Supreme Court: You Bought It, You Own It, You Can Resell It

First Sale Doctrine Resale Rights1

This past week the United States Supreme Court decided a case that reinforced the right to re-sell something that you had lawfully bought.

Now — you might be wondering what’s so earth shattering about that.  After all, hasn’t that always been true?  You own an iPad and want to get a new tablet instead?  Just sell the old iPad or donate it or recycle it — because it’s yours and you can do what you want with it.  Bought a book and no longer need it? You sell that, too. Right?

Here in the States we have something called the “first sale doctrine.” It simply means that once a tangible copyrighted work (or something with copyright in it) is sold lawfully the first time, the original copyright owner no longer has rights over the physical item. After that, the buyer can do whatever he or she wants with it — sell it again, donate it, whatever.  That’s why you can legally hold a yard sale or sell computers on eBay. The resale right applies only to the physical item sold, not copies.

Most of us take resale rights for granted.

But that right to resell copyrighted items had been challenged in court.  The Supreme Court’s decision this week reaffirmed that owners have resale rights, as Daniel Fisher writes in Forbes:

The U.S. Supreme Court today settled a long-simmering debate over the Copyright Act by holding that publishers can’t prevent the resale of books they produce overseas in U.S. markets.

The decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is a victory for Supap Kirtsaeng, a student who was fined $600,000 for importing Wiley textbooks from his native Thailand, where they were cheaper, and selling them in the U.S. It’s also a victory for libraries and retailers like eBay, who argued the “first sale” doctrine — giving owners of published books and recordings the right to sell them to whomever they want — should apply to imported works as well as U.S. publications.

The lawsuit related specifically to U.S. copyrighted items manufactured outside the United States, but re-sold or disposed of inside the U.S.

The Owners’ Rights Initiative hailed the decision as a victory for individuals, organizations and businesses.  The Initiative is an advocacy group founded to protect owner’s rights to buy and sell authentic goods.

Their motto is: “You bought it. You own it. You have a right to resell it.” (Image above)

The Owner’s Rights Initiative says you should be permitted to resell something you’ve legitimately purchased, no matter where it was manufactured.  While the court’s decision puts to rest one attack on resale rights, the group believes  there could be other legal attacks in the future.  Said Lauren Perez of the American Free Trade Association, in a video on the Owner’s Rights site:

If you buy it you own it. If you paid for it, it’s yours. You shouldn’t have to go ask permission of anybody to resell it.  You shouldn’t have to worry about being sued for copyright infringement because the original copyright owner or manufacturer doesn’t like you being the person reselling it… doesn’t want you to realize a profit from your original investment.

The Owner’s Rights Initiative is backed by groups  like eBay, Etsy, Overstock, the American Library Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and even the popular used/out-of-print bookseller Powell’s Books.

Below is the Supreme Court’s decision (only the 4-page summary, also known as a syllabus):

Image credit: Owner’s Rights Initiative

This article was updated to clarify that resale rights do not apply to copies illegally made of a copyrighted item.


Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on WhatsApp-Facebook Data Sharing

Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response on WhatsApp-Facebook Data Sharing

Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on WhatsApp-Facebook Data Sharing
WhatsApp updated its privacy policy earlier this month
It has, thus, stirred a controversy among the users
Delhi HC has asked govt. to submit replies by September 14
WhatsApp’s recent decision to share user data with parent company Facebook has reached the doorstep of the Delhi High Court, which sought the government’s response on the modification of the new privacy policy.

In a controversial move, the popular messaging platform has said it will begin “coordinating” accounts with Facebook by sharing users’ mobile phone numbers and device information with Facebook. It is, however, giving users a 30-day window to opt out of sharing their details.

(Also see: How to Stop WhatsApp From Sharing Your Details With Facebook)

The plans of WhatsApp – which has long promised to safeguard the privacy of more than 1 billion users — had rung alarm bells among privacy advocates.

Following a petition by two users, a High Court bench issued notice to the Centre, asking the concerned authorities to file their reply by September 14.
The petition had alleged that WhatsApp, Facebook Inc and Facebook India Online Private Limited’s new private policy “compromises the rights of its users”.

