Will this decision actually do what you say it will? Because last time you posted about a law that was going to be an overbearing copyright protection law, it was nothing of the sort.
- HC
It certainly COULD...depending on how the Court rules on the matter. Read the article yourself...I sourced it.
Do I think the Court will rule to the most absurd level possible here...no. But there could be a lot of unintended consequences, depending on what is decided...and how the First-Sale Doctrine is applied.
Quite literally, it COULD get so absurd as to prevent you form selling your used car or even your house! I think...I HOPE...the court is aware of this possibility, and possible interpretation...and will make reasoned ruling which deals with the specific concerns that brought this case...while not creating unintended impositions upon individual consumers' rights. But I don't have much faith in our Court...there are too many Republican nominees on the Court for my comfort.
My own take would be that a REASONABLE ruling would state that...once a particular product has either:
A - been replaced by a newer model/version
or
B - is no longer being produced
or
C- was purchased within the United States, by a U.S. Citizen...regardless of the country of origin...
The First-Sale doctrine would apply.
This would address the issue that brought this case on: an enterprising young college student who had relatives overseas buy mass copies of college textbooks at the cheaper foreign price, ship them to him in the United States, and then sell them to college students at lower prices than students could otherwise purchase them for in the United States.
It would also address the issue of consumer rights in the following ways:
A - would allow for someone to sell their used iPod, or Kindle Fire...for example...when a newer model of that was released. This way, they could sell it to a willing buyer - who maybe doesn't WANT the latest and greatest (or the price tag attached to it) - and then that money could be put towards lowering the seller's cost towards the newer item...and everyone's happy, right?
This would also address the issue of someone who bought a Toyota...being able to sell the Toyota when they wanted a different car, for whatever the reason may be...and this then enables someone to buy the used car - someone who can't AFFORD a new car. As soon as the 2012 Toyota Celica is replaced by the 2013 Celica...then first-sale doctrine would apply to 2012 models...see?
B - Supposing they stopped producing Celicas after 2012. At that poont, why should they mind that someone sells their used Celica...after all, a new model s not available to BE purchased!
C - This addresses people who just want to sell their stuff for personal reasons...not people who are buying mass quantities of items at a cheaper-than-available price and then trying to make a profit off selling them. which is what the college student who brought this case on...did.
It seems reasonable that, if I bought an iPod...here in the US, at the Apple Store or whatever...and paid full freight for it...and I no longer want it, for any reason...I should have perfect right to sell that unit to any willing buyer, for whatever amount they would be willing to pay me for it. In such a scenario, I am not likely making as profit...I'm merely getting rid of an item I no longer want.
Also, this would address the house issue - the argument there is that if the house had fixtures made in China or something...then this could apply and prevent you from selling the house. The C exception...would thus kick in, since you purchased the item in the United States. Regardless of where it was manufactured, n whole or in part...you still purchased it in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a weird scenario that COULD theoretically happen...and would possibly get a large group of corporations on our side. I'm talking about car insurance companies.
Let's take the example of the Toyota. Suppose First-Sale Doctrine is so narrowly interpreted as to make it so that you can't sell your Toyota.
Now, let's suppose you CRASH that Toyota. Your insurance company can't total you out. They'd have to pay whatever it took to fix it. Because, by totalling it...they would be changing the ownership of the Toyota. You'd in fact be guilty of selling that Toyota to your insurance company.
Now that is an example of just how absurd the unintended consequences COULD get. Will they? I doubt it...but it's certainly a possibility. And something I hope the Court considers...however they rule!
The real worry with this...in terms of our national economy...would be that if the First-Sale Doctrine is narrowly interpreted...where items manufactured overseas is concerned...that many companies might be thus motivated to move their manufacturing...and the jobs that go with it....overseas...dealing a crushing blow to our economy.
Another way in which a narrow ruling here could negatively impact our economy....is that people will simply keep their old stuff, since they can't sell it...thus they won't buy the new stuff any more. that is certainly what I would do. I'd keep my old stuff much, much, much longer. Less sales equals less profits equals less hiring, equals horrible economy.
THESE are some of the true concerns...that we may really have to worry about...depending on how broadly or narrowly this case decides to interpret First Sale Doctrine.
