Techdirt. Stories filed under "resale" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "resale"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:33:00 PST Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level Domains For Their Own Use? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/02172722048/should-google-amazon-others-be-able-to-lock-up-new-generic-top-level-domains-their-own-use.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/02172722048/should-google-amazon-others-be-able-to-lock-up-new-generic-top-level-domains-their-own-use.shtml a complete joke, often driven by ICANN members who were in positions to be the registrars and registers for those new domains. Thus, all they seemed to do was create money out of thin air for those companies, since there was no actual demand for the TLDs, but companies felt obligated to buy them up anyway, to "keep them out of the hands" of critics, scammers or others. And, certainly a big fear when ICANN decided to offer up its big "generic TLD" setup, whereby anyone could make a play for any new TLD, was that the whole thing was a boondoggle for domain registers and registrars with which to set up a whole bunch of new tollbooths.

However, a funny thing happened along the way. While there certainly were a bunch of those kinds of TLDs applied for (many with competing claims fighting for the right to cash in), what became more interesting was the fact that the list of applications was absolutely dominated by Google and Amazon seeking to gain control over a very long list of TLDs. In fact, we noted that in many cases, Google and Amazon were lined up head to head competing over who would gain control over those TLDs. For example, they're competing with each other (and with some others) for the rights to .book, .shop, .store, .free, .game, .search, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and .cloud. And both of those companies are going for a bunch of others where they're not competing with each other. Google, for example, wants (among other things) .car, .dad, .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, .prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love and more.

As you look down the list, you begin to realize that while the initial fear of registers and registrars shaking down everyone to buy new domain names to "protect" their trademarks was a legitimate concern, there was a second serious concern as well: that a bunch of these new gTLDs were not being applied for to set up a registry where anyone could obtain those kinds of domains, but rather to lock them up for one company's use. And while Amazon and Google are the most prominent players here, lots of other companies jumped in as well. Hasbro wants .transformers. Johnson and Johnson wants .baby (so do a bunch of others). Ralph Lauren wants .polo. Travelers Insurance wants the completely ridiculous .redumbrella, while Nationwide Insurance wants .onyourside. Monster Cable (of course) wants .monster.

While some of those more specific ones wouldn't have any demand for anyone else to register anyway, there is a growing concern that companies might lock up certain TLDs, rather than make them available for registering. I'm sure lots of car companies would like theirname.car. But would that be possible?

Apparently, ICANN -- whose boss has already admitted that they're in way over their heads on these new gTLDs -- is now considering whether or not such a use of a gTLD should even be allowed.
But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L'Oreal and others also applied for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the registry as "closed" -- meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are known as second-level domains.

Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck.
The article quotes someone from a hosting firm who notes that "It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to ... new [generic top-level domains] to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD."

Of course, there is the flipside to this argument as well -- such TLDs that are simply locked up for a single company or service are also not on the market, meaning that they're not another in the long list of domains companies feel they "need to buy" purely for defensive reasons. Either way, at least one (still unnamed) applicant who is competing with a bunch of these companies for a few of the new gTLDs is hiring people to lobby Congress and the EU Parliament not to allow firms to lock up any new gTLD.

In the end, I think our original conclusion still stands: the whole gTLD process appears to be a continuing boondoggle for certain companies, whether it's to lock up certain TLDs or to sell off domains to people and companies who don't really want them, but feel compelled to pay up anyway.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> wasn't-quite-the-idea... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130221/02172722048 Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:44:00 PDT EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml take away your first sale rights. As you hopefully know, first sale rights are what let you resell goods that have copyright-covered material in them -- such as books -- without asking for permission from the copyright holder. However, for reasons that still don't make any sense, the 9th Circuit seems to think that as long as something is purely digital, first sale no longer applies.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, so while technically the ruling still only applies in the 9th Circuit, it's what most consider to be the state of the law in the US (there is always the possibility a different circuit court could disagree and it could go back to the Supreme Court -- and one could argue that some other rulings in the 9th Circuit already conflict -- but for now, the Autodesk case is widely considered the standard). There is, also, the upcoming ReDigi case, of which there's a decent profile in the Boston Globe -- but that's focused on music, and it's not entirely clear how that one will come out either.

