There's another thing you're missing: First Sale Doctrine. In the world of physical goods, once you've sold a copy of something, you have no rights whatsoever to constrain what people can do with that copy. Authors don't see a dime for used book sales, for example.
You can't distribute copies of the book (outside of limited exceptions).
First Sale doctrine says you can pretty much do whatever you want with the physical item.
That's not how copyright works on physical goods, like books, DVDs, etc... The Doctrine of First Sale is a crucial part of Copyright law. The author doesn't get to control your life because you bought one of their works. If you want to use it in some other way then they intended they don't get a say.
First sale is only about intellectual properties because it is applied to copyright. That is, it is necessary to grant you the right to resell something that contains copyrighted property.
For example, without first sale you couldn't sell a book you legally bought, because the author still has distribution rights over the story it contains. (That make sense?)
For physical items, there is not a government granted monopoly to compare.
Except that the courts have said many times that a seller doesn't have carte blanche to add whatever restrictions they want to a purchase. The First Sale doctrine, for example, means you can't stop someone from reselling their purchased book. It is tricky for digital items, but depending on the exact details, the First Sale doctrine can sometimes apply.
Being able to take the legally purchased text and running it through a computerized reader might end up being legal... we need the courts to decide. It isn't enough that the person selling it doesn't want to allow it.
First sale doctrine in the US. If I buy a physical book, I can give it, loan it, throw it in the trash, etc. This doesn't apply to making electronic copies--see what happened with Google Books for example.
The doctrine of first sale is dead. It died to the copyright cartels. You own nothing where a copyright is involved. The copyright maintains ownership of the device, not you.
The courts may have once done something about books with shrinkwrap agreements forbidding sale, but the same does not apply to software or things containing software.
To be clear, First Sale Doctrine does apply to physical goods: the doctrine pre-dates copyrighted digital goods. The idea was that a publisher couldn't prevent someone from reselling their paperback copy of a novel after they've read it (for example).
Of course, it in theory could apply to digital goods as well, but most copyrighted digital goods you don't actually buy, you just license. Good luck reselling a Kindle book. You have to strip the DRM first, which, while possible, violates the DMCA.
Your main point is true, but I'd like to point out that copyright circumvents the first-sale doctrine. You're not allowed to copy and distribute works that you own, if you don't have a copyright license for the material.
In the US we have the first-sale doctrine. So you own your copy. You can sell your copy of a book or a CD, even though the publisher might like to prevent that.
So does the first sale doctrine not have any teeth at all? What is to stop companies from throwing a license on everything they sell, making the first sale doctrine meaningless?
Could a bookseller add a license to a physical book, and suddenly you can't sell it or lend it out?
Can you link to an example of such a contract? And besides, I thought the First Sale Doctrine meant that no matter what your contract said, once the book was sold that the copyright holder didn't have any say over that copy of it anymore.
When I buy a book, I buy the physical item but I only buy a license for its content. I own the book but I do not own the content. That also makes it difficult to make copies.
In the digital world world there are not longer physical artifacts, only content and making copies is trivial. In fact, 'buying' digital content involves making a digital copy, not transferring ownership of a single physical item.
My understanding is that these differences result in different areas of copyright law being exercised and that the First Sale Doctrine applies to physical items (and it requires ownership of the copy).
I’m increasingly convinced that the right of first sale must extend to copyrighted work licenses to individuals to rebalance the benefit to society. Movies, video games, and music are all “sold” primarily in a way that prevents them from being shared, lent, or transferred to others. Books are probably the only medium left that is still primarily physical (71% in 2022).
I can't quote you law but my understanding is that first sale doctrine applies to physical things. So virtually lending a corresponding digital copy to a physical book seems a creative application of first sale doctrine--which may or may not be strictly legal but apparently the publishers weren't interested in pushing that.
That's not how the first sale doctrine works, nor is it how it has ever worked.
In a nutshell: the first sale doctrine merely means that if someone comes into legitimate possession of a physical good containing IP, they are free to sell or otherwise exploit the physical good without requiring a license for the IP contained therein.
Crucially, the first sale doctrine does not extend to exploiting the IP itself, so if the IP is separated from the physical good (such as by recording or scanning a copy), the first sale doctrine no longer applies.
The first sale doctrine does not apply at all to library lending programs. Libraries providing digital lending pursuant to explicit licenses provided by publishers for digital lending.
reply