# If You've Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050 "2012-06-13T19:30:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/1 "2012-06-13T19:30:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad – or almost anything else – without needing to get permission from a dozen “copyright holders.” Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision: [ol] > [li]Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.[/li][li]Sold your dad’s used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.[/li][li]Sold an “import CD” of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.[/li][li]Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.[/li][/ol][The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/258276/) The article goes onto explain that “Three courts came out three different ways because the language of the law is confusing and it appears to lead to “absurd” results (in the Ninth Circuit’s words).” This seems… well, absurd to me. I can understand that I cannot make my own iPad using copyrighted technology and sell it, but we are not talking about the ideas behind the technology, we are talking here about a physical device. IOW, I can see how ripping a CD to sell the audio files is illegal but if I buy a CD, I should be able to sell that CD when I decide that it sucks. I should be able to sell my old iPod when the new one edition comes out. It seems ridiculous that I can’t… Right? This is copyright law gone crazy… The ideas shouldn’t be the physical things made from the ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/2 "2012-06-13T19:59:26Z")
I looked up a couple of other articles on it, and I have to say, it seems like a no-brainer that you should be able to sell your own possessions even if they’re made abroad. Here’s something from an article for [gamers](http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/2012/06/13/the-supreme-court-might-be-about-to-shut-down-used-game-sales-for-good/). > [@](#): > > Let’s say you wanted to sell a copy of Assassin’s Creed II. You’d have to get permission from Ubisoft, of course, but also Havok, since the game uses its copyrighted physics engine, and also the manufacturer of the console your copy is for, since it contains copyrighted proprietary information that allows the game to work with a specific device. If the game also had, say, Autodesk’s Scaleform, Unreal Engine, Bink Video, or any of a host of other engines, libraries, plug-ins, and other chunks of programming that are extremely common in building video games, you’d have to get their permission as well. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/3 "2012-06-13T20:05:15Z")
I have just finished reading the linked decisions. Unless I am missing something, while there is a legitimate copyright question here, the article is simply incorrect at best, and blatant fear-mongering at worst. The lower court decisions are all about people who purchased items abroad, and then imported them into the US _without the permission of the copyright holder_ and tried to resell them in the US. None of the decisions relate to items legally purchased in the US, and none of the decisions can lead to the ridiculous scare scenarios the author of this article dreamt up. The uncertainty in the law is how the first-sale doctrine interacts with the right of copyright holders to control imports of their products into the US. It has _nothing to do_ with items legally purchased in the US. Even if I am wrong, I cannot imagine that the Supreme Court won’t find that the first sale doctrine applies to any product legally sold in the US. Let’s hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth until this doesn’t happen, okay? Now, if you were to travel to Britain, buy an iPad there, and then bring it back to the US and try to resell it (either immediately or years later), you might in fact have a problem under these decisions. But that is a much narrower set of circumstances, and a much harder issue to resolve fairly given all the other issues involved with international trade, than what the author of that article describes. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/4 "2012-06-13T20:07:09Z")
Who’s frothing? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/5 "2012-06-13T20:13:06Z")
The discouragement of frothing was preemptive. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/6 "2012-06-14T11:33:35Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The lower court decisions are all about people who purchased items abroad, and then imported them into the US _without the permission of the copyright holder_ and tried to resell them in the US. None of the decisions relate to items legally purchased in the US, and none of the decisions can lead to the ridiculous scare scenarios the author of this article dreamt up. > > The uncertainty in the law is how the first-sale doctrine interacts with the right of copyright holders to control imports of their products into the US. It has _nothing to do_ with items legally purchased in the US. I’m not sure I follow you - you’re saying that these court decisions are only about items purchased abroad, imported by the purchaser and resold. However, the linked article says that courts have interpreted the law to say that any item _manufactured_ abroad is not subject to first-sale doctrine, regardless of whether they are first purchased abroad OR in the US. > [@](#): > > Both the District and Second Circuit courts held that any product manufactured abroad is not subject to the first-sale doctrine. For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” Same for the iPods you’ve owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn’t apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad. > > That means, you need to ask Apple for permission, and probably Google, whose Maps software comes bundled with the iPad, and includes Google copyrights. Under this rule, when you sell some of your stuff on eBay or Craigslist (a couch, some books, electronics, posters, an old television, a toaster), you have to look up whether it has a copyrighted logo anywhere and find out whether the product was manufactured in the U.S. or abroad. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/7 "2012-06-14T11:36:16Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Who’s frothing? Nobody. Froth is copyrighted. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/8 "2012-06-14T12:27:47Z")
But you can only be sued for it in Pennsylvania. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/9 "2012-06-14T12:49:39Z")
