Selling secondhand to be banned?
Rossa mentions:
To the law of unintended consequences could also be added to this piece about SCOTUS considering this Appeal to stop people selling their goods secondhand. For instance if you can’t sell your car or trade it in, you might not be able to afford to buy a new one, so prices would have to drop significantly or manufacturers could see people holding on to things for a lot longer than they do now. The complete opposite of the consumer society They want to encourage to try and kickstart the bubble again.
I don’t think it’ll get upheld otherwise eBay and other resellers or buyers of 2ndhand goods will go down the tube.
That’s as maybe. However, the open social engineering needs to be opposed simply on principle, let alone its intended consequences. But we come to the single most compelling reason they can continue to do these things, apart from people only knowing about them through publicity – and that’s that people won’t put themselves in the firing line, won’t be the martyrs.
One who will is Captain Ranty and he has had dealings with the boys in blue for his trouble, not to mention court cases. To a much lesser extent I have too but they haven’t engaged yet for some reason. This is the whole crux of it. We make a big noise over being prepared to suffer disruption and persecution but too many of us won’t actually say no.
To be fair, many of us will choose our battle to stand our ground. When the law says I can’t be Christian, I’m going to have no choice but to refuse the law. The rest will follow and it’s a noble tradition. On many other issues though – w-e-e-e-l-l-l-l.
So where do we draw the line? That Yes Minister episode on salami tactics is so true – will we stop with the wheelie bins? Will we stop with this one on secondhand selling? Where do we stop and say enough?
Filed under: Politics & economics, Rossa
Is it simplistic to believe that if I am forbidden from selling stuff that I own then all my possessions become worthless?
I hadn’t noticed mention of this issue elsewhere, so thanks Rossa and Chuckles for the heads-up.
I’ve scooted around the net for a short time to try to understand what’s what. Commenters elsewhere who appear to have a bit of legal experience tend towards the view that the issue is being widely misunderstood, or deliberately blown out of proportion.
Apparently the law involved specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. Under US law the buyer pays royalty within the price for (e.g.) the book , and can then re-sell the item with no further copyright royalty obligation (“first sale”.)
The law involved doesn’t, I understand, apply to patents, or even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
The guy who’s being brought to trial is reported to have imported enough textbooks to earn $1.2 million. That means this isn’t really a case about reselling your car, or antiques, or general bits and pieces, but about whether private citizens can buy a load of certain types of items abroad and re-sell them here for profit because price is cheaper abroad.
That’d be the narrow issue involved. Whether it’ll open the flood-gates – SCOTUS seeing fit to widening the issue seems to be thought dangerous though.
I can see an argument for, maybe, banning re-sale of books or cds within a year of first publication/ release, or something like that.
I cannot see any logical reason to ban all re-selling of any goods not made in the US. If SCOTUS did have a brainstorm and go this way, surely they’d give charities leeway to carry on doing what they do: thrift stores, Goodwill, Sally Army etc.
Otherwise…..hello police state !
can buy a load of certain types of items abroad and re-sell them here for profit because price is cheaper abroad
The whole point of outsourcing and international trade. So on what basis would that be illegal? It’s called import and export.
James…..I think, from what I’ve read, that if goods have copyright issues involved, the manufacturer has to give permission for their export. In the case of the guy who brought a load of textbooks from Thailand to US, permission wasn’t granted – or applied for.
“buy a load of certain types of items abroad and re-sell them here for profit because price is cheaper abroad”
Tesco had a fight with Levi jeans in this issue about 5 years ago. Levis objected to Tesco buying up job lots of their 501s in, say, Malaya and then punting them out in their UK stores for less than Levis were trying to sell them here.
I’m fairly sure that Tesco won.
Price does dictate, Banned. Interesting that your moniker appears in the post title.