The current privacy policy is in “stark contrast” to the one from July 7, 2012, the petition read. The revised policy of August 25, 2016, “severely compromises the rights of its users and makes the privacy rights of users completely vulnerable,” the plea alleged.

The new policy, which is likely to come into force from September 25, has sought to change the “most valuable, basic and essential feature” of WhatsApp, the petition read.

It “unilaterally” threatened to “take away the protection to privacy of details and data of its users and sharing the same with Facebook and all its group companies including for the purpose of commercial advertising and marketing”.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocates Sandeep Sethi and Pratibha M Singh, called it a “very serious breach of policy”.

The manner of taking consent was “highly deceptive in as much as almost the entire community of users of WhatsApp in India are not equipped to even read, much less comprehend” the terms and conditions, they said.

Share a screenshot and win Samsung smartphones worth Rs. 90,000 by participating in the #BrowseFaster contest.

Tags: WhatsApp, Facebook, Apps, Privacy, Social, India


Uber Case: Karnataka High Court Questions Government on Stifling Startup Business

Uber Case: Karnataka High Court Questions Government on Stifling Startup Business

The Karnataka High Court Wednesday questioned the state government on “stifling” the startup business through regulatory norms that create an “unviable” environment while wanting to encourage startups.

“On the one hand, you (government) want to encourage startups in the state and, on the other, you want to stifle its business by framing rules like the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Aggregators’ Rules (OTTA),” Justice Raghavendra Chouhan said during the hearing of a petition by cab aggregator Uber.

Justice Chouhan made the observations while questioning the submissions made by A S Ponnanna, Counsel for the state who defended OTTA rules.

Uber had moved the court after the transport department impounded the vehicles for not securing licences under the new norms. It also suspended operations of taxis, which led to protests by drivers.

Justice Chouhan said the rules would create an unviable environment for startups and would have repercussions for investments in the state.

“If we have such regulatory rules, it will create an unviable environment for startup business in the state.


Startup companies like Uber may pull out of business in the state, which will not be good. It will have a negative impact or repercussions on investments,” he said.

Earlier last month, Uber’s Counsel Sajan Poovayya had submitted that since taxi-hailing app Uber is a technology platform that connects drivers with passengers, it cannot be regulated under India’s Motor Vehicles Act, which governs taxis and aggregators in the country.

The hearing in the matter will continue tomorrow. Drivers have also independently filed a petition in court.

The transport department had in April increased the penalty for cab aggregators from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000, alleging they were operating without obtaining necessary licence despite its repeated warnings.

Share a screenshot and win Samsung smartphones worth Rs. 90,000 by participating in the #BrowseFaster contest.

Tags: Apps, Cabs, Startups, Uber, Uber India


Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Rule Against Samsung Over Patents

Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Rule Against Samsung Over Patents


  • Apple sued Samsung in 2011 alleging infringement of the iPhone’s patents
  • Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $930 million after a jury trial
  • Samsung has been trying to reduce that figure ever since.

Apple Inc on Friday asked the US Supreme Court to clear the way for the iPhone maker to secure hundreds of millions in damages from Samsung Electronics Co Ltd in a case over smartphone design patents.

The world’s top smartphone rivals have been feuding over patents since 2011, when Apple sued Samsung in a northern California court alleging infringement of the iPhone’s patents, designs and trademarked appearance.

In its legal brief on Friday, Apple said Samsung had not provided evidence to support its argument that design patent damages should be decided on one component of a smartphone, rather than the entire product. Apple said there was no need for the Supreme Court to send the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

A Samsung representative declined to immediately provide comment. The South Korean company has said that a ruling for Apple would diminish innovation and negatively impact the economy.

Following a 2012 jury trial, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $930 million. Samsung has been trying to reduce that figure ever since.

Its efforts were partially rewarded in May 2015, when the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the damages on trademark liability. The appeals court, however, upheld Samsung’s infringement of the iPhone’s patents, including those related to the designs of the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, bezel and colorful grid of icons.