Over in Europe, however, it appears that the European Court of Justice (who has been pushing out some relatively insightful rulings on copyright issues lately) seems to recognize just how ridiculous the 9th Circuit's view on first sale and software really is. In a new ruling, it has upheld the right of first sale on software, basically saying that you are buying a license and that license is resellable.

The specific case involved a company, UsedSoft, that was trying to create a market in reselling used software. Oracle sued, claiming that its license agreement specifically stated that it could not be resold. However, the court found that the right of first sale applied. In the court's language, it talks about copyright "exhaustion" which is the idea that once you've sold something you've "exhausted" your right to control it.
It makes no difference, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whether the copy of the computer program was made available to the customer by the rightholder concerned by means of a download from the rightholder’s website or by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD. Even if, in the latter case too, the rightholder formally separates the customer’s right to use the copy of the program supplied from the operation of transferring the copy of the program to the customer on a material medium, the operation of downloading from that medium a copy of the computer program and that of concluding a licence agreement remain inseparable from the point of view of the acquirer, for the reasons set out in paragraph 44 above. Since an acquirer who downloads a copy of the program concerned by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD and concludes a licence agreement for that copy receives the right to use the copy for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee, it must be considered that those two operations likewise involve, in the case of the making available of a copy of the computer program concerned by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD, the transfer of the right of ownership of that copy.
There are some interesting side notes on this. First, the court also rules that if Oracle promised free maintenance updates to the original licensee, it must continue to provide those to whomever purchased the "used" software. However, it also puts a couple of limitations on this. The first one is somewhat obvious: the seller of the used license can no longer be using the software. Oracle argued that this would be hard to track, but the court rightly points out that this is the same issue that those who sell software on CD-ROMs and DVDs face, but they figure out how to survive:
As Oracle rightly observes, ascertaining whether such a copy has been made unusable may prove difficult. However, a copyright holder who distributes copies of a computer program on a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD is faced with the same problem, since it is only with great difficulty that he can make sure that the original acquirer has not made copies of the program which he will continue to use after selling his material medium. To solve that problem, it is permissible for the distributor – whether ‘classic’ or ‘digital’ – to make use of technical protective measures such as product keys.
Separately, however, the court ruled that you cannot divvy up the number of seats in a license and sell them individually. That is, if you buy a 100 seat license to some software, and are only using 50, you can't then sell just those other 50 seats. This ruling says that the first sale only applies to the entire license agreement, basically.

There is some disagreement as to how "big" an impact this ruling will have. To be honest, I'm not convinced that the overall impact will be that large, but I think it is a good thing that the court appears to recognize that you cannot contract away certain rights granted to you under copyright. Copyright holders have long tried to remove the limitations and exceptions of copyright law through contracts and "licenses." Recognizing that those limitations and exceptions really do exist is important, and it's good to see the EU Court of Justice release a clear ruling on that issue.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> good-for-them http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120703/11345519566 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:07:00 PDT Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14185719439/speak-out-against-copyright-holders-destroying-true-property-rights.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14185719439/speak-out-against-copyright-holders-destroying-true-property-rights.shtml take away your ability to sell physical products you own, by using a bizarre interpretation of copyright law by the courts. You can click back on that link to read some of the background, but the short version is that courts are suggesting that if a physical product is manufactured outside the US, but anywhere on it includes something covered by copyright (an etching, content, software, etc.) then the entire product cannot be sold without permission from the copyright holder. The reasoning makes so little sense as to be unbelievable. Basically, it says that those products weren't made under US copyright law -- so they don't get "first sale" rights -- but they are still covered by copyright law, so selling them is copyright infringement.

