International edition text books infringement

[quincy]

Okay, well now I am thoroughly confused.

What you are saying, Business-3, is what I understood the law to be, originally, too - that the Supreme Court only ruled on the legalities of exports from the U.S. later being imported back into the U.S., but that imports originating in foreign countries could still be faced with fair trade and unfair competition suits. So this is right?


(I do know I screwed up the trademark/advertising part, though)

 

[Business-3]

Importation of copyrighted works manufactured in foreign countries may be considered copyright infringement under Section 602(a) of the Copyright Act.

Fair trade and unfair competition are separate legal issues, but may also be implicated by the unauthorized importation of trademarked goods.

 

[divgradcurl]

Cases that have addressed this issue include U2 Home Entertainment v. Lai Ying Music Trading, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9853 (importation of copies into the United States of a work manufactured in a foreign country can form the basis for a copyright infringement claim by an exclusive U.S. distributor without regard to the first sale doctrine); Lingo Corp. v. Topix, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1437 (importation of gray market goods manufactured abroad could form basis for copyright infringement claim); BGM Music v. Perez, 952 F.2d 318 (first sale doctrine does not provide a defense for goods manufactured abroad).

The statement is U2 Home Entertainment is dicta, so I am not sure how much precedential or influential weight it might have, but Perez is certainly on point. That said, I am not so sure the Quality King is as narrow as you propose, and I am not at all sure that Perez isn't superceded by Quality King -- the opinion is certainly not limited to only those product first made in the U.S., shipped out, and then returned -- that limitation is only made int he concurrence, which is certainly less precedential, if at all, than the opinion of the court.

Certainly a quick perusal of the various commentators on these cases on Google seems to suggest that there has not yet been a case that has firmly stated that parallel imports are infringing. Perez (and the 9th circuit) says it, Quality King says that it does not. If you read Quality King to only apply to goods manufactured in the U.S. and shipped overseas, then I guess Perez is good law and the first sale doctrine may not be a defense. I wouldn't read Quality King as being that narrow -- although I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case, at least not in the 9th Circuit!

BTW, in recent cases, the 9th Circuit at least is pretty sure that Perez is NOT superceded by Quality King. Other circuits seems to disagree with the 9th circuit on this, though.

 

[aerohp]

need some advice.....asap

Hello everyone,

Although I'm not in the same situation as the original poster, I have a similar problem with the same publisher.

I had purchased a solutions manual cd from half.com (operated by ebay) that had PDF files on it. Once done with the class, I decided to sell the cd since I had no need for it. I listed the item on ebay. Then, I received a notice from ebay stating that I could not sale "electronic manuals" and they canceled the listing. I took a mandatory survey and i realized that infact, I couldn't sell a "cd". I thought I was safe since the I never sold the cd and I took the steps that ebay suggested. Now, after a couple of months, I received a notice from Cengage Learning stating the I had violated their copyrights. However, I NEVER even sold the cd. How is that a violation? Also, the files in the cd do not have the name of the publisher (Cengage Learning, in this case) and nowhere does it say that the files on the cd are copyrighted. Is there something I can do here to get myself out of this or will I just have to do what they say?

I greatly appreciate your help.

 

[FlyingRon]

Do not confuse EBAY with the law.

Ebay has their own rules as to what they will allow. What you are doing is specifiaclly against ebays own "prohbiited and restricted items" policy

 

[aerohp]

Do not confuse EBAY with the law.

Ebay has their own rules as to what they will allow. What you are doing is specifiaclly against ebays own "prohbiited and restricted items" policy

yes, i learned that after going through the suggested "policy review" seminar.

what i dont understand is, how was the person, who i bought the cd from, able to sell the cd? if it is ebay's policy not to let someone sell solution manual cd's, which i agree with after learning about it, shouldn't every auction be canceled that violates their policy?

furthermore, if i had never sold the cd, how can the publisher accuse me of violating copyright s?

 

[gli5]

Hello everyone,

Although I'm not in the same situation as the original poster, I have a similar problem with the same publisher.

I had purchased a solutions manual cd from half.com (operated by ebay) that had PDF files on it. Once done with the class, I decided to sell the cd since I had no need for it. I listed the item on ebay. Then, I received a notice from ebay stating that I could not sale "electronic manuals" and they canceled the listing. I took a mandatory survey and i realized that infact, I couldn't sell a "cd". I thought I was safe since the I never sold the cd and I took the steps that ebay suggested. Now, after a couple of months, I received a notice from Cengage Learning stating the I had violated their copyrights. However, I NEVER even sold the cd. How is that a violation? Also, the files in the cd do not have the name of the publisher (Cengage Learning, in this case) and nowhere does it say that the files on the cd are copyrighted. Is there something I can do here to get myself out of this or will I just have to do what they say?