This is not my area of law, but can someone explain to me why _Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc.,_ does not control the outcome here? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/10 "2012-06-14T13:30:09Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > It seems ridiculous that I can’t… Right? This is copyright law gone crazy… The ideas shouldn’t be the physical things made from the ideas. Copyright and patent law has always been crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/11 "2012-06-14T14:02:29Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > It seems ridiculous that I can’t… Right? This is copyright law gone crazy… The ideas shouldn’t be the physical things made from the ideas. Welcome to the most hotly-contested issue today: the right to charge money for something you can’t touch. ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/12 "2012-06-14T14:53:09Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Welcome to the most hotly-contested issue today: the right to charge money for something you can’t touch. The idea that intellectual property is handled like strippers both annoys and amuses me. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/13 "2012-06-14T15:50:46Z")
I’m wondering where all those nebulous license agreements might come into play here - iPods/iPads/Androids, whatever - you install lots of apps from the appstore - they all have some form of fine print - ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/14 "2012-06-14T16:24:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is not my area of law, but can someone explain to me why _Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc.,_ does not control the outcome here? In _Quality King_, the goods in question were manufactured in the U.S., exported overseas, sold, then reimported to the U.S. In one of the cases that the Atlantic article is talking about, [_John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng_, 654 F. 3d 210](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2678020953327425749&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), the goods in question were manufactured overseas. Evidently, that’s one of the big things the Second Circuit used to distinguish _Quality King_. From _John Wiley_: > [@](#): > > However, there was a key factual difference at work in Quality King that is of critical importance to our disposition of the instant appeal. In Quality King, the copyrighted items in question had all been manufactured in the United States. The Supreme Court had a chance to settle the question of whether first-sale doctrine should apply to foreign sales with [_Costco v. Omega S.A_., 131 S. Ct. 565 (2010)](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=543211284211802392&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44) and ended up affirming the Ninth Circuit _per curiam_ 4-4, in a three line decision. Gee, thanks for the help, guys. The Second in _Wiley_ stated that the Ninth held in _Omega_, > [@](#): > > The Ninth Circuit maintained its well-settled position that § 109(a) does not apply to items manufactured outside of the United States unless they were previously imported and sold in the United States with the copyright holder’s permission. IANAL, but this looks like a giant overreach by IP rights-holders. Just how many times would they like to be paid for the same protected work? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/15 "2012-06-14T16:35:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is not my area of law, but can someone explain to me why _Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc.,_ does not control the outcome here? Quality King concerned products made in the US, exported, and subsequently reimported. These cases concern products manufactured outside the US. I think the distinction is important because the Quality King court distinguished between the two categories in its reasoning: > [@](#): > > Third, § 602(a) applies to a category of copies that are neither piratical nor “lawfully made under this title”: those that are “lawfully made” under another country’s law. Pp. 1131-1132. > > Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research Intern., Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 136 (1998) ETA: Ninja’d. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/16 "2012-06-14T18:06:43Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > I’m not sure I follow you - you’re saying that these court decisions are only about items purchased abroad, imported by the purchaser and resold. However, the linked article says that courts have interpreted the law to say that any item _manufactured_ abroad is not subject to first-sale doctrine, regardless of whether they are first purchased abroad OR in the US. Yes, that’s why I was complaining. The article is simply incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/17 "2012-06-14T18:20:59Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > IANAL, but this looks like a giant overreach by IP rights-holders. Just how many times would they like to be paid for the same protected work? It is not about being paid twice. They want to be able to sell their product at lower prices in markets outside the US, without worrying about third parties buying their product in those markets, importing it into the US themselves, and reselling it for a profit. Plenty of companies do this, for various reasons. Perhaps they wish to establish a presence in a developing country, so they sell their product very cheaply at first, intending to raise the price as the country becomes more prosperous. ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/18 "2012-06-14T18:55:00Z")
I don’t understand how copyright law can apply when there is no copying going on. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-youve-ever-sold-a-used-ipod-you-may-have-violated-copyright-law/625050/19 "2012-06-14T19:05:06Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > I don’t understand how copyright law can apply when there is no copying going on. Copyright law allows the copyright holder to prevent third parties from importing copyrighted goods _for the purposes of resale_ into the US without permission of the rights holder - unless those goods were manufactured inside the US to begin with. There is an explicit exception in the law if you are simply importing an item for your own personal use - another reason why the linked article in the OP is bogus.