This is nonsensical for any number of reasons. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is about to hear the latest such case, after ending up with a split court the last time around. The reason it was split was because Justice Kagan recused herself, due to being involved in the case prior to becoming a Justice. Her involvement? Penning the filing of the US government against first sale rights. So it's very possible that she'll continue to retain that viewpoint on the court and basically kill off your ability to resell any good manufactured outside the US without permission. This is scary stuff.

While the issue is before the court, it's still important to get people to speak out about this. A few public interest groups have put together a petition site called You've Been Owned: Don't Let Copyright Trolls Steal Our Property Rights! and Citizens for Ownership Rights. The goal is to get the Obama administration to actually recommend preserving first sale rights (contrary to its earlier position). And, failing that, get Congress to change the laws to fix this problem which will drive many American manufacturers to move overseas. This is, of course, part of the real problem: the language of the statute is awkward in a way that lets the court come to a completely nonsensical and contradictory result.

What's important to recognize is that, for all the talk by copyright maximalists to falsely claim that copyright is no different than real property, and to insist we must "defend property rights" for copyright, here's a true case of property rights being under attack -- and it's because of an overly aggressive use of copyright. The idea that you don't actually own what you bought is an anathema to true property rights. That companies may be able to use copyright law to block you from selling used goods is a massive encroachment on individuals' property rights. If all those copyright maximalists truly believed in property rights (rather than the truth: that they support a government granted monopoly privilege that benefits themselves) they, too, would support this effort against the demolition of first sale rights.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> can-you-resell-your-stuff? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120622/14185719439 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:15:00 PDT Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/16434518517/supreme-court-to-review-if-its-legal-to-resell-book-you-bought-abroad.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/16434518517/supreme-court-to-review-if-its-legal-to-resell-book-you-bought-abroad.shtml hear an important case regarding the first sale doctrine in copyright law, and whether or not it applies to products made outside the US. The specific case is one we've been covering, involving a guy, Sudap Kirtsaeng, who was (legally) buying textbooks that were sold in Asia, and then reselling them in the US. Under the first sale doctrine this should be perfectly legal. But... due to a twisted interpretation of copyright law, a 2nd Circuit appeals court went against Kirtsaeng, siding instead with publisher John Wiley. The issue is that the law says that first sale applies to copyrights to products made "under this" law. And the argument is that a product made outside the US may have copyright, but it isn't made "under" US copyright law, and thus it doesn't qualify.

As the dissenting judge in the 2nd Circuit noted, this interpretation doesn't make any sense. The law doesn't say anything about location, just about whether or not it was "manufactured lawfully" under the terms of the law. So, as the judge noted, as long as the product can be subject to US copyright law, then first sale should apply. This makes sense, and hopefully the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course, the Supreme Court has addressed this to some extent. The 9th Circuit had ruled similarly in the Omega/Costco case, and while the Supreme Court had taken the case, Justice Kagan recused herself from that case, because she had said that the first sale doctrine should not apply to foreign goods. And, in the end, the court split down the middle. So that means that, as a deciding vote, there's a reasonable worry that Kagan will again say that the First Sale doctrine does not apply to foreign goods.

This is a dangerous and stupid interpretation of the law. It will cause tremendous trouble for anyone trying to sell pretty much any product made outside the US, because makers can claim that no one can resell such products without getting a new license. It will also drive more works to be made offshore, since (especially the copyright legacy players) will look to completely get rid of the first sale doctrine by "manufacturing" everything offshore. Hopefully, the Supreme Court recognizes the ridiculousness of such a result, but the result in the Omega case was not encouraging.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> first-sale-ftw http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120416/16434518517 Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:59:09 PST Judge Denies Injunction Against MP3 Reseller Due To Lack Of Irreparable Harm... But Says EMI's Arguments Compelling Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/04324417700/judge-denies-injunction-against-mp3-reseller-due-to-lack-irreparable-harm-says-emis-arguments-compelling.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/04324417700/judge-denies-injunction-against-mp3-reseller-due-to-lack-irreparable-harm-says-emis-arguments-compelling.shtml skeptical of the idea behind ReDigi -- a seller of "used" mp3s. The company claims it has a system to make sure that if you sell a music file you own, that they then make sure it's deleted from your computer. This just seems dumb for a variety of reasons -- some economic, some technological and some legal. But, most of all, I just don't see people caring enough to make this a valid business. Either way, whether it's dumb or not, the RIAA couldn't let the company actually try something new... so, of course it sued, with EMI subsidiary Capitol Records taking the lead on the case.

