General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

85. Again, you're confusing what is owned

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 12:58 PM

Mar 2013

You own a book like you own a CD-ROM. You license the software/text.

Nope.

In the case of both a book and a CD-ROM, you own one copy of the software/text, and you can resell that one copy.

You can't make new copies. You lack the right to make copies. Also called copyright.

"Owning" the text is the same things a holding the copyright.

Not according to the law. You can own a copy of the text without owning the copyright to the text. Those are two separate things.

It's no different from code on a CD-ROM. In both cases, copyright covers the actual creative content.

Copyright controls whether or not you have the right to make copies. You can own a copy without having the right to make more copies. Similarly, you can own the right to make copies of the content without owning a copy of the content (which would make it impossible to copy, but that's not a legal barrier).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Just WOW; Supreme Court upholds first-sale doctrine in textbook resale case [View all] DainBramaged Mar 2013 OP

Very interesting. sadbear Mar 2013 #1

Are you saying Clarence disagreed with Tony??? HERVEPA Mar 2013 #3

This decision was all kinds of weird, huh? sadbear Mar 2013 #4

More likely some big media corp paid Fat Tony under the table n2doc Mar 2013 #14

Interestingly, Thomas and Scalia often disagree about protections of commercial speech Recursion Mar 2013 #13

Thomas does disagree with Scalia, including on big cases. dairydog91 Mar 2013 #42

they have disagreed on 1st amendment(usually porn) cases JI7 Mar 2013 #49

I was quite surprised by the ruling Ichingcarpenter Mar 2013 #2

Wow indeed. The infinite profitability model needs to stand aside. freshwest Mar 2013 #5

Good. Note that Breyer and Ginsburg split their votes: AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #6

They did rule for the outrageous $ penalty to that women Ichingcarpenter Mar 2013 #9

this shows how overpriced texts are Sanity Claws Mar 2013 #7

I think the business model is set Johonny Mar 2013 #16

I've bought books this way through college Indianademocrat91 Mar 2013 #31

Great news. Next up: cheap drugs imported from Canada??? reformist2 Mar 2013 #8

Only if you want to buy used drugs. marybourg Mar 2013 #12

+1. lol. n/t eggplant Mar 2013 #18

I don't get it dreamnightwind Mar 2013 #58

The whole issue is that they HAD been bought once, legally, at retail, in Europe. marybourg Mar 2013 #60

So they're "used" by definition if not in practice. dreamnightwind Mar 2013 #63

Well, no-one's going to come to your house and check marybourg Mar 2013 #64

Good. If they are dumping books cheap in Thialand and gouging us then fuck 'em. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #10

Excellent. I was rooting for that kid. Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #11

This is going to piss Amazon off, big time. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #15

Does this apply to digital media? Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #19

Well, why would it apply ONLY to one format? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #23

The DMCA is not a terribly logical piece of legislation. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #27

The difference is the digital version is not sold. It's licensed. jeff47 Mar 2013 #37

"it's hard to declare there has been an actual sale" jberryhill Mar 2013 #53

When you buy a book, you are granted a license for the text. You don't "own" it-- Romulox Mar 2013 #82

You're confusing ownership with copyright. jeff47 Mar 2013 #83

No, I'm not. You own a book like you own a CD-ROM. You license the software/text. Romulox Mar 2013 #84

Again, you're confusing what is owned jeff47 Mar 2013 #85

No. You don't own the text of a book anymore than you own software on a CD-ROM. Romulox Mar 2013 #86

interesting note...Apple and Amazon each are prepping "used" ebooks Spike89 Mar 2013 #45

The first sale doctrine applies to the transfer of the specific copy that was lawfully obtained onenote Mar 2013 #46

First sale doctrine would encompass digital media, provided it's unencumbered by DRM (DMCA). X_Digger Mar 2013 #29

I think they aren't aware of the implications. hootinholler Mar 2013 #20

Yep..first place my brain went... dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #24

There are no implications. onenote Mar 2013 #48

Help walk me thru this, if you would.. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #62

This is why the Register of Copyrights testified today that Congress needs to comprehensively update onenote Mar 2013 #71

I predict a new sort of digital evil on the horizon Duer 157099 Mar 2013 #81

Thomas made an extremely rare correct ruling. Dawson Leery Mar 2013 #17

Garth Brooks? sadbear Mar 2013 #22

And why does that principle not also apply to buying drugs in Canada for use here? BlueStreak Mar 2013 #21

Pharmaceutical companies NewJeffCT Mar 2013 #25

The ruling did not address the price mark-up, only the right to resell the book. djean111 Mar 2013 #28

Even so, doesn't the "first sale" ownership argument apply? BlueStreak Mar 2013 #32

Maybe because medicine is different from books? WinkyDink Mar 2013 #35

The first sale doctrine is a specific statutory provision of copyright law onenote Mar 2013 #38

As far as I know, there has never been a copyright issue with ca drugs X_Digger Mar 2013 #41

Not about the pricing Spike89 Mar 2013 #47

The point of books is that the fabrication cost is not a significant part of the value (anymore) Recursion Mar 2013 #79

I think the same can be said of most drugs BlueStreak Mar 2013 #80

AWKWARD- either you side with Antonin Scalia or you side with Clarence Thomas! Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #26

A case in point of why Guilt by Association is a Logical Fallacy. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #36

Interesting, not always a clear case imo. Babel_17 Mar 2013 #30

If this ruling had gone the other way, Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #33

Maybe people in Third-World nations could be paid more? WinkyDink Mar 2013 #39

+1 jberryhill Mar 2013 #54

Doesn't make me think twice, no. X_Digger Mar 2013 #43

The trouble is you can't have one without the other starroute Mar 2013 #44

I had always assumed that inexpensive export versions would be handled... JVS Mar 2013 #75

Thank God! Corporations want to own things EVEN AFTER THEY SELL THEM. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #34

I think it's the culture of "licensing" Union Scribe Mar 2013 #59

I think when Amazon zapped some book from Kindles it showed who owns the downloads! WinkyDink Mar 2013 #69

"May it spread to music and video next" Pullo Mar 2013 #40

Not new, I did this twenty years ago. Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2013 #50

This has some rather wide implications. talkingmime Mar 2013 #51

Well, EA's humiliating Sim City 5 launch kind of proved WHY that's a Bad Idea Occulus Mar 2013 #65

This is embarassing, but I still have a machine that runs the first Sim City. talkingmime Mar 2013 #66

Not at all. Occulus Mar 2013 #67

My C=64 still works too! I know 6510/6502 machine code inside out!!! talkingmime Mar 2013 #68

My son used to buy some of his undergrad math textbooks that way (plus explanations) frazzled Mar 2013 #52

K&R Good. idwiyo Mar 2013 #55

I'm liking it. n/t leeroysphitz Mar 2013 #56

Here is the Actual Opinion, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Scalia dissented happyslug Mar 2013 #57

The underlying question of exhaustion has implications for our trade negotiations Recursion Mar 2013 #78

"May it spread to music and video next" Orrex Mar 2013 #61

Isn't SCOTUS considering an unlocked cellphone case this term? n/t Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #70

Yes, my beautiful daughter filled me in DainBramaged Mar 2013 #73

You can't mean they actually sided with the little guy for once? liberal_at_heart Mar 2013 #72

The "little guy" was importing hundreds of textbooks to sell at a profit Recursion Mar 2013 #74

No, the little guy is really us. djean111 Mar 2013 #76

Except for those of us who are authors Recursion Mar 2013 #77

Does anyone know if this applies to complimentary copies as well. aikoaiko Mar 2013 #87