That brought Samsung’s exposure down to $548 million, of which $399 million involves design patents. Additional damages, based on five other phone models, could also be awarded depending on the outcome of appeals.

Samsung asked the Supreme Court to review the case, calling the damages awarded excessive. In March, the justices agreed to look into whether courts should award in damages the total profits from a product that infringes a design patent, if the patent applies only to a component of the product.

In a filing last month, the US Department of Justice said the case should be sent back to a lower court.

But Apple said Congress has been clear on the issue of design patent damages, and there was no reason the Supreme Court should allow Samsung to make additional arguments.

© Thomson Reuters 2016

Tags: Apple, Apple vs Samsung, Internet, Mobiles, Samsung

Valve Taken to court docket for Transphobia

Valve Taken to Court for Transphobia

The organization is being sued for $three.1 million.
Plaintiff argues transgender discrimination and hostile environment.
Valve denies all allegations, and needs to brush aside complaint.
Valve, the online game developer at the back of titles together with Counter-Strike and maker of virtualdistribution platform Steam, is being sued with the aid of a former worker for $three.1 million (roughly Rs. 20.eight crores) because the individual turned into discriminated towards and put right into aadversarial work environment.

in keeping with the lawsuit filed ultimate month and now received by means of Polygon, the employeeturned into laid off mere days after she installed a criticism to the human sources branch about Valve “using people who were interested in their products to offer translation services free of charge“. Shestated that another purpose she turned into fired turned into because her being a transgender failed tosit well with the manager, who often noted the plaintiff as “it” inside the office.

(additionally see: Valve Being Taken to courtroom to allow Resale of digital video games)

Valve, for what it is worth, has denied any wrongdoing and requested the court docket to push aside thecriticism. The organization denied all of the former worker‘s allegations, such as that they tried to coverup firing her by means of moving the activity to Washington and then announcing no to her even after she agreed to relocate.

inside the lawsuit, she has stated eight causes including wrongful termination, disability/genderidentification discrimination, failure to deal with /interact within the interactive system, antagonistic workenvironment, retaliation, unpaid wages for the beyond regular time, unfair business practices, and wrongful classification as independent contractor.

The remaining of these passed off sometime in 2012 after the plaintiff requested a exchange in areafrom Washington to l. a., in order to properly go through her gender transition surgical procedure. even as Valve did permit her to make money working from home in la while recovering, additionally theyreclassified her as an unbiased contractor.

download the devices 360 app for Android and iOS to live up to date with the modern day tech news, product evaluations, and extraordinary deals on the popular mobiles.

Tags: Valve, discrimination, lawsuit, transgender, transphobia, workplace issues

Delhi High Court Helps Single Mothers. Says Mother’s Signature Sufficient for Child’s Passport.

Untitled design (22)

On may also 20, the Delhi excessive courtroom dominated that a mother’s signature is sufficient toproblem a child’s passport in unique instances and the father’s signature isn’t required.

This order came in response to a petition filed by using a unmarried mother who had asked her daughter’s passport be re-issued without the father’s name being referred to within the utility.

Untitled design (22)

The lady is divorced and stated she raised her daughter all via herself without assist from the organicfather.

The girl additionally said the passport authority soliciting for the daddy’s call in the utility form is a contravention of her daughter’s proper to determine her name and identification.

you could also study this: TBI BLOGS: The Heartwarming journeys of two unmarried moms Whoadopted Daughters

She further delivered that each one her daughter’s reputable files did not bear her father’s name. also, in 2005 and 2011, the passport authority had issued the girl’s passport without insisting on the daddy’s name.

inside the absence of any provision making it mandatory to say the name of 1’s biological father within the passport, the respondents (passport authorities) can not insist upon the identical,” stated Justice Manmohan, ruling in the girl’s favour.

The court additionally stated that the number of families with single dad and mom is at the upward push due to numerous reasons like unwed moms, rape survivors, surrogate moms, sex people, childrenabandoned by means of fathers, and youngsters born via IVF.

consequently, this court is of the view that mother’s call is enough in sure instances like the presentone to apply for passport, specifically as a unmarried woman can be a natural mother or father and alsoa parent.”

In response to the passport authority’s argument that the pc might not take delivery of the applicationshape with out the call of pop being filled in, the courtroom asked the authority to regulate the gadget.

Like this tale? Or have some thing to proportion? Write to us:, or hook up with us on facebook and Twitter (@thebetterindia).

Delhi excessive court docket Asks Centre, Google approximately ‘right to Be Forgotten’

Delhi High Court Asks Centre, Google About 'Right to Be Forgotten'

Does proper to privacy include proper to delink from the net the irrelevant facts, the Delhi excessivecourtroom has asked the Centre and Google.

Justice Manmohan sought the responses of the Ministry of verbal exchange and records technology (MOC & IT), Google Inc., Google India Pvt Ltd and IKanoon software program improvement Pvt Ltd on a plea of an NRI in search of that he be “delinked” from statistics regarding a criminal case related to his spouse in which he turned into now not a celebration.

The petitioner has sought the comfort saying it might affect his employment possibilities asorganizations regularly seek about prospective employees on the internet and because the criminalcase pops up on searching his call, it’d deliver an affect that he changed into concerned in it.

His petition has raised the questionwhether or not information controllers or intermediaries such asGoogle, are required to delete records this is insufficient, inappropriate or now not relevant in the event that they acquire a request for removal of such statistics“.

The petitioner, in his plea filed via advocates Rohit Madan and Akash Vajpai, has said the crook caseregarding his spouse and his mom against every different pops up when his name is searched on theinternet.

“Petitioner got to realize that all and sundry who searches his name on Google will locate the aforesaid judgment (of the crook case) on the second variety of seek result and consequently giving the impact toanybody that become worried in some type of crook proceeding in India,” the plea stated.

The plea has additionally said, “petitioner tried to touch Respondent four (IKanoon) and made a request for taking down the aforesaid judgment thru letter dated January 25, 2016 as petitioner wanted this order to be expunged, from website of Respondent four.”

It additionally said that the petitioner had contacted Respondent 2 and three (Google Inc and Google India) and sent an e mail for doing away with the concerned Uniform aid Locator (URL) from the hunt result.

in line with the petition, it become asked in the email that “fabric negative to the petitioner have to not bethe primary hit in the search result as he has no role in the aforesaid case and as it become giving a badcall to the Petitioner in order to further jeopardize his prospective employment possibilities, being an NRIresiding in Dubai employed with prestigious organisation.”

“This problem relating the crook case in which his call has appeared have been absolutely resolved andconsequently that connection with his call within the aforesaid criminal case is now totally irrelevant,” the petition has contended adding that no longer getting rid of the same “violates his proper toprivateness” and also “creates a horrific social photoabout him.

The petition has also stated a eu courtroom of Justice verdict ordering Google “to put off the linksassociated with a person on its internet site and efficaciously examine a ‘proper to be forgotten’ or ‘rightto delink’ into present ecu Union information safety law“.

right to delink broadly, offers that an character can be allowed to manipulate the statistics availableabout them on the internet by means of putting off such records in certain situations,” the petition hassaid.

download the devices 360 app for Android and iOS to stay updated with the today’s tech information, product evaluations, and exceptional offers on the popular mobiles.

Tags: Apps, Google, Google India, India, net, proper to be Forgotten

Supreme Court Gives Government More Time to Curb Child Pornography Sites

Supreme Court Gives Government More Time to Curb Child Pornography Sites

The Supreme Court on Monday gave the government more time to suggest ways and means for blocking child pornography in its all forms as it was told that due to Holi holidays, the required meeting of officials with National Commission for Women (NCW) could not take place.

Granting two weeks’ time as Additional Solicitor General Pinki Anand said the meeting of the officials with NCW has yet to take place, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh asked the government to address the submission by the petitioner Kamlesh Vaswani that government, after passing an order blocking 450 child porn websites in 2014, revoked it later.

Asking the government to suggest the ways to curb child pornography, the apex court on last hearing on February 26 had said it could, if it wanted, seek suggestions from the National Commission for Women and “we are sure the said Commission would give its suggestions to the Union of India”.

