Government Intrusion Coming To A Yard Sale Near You

Market Watch posted a story yesterday about a Supreme Court case that will come up during this term of the Supreme Court. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons deals with the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

The article explains that because the copyright holder was paid when the article sold the first time, after sales are not covered. However, that idea is being challenged for items made abroad.

The article reports:

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.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

The article explains the basis for the case:

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

There can be hazards in doing business in a world-wide market.

The article reminds us that if the court rules that the first-sale principle does not apply to products made oversees, many businesses in the United States would be adversely impacted. Many parts of American cars are made overseas. Does that mean that when you sell your used car, you need permission from a Japanese parts company?

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Frankly, I think Supap Kirtsaeng should get an award for entrepreneurial excellence!

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Does This Woman Find Time To Study ?

 Rush Limbaugh has come under fire recently for his rather crude comments of the moral character of supposed co-ed Sandra Fluke. Although I might not agree with his words, he was telling the truth and making some good points. There does seem to be more to the story. Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday detailing some of Sandra Fluke’s biography.

The article reports:

The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.

Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.

Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Jammie Wearing Fool reported on Sandra Fluke’s status as a student:

I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

It gets worse. CNS News reported some of her testimony and did the math:

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

…So, they can earn enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since that could translate into having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).

I will admit that I was married before the ‘sexual revolution’ and that I don’t really understand how things work today, but why is it the government’s responsibility to pay for contraception? And why is the Obama Administration so desperate to get rid of the conscience clause in medicine? On Monday, RedMassGroup pointed out that the healthcare plan proposed by Hillary in 1994 recognized a religious and moral right of healthcare insurers and workers to refrain from providing healthcare services that violated their consciences. Why is Obamacare different?

What I need to say in conclusion is that we have all been sidetracked. The battle is for the right of conscience and the right to live your life in accord to your religious and moral convictions. The battle is not about how a talk show host describes the sex life of a supposed co-ed.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta