SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR DAMAGES?

Have you paid what they asked for? I also bought a set of Alvin and the Chipmunks wallets from an US store and when I tried to resale them at ebay I received a threatening letter from the aclaimed attorney of Bagdasarian Production, who said if I don't pay I could be held accountable for more than a million dollar in damages to her client.
WHat did you do? Please tell me how long it has been and if you paid them. I am going to pay them in a few days and I feel angry at the situation because I was trying to sell items that I never thought could be counterfeited coming from the US. Now I am not sure if once I sign the agremment letter this case will rest in peace or I will have to worry for the rest of my live.
Thank you

NO I DIDN'T PAY AND THINK THIS IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SINCE IT'S NOT A COUNTERFEIT ITEM!

This is not the appropriate forum for providing specific legal advice. Anytime a person is accused of wrongdoing that person should seek personalized legal advice. The following is, therefore, general information only and should not relied on to take or refrain from taking any action.

The rule is that a person who owns a lawful copy of a sound recording (a cd, album, cassete tape, etc.) may re-sell that particular copy of the sound recording. The theory behind the rule is that the copyright owner's rights in the sound recording were "exhausted" by the lawful "first sale" and so the sound recording can be re-sold ad infinitum without any further compensation to the copyright owner. The wrinkle, of course, is that the original purchase of the sound recording was lawful.

The purchase of a counterfeit sound recording is NOT lawful -- even if the purchaser does not know that it's a counterfeit. This has to be so otherwise counterfeiters could flood the market with very good counterfeits and the copyright owner would have no way to stop their proliferation in the secondary goods marketplace.

So ... the purchase of a counterfeit sound recording at a flea market (or a purchase anywhere or even a pirated download) is unlawful and so its re-sale is likewise unlawful. The owner of the copyright in the sound recording can -- and should -- attempt to stop all further sales by sending cease and desist letters to the re-sellers and the owners can also demand monetary damages. Many people offer counterfeiting goods for sale on eBay -- all the while not even knowing that those goods are counterfeit. Those re-sellers can lawfully be stopped and can be liable for monetary damages to the copyright owner.

Your question raises the additional issue of whether the owner of the copyright in the album art (the picture on the cover of the cd) can prevent the publication of that album art to advertise the re-sale of a lawfully purchased cd (or album). I think the answer is no. The owner of the copyright in the album art is often someone other than the owner of the copyright in the sound recording. That person, I believe, has nonetheless impliedly licensed to all subsequent owners of the cd (or album) the use of the album art to advertise subsequent sales of the cd (or album).

In short, manufacturers must evaluate the offers of sales of their goods via public venues such as eBay as part of their anti-counterfeiting efforts.

STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION THOUGH, IF I DIDN'T SELL IT, WOUND UP THROWING IT AWAY, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR "DAMAGES" WHEN THERE WAS NO SALE????

Again, this is not legal advice. I'm going to assume that the cd collection was counterfeit because you've made of point of mentioning that it's an "asian import."

The reason damages are due is because offering counterfeit items for sale is unlawful. The fact there were no buyers for the counterfeit goods is irrelevant. It would be a silly world indeed if only those who actually succeeded in selling counterfeit goods could be held liable -- we'd then have people in court claiming they've done no wrong because they were too incompetent to complete the sale.

The person who offers counterfeit goods for sale is NOT the victim in this scenario. The victims -- i.e., the ones who have actually been harmed -- are the owner of the authentic goods who has to compete against cheap knock-offs and the public who are persuaded to buy those knock-off products.

In short, trying to sell counterfeit goods is wrong, unlawful, and cannot be condoned just because no one cared enough to buy the goods.

NO I UNDERSTAND THAT, SEE WHEN I PURCHASED AT THE FLEA MARKET, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THESE WERE CONSIDERED COUNTERFEIT. THE CHINESE MARKINGS ON THE BOXES, WHEN I INQUIRED I WAS TOLD THEY WERE ASIAN IMPORTS, I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ASIAN IMPORTS, I JUST FIGURED THEY WERE BROUGHT IN FROM OVERSEAS LIKE MANY OTHER PRODUCTS AND SINCE IT WAS IN AN OPEN MARKETPLACE, THOUGHT NOTHING OF IT. WE VIEWED IT, THE DISCS LOOKED JUST LIKE STORE BOUGHT DVDS, ARTWORK EMBEDED ON THE DISCS, HARD BOXES LIKE ANY OTHER STORE BOUGHT DVD, MY KIDS SEEMED BORED WITH IT, SO I JUST DECIDED TO RESELL IT. AND I LISTED IT FOR $15 CAUSE WE WATCHED IT, THE BOX WAS A BIT BENT AT THIS POINT. IT WAS UP LITERALLY FOR A FEW HOURS THEN IT WAS REMOVED. I INQUIRED AS TO WHY, AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, SO I THREW IT OUT. I DON'T TOLERATE THOSE PRODUCTS IN MY HOME. SO IN THE TRASH IT WENT. A MONTH LATER IS WHEN I GOT THE LETTER, AND I IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED BY STATING, I WAS UNAWARE WHEN I PURCHASED WHAT IT WAS, AND IT WASN'T A BOOTLEG COPY, BUT THAT I WAS TOLD THAT ASIAN IMPORTS WERE FINE, THAT IN FACT I SAW 100'S OF ASIAN IMPORTS BEING SOLD ON THE WEBSITE DAILY, WHICH IS WHY I LISTED IT TO SELL. BUT THAT THE AD WAS TAKEN DOWN BEFORE ANYONE SAW IT, AND THAT IT WASN'T SOLD, THROWN AWAY AND I APOLOGIZED AND I SWORE THAT I WOULDN'T PURCHASE NOR SELL ANY IMPORTS EVER AGAIN! BUT THEN THE LAWYER FOR ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS, ASKED ME TO PAY HER $150 FEE, A FEE THE OWNER PAYS HER TO MONITOR WEBSITES AND REMOVE ANY ADS. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S UNJUST, WHY SHOULD I PAY HER FOR THE JOB SHE'S HIRED TO DO FOR SOMEONE ELSE???

Once again, the following is not legal advice pertaining to your particular situation. All my comments apply equally to all instances of alleged infringement.

To be convicted of most crimes the government has the burden to show that the perpetrator INTENDED to commit the crime or that he otherwise had a particular mindset or intent to do something unlawful. That is NOT the general rule, however, in order to find someone liable for a civil wrong. Essentially, a "crime" is a wrong against society. A "civil" wrong (in legal lingo, a "tort") is a wrong against a particular person (which includes corporations).

Specifically, it is not necessary for the owner of a good (such as a sound recording) that is protected by copyright or trademark law to show that the person who infringes the copyright or trademark KNEW that offering the good for sale was an infringement of the copyright or trademark. An infringement is an infringement, period. The fact that the re-seller did not know that the good was counterfeit is irrelevant for purposes of determining liability. Those who "innocently infringe" a copyright or trademark may have a decent argument that the monetary damages assessed against them should be reduced but the infringement remains, nonetheless, an infringement.

Two final thoughts before I must end this colloquy: the "I didn't know it was wrong" defense is not only weak and suspect under the best of circumstances it has NO place in business transactions and, under both copyright and trademark law, those who engage in counterfeiting violate CRIMINAL statutes when the dollar value of the transactions reach certain thresholds -- even if the alleged counterfeiter did not know that the goods were counterfeit.

So, I want to say that I paid the lawyer the $150 for my mistake. But I want to know, should I be afraid of other payments for the so aclaimmed "damages"? Or I can be in peace of mind that this is over? I just hate the idea of being followed all my life with the thought of this case being reopened. My auction was also taken before I could sell any item.