This can potentially affect the buying/selling of our trains.

My own reaction (not a lawyer but I've been around the profession one way or the other all my life) is that it would not affect buying and selling trains, or cars, or any physical property at all.  Its related to copyright intellectual property like music and such.  I've also read both Scalia's and Breyer's books and recall both saying that the practicality of law is a serious consideration.  I doubt anyone would ever worry about buying and selling used trains - but used cars, etc. 

 

I asked my middle son (on the faculty at a high end law school) about this - I love to discuss legal points with him and I thought this might be fun to discuss.  He disagreed, saying basically that its an appeal based on legal points and that the media are grossly over-reacting to it just because its "something to print to fill pages and on-the-air time and for pundits to wring their hands about." 

 

Anyway, I don't have to worry because I am a sort of a diode when it comes to model trains: I buy, I never sell.

It only affects those who buy cheap trains overseas and resell them on eBay for $1.2 million 

Love this analogy! 

 

Sounds SOOOO much better than 'hoarder', 'compulsive', 'nut-case', 'out-of-control', etc.....typical descriptors in the relatives' vocabulary.

 

Nice thought to begin the day with!

 

Thanks, Lee!

 

KD

 

 

Wouldn't the copyright holder, in the case of model trains, be Lionel, MTH, etc even though they are produced in China?  If so then I would think our train manufacturers are smart enough to realize that preventing resales or charging a fee to do so would have a substantial negative effect.  That impact IMO would far outweigh any money they would make on resale fees.  Not to mention I cannot imagine how they could possibly manage such a task.  

 

There are a fair number of pepole who don't buy the high dollar offerings, not because they can't afford them, they just don't think they are worth the asking price.  Obviuosly that is a personal choice.  Having restrictions on resales would only serve to lower the value to the consumer of new model trains and absent a price  reduction would only result on less sales.   Now I would not be surprised to see some auto manufacturers try and implement a resale fee in order to spur new sales if such a ruling was left to stand.

 

Normally I would think this is just some nonsense lawsuit.  Unfortunatley we have way too many lower court judges in this county bent on changing law.  Also some of the Supreme Court rulings over the last few years seem to point heavily in favor of business and government vs individual rights so who knows what they will do with this one.

 

So I will keep my fingers crossed that common sense prevails on this one.

 

But for the moment I think I will put this one at the very bottom of my worry list.  

 

Ed

 

I'll try not to lose any sleep over this. 

There wouldn't be a lawsuit if the book publisher charged the same prices for books in other countries. Why do citizens of the USA get to pay more?

Regardless, grey market imports for various products have been around for a long time, and manufacturers/importers have been trying to stop them for years. Back in the late 1970's the advantage of "USA" over grey market cameras was generally the warrantee.

The individual in the lawsuit reportedly made over 1.2 million. Did he pay income and sales taxes as appropriate? This person couldn't have been a causal seller, it's my impression he was selling new, unused merchandise that he imported from another country.

Sounds like something for nothing, double dipping..It's DOA.

Some people just like to worry.  It's my feeling that this is a non-issue when it comes to our trains.

 

Pete

 

 

Lee,

 

I, like you, am a diode.  But, I'm trying to be a resistor!

 

Ed

Ed,  That's funny.  Last time I saw you at the Club Layout you looked normal to me!

The SupCt docuemtns can be read here:  http://www.scotusblog.com/case...john-wiley-sons-inc/

 

The lower court decision may be read here:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...circuit/1577369.html

 

Given that the trains of which you speak were legally imported, in fact by the alleged copyright holder, the issue before the Supreme Court may not be relevant.

 

Well, I would love to see the British versions of Harry Potter here.  But the publishing  rules will not allow that.

 

Where this MIGHT affect us is with models of Thomas.  Different companies have different contracts on different scales throughout the world.  Lionel has the 3r O contract, but is that for the US, NAFTA countries, or worldwide.

A few days ago I posted a link to an article regarding this topic, and after four replies the thread disappeared!

 

Alex

I like to refer to my collection as the Roach Motel.

