4 ms·
This case is exactly asking whether someone can “order blu-rays that come with a DVD, open them up, and sell both separately.” Intuitively first sale doctrine s
by mjmahone17 9y ago
This case is exactly asking whether someone can “order blu-rays that come with a DVD, open them up, and sell both separately.” Intuitively first sale doctrine should imply you can: I can buy a bunch of packs of trading cards, open them up, then sell the cards individually. Likewise I should be able to buy a book, tear it apart and sell one chapter of it at a time. Or buy a gallon of flour and split it into 12-oz containers to sell. This question is the crux of the case, though, so it will be very interesting to see what legal arguments are offered, and what precedent applies.
- gwbas1c 9y agoBack in the late 1980s and early 1990s games would come with a disk for an IBM-compatible and a disk for an Apple II in the box. That's plenty of precedent.
- tedunangst 9y agoActually there have been court rulings that ripping a book apart creates derivative works (what is a single chapter if not an abridged version of the original?), so you can't do that. Although other courts have ruled you can.
- rhizome 9y agoInteresting. Got a cite for the book-ripping case?
- tedunangst 9y agohttp://www.ogdenglazer.com/intellectual-property/this-split-is-bananas/ http://www.ogdenglazer.com/intellectual-property/this-split-... or http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=facschol http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... are places to start.
- rhizome 9y agoThanks! To be fair, it doesn't look like that particular situation is settled law yet.
- posterboy 9y agoI find the (established?) grammar quite peculiar. Arguments are offered, passively, but precedent actively applies - itself, seemingly - as to distract from any subjectivity because, nobody should doubt, a high court's opinion always applied even before any decision was met. edit: not sure whether this were "established".