3 ms·

Maybe that is a consumer-protection thing that doesn't extend to commercial entities?

by rocqua 9y ago

jrochkind1 9y ago
No, it extends to anyone, it's part of copyright law in the US. I'm confused thinking of how it applies to software licenses though. I guess software licenses are not a purchase of an object, but a _license_ to use it. (And of course it's not open source that pioneered this legal application). The first sale doctrine lets you, for instance, resell a book you buy -- it doesn't let you print more books. It's unclear and confusing to me how it applies to what's being discussed too. Probably who knows what a judge/jury would do.
- tzs 9y ago
  To be clear, I'm suggesting first sale applies to to the companies that buy CPUs from Intel and put them in the computers they build, and the sales companies that buy those computers and resell them to consumers. I'm not suggesting it applies to Intel. Intel is making copies, so they need copyright owner permission. The company that buys a CPU from Intel and solders it into a computer they build, and the sales company that later sells that computer to a consumer, are not making copies. They are just passing on copies they received. Hence, they should not need copyright owner permission because of first sale. There is one possible hitch that comes to mind. In the US version of first sale, it applies to the owner of a copy that was "lawfully made". If Intel is violating the license, and if that means the copies Intel makes are not "lawfully made", then first sale does not apply to those copies.
  - bdowling 9y ago
    Your second theory is correct. The first sale doctrine does not apply when the initial copy was not lawfully made, at least under the US Copyright Act. Without that exception, section 501 imposes strict liability for infringement. It doesn't require that the plaintiff allege or prove knowledge or bad faith. The reason for this might be more obvious in the context of something more obviously infringing, such as bootleg DVD movies. A plaintiff can hold the reseller of the bootleg DVDs liable just as it could the manufacturer. That's desirable since the manufacturer could be judgement-proof (e.g., fly by night company). And we wouldn't want the copyright owner to have to prove that the reseller knew the DVDs were bootlegs. In the case of distributing Intel CPUs, the principle isn't as obviously applicable as it is to bootleg DVDs, but it still applies. So, the resellers could be held liable for copyright infringment as well. That being said, since Intel isn't a fly-by-night operation like a manufacturer of bootleg DVDs, the copyright owner can just go after Intel directly.
- sgc 9y ago
  Wasn't one of the important precedents for this in the US the case of someone selling software on ebay (If I remember correctly it was top end cgi software from autodesk or someone similar)? So if there is physical medium at least (like a cpu) first sale doctrine certainly applies as long as the first sale was legal (seems like that's not the case with Intel).

Maybe that is a consumer-protection thing that doesn't extend to commercial entities?

by rocqua 9y ago

Maybe that is a consumer-protection thing that doesn't extend to commercial entities?

No, it extends to anyone, it's part of copyright law in the US. I'm confused thinking of how it applies to software licenses though. I guess software licenses are not a purchase of an object, but a _license_ to use it. (And of course it's not open source that pioneered this legal application). The first sale doctrine lets you, for instance, resell a book you buy -- it doesn't let you print more books. It's unclear and confusing to me how it applies to what's being discussed too. Probably who knows what a judge/jury would do.

tzs 9y ago
To be clear, I'm suggesting first sale applies to to the companies that buy CPUs from Intel and put them in the computers they build, and the sales companies that buy those computers and resell them to consumers. I'm not suggesting it applies to Intel. Intel is making copies, so they need copyright owner permission. The company that buys a CPU from Intel and solders it into a computer they build, and the sales company that later sells that computer to a consumer, are not making copies. They are just passing on copies they received. Hence, they should not need copyright owner permission because of first sale. There is one possible hitch that comes to mind. In the US version of first sale, it applies to the owner of a copy that was "lawfully made". If Intel is violating the license, and if that means the copies Intel makes are not "lawfully made", then first sale does not apply to those copies.
- bdowling 9y ago
  Your second theory is correct. The first sale doctrine does not apply when the initial copy was not lawfully made, at least under the US Copyright Act. Without that exception, section 501 imposes strict liability for infringement. It doesn't require that the plaintiff allege or prove knowledge or bad faith. The reason for this might be more obvious in the context of something more obviously infringing, such as bootleg DVD movies. A plaintiff can hold the reseller of the bootleg DVDs liable just as it could the manufacturer. That's desirable since the manufacturer could be judgement-proof (e.g., fly by night company). And we wouldn't want the copyright owner to have to prove that the reseller knew the DVDs were bootlegs. In the case of distributing Intel CPUs, the principle isn't as obviously applicable as it is to bootleg DVDs, but it still applies. So, the resellers could be held liable for copyright infringment as well. That being said, since Intel isn't a fly-by-night operation like a manufacturer of bootleg DVDs, the copyright owner can just go after Intel directly.
sgc 9y ago
Wasn't one of the important precedents for this in the US the case of someone selling software on ebay (If I remember correctly it was top end cgi software from autodesk or someone similar)? So if there is physical medium at least (like a cpu) first sale doctrine certainly applies as long as the first sale was legal (seems like that's not the case with Intel).