Trains check-in, but they don't check-out*

 

---PCJ

 

(*except for one starter set consist that the give-r wasn't aware their folks considered it a heirloom of sorts. I gladly cleaned and tuned-up the loco and cars before presenting it back to them in better condition than they remembered it)

I wouldn't worry about it, I'm paying more attention to quantitative easing part. 3

I'd like to see this law applied to model railroader's. This is a big joke if anybody thinks they can moniter model rr sales and tariffs!!

Don't beleive everything that is on the news, as some is put there just to test people.

Lee F.

I hardly think that anyone is going to try and apply this to second-hand trains.

 

My understanding of the case, is that a publisher is trying to prevent an importer from selling their books in the USA at a significantly lower price than would normally be available.  This is a significantly large scale matter that is causing considerable loss to the publisher and other regular sales channels. Not to mention the authors of the books concerned.

It is not uncommon for publishers of school textbooks to set a special low price for some markets, especially developing countries. The authors of these books also receive a reduced royalty payment on these sales.  The defendant in the case is buying books intended for sale to schools in export markets at a very low price, and then selling them in the USA at a considerable profit. This is hurting not only the publisher and the author, but also the whole normal supply chain.

So despite all of the popular media drama and panic, I don't believe that any of you will have to watch over your shoulder if you are buying or selling a train or two. 

PC

 

It is interesting that the dissent opinion is that the FSD applies wherever manufactured but the copyright infringement issue arises when the importer has no permission from the copyright holder to import which would not apply to the end-purchaser in any event.

Alan - the Supreme Court has already held that the importation right is circumscribed by the statutory first sale doctrine of 109(a).

 

So the dispute is whether an authorized copy made overseas is "lawfully made under this title [the copyright act]" as required by 109(a).

 

 

The larger question is whether manufacturers should be able to use intellectual property law to price discriminate between markets, selling overseas at a lower price but preserving a higher price in the United States.  

I don't teach it for a living, but I am teaching a survey course.  We covered some of this last week.  It is possible to sell a patented or copyrighted item overseas without paying royalty.  It would not be a good thing if such sales could be made to escape patent infringement, and then to be able to sell in the US without royalties under some exhaustion doctrine.  If you owned a patent, would you want that to happen?

 

On the other hand, when Lionel sells a patented item here, that is it.  You may resell it without worry.  If Lionel's builder decides to make some extra and sell them overseas,  they should not be allowed in the states without danger of infringement.

I agree with that.  Massive inflation and a potential economic collapse will affect the hobby a lot more than a law that would be so difficult to enforce that it would be almost impossible.

Well all be breaking the law at future Yorks then.  Guess we will need to keep a watch out!

Are there even copyrights on toy trains?  Maybe for the instruction manuals they may have copyrights.  I'd be interested if anyone knows of copyrights on the train itself.

 

Utility patents (patents on the electronics, mechanisms, etc.) are prevalent of course.  The possibility of design patents comes to mind (for the ornamental design of the shells, etc.) though since they copy the real thing, doubtful they could get get a design patent.

im just curious, who is buying trains over seas and selling for 1.2 million????

I am wondering if the same standard (manufacturer holds resale rights) holds true in Europe and Asia?  Can some one in England re-sell a train manufactured in Aisa without getting permission or paying a fee?  

 

I realize this whole issue seems silly, not to mention widely unenforceable.  However what worries me a bit is the way the wacky supreme court has ruled on some cases in the past few years.  You just never know about what they will do.

 

Ed

 

The Supreme Court ruled in this cast today.

 

The court ruled that copyrighted items made overseas -- and that includes not only books but also CDs, DVDs, computers, watches and anything else with copyrighted material in it -- are covered by a federal law that says a person who buys such a product is free to turn around and sell it.

 

Jim

Good luck with that When it comes to buying trains, I'm a short circuit.

 

Cheers,

Ken

The sky is NOT falling, Henny Penny! 

The case originally cited does not appear to have any direct relevance to individuals buying and selling a few secondhand trains. Opinion.

 

Geez, Bill, they're on to me!

I am prompted to quote the libretto of a well know operetta,

"Well never?"

"No, never!"

"Well never?"

"Well, hardly ever!"