Somewhat surprisingly, the judge refused to issue the injunction, calling the case "fascinating" and noting that there were some serious issues to be dealt with concerning first sale rights around copyright (whether or not you can sell a product you bought that is covered by copyright). However, the judge also made it clear that he thinks that the record labels are likely to win in the end, saying that their arguments "look to be compelling." He just didn't issue the injunction because there was no evidence of irreparable harm if the site stayed up, as detailed in the transcript embedded below.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> first-sale-is-dead http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120208/04324417700 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:36:41 PST As Expected, RIAA Threatens Site That Claims To Let You Sell Used MP3s Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/18251816799/as-expected-riaa-threatens-site-that-claims-to-let-you-sell-used-mp3s.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/18251816799/as-expected-riaa-threatens-site-that-claims-to-let-you-sell-used-mp3s.shtml "selling used mp3s." It seems like a pretty pointless idea for a few reasons. First, why bother? Second, all the convoluted and annoying systems the company puts in place to try to make this "legal" just makes it annoying and useless. But, third, as we noted at the time, there was no way that the RIAA would let this happen.

And, indeed, the RIAA is now demanding that ReDigi stop allowing for the sale of used mp3s. I'm having trouble thinking which is the dumber idea: trying to set up a convoluted and useless marketplace for selling "used" MP3s (something almost no one will want to do), or the RIAA even bothering to call extra attention to ReDigi by threatening and potentially suing.

A tip to the RIAA: this was dumb. Almost no one cares about or was using ReDigi anyway. It would have just faded away. By threatening, you bring them back into the limelight. On top of that, you (yet again) make yourselves look like clueless luddites who wish to wipe out the First Sale doctrine. Even worse, you could end up in a lawsuit that reminds you that the First Sale doctrine does exist, and is recognized by the courts, and you could establish a precedent that "reselling" used digital content is legal. So why bother, other than this bizarre and shortsighted infatuation with the idea that if anyone, anywhere benefits without you getting a slice, it must be illegal?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> dumb-in-almost-every-direction http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111116/18251816799 Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:33:00 PDT Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1630468818.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1630468818.shtml artist resale rights, which take away the right of first sale on artwork, and require you to pay the original artist every time you sell the product.

We've pointed out how this really only benefits wealthy artists, while harming up and coming artists -- despite those who support such laws claiming exactly the opposite. Their argument is that if a poor artist sells a piece of artwork on the cheap, and it later appreciates in value, he should get a cut of that increase in value. That argument fundamentally misunderstands economics, however. By adding that, you are effectively taking away the potential benefit to a buyer. You are lowering the possible return, making it less likely for them to invest in the first place. And we already have better mechanisms to help artists capture value if their older (cheaply sold) artwork becomes more valuable: it's called creating and selling newer artwork for much more money.

When Australia moved forward with just such a plan for artist resale rights at the end of last year, we asked mockingly, why not apply the same thing to every product, so that any time you sold it, you had to pay everyone else who owned it. In fact, we noted:
Imagine if that were the case with cars or houses as well? Who would ever think that was reasonable?
Well, apparently some financial firm in Texas think it's reasonable. As a few people have submitted, they're trying to convince developers to set up a system where they get paid every time a house gets sold and resold:
Freehold Capital Partners, a company started in Texas, is selling developers across the country on a plan that would attach a private transfer fee to homes, allowing developers to profit for generations.

