> There's a difference between personal first-sale and wholesale distribution.
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, legally, there isn't, and shouldn't be. You should be able to build a business or nonprofit to give away, sell or lend secondhand games, books, CD's, videos, etc.
I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building & supporting their sales channels.
The assertion that people should be able to do whatever they want with products on a scale large enough to damage a manufacturer's business is flawed. I propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes.
*Disclaimer, I work with manufacturers to solve these types of issues.
> I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you... propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes.
Of course an entrenched industry would disagree with any actions that decrease profit. I'm sure if I grew a manufacturing company, I'd also want the gov't to not tax any of my profits, but that doesn't inform at all about the morality of my position.
Let the market decide how the pricing should happen. Why should the gov't artificially segment the market?
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating.
> In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating.
Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating?
No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.
I'm not advocating the repeal of the First-sale doctrine. It's the abuse of the doctrine that is troublesome. The doctrine should protect non-commercial isolated sales of goods by consumers. But when the sales transition into a larger scale business is when the problems only begin.
Gray markets can be devastating in an economic capacity (revenue, profitability, brand equity, sales channels, consumer satisfaction, warranty costs, r&d) and in a social capacity (consumer safety, environmental costs, tax revenue, organized crime)
Below is a very small sample of the negative impacts of gray markets:
I know some countries have parallel import restrictions and others have import duties even on personal items. I've paid somewhere between 10-25% tax on my own second hand clothes and books when relocating temporarily to Scandinavia - because they weren't in my luggage.
(Edit: I should note the taxable amount was recovered when I demonstrated re-export of the items when I left).
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, legally, there isn't, and shouldn't be. You should be able to build a business or nonprofit to give away, sell or lend secondhand games, books, CD's, videos, etc.