Supreme Court backs re-sale of imported movies

[joie]

An LA Times article -- Supreme Court sides with book reseller in copyright ruling - describes a new US Supreme Court ruling. The ruling affirms a right to re-sell imported, copyrighted media, and this was written about the movie business:

[...] Indeed, the ruling has ramifications that extend beyond books to all types of copyrighted works — including music and movies — sold around the world, said Tom Allen, chief executive of the Assn. of American Publishers.

The motion picture and recording industries had told the court their international marketing strategy would be upset if they could not prevent unauthorized sales of video discs or CDs in the United States. They said filmmakers often introduce films at different times in other parts of the globe.

"Under [Supap] Kirtsaeng's view, a studio could not release a movie on home video disc in one market while the movie was still in theaters in the United States … without incurring risk that unauthorized importation of those discs could detract from the success of the U.S. theatrical release," the Motion Picture Assn. of America argued in its friend-of-the court brief.

In response to the ruling, the MPAA said the decision "will hinder American business' ability to compete overseas to the detriment of the long-term economic interests of the United States, and particularly its creative industries."

Howard Gantman, its spokesman, stressed the ruling dealt only with resale of products made abroad, such as DVDs, not with theatrical releases or online distribution of movies. [...]

In the minority, dissenting opinion, 'Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling a "bold departure" from "Congress' aim to protect copyright owners against the unauthorized importation of low-priced, foreign-made copies of their copyrighted works." Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy agreed with her.'

I think the original intent of the law was to prevent a situation described in the dissent; for example, Charles Dickens once tried, during a trip to America, to stop US publishers from publishing his novels without permission, because he was not receiving royalties from pirated editions being published here.

What do you think? I think that "knock-offs" will still be prohibited -- what Dickens was complaining about - but copyrighted media produced in another country legally, then re-sold in the US are now unquestionably legal (to re-sell).

Is this a crack in the region coding dam? The only "region coding" that might make sense is coding by language; for example, a movie with French audio can only be sold with English subtitles in English speaking areas, but even that is debatable ... .

Note: Supap Kirtsaeng is "a USC graduate student from Thailand who figured he could earn money for his education by buying low-cost textbooks in his native country and reselling them in the United States." He was sued by the publishers, lost, then appealed to the Supreme Court and won.