3 ms·

Reading the Court of Appeals opinion for Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley shows that the district court interpreted the "lawfully made under this title" line as excludin

Reading the Court of Appeals opinion for Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley shows that the district court interpreted the "lawfully made under this title" line as excluding works made outside of the US. The Court of Appeals said that the wording is ambiguous, and therefore referred to the SCOTUS opinion in Quality King which implied that there are some works that, although not in violation of copyright law, are not "lawfully made" under the title. It seems to me that the first-sale doctrine is definitely in danger (if EULAs haven't already effectively doomed it.) It also seems a valid concern to worry that such a finding would encourage entities to move outside the US to produce works that could not be resold.

Natsu 14y ago
> It seems to me that the first-sale doctrine is definitely in danger (if EULAs haven't already effectively doomed it.) Which is itself odd, given that the First Sale doctrine was a judicial attempt to kill an early attempt at putting something like a EULA into a book. Granted, the book was trying to set its own minimum price, but by doing so on copyright grounds, it would have allowed a lot more than that if the Supreme Court hadn't struck it down. But I agree with you: the more control someone can take of your digital life, the more rent they can collect. In that respect, First Sale is a key roadblock.