Hacker News Reader

Comment by falien | Hacker News Reader

>That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

That ruling. I don't think it says what you think it says.

I wish I could say this was some of the worst reporting I've ever seen, but alas.

edit: for anyone who wants to read it http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1577369.html

View on HN

Could you enlighten the audience as to what you believe it says, rather than snarkily just dismissing the reporting as wrong?

Maybe just read what it says? Third paragraph "“[i]mportation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under [the Copyright Act], of copies ․ of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the [owner's] exclusive right to distribute copies․”4

How is that ever going to apply to an iPhone - or to ANYTHING sold through an authorized distributor?

Hi.

I'm in Australia, I buy my iPhone from an authorised distributor. I then decide to update to an iPhone 2, so I list it on eBay. Someone in the United States purchases the iPhone.

Do I have the authority of Apple to import that phone to the United States? In the absence of explicit terms and conditions, wouldn't this judgment prevent me from delivering the phone?

The Wiley textbooks were sold through an authorized distributor; just not one for the US. Suppose you buy an iPhone in Japan, because you live there. You buy it from an authorized dealer in Japan, but (in this imagined future) it has a restriction that it's not for export into the US. Two years later, you move to the US and take your phone with you. You later decide to switch to an Android phone, and sell your old iPhone on eBay.

The thesis is that this eBay sale would be considered illegal.

I prefer to let people read into the original as much as they choose, since it is fairly clear by the third introductory paragraph that the reporter misrepresented what was at issue in the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com