The first-sale doctrine was also covered in the ruling. According to the letter of the law (17 USC § 109) it specifically only covers the distribution of existing authorized physical copies; it doesn't grant you permission to make a copy and lend that to a friend.
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.
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.
First sale doctrine explicitly limits the restriction that the seller of a copyrightable work can place on the buyer.
It is illegal for you to sell me a book and say "you can't let any of your friends read this copy of this book" because that violates the first sale doctrine.
The court order discusses this, and says while the first sale doctrine means IA could resell or lend their physical books, that right does not extend to unauthorized reproductions (such as making an ebook by scanning in a print book).
First-sale isn't relevant to this scenario. First-sale applies only to a specific copy. This is either a transfer of ownership or licensing agreement issue.
>> "The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (c). Since the first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction."
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.
> You can sell your copy, no matter what you have done to it, at least by the First Sale Doctrine in the US, and similar elsewhere.
If you have a personal created copy of a copyrighted product which you do not have the rights to, you don't have a right to sell this copy right? (Specifically talking about the copy and not the modification)
No, there could be something else that applies to physical goods, but it's not the "First Sale Doctrine", which is specifically about limitations in copyright. [0]
If I harvest a generic apple and offer it with a contract stating that the buyer will not allow anyone else to eat the apple, there's no copyright involved, and thus no First Sale Doctrine either.
The RIAA is, shock/horror, right in this case. First Sale Doctrine is not a free pass to make copies of digital media.
A friend of mine is the principal at SmartFlix, so I've had the opportunity to hear a lot of rubber-meets-the-road detail on first sale doctrine over the past few years.
> The highly-confusing but incredibly important “first sale” doctrine in the Copyright Act states that the buyer of a copyrighted work — whether it’s a CD, book, or otherwise — can re-sell or loan that particular copy of the work in any way they want without the copyright holder’s permission
They have misstated the first sale doctrine under US law. For music CDs, lending is only allowed under first sale if it is not for direct or indirect commercial advantage. This is what there was not widespread CD rentals like there were for movies.
Same also applies to computer programs, which is why you don't find Windows or Office rentals. For programs there is an exception for certain kinds of games and for firmware, which is why you can easily rent those.
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?
reply