The court had also said that “the innocent children cannot be made prey to these kind of painful situations, and a nation, by no means, can afford to carry any kind of experiment with its children in the name of liberty and freedom of expression”.

“Watching pornography or compelling watching pornography can’t come with the freedom of expression, speech and thought,” it said, asking Anand to “file an appropriate affidavit of the competent authority to suggest the ways and means so that these activities are curbed”.

Expressing its difficulty in dealing with the issue of clamp down on websites carrying child pornography, the government had told the court on February 26 that “as far as the child pornography is concerned, exercise has been undertaken and the central government shall come with the scheme so that appropriate directions in that regard can be issued”.

Download the Gadgets 360 app for Android and iOS to stay up to date with the latest tech news, product reviews, and exclusive deals on the popular mobiles.

Tags: Child Pornography, Internet, Porn

Court begins hearings on pleas to wind up Kingfisher Airlines, UB

The Karnataka High Court on Friday began final hearing on the petitions filed by secured and unsecured creditors of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd (KFL) seeking winding up of KFL as well as businessman Vijay Mallya-led UB (Holdings) Ltd, which is the promoter of the KFL.

Justice Aravind Kumar, who heard the arguments of counsel representing BNP Paribas, a French Bank, which is seeking winding up of the UBHL to recover crores due to it for financing KAL to purchase three aircraft, adjourned further hearing to March 24.

Meanwhile, the counsel representing consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India requested the judge to post the pleas regularly for hearing as the court has been hearing petitions related to company matters only on Fridays.

However, counsel representing KFL and UBHL said that there are enough interim orders in favour of litigant-creditors passed by various courts and tribunals, while pointing out that he required sufficient time to put forth his arguments.

This was after the judge wanted to know from the counsel representing different parties the time that they may take for their arguments. Finally, the Court said that it would list the pleas for further hearing on March 24 and would decide further course, including on deciding about regular hearing of the pleas. While majority of the pleas were for winding up of both KFL and UBHL, a few pleas were filed in support of these two companies.


Google to Delhi High Court: No Revenue Earned From Content Uploaded by Centre

Google to Delhi High Court: No Revenue Earned From Content Uploaded by Centre

Google India Pvt Ltd Monday told the Delhi High Court it has not earned any revenue out of the agreement with the government or any other monetary benefit from content uploaded under the deal.

The company also told a bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva it has no contractual relationship with the Centre regarding content uploaded by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on YouTube or any other of its sites.

The submissions were made on affidavit in response to the court’s query to it and Google Inc, on an earlier date, as to whether YouTube was generating revenue from contents uploaded by the government.

Google Inc, the parent company of Google Ireland which operates YouTube, in its affidavit stated that “no advertisements appear on the content owned by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and provided/uploaded on the YouTube platform by the ministry”.

The Centre, meanwhile, told the court that it has no “customised agreements” with Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp.

There are no customised agreements with YouTube (Google) either, except the one (with Google Ireland/YouTube) mentioned above”.

This submission was made by the government in response to the court’s earlier query as to whether the ministry has any agreement with these social media entities.

The affidavits were filed in a PIL by former BJP leader K N Govindacharya raising questions on social media usage by the government.

Appearing for Govindacharya, advocate Virag Gupta told the court that Google Inc was “misleading and silent on the crucial issue of income generated by Google Ireland and if any revenue is shared with the Union of India”.

The bench, thereafter, sought an additional affidavit from Google Inc on whether it is making any money out of the content uploaded by ministry and listed the matter for further hearing on April 27.

On January 27, the government had filed the content licence agreement entered into with Google Ireland in 2013 regarding content put up on YouTube.

The government had earlier in an affidavit told the court that its media wing and IT departments were using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter by entering into standard agreements and not any formal or separate deals.

Gupta had told the court that as per contracts the government has with these companies, it was “transferring/ surrendering” all intellectual property rights of the data being uploaded.

Download the Gadgets 360 app for Android and iOS to stay up to date with the latest tech news, product reviews, and exclusive deals on the popular mobiles.

Tags: Apps, Facebook, Google, Google India, Internet, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube