Will SCOTUS make it illegal to resell your stuff?

This article, published October 8th, 2012 is of great importance to me.  The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could impact millions of Americans and many businesses  What surprises me the most about this case, is how little media attention it has received. Since 1908, the holder of a copyright only had control over the initial sale (known as the "first-sale" principle). This is what made websites like eBay, Craigslist and gazelle possible- they all dealt with items that had already been purchased once, and were thus allowed to be resold. However, if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, which stated that only domestic products were subject to the first-sale principle, the law would require you to obtain permission from the copyright holder before you resell it if the item was not made in America.

I really hope that the Supreme Court does not uphold the appellate court ruling. If the ruling is upheld, it will only provide further incentive for manufacturers to take their operations overseas, for they would now be able to control the rights to reselling in addition to the attraction of cheaper wages. I am also bothered by the fact that the driving force behind this case is a college student who made $1.2 million dollars by purchasing textbooks form overseas at a cheaper rate and reselling them in the United States. He serves as an extreme example, and should not be the reason why it would be illegal to have a garage sale without getting permission from all the copyright holders. I can see why the copyright holders want to protect themselves from people like the student who profited $1.2 million, but making it illegal across the board is too drastic. Perhaps the best way is to only require permission from the copyright holder if the item(s) you are selling are worth more than a certain amount of money, or if you are selling a certain number of the product.

Full article: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/08/will_scotus_make_it_illegal_to_resell_your_stuff/

-Brendan Forghani

Failed Terrorist Attack at the Federal Reserve Bank

An Al-Qaeda member, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nadis, planned to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City. His plan failed because he told a undercover agent, posed Al-Qaeda facilitator, that he needed 50 pound bags of explosives.  As planned, the undercover agent supplied Nafis with what he thought were 1,000 pounds of explosives into a van. While driving to the Federal Reserve Bank, Nafis told the agent about his "Plan-B" suicide bombing mission if he felt that the cops were onto his idea.  The pair went into a hotel where Nafis created a video explaining how he wanted to destroy America and the best way to do so was to target the American economy.  He also included a quote from Osama bin Laden to justify his plan because it involved killing American women and children.  The video was meant to be released after the attack to tell Americans that Al-Qaeda "will not stop until [they] attain victory or martydom."

Nafis tried several times to set off the bombs, which were actually inert explosives. Shortly after, he was arrested and most of his terrorist attack plan was caught on tape.  After 11 years of terrorism- free America and 15 terrorist attempts, our law enforcement destroyed another attempt of terrorism. Nafis will be charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to Al- Qaeda.  The public must understand that they were never at risk in this case since 2 of the "accomplices" of the defendant were American FBI undercover agents along with Nafis.

More to come on what happens in this case.

Lisa Cole

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/man-arrested-in-plot-to-blow-up-federal-reserve-bank-in-new-york/?hpt=hp_t1

Supreme Court to Take Riviera Beach Houseboat Case

Every once in a while, the Supreme Court will take on cases that seem a bit odd to the eyes of the taxpayer. In Riviera Beach, Florida, a certain houseboat owned by a Mr. Fane Lozman appeared to have irked the local authorities due to its "lack of compliance with new marina-safety requirements" as the U.S. Marshals invoked maritime law to seize said home. He argued that the city took its interpretation of a vessel too far and blew the whole issue out of proportion. He went on to say that the house itself was very rudimentary, had no steering capabilities, and had no means of propulsion as it was brought to the marina in the first place by means of a towboat.

Apparently the city had some issues with him before as he sued it back in 2006 for proposing a new marina redevelopment project that was planned as soon as it was evident that what he was bringing to the marina was not a typical boat. The city lost the case since the jury ruled in his favor, particularly due to the fact that the city's motivation was strictly based on preventing him from being there in the first place. The city went on to federal court two years later and it seems that Lozman won there, in part to the consequences that such a ruling would have on floating casinos and the duties of the Coast Guard. After much progress, the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and the first arguments were heard on the 1st of October.

In my opinion this case will have some significant repercussions either way that it is ruled. Apparently this is an issue that has been around for a while, particularly in some of the Southern states along the Gulf and would likely impact at least a few industries and professions. Additionally, the whole issue will drag maritime law into the mix and could result in some disputes in the future. The general issue at hand is summed up well by an article from PRWeb :

"The Supreme Court will consider the question of “whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored receives power and other utilities from shore and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a ‘vessel’ under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.” In light of the consequences of being determined as a "vessel" for purposes of federal tort, employment and maritime safety laws, the court’s decision will have significant implications to floating casinos, restaurants, and hotels."

Food for thought!
--Ilia Dolaptchiev

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the PRWeb Article:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb9981562.htm

Link to Supreme Court case details:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-626.htm

Link to Supreme Court case question at hand:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/11-00626qp.pdf

Brief Video Recap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeJdeNNNtYs

Presidential Debate

After discussing the relationship between the state and federal governments and the commerce clause in class, I found that Governor Romney's plan for Medicaid tied in to what we discussed about federal regulation and power. He said he wants to give each state the amount of Medicaid dollars it received in the prior year plus 1% (inflation). Then, each state would manage the care for its citizens. He believes that the states can provide better care to its citizens rather than allowing the federal government control each state. Romney also noted that the states are "the laboratories of democracy"and are what makes this country great.
I do agree that the states should have a choice in this matter. As discussed in class, the US is special because we have the option to move to a different state if we dislike the regulations or methods of our current state government. If the federal government increases regulation and control, then this option as well as the freedom of citizens are in jeopardy.

http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=etp-gs-ype
video of debate on youtube (Romney's piece on this topic is about 35 minutes in.)

-Kaitlin Beuttenmuller