7 ms·

This is encouraging news. A huge blow to fair use and access to media is being struck as we move to electronic formats for music, movies, and books. Libraries,

This is encouraging news. A huge blow to fair use and access to media is being struck as we move to electronic formats for music, movies, and books. Libraries, rental services, used bookstores, and more depend on this concept to allow greater and fairer access to media. How we transition this concept into the world of digital media will greatly effect the extent to which we can fulfill the promise of computers and the Internet to make life better. The First Sale Doctrine may be difficult to apply in a world of digital media, but it is not more difficult to apply than Copyright itself. Establishing a legal right to resell digital goods is a necessary counterbalance to the evergrowing power of Copyright owners over how we use our computers.

otoburb 12y ago
Would artificial scarcity via fingerprinting (e.g. a unique hash to establish authenticity of ownership) per electronic copy help or hinder digital good resales? I would support a token/watermark that proves authenticity of ownership, but can see where other more militant may say that this feels like a form of DRM (albeit without actual encryption or restrictions beyond the inclusion of the nonce to generate a unique signature). In practice and within today's environment the idea of fingerprinting would be silly because it would be relatively easy to produce an unmarked copy, as is already the case with DRM protected .MOBI or .EPUB formats anyway.
- wmf 12y ago
  Unless the fingerprint could be updated upon resale (how?) it wouldn't prove much. Fingerprinting also doesn't seem to deter reselling multiple copies unless all the buyers cooperate.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Cryptoprotocol could allow for this.
izzydata 12y ago
I don't disagree, but it seems weird to treat physical media and digital media of a similar type exactly the same when they are simply aren't the same. The truth is you can make infinite copies of an e-book.
- infinite8s 12y ago
  You can also make near 0-cost copies of physical books. Only thing stopping you is copyright law.
  - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
    Ok, i'll bite. How do yo do that? Let's say I have an 800 page Neal Stephenson hardback. I don't want to destroy the book, but I want to copy it. How do I copy that at 0-cost? Even with a borrowed laser printer/copier with free toner and paper I imagine I have to open the book 400 times and push it onto the copier glass and make a copy. That will take me 5 sec per spread, so say 10 spreads per minute. If I am done just under an hour, then I will have lost $100 of invoicable time. So, that wasn't 0-cost. You must have another way?
    - teddyh 12y ago
      The marginal cost is 0. Since, once you have made your digital copy, you can make infinite copies, your amortized cost per copy approaches 0.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        And what would the marginal cost be if paper and ink were not free? Not the full price of a new book, but I'm guessing a significant portion.
        teddyh 12y ago
        The marginal cost of a physical copy does not approach 0, true.
    - miahi 12y ago
      That's just because your opportunity cost is high. Compare it to a person who makes $100 in a month (there are countries where $100 is close to the median income) and you will understand why there are people who do actually copy or scan books instead of buying them.
tomphoolery 12y ago
"Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it. Why do you get the money for it? Fuck you, I want my money!" is pretty much how I feel when I hear about people re-selling digital goods. It doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain how the original content creator profits off of this, if he/she doesn't then I believe this ruling is not only immoral, it's also completely stupid.
- teddyh 12y ago
  If you could clarify why your argument applies to digital media but not physical media, it would help. Or, alternately, do you believe that resale of a thing you made should benefit only you? Is that in perpetuity, or how long should this last?
  - baddox 12y ago
    I'm not a fan of the way that argument was phrased, but the obvious difference is the physical difference between how a physical object is "stolen" and how a digital work is "stolen." It just comes down to property rights, which are subjective and change over time. Under my own subjective impression of property rights, someone breaking into my house and taking a sculpture I made is a violation of my rights, but if I sell a CD to someone and they give away a copy of it, I don't feel like there was a violation.
    - alexqgb 12y ago
      When it comes to unauthorized copies that do not fall within the parameters of fair use, the theft - for lack of a better word - is not of the copy in question. The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. It's kind of like "saving" money on milk by walking out of the store without paying for it. Whether you're taking possession of a finite physical good, or increasing the legally regulated supply an intangible one, you're doing something that - by law - triggers an obligation to pay another person money. Disregarding the obligation by making a copy and retaining possession of the money which, by right, you now owe another, is where specific and definable deprivation enters the picture. When people who understand what they're talking about refer to "theft" in relation to the unauthorized duplication of intangible goods, this is what they mean.

otoburb 12y ago

Would artificial scarcity via fingerprinting (e.g. a unique hash to establish authenticity of ownership) per electronic copy help or hinder digital good resales? I would support a token/watermark that proves authenticity of ownership, but can see where other more militant may say that this feels like a form of DRM (albeit without actual encryption or restrictions beyond the inclusion of the nonce to generate a unique signature). In practice and within today's environment the idea of fingerprinting would be silly because it would be relatively easy to produce an unmarked copy, as is already the case with DRM protected .MOBI or .EPUB formats anyway.

wmf 12y ago
Unless the fingerprint could be updated upon resale (how?) it wouldn't prove much. Fingerprinting also doesn't seem to deter reselling multiple copies unless all the buyers cooperate.
ThomPete 12y ago
Cryptoprotocol could allow for this.

izzydata 12y ago

I don't disagree, but it seems weird to treat physical media and digital media of a similar type exactly the same when they are simply aren't the same. The truth is you