The fee, written into neighborhood restrictions, would encumber the property for 99 years and throw 1 percent of the sale price back to the developer -- or his or her estate or another investor -- and Freehold each time the home changes hands.
My apologies for thinking that such a scenario was an "obviously ridiculous" one. Not surprisingly, Freehold is using intellectual property as the basis for its plan:
"Just like authors who write books and musicians who write songs that will be enjoyed for generations to come, those who improve property are also engaged in the creative process, and the economics of the transaction should reflect that reality," a Freehold brochure says.
Thankfully, people are protesting this, noting that it will drive down the price of homes, make it harder to sell them, harm neighborhoods and greatly "muddy" questions of ownership. Of course, all of that applies to copyright as well, but we won't go there just yet.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> bangs-head-against-wall http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100331/1630468818 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:22:00 PDT L'Oreal Looks For Friendlier Locales In Its Suits Against eBay Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090309/1359574045.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090309/1359574045.shtml isn't liable for the actions of people who use its site to sell counterfeit goods, though a recent decision went the other way. This situation reflects the lack of uniformity around the world in this type of case: for instance, eBay was found liable in France, but was not in Belgium. In the Belgian case, eBay was sued by cosmetics maker L'Oreal, but the company hasn't let the ruling slow it down, as it's now filed a similar suit in the UK. It's also sued eBay in France, Germany and Spain -- which could lead one to believe that it's jurisdiction shopping, simply filing suits in many different countries and seeing what sticks, with the hopes that victory in one place will force eBay to play ball worldwide. The issue of eBay's lack of liability as a platform provider remains an important one, but the problem of international jurisdiction shopping remains a massive one for companies online.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> you-can-even-shop-for-jurisdictions-easily-online http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090309/1359574045 Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:40:00 PDT Is It Trademark Infringement To Resell A Product You Legally Bought? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0225474019.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0225474019.shtml shampoo company that said no one could resell their shampoo bottles. Now, it's the famed cosmetics firm Mary Kay, who is claiming that an online retailer is violating its trademark.

The details of the case are pretty interesting. Basically, Mary Kay requires its "independent" distributors buy a certain amount of product every month to sell -- and the amount required is often a lot more than they can reasonably expect to sell. So, one former Mary Kay distributor set up a pretty good business in buying the "remnant" inventory from others at lower prices (better than being stuck with it completely) and then reselling it online. It's basically arbitraging the inefficiencies set up by Mary Kay's ridiculous system that pushes excess product onto its distributors.

But, of course, Mary Kay doesn't like any of this (despite the fact that it still gets paid for its product) -- and, in theory it should have no case due to the always popular first sale doctrine (i.e., you can resell stuff you bought). Except, Mary Kay is trying to get around this by claiming that the online seller's goods are "materially different" and thus first sale doesn't apply. Why are the products materially different? Apparently, they're old, expired and not supported any more -- which doesn't necessarily seem to be "materially different," but perhaps a judge will find otherwise.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> here-we-go-again... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090306/0225474019 Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:31:00 PST Is Motorola Trying To Ban Reselling Phones? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml freaking out about the second-hand sales market, and apparently that may be expanding to other arenas. The Register has an unnamed source (so make of that what you will) claiming that Motorola is asking people to sign contracts on a new phone that ban the buyer from reselling the phone to anyone, other than back to the manufacturer. Of course, this is an economically dumb argument. The resale market helps add value to the primary market, and allows the company to charge more for its product initially. As Mathew Ingram points out, some are suggesting that this move would violate the first sale doctrine, though that could depend on a variety of factors. I would imagine that the terms could establish the situation as a "lease" of the phone rather than a purchase, but that might be difficult to get the courts to accept. Also, my understanding of first sale doctrine was that it only applied to intellectual property -- not physical goods, so I'm not sure it would really apply here. Either way, it would seem to be dumb, whether or not it's legal. If you want to decrease interest in your product, adding such a clause seems like a reasonable way to do so.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> hopefully-not http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081103/1834332730 Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:34:00 PDT Yet Another Lawsuit Over Whether A Company Can Ban The Sale Of Its Products Online Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080707/1719011611.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080707/1719011611.shtml prevent retailers from selling their goods on eBay, and now Eric Goldman points us to news of a case in the US on this very issue. Here we have a "dietary supplement" seller, Standard Process, who sued an online e-commerce site, Total Health, for selling its supplements despite not being an "authorized reseller." Basically, Total Health would buy products from Standard Process through other means and then resell them online -- which seems like it should be perfectly legal.

