RheaTeam B wk3 paper with IRAC

Topics: Copyright, Property, First-sale doctrine Pages: 7 (976 words) Published: December 8, 2014

Learning Team B Reflection: Week 3 IRAC Brief
Learning Team B: Rhea Carson, Elspeth Flynn, Matthew Cable, Dusty Henson, Joseph Spurling LAW531
October 21, 2014
Janice Scott
IRAC: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons
Whether first-sale doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) is applicable to John Wiley & Sons copyrighted works manufactured and bought abroad, resold in the United States by Kirtsaeng without the owner’s permission. Is this a violation of the Copyright Owner’s rights or was he protected under the First Sale Doctrine? Rule

The first sale doctrine states that an individual who purchases a legally produced copyrighted work may sell or dispose of the work as that person sees fit ("Offices of the United States Attorney", 2014). According to "Uslegal.com" (2001-2014), “The Copyright Act (“Act”) of 1976 provides basic rights to the copyright holder. This Act preempts all previous copyright laws of the U.S. The Act provides for certain rights to the copyright holder like: 1. The right to reproduce (copy);

2. The right to create derivative works of the original work; 3. The right to sell, lease, or rent copies of the work to the public; 4. The right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and

5. The right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work)” (Copyright act of 1976 Law & Legal Definition). Analysis

John Wiley & Sons brought a law suit against a Cornell student, Supap Kirtsaeng for buying cheaper textbooks in Thailand, his home country, and selling them on eBay to his classmates and other students in the United States. The price difference between the books sold in Thailand and the books sold in the United States was so large that Kirtsaeng made 1.2 million dollars in sales (Mullin, 2013). John Wiley & Sons argument was the profits should be barred by copyright law. Wiley believes their copyright grant gives them the right to control the prices abroad and in the United States. As the case went through the 2nd and 9th circuit courts, the decision was made in favor of Wiley. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court which voted in favor of Kirtsaeng. Conclusion

If the final decision by the Supreme Court was accepted in favor of Wiley, the fallout would possibly result in chaos and could result in United States companies moving their manufacturing outside of the country. The final sale doctrine would no longer be accepted in the majority of situations. As a result, Wiley & Sons, Inc. increased the costs of their text books that are sold overseas. The case lasted almost 6 years and ended up in the defendants favor. After this case, there may be other businesses that look at the costs of their items overseas as well (Lee, 2014). The case would also result in companies like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart stores losing business from buying goods overseas and reselling in the United States. Companies will now have to reevaluate their marketing and pricing in foreign countries.

Team B Week 3 Reflection
Two of the objectives we discussed as a team are: differentiating between personal, real, and intellectual property issues, and determining appropriate methods to address potential property issues. Different types of property have different laws that protect them as well as different methods of addressing issues. After reviewing the case concerning Kirtsaeng and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., we determined that the textbooks are intellectual property protected under a copywrite. Differentiating Property Types

Understanding ownership of property is first understanding what is meant by property. Property is real estate property, personal property, and intellectual property...

References: Copyright Act of 1976 -- First Sale Doctrine -- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013).
Harvard Law Review, 127(1), 348-357
Keegan, T. (2012). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng. New York Law School Law Review,
57(1), 185-202
Lee Wilson, O. (2014). Does Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Open the Door for an Abuse of the First-Sale
Lu, Z. Z., & Jarons, S. (2013). KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS INC. (11-697). Federal
Lawyer, 60(1), 75-77.
Mullin, J. (2013). arsrtechnica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai- student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme-court-rules/
Offices of the United States Attorney
USLegal. (2014). Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/copyright-act-of-1976/
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Wk3 Tech HC Paper
  • IRAC Essay
  • Epidemiology Paper Hepatitis B
  • Feral Children B Paper
  • B&M Paper
  • WK3 Gay Paper Soc Ethic
  • B Essay
  • The B Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free