Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:19 pm

...To help pay for grad school at USC, he sold textbooks online—legitimate copies that he’d purchased overseas. But academic publishing behemoth John Wiley & Sons sued Supap, claiming that his trade in Wiley’s foreign-market textbooks constituted copyright infringement. The implications were enormous. If publishers had the right to control resale of books that they printed and sold overseas, then it stood to reason that manufacturers could restrain trade in countless products—especially tech goods, most of which are made in Asia and contain copyrightable elements such as embedded software. Intent on setting a precedent, Wiley slammed Supap with a $600,000 jury verdict and all but buried him on appeal. But the grad student hung tough, arguing that as lawful owner of the books he had the right to resell them. Eventually he convinced the US Supreme Court to grant review. Once Supap’s struggle hit the spotlight, powerful supporters such as eBay, Public Knowledge, Costco, and Goodwill Industries joined the fray. But the forces pitted against Supap were arguably more powerful: the movie and music industries, publishers of books and software, and even the US Solicitor General. Defying the odds, Supap won, and the case that bears his name has become a landmark.[1]

So..anyone can LEGALLY buy Cheap International versions of American books AND also resell them.

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:08 pm

what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:06 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?

the answer is there in the article...

I am surprised that none of the "intellectuals here" read or commented on this important ruling....including on its consequences.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:39 am

Good read. The book publishing and entertainment industries were attempting a copyright overreach, using their financial clout to bully and intimidate individuals. This order puts them in their place.

by Kris Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:13 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?

>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:16 am

Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:15 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.

This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

by Kris Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:48 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.

>>.I got a chance to read the whole article. I am surprised this has stood this long. Breyer's question about the resale of Toyotas captures the underlying problem well. This is over-reach in terms of protecting the seller's rights.

by Kris Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:09 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

>>>>That kind of an approach will be problematic in terms of the precedent it sets. One of the justices makes the point (correctly) about the court having to think through the practical consequences. For instance, a car manufacturer cannot preclude you from re-selling its cars. How is that different from the Wiley's demand that the buyer cannot re-sell? Let's say the buyer decides to gift the book and the giftee then turns around and sells it. The buyer did not re-sell, but the Seller has no rights over the recipient of the gift. What Wiley is seeking is legal protection of a strategy that capitalizes on economic disparities between different market segments. Ironically, the defendant is doing the same thing in his own way.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:29 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

The question is "What right the publisher has in putting such a note on a book sold overseas?" they already do. An example is: many products have a fine print saying the manufacturer is liable only to refund the cost of the product and not for damages that it might cause (FedEx for example). But, that fine print is useless as we know there are daily lawsuits on every product. Once a product is sold - wherever and in whatever form - the manufacturer and the copy right holder has made money out of it. THAT IS IT. If this is not the case, then everytime any product is resold, a % will have to be paid to the original seller.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:30 am

Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.
>>>>That kind of an approach will be problematic in terms of the precedent it sets. One of the justices makes the point (correctly) about the court having to think through the practical consequences. For instance, a car manufacturer cannot preclude you from re-selling its cars. How is that different from the Wiley's demand that the buyer cannot re-sell? Let's say the buyer decides to gift the book and the giftee then turns around and sells it. The buyer did not re-sell, but the Seller has no rights over the recipient of the gift. What Wiley is seeking is legal protection of a strategy that capitalizes on economic disparities between different market segments. Ironically, the defendant is doing the same thing in his own way.

The issue is not who or where the buyer is / was, who now wants to sell the book. Moreover, it might not even be the buyer who wants now to sell the book, but perhaps just a person gifted the book by someone else, or even someone finding the book lying in the park or street. The real issue is with the publisher's clause / condition noted on the front of the book that it can't be sold / marketed in India, and that needs to be adhered to by everyone and upheld by the court.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:46 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:what about the warning indicated on the text-books published and sold in India by the foreigners (John Wiley & Sons, etc.) that such publications are not for sale in the U.S.A.? Isn't that a binding consideration?
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

The question is "What right the publisher has in putting such a note on a book sold overseas?" they already do. An example is: many products have a fine print saying the manufacturer is liable only to refund the cost of the product and not for damages that it might cause (FedEx for example). But, that fine print is useless as we know there are daily lawsuits on every product. Once a product is sold - wherever and in whatever form - the manufacturer and the copy right holder has made money out of it. THAT IS IT. If this is not the case, then everytime any product is resold, a % will have to be paid to the original seller.

