Sentences with phrase «first sale doctrine»

Under first sale doctrine you could sell or give away your copy provided you delete / destroy all the copies you have.

This is the so - called first sale doctrine.

-LSB-...] with publishers — specifically, a 21st century overhaul of First Sale Doctrine — the field's long - term prospects with ebooks and other popular digital media don't look -LSB-...]

2nd Circuit: First sale doctrine does not apply to foreign - made works — Importer is copyright infringer: John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng (Copyright Litigation Blog)(IP Spotlight)(EFF)(IPKat)(IPKat)

Howell and her roundtable of legal commentators — Ben Franske, Colette Vogele, Ernie Svenson, and Evan Brown — discuss a range of hot topics, from iPodMeister and the CD first sale doctrine, to hiring tech - savvy lawyers, to Obama's BlackBerry.

When a publisher sells a book directly to a library or from a distributor such as Ingram it abides by the first sale doctrine.

at least in the U.S. — We have something called «first sale doctrine» — which gives people the legal right to resale (or do with what we please) material objects we buy.

e-Books on the other hand do not abide by the first sale doctrine because they are licensed out to the library, there is no clear and defined path of ownership.

I don't read contracts from vendors and I don't know the ins and outs of the ebook market, DRM, first sale doctrine, etc..

According to John Wiley there was an issue with the First Sale Doctrine.

For more information on «First Sale Doctrine,» I recommend this article.

The supreme court sided with the young student, citing the first sale doctrine.

With millions of eBooks, comics and manga being lost after purchasing on a worldwide scale, something needs to be done to augment the First Sale Doctrine, Copyright Software Rental Amendments Act and Digital Millenium Copyright Act to protect customers from companies indiscriminately removing purchased content or to save it from a company going out of business.

Based on the recent history, I think the publishers would lose since the first sale doctrine would be applied.

It vindicates the foundational principle of the first sale doctrine — if you bought it, you own it.

The First Sale Doctrine is a US legal statute that essentially states that once a person buys a copyrighted item, the copyright owner's control over how the new owner uses and transfers that item largely ends.

An awkward aspect of US copyright law called the First Sale Doctrine could well create problems for Amazon and its publishers.

Since books fall under the first sale doctrine, publishers (and authors) only make money on new books (i.e., books sold for the first time.)

But this is where the confusion comes in — people understand they have those rights with a physical book, even if they've never heard of the first sale doctrine.

So, how about a new e-book sale / licensing doctrine, one to replace the first sale doctrine from the print book world?

The first sale doctrine also applies to e-book readers and e-book files.

Digital retailers say that the first sale doctrine — which would let you hawk your old Harry Potter hardcovers on eBay — no longer applies.

Under the Copyright Act, the first sale doctrine allows the owner of a particular copy of a work to sell, lease or rent that copy to anyone they want at any price they choose.

Because the first sale doctrine allows transfers of only your particular copy, and not reproductions or recreations, a digital transfer of an e-book is probably impermissible.

The first sale doctrine only applies to the «owner» of a copy of a work, so end users who acquire content by license do not enjoy the right to resell their copies.

It is also quite obvious that each author has different priorities that are important to them, whether it is the first sale doctrine or DRM.

The first sale doctrine prohibits limitations on how that physical copy can be used by a purchaser of the physical copy such as a video store, for example, by way of a mandatory license requiring the video store to pay an additional fee based upon how often the video is viewed.

The Supreme Court is looking into the First Sale Doctrine.

Guest contributor Brian Keith Felderstein, Esq. explains what you need to know about the First Sale doctrine and how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could change the way you buy -LSB-...]

The decision upheld the «first sale doctrine,» a concept that says once a publisher sells a copy of a work to a member of the public, the buyer is free to do sell or dispose of the copy as they wish.

Justice Ginsburg dissented from the ruling on this issue, arguing that exhaustion, like the first sale doctrine, should be limited to U.S. sales.

A significant copyright decision this week has lawyers, bloggers and commentators speculating about the future of the first sale doctrine in the digital age.

Law360 quoted Craig B. Whitney on whether the «first sale doctrine» can apply to digital content, a question that arose in a Disney — Redbox dispute.

Under the First Sale doctrine, once a copy is sold by the rights - holder (e.g. the publisher, initially to the bookstore or distributor), that owner can do whatever it wants with that specific copy, including reading or re-selling (and anying thereafter can likewise).

We are currently involved in a Chapter 11 case involving copyright law and the «first sale doctrine».

Additionally, the Debtor has developed a separate platform that it is confident is not a violation of the first sale doctrine and will allow the entity to market it App to resell digital music and other electronic media, such as songs purchased from iTunes and videos / movies purchased online.

The first sale doctrine in copyright law allows owners of copyrighted material to treat that copy in any way desired so long as the copyright owner's exclusive copyright rights are not infringed.

This doctrine was derived from an old common law rule that invalidated «restraints on alienation» of property other than intellectual property on public policy grounds, and like the «restrain on alienation» rule for tangible property, the first sale doctrine that applies to intellectual property was also (at least originally) a court created common law rule.

Indeed, at least heuristically, the easiest way to distinguish an intellectual property good, which is subject to the first sale doctrine, from an intellectual property service, which can be licensed pursuant to a EULA, is whether, as a practical matter, the firm distributing the intellectual property has a practical ability to deny you service going forward without resort to the courts.

If the owner of the intellectual property has no practical ability to do that, the intellectual property being distributed will probably be classified as a good and be subject to the first sale doctrine.

In the current case where we are counsel for the Debtor in Possession, the Debtor has developed a platform to resell digital music; however, the Debtor received an adverse ruling from the US District Court in New York holding that the first sale doctrine does not apply to the resale of digital music.

But, if the owner of the intellectual property has the practical ability to cut you off from the intellectual property being distributed without resort to the courts, the intellectual property being distributed will probably be classified as a service, which is not subject to the first sale doctrine and may be licensed.

The rule you are alluding to with respect to a television set is called the «first sale doctrine» which basically prohibits copyright and trademark owners from limiting the ability of a buyer of a good (like a CD or authorized logo T - Shirt) protected by copyright or trademark, from limiting further sales of that good (or the manner in which the good is used by its new owner) after a first retail sale of the good with copyright or trademark protections.

The majority found that the SCOTUS had revisited the first sale doctrine such that the copyright suit was precluded on this ground, although Circuit Judge Wardlaw concurred but would sustain the result on the copyright misuse theory.

Vernor won at the lower court level because the court held that he was the «owner» of the copies of software he had bought, and therefore was protected by the first sale doctrine.

Y is free to use that copy however Y pleases, per the first sale doctrine: when you receive a copy of the work in a way authorized by the copyright holder, copyright law does not limit your ability to use that one copy.