I greatly appreciate your help.

Hi, aerohp, I have almost the same situation with you. I sell the solution manual online two weeks ago, and my list got removed by ebay. Now, I am worrying if I will get sued.
I have a question, Did Cengage Learning really sue you or charge you any fine?

please reply me ASAP, thank you!

 

[aerohp]

Hi, aerohp, I have almost the same situation with you. I sell the solution manual online two weeks ago, and my list got removed by ebay. Now, I am worrying if I will get sued.
I have a question, Did Cengage Learning really sue you or charge you any fine?

please reply me ASAP, thank you!

hi,

i checked the notice again and its actually from John Wiley & Sons. they said that I would have to send in a fine, and if i dont do that than they will sue. What I dont understand is, how can they accuse me of copyright infringement if I have never sold the cd that i have?

can some one else with little more knowledge about this help us out?

 

[divgradcurl]

hi,

i checked the notice again and its actually from John Wiley & Sons. they said that I would have to send in a fine, and if i dont do that than they will sue. What I dont understand is, how can they accuse me of copyright infringement if I have never sold the cd that i have?

can some one else with little more knowledge about this help us out?

Are you in the U.S.? If not, you will need to find a forum that discusses your country's laws, because copyright laws are NOT the same in each country.

If you are in the U.S.:

Merely offering for sale a copyrighted work is not infringing -- assuming that the work you are offering for sale is a LEGAL copy of the work in the first place.

If the CD you bought from half.com is a LEGAL copy, then your offering the CD for sale is not copyright infringement. See, e.g., UMG v. Bertelsmann, http://www.svmedialaw.com/Napster summary judgment order.pdf, and the references therein, National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861 (1993); Arista Records, Inc. v. Mp3Board, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 4660 (SHS), 2002 WL 1997918 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); Olbolensky v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 628 F. Supp. 1552, 1555-56 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 795 F.2d 1005 (2d. Cir. 1986).

If your CD is NOT a legal copy, the merely offering for sale CAN be infringing. See, e.g., Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997).

Finally, if the original CD was legally purchased, there may be a contractual provision that prevents the CD from being resold. Whether or not such a provision exists, and whether or not is enforceable against you, would require someone to take a close look at all of the facts of your situation.

 

[LinxUs]

Extortion

Isn't the threat of a lawsuit extortion under law? I can't imagine anything more clear cut of extortion than this.

 

[divgradcurl]

Isn't the threat of a lawsuit extortion under law? I can't imagine anything more clear cut of extortion than this.

No.

Why would this be extortion? The copyright holder has a right to enforce their copyrights. Just because it might be questionable whether or not their rights were violated does not mean it's extortion to threaten to sue. We only have one side of the story here -- is the copyright holder expected to take the OP's word for it that he or she is not infringing?

 

[LinxUs]

response

I see your point. my argument is because prior to discovery (if anything admissable is found), they may not have any evidence of infringement. my arguments and knowledge is coming from lawsuits filed by the RIAA, where several courts ruled, where "making available" does not constitute infringement. an earlier case ruled that "merely making available" was infringement.

if all cengenge has on the start of the thread was a "supsision" and no proof of infringement through third-party, how can they collect a debt then for copyright infringement? isn't that why there is litigation is necessary? i cite Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (aka FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

 

[LinxUs]

statute

since were having a similar discussion in two forums, i wont post twice, here is the statute regarding extort i'm referring to

refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876

the copyright claimant may be doing a "favor", but i argue it violates the above statute. the copyright claimant has a right to defend its copyirght... in court...

 

[divgradcurl]

The settlement offer is just that -- a settlement offer.
The OP is free to reject the offer and have his or her day in court. The OP can enter into a contractual agreement -- $250 in return for no case fiiled -- or he can turn it down and head to court. The settlement offer in no way causes the OP to lose his or her day in court -- it provides and option to court. This isn't a debt situation -- the publisher can't collect unless the OP agrees to the settlement.

 

[chu_cs]

4 posting got deleted

Is there any particular reason why messages have been deleted?