There is some difference here w.r.t. the ownership. The sale of text-books in India by the western publishers at a reduced cost, bearing the note "this book not for sale in the U.S.A.", was intended as a privilege to the people (to help students in a poor / developing country with good books) and it did not seem like the publisher was ceding completely the rights to the book to the purchaser.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:48 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure how binding that can be. There may be more teeth in it, if the book is rented. There could be a stipulation that the renter cannot re-rent it. If it is a purchase, there is no ongoing contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. That would be my guess.

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

The question is "What right the publisher has in putting such a note on a book sold overseas?" they already do. An example is: many products have a fine print saying the manufacturer is liable only to refund the cost of the product and not for damages that it might cause (FedEx for example). But, that fine print is useless as we know there are daily lawsuits on every product. Once a product is sold - wherever and in whatever form - the manufacturer and the copy right holder has made money out of it. THAT IS IT. If this is not the case, then everytime any product is resold, a % will have to be paid to the original seller.
There is some difference here w.r.t. the ownership. The sale of text-books in India by the western publishers at a reduced cost, bearing the note "this book not for sale in the U.S.A.", was intended as a privilege to the people (to help students in a poor / developing country with good books) and it did not seem like the publisher was ceding completely the rights to the book to the purchaser.

Fat chance. Read the lawyer's response to the judge... The publisher made a profit on all 8 titles sold overseas.... There is a whole big concept called "Market segmentation" following the 1976 ruling.... This case is about American textbooks printed cheap for foreign market but prevented from being brought and sold in the US. The SC said...sorry...these can be bought, brought back and sold in US.

Why am I gleeful....bcz THIS APPLIES EXACTLY to the Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures overseas and sells it at a throw away price and no generic can be brought inside....

Do you see the resemblance?

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:12 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

This was the crux of the SC's ruling. That regardless of where the book (or any other good) is produced, once it is sold, the copyright-holder's rights over that good ends, and the buyer can do what (s)he wants with that good.
This case should have been argued differently by the publishers' lawyers. When there is a note on the book (published overseas) that it can't be (re)sold in the U.S., the purchaser of that book implicitly agrees to that condition at the time of purchase of that book.

The question is "What right the publisher has in putting such a note on a book sold overseas?" they already do. An example is: many products have a fine print saying the manufacturer is liable only to refund the cost of the product and not for damages that it might cause (FedEx for example). But, that fine print is useless as we know there are daily lawsuits on every product. Once a product is sold - wherever and in whatever form - the manufacturer and the copy right holder has made money out of it. THAT IS IT. If this is not the case, then everytime any product is resold, a % will have to be paid to the original seller.
There is some difference here w.r.t. the ownership. The sale of text-books in India by the western publishers at a reduced cost, bearing the note "this book not for sale in the U.S.A.", was intended as a privilege to the people (to help students in a poor / developing country with good books) and it did not seem like the publisher was ceding completely the rights to the book to the purchaser.

Fat chance. Read the lawyer's response to the judge... The publisher made a profit on all 8 titles sold overseas.... There is a whole big concept called "Market segmentation" following the 1976 ruling.... This case is about American textbooks printed cheap for foreign market but prevented from being brought and sold in the US. The SC said...sorry...these can be bought, brought back and sold in US.

Why am I gleeful....bcz THIS APPLIES EXACTLY to the Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures overseas and sells it at a throw away price and no generic can be brought inside....

Do you see the resemblance?

Yes.
Moreover, this ruling by the court (overriding the publisher's condition / clause -- "this book not for sale in the U.S.A.") probably also opens the doors for successfully challenging other transactions too in future, including the car "sold as is", which hitherto used to be final.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost

Re: Landmark case on Copyright infringement - Wiley lost