Right to resell under attack.

Let me get this straight

If I buy something in the US, I have no problem reselling it. But if I buy it in a foreign country, then I have to pay royalties to the country.

At first I thought that was stupid then I saw the case of a guy who made 1.2M shipping books from Thailand then selling them here. I can see the reason for a law like this in certain situations(ie bulk sales of a single product). That being said you would have to word the law properly or it could be abused. it probably would be better to find a way to tax the books coming into the country in the first place then add a tax to them after they get sold.

 

Your last sentence hit it on the head; the only reason I can think that your reasoning isn't applied is that it might endanger bilateral trade agreements that the US has with other countries. As far as it is a measure to protect commercial intellectual property for eternity, I think it is unworkable. Not only does it sit at odds with the basic capitalist principles we are all used to, it defies common sense. If you want to sell your old Playstation, you will just sell it for cash in hand. Laws only work when they enshrine principles that are broadly accepted.

 

If the Supreme Court upholds the earlier ruling, it could easily destroy the US economy. Say good-bye to the used car business, GameStop, flea markets, yard sales, eBay, Craigslist, and pawn shops to name a few. This would also put a lot of people out of work. Bad, bad, bad idea!

 

**** that.

 

Personally, I don't think this will pass, but my argument will be based on the worst case scenario. Though to be honest, I just find this too silly and out there to pass. This just happens to be a topic I like debating, so I'll join in, heh.


This is a very, very, stupid, and bad idea. They are already trying this with videogames (and it's not working, so they create work arounds like online passes), and sadly some of the gaming world seems to be welcoming it. The truth is, when you buy that CD, car, game, TV, whatever, you own that copy. You're not purchasing the software rights, or cars blue prints, and manufacturing machines, but you are purchasing that single physical copy. If you want to burn it, take a dump on it, or..even *gasp* sell it, that's your right. It would be different if you were renting it for an unspecified amount of time, as the company would still own that physical copy.

If, IF, they do this, it will have a negative effect in many areas as mentioned above. Places like Gamestop, Ebay, Pawn shops, Used car dealerships, ect, will be closed down and 100's of thousands of ppl will be out of work. Many ppl also sell items to have the cash to buy more items. I.e. selling a used car for a few thousand to put down on a new car, or selling a used game to have enough cash to buy a new one. Which means less money pumped into the economy. Add on...what's the fine? Are we talking outrageous fines, that if not paid could lead to jail time? Jails being filled to the brim with ppl who held yard sales? The alternative is to simply let your junk rot in an attic, and eventually overload our lanfills with the stuff even more than we already do.

On a human level this prevents poor ppl from using second hand items for Christmas, or second hand clothes and school supplies for their children. Add on places like Goodwill that sell donated second hand goods shutting down. Plus, how would you even know how to contact the original manufacturer of a 20 year old Chinese toy robot with the wording worn off? All this would lead to is some, so ridiculous it borderlines B movie material, second hand product black market type thing. Where you whisper to someone that you're in the market for a Samsung casette player, offering $1, and your co-worker overhears and sends you to a friend of a friend.

The fun part of this story is going to be watching all of the sympathizers pouring out to support this. Saying that you should support the ppl who made it. It's not that it's not a nice thought, but why should they make future profits off of another persons property? Like person A buys a pair of shoes for $60, that pair of shoes is now physically, and legally his. He paid the company that made it the full retail price they agreed to sell it for. Person A sells the shoe that he paid for in full, that is legally his, to person B, and somehow the company comes back into the picture and is entitled to more than the retail price? Again, sadly, this is the mentality of a decent chunk of gamers as more and more videogame companies try to skirt around these laws. It just surprises me that now everything else is on the line too.

 

Well the next video game consoles are supposedly going to feature a way to register your games once to your system then if you lend your game to a friend or try to buy a used game than you will only be able to play a small portion of the game without going online to purchase the rest of the game so you can unlock the game you have.

 

A good argument to consider outdoor pursuits instead.

 

Will never pass. Stuff as potentially damaging as this should not be up to a court ruling. Never understood why the supreme court, which we don't vote for, has this much power.

 

To preserve the balance of powers. In the UK, we have a sovereign parliament with almost unlimited power. Neither system is perfect.

 

Got that right. If anything its preserving the balance of stupidity.

 

I'm afraid that's what civilisation seems to be based upon.

 

Blind luck and stupidity.

 

Really stupid law. I have a feeling it will be upheld, however.

 

Its almost like the big wigs like waving the bird at the public.

 

The only people who want this are the companies who make the product. We all know video game companies hate the resell market because they don't get any profit off of a resold game. So it's like screw it. If we can't have any, then none of you can have any.

 

Worse than that, doesn't it mean that the items buy are no longer investments? It no longer has value without the ability for resale. This seems completely at odds with the idea of capitalism.

 

Only items with an element of intellectual property, though. Commodities, antiques and property wouldn't be affected.

I'm not defending this idea at all, but it is important to clarify the issues and see where the motivation lies.

I think it should be left to consumers. No legislation needs to be passed; the law of contract allows things to be sold at retail on the basis that they won't be rented or copied. Companies could opt to sell items on a bilateral contract where the buyer has to agree not to resell. Those companies could then make their goods cheaper on the assumption that they will sell more units, as the secondary market is cut out. Or, other companies could keep selling at their current prices, and be relaxed about the items being sold on without them receiving any further profit. Which would you buy?

Of course, this is obviously just legal nicity, since people would inevitably buy the cheaper "one sale" goods and sell them on anyway. But then we are discussing the black market, which would this new law wouldn't touch anyway.

As I said, it is unenforceable.

 

So if I'm starving and hungry I can't sell a dvds and comics I bought 10 years ago to someone else???

I wonder how many small government republicans support this.

 

Of course it won't- people will just through other avenues. I have no reason to "kid myself", anyway, because this is not being considered in my country.

Bear in mind, too, that a black market is not in any government's interest. Legal resales are taxable. So, I doubt this will happen.

This is not a sensible or equitable idea, but it is an unworkable one.

 

Yeah if I sell my comic collection on ebay the government gets a cut.

If I sell it on the black market the government doesn't get squat.

Not to mention how much good stuff will be thrown away because it's illegal to re-sell it. Right now people recycle countless dvds, books, comics, cds by re-selling it over and over.

 

I highly doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this.