Selling your iPad illegal in US? Soon to be found out!

[Wilian]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ht-law/258276/

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad -- or almost anything else -- without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:

1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.

2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.

3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.

4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.

So from what I understood off the article, stick a logo onto something and you possibly cease of all your rights to sell it! Awesome.

Let the "BUT THE COMPANIES MUST MAKE PROFIT!!" commence!

[Mastashake15]

Well, this may not seem that great at first glance, but these companies need the extra profit which is necessary in a capitalist economy.

Edit - I'm being sarcastic but it looks like a lot of people didn't realize that, sorry.

[conscript]

So goodbye used imported car sales and I assume any car that has any part manufactured outside the US, unless the assembly is the part that matters, not the origin of the components. Either way, wow what a stupid ruling by the lower courts. Hopefully the SC makes the right decision here, but seeing as this will only help out their corporate buddies, I doubt that will happen.

[anveena]

Soon anything you buy you'll have to pay a monthly fee on and never own.

[Defaulty]

Well, this may not seem that great at first glance, but these companies need the extra profit which is necessary in a capitalist economy.

Except when I buy an end product it's mine and I should by law, do with it as I wish. The only part of an electronic device that should still be owned by the company is the back end software. (The issue with Modding Game systems). While you still own the hardware personally and thus you should be allowed to buy, sell, break, or throw away any physical product you ever purchase in your life.

But as always, this is an apple product so why are you surprised? Ever seen that South Park episode about end term agreements and "Why doesn't it read?!?"

[conscript]

Soon anything you buy you'll have to pay a monthly fee on and never own.

Don't worry though, every three years you will be eligible to upgrade to the newest model for a modest fee and a renewal of your contract. Sure the price of the item is drastically inflated to make it seem like you are actually getting a deal, but no one will care.

[Llunai]

Well, this may not seem that great at first glance, but these companies need the extra profit which is necessary in a capitalist economy.

Apple needs the extra profit?

I guess these are tough times for them. Exponential growth just isn't cutting it anymore. Fuck the consumers; they should be coughing up more for our products anyways. They don't have any rights; why should they?

[conscript]

But as always, this is an apple product so why are you surprised? Ever seen that South Park episode about end term agreements and "Why doesn't it read?!?"

Apple is just an example. They haven't actually sued anyone and I doubt they would ever do that. This whole thing came to the forefront thanks to a watchmaker suing Costco for buying watches wholesale and then selling them cheaper than you can buy them at an Omega store in the US because they are drastically marked up in the US compared to their international price.

[goobernoob]

This goes to the idea of ownership, which is vanishing in digital media, when I buy a game or a movie or anything physical like a car or a computer I should own it and be able to use and sell it however I deem fit, the only exception is copying intellectual properly, but even then, you own one copy, you should be able to sell that copy.
The world seems to be moving to the idea of making everything a rental of some sort, if you aren't allowed to own anything you are only a slave or serf able to have everything taken away with the changing of contracts.

[Lothaeryn]

If this goes through, I think alot of people are going to throw out their old stuff instead of selling it back into the market, thus creating more pollution than necessary in the long run.

Hope to god the SC really does its job for once instead of thinking about their sponsors.

[Deleted]

Well, this may not seem that great at first glance, but these companies need the extra profit which is necessary in a capitalist economy.

Yeah guys, Apple needs even more money!

It's not like they already gouge your wallet dry, but you can't even resell your old junk when iPad XXVII comes out.

[slime]

Soon anything you buy you'll have to pay a monthly fee on and never own.

Listen to this person. This is the future. Fight it.

[Joecarth]

So I'd assume Gamestop would be a huge target then now with their huge push to buy pre-owned Apple products now?

[Dedweight]

So I'd assume Gamestop would be a huge target then now with their huge push to buy pre-owned Apple products now?

I'd assume any second-hand store(Salvation Army or Pawnshops to name a few) would be a target as well.

[semaphore]

I can't believe they're even challenging the first sale doctrine now. Corporate greed truly knows no bounds. The excuse of letting Congress sort it out is just an inviation for this absurd abuse of law to be codified by big business buying legislators.

Well, this may not seem that great at first glance, but these companies need the extra profit which is necessary in a capitalist economy.

No they don't. Despicably unadulterated greed is not a need.

[hellosaltygoodness]

it won't be illegal if consumers simply refuse to accept the new law. unfortunately, consumers are sheep, and they will go along with it rather than refuse to go without their ipads until apple and all others back off.

[Beavis]

Jesus christ. The fact that this could even make it to the Supreme Court is proof that this country has finally gone completely bananas. I hope I don't get sued by Gwen Stefani or Chiquita Banana for using the word banana in a derogatory fashion.

[semaphore]

it won't be illegal if consumers simply refuse to accept the new law. unfortunately, consumers are sheep, and they will go along with it rather than refuse to go without their ipads until apple and all others back off.

Refusal doesn't change the law. Consumers need to stop accepting and even activitely defending corporate abuses of the concept of copyright.

[bekilrwale]

No they don't. Despicably unadulterated greed is not a need.

This. Last I checked Apple had a sizeable little chunk of change they don't even know what to do with.

[Hexotic]

iPad was used as an example, why are people getting their panties in a bunch over apple?