to speak.

-Tor

[Roderick [Rod] Sprague IV]

The case that caused this issue to come up indicates just how inflated textbook prices are in this country. If someone found a way to beat the abusive pricing, then perhaps the publisher should simply charge a more reasonable price, or am I missing the point of free enterprise?

[Nanohedron]

The case that caused this issue to come up indicates just how inflated textbook prices are in this country. If someone found a way to beat the abusive pricing, then perhaps the publisher should simply charge a more reasonable price, or am I missing the point of free enterprise?

Maybe they're the ones missing the point. If free enterprise is ideally based solely on supply and demand, then publishers have already contributed to the supply partly in the form of used (or already-purchased, at least) books, to cite the example. The self-styled free enterprise exponent may not ignore this reality and still deserve the label. Controlling supply from the outset is one thing, but I definitely think free enterprise no longer becomes such when it has the right to take back what has been bought, or failing that, to punish me for doing what I will with my own property, or for seeking a demonstrably better deal in buying used. If the answer is renting rather than buying, then let's call it for what it is, because that's what the proposed model looks like. Any item for sale has served its intended purpose to the seller once the sale is completed: the one-time remuneration that the word "selling" means. But this also means transfer of ownership. If buying physical goods no longer means ownership of them, then we need to redefine the whole conceptual framework of what the heck exactly is going on.

Free enterprise is also defined by having ideally no governmental controls upon it. If that is what it wants, then neither does it deserve to use government in such inverse fashion to what I would call undue advantage. Then it become a brand of piracy, if that charge matters more than the sheer hypocrisy of it.

I've always thought that if there is to be free enterprise, then by definition it must belong to all. Yes, Kirtsaeng pulled a fast one, but the publisher set itself up for this very thing to happen.

[Roderick [Rod] Sprague IV]

Nano, my question was rhetorical, but you stated what was implicit in my statement.

[Nanohedron]

I kinda figured your question was most probably rhetorical. But it inspired me, so...it's your fault.

[Denny]

this is where I add a *THUD*

innit!

[fearfaoin]

If buying physical goods no longer means ownership of them, then we need to redefine the whole conceptual framework of what the heck exactly is going on.

The law is not really applying to the "physical goods".
It is applying to the content held within the physical
good (in this case, the book). You can't copyright a
bunch of blank pages bound in a hard cardboard backing
(or a flute or tinwhistle for that matter), but once you
print something on that paper suddenly the first sale
doctrine applies.

I agree that the artificial discrepancy in foreign vs.
domestic textbook pricing is B.S. But what publishers
are really worried about, and why they want to persue
cases like this, is the day when books aren't printed at
all. Even with a physical book, if you resell it, there's a
limit to how many physical copies will meet demand:
If 1000 people need a book, it's not like the publisher
will only sell one copy of the book, which is then resold
999 times. That wouldn't work for the consumers as
each would have to wait for the previous owner to be
done before they could buy it. Instead, many people buy
their own original copy so they don't have to wait for a
used one, and the publisher retains a majority of the sales
of that title.

But if I purchased a digital copy of a book, they're afraid
that I could technically resell digital copies of that
work and retain my copy, as could those who buy it from
me. So it would be technically possible for one person to
buy the book from the publisher but for 1000's of people
to buy it from those up the chain, depriving the publisher
of all but the first sale. Now, I have more faith in people
than that, but there is a definitely a percentage of loss
to that kind of thing. And they want 100% of their revenue.
So to hedge their bets against their current technological
solutions like DRM, they also are securing legal protection
against that future.

But still, nothing in this case has any application that I
can see to the purchase of musical instruments, iPhones,
or Norwegian blue parrots.

[Nanohedron]

But still, nothing in this case has any application that I
can see to the purchase of musical instruments, iPhones,
or Norwegian blue parrots.

Actually, that's been my thought throughout, too.

[I.D.10-t]

If buying physical goods no longer means ownership of them, then we need to redefine the whole conceptual framework of what the heck exactly is going on.

The law is not really applying to the "physical goods".
It is applying to the content held within the physical
good (in this case, the book). You can't copyright a
bunch of blank pages bound in a hard cardboard backing...

What if it said it was a review of 4'33"?

~~~
Really the whole thing is just a continuation of the shift away from consumer rights and fair use. With how intertwined copyright, patents, and physical property have become, strengthen the company's rights in one and it will weaken the consumer's perchace in other ways.

[Gobae]

What if said it was a review of 4'33"?

Or "50 Shades of Grey". Not the BDSM book, but the knockoff selling on amazon that's nothing but 50 blank grey pages of different hues.

[fearfaoin]

Or "50 Shades of Grey". Not the BDSM book, but the knockoff selling on amazon that's nothing but 50 blank grey pages of different hues.

I would totally buy that.
But only from amazon.co.uk ... I don't
want to pay a whole $19.99 for Pete's sake.

[kokopelli]

Or "50 Shades of Grey". Not the BDSM book, but the knockoff selling on amazon that's nothing but 50 blank grey pages of different hues.

I would totally buy that.
But only from amazon.co.uk ... I don't
want to pay a whole $19.99 for Pete's sake.

It's only worthwhile if you can get it on the kindle.

Going back to earlier comments regarding this applying to whistles and such, it seems to me that it mostly doesn't. The main source of whistles is individual makers who are overall a nice bunch of people and not likely to take advantage of this if it goes through. But what about the large companies like Generation and Clarke and the others that mass produce them? Specifically, what impact might this decision have on people who professionally tweak mass-produced whistles?

[fearfaoin]

But what about the large companies like Generation and Clarke and the others that mass produce them? Specifically, what impact might this decision have on people who professionally tweak mass-produced whistles?

Doesn't matter. Copyright does not apply to
such goods. Now if this case were about
Trademark law, it might be a different story.