Not so far, claims the judge. The court refused to grant a summary judgment, claiming that, even though Total Health makes it abundantly clear that it is not an authorized reseller, because Total Health uses the pronouns "we" and "our" in describing Standard Process' products that it somehow (how? who knows?) implies evidence of an affiliation. That seems like quite a stretch. The judge also notes that since Total Health shows up as the top ad result in a search for Standard Process, there's an implied association (why? again... that's not explained at all). There are a few other questionable bits of reasoning by the judge, highlighted at the link above. The judge did rule in Total Health's favor on the question of whether or not it interfered with the "contract" between Standard Process and its authorized resellers, by noting that there's no actual contract if Standard Process just tells the resellers the terms without any actual agreement or exchange taking place. It has the right to stop selling to those resellers, but not to claim that they broke an existing contract.

Still the first part of this ruling does seem quite questionable. It seems like a stretch to think that any moron in a hurry would be confused by Total Health's marketing claims -- when it quite clearly states that it's not an official reseller of Standard Process' goods. It seems like the court twisted itself over backwards to try to come up with any loose link to try to make that connection.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> first-sale http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080707/1719011611 Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:21:00 PDT Can A Company Ban Retailers From Selling Its Products On eBay? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080703/0324061588.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080703/0324061588.shtml awful court decision in France saying that eBay can be barred from selling even legitimate products, it appears some companies in England are shooting for a similar ruling. Jon Pyser writes in to let us know that a bunch of baby stroller companies in the UK are pushing hard to stop retailers from selling their legitimately purchased products on eBay. Effectively, they're trying to put EULAs on baby strollers suggesting that the retailer buyers don't actually have the right to resell what they've legally purchased. Not only is this questionable from a legal standpoint, it's dumb from a business standpoint. A healthy secondary market for products increases the value of the product itself, since buyers intrinsically recognize the potential resale market in determining the value of purchasing the original. In fact, one retailer notes that in taking away eBay sales, it's made selling that brand of stroller unprofitable. You would think, after 200+ years of economists explaining how protectionism hurts your own market, that people would understand this concept by now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> bad-for-your-market http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080703/0324061588 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:27:55 PDT New England Patriots Spying On Ticket Resales; Court Forces Stubhub To Hand Over Ticket Seller Names Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml ban the resale of tickets to events. It seems a bit silly to tell someone who bought a ticket to a concert or a sporting event that they're not allowed to resell it, but apparently some event organizers feel differently -- especially when the tickets are sold at greater than face value. The New England Patriots apparently are so adamant that people shouldn't be reselling their tickets for profit that they've convinced a court to force ticket resale marketplace StubHub to hand over the names of everyone who resold Patriots tickets for above face value. This seems like a rather large privacy violation -- and it clearly violates Stubhub's own terms of service (which is why the company fought it in court). You could understand being forced to turn over such information in a criminal lawsuit, but this is the New England Patriots requesting and getting the private info of sellers. For a team that just got into some trouble for spying on opposing teams, spying on their fans' private transactions doesn't seem like a step forward.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> privacy?-schmivacy http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071018/184111