Copyright case hot topic
E-books pose copyright-law conundrums, but print books still can, too — as in a new U.S. Supreme Court case.
Oral arguments are set for Oct. 29 in Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Kirtsaeng, a native of Thailand who came to America to study at Cornell University, found textbooks published by Wiley were cheaper back home — so he got relatives there to buy copies and ship them to him here, where he sold them on eBay, making thousands of dollars.
Wiley sued him for infringing its U.S. copyrights on the textbooks' domestic editions. Kirtsaeng's defense? The “first-sale doctrine,” first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, that allows sales of used print books, CDs, DVDs and the like.
Wiley prevailed in federal district court and at the appellate level, where a lower court's ruling that first-sale doesn't apply to anything made overseas was upheld. Kirtsaeng then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case has generated media reports hyping the notion advanced by Kirtsaeng's side that if Wiley prevails again, nobody would be able to resell anything foreign-made, from personal electronics to family heirlooms to artworks, and that libraries, museums, eBay and Craigslist could be affected. It's even suggested that such a ruling could prompt U.S. companies to move all their manufacturing overseas.
Wiley and its legal team declined comment for the record. Kirtsaeng's legal team did not respond to a request for comment. But Supreme Court filings illuminate the issue and each side's stance.
The court's online “question presented” page frames the issue as a conflict between U.S. copyright law's ban on importing works without copyright owners' blessing and the first-sale ability to resell without copyright owners' permission — with the works involved foreign-made.
Kirtsaeng's filing asserts that a pro-Wiley ruling would lead to “another level of absurdity that extends beyond the first-sale defense ... . All foreign-made products with copyrightable content would hold an exalted place in copyright law ... that no product ... has ever enjoyed.”
Wiley's filing notes that Kirtsaeng, without its permission, imported and resold — on a massive scale — textbooks clearly marked as for sale only in foreign countries.
Wiley also labels Kirtsaeng's contentions about widespread, unintended effects of a ruling favoring Wiley “speculative and unpersuasive,” suggesting Kirtsaeng aims to focus attention elsewhere than his own “ concededly unauthorized” reselling.
The publisher also cites case law from the past 30 years supporting its position, saying that if Kirtsaeng's right about potential “dire consequences, those consequences should already have occurred ... .”
“Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril” was the headline of a Wall Street Journal MarketWatch piece about the case — certainly more attention-grabbing than headlines that emphasize Wiley's position, but also more likely to make average Americans follow this case. The focus that counts — that of the justices — will be evident in their eventual ruling.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers clinch playoff berth with win over Chiefs
- Starkey: Chryst a miserable failure at Pitt
- Fatal fire under investigation in New Castle
- Groom cited at Farmington wedding reception being filmed for reality TV show
- Ex-Penguins defenseman Niskanen still miffed by coaches’ firings
- NYPD: Cop ambush killer told passers-by to watch
- Pitt players support Rudolph for job
- Daily Courier roundup: Ice Miners win 20-round shootout
- Pitt football fights to overcome steppingstone status
- Obama says Sony hack not an act of war
- Police investigate alleged institutional sexual assault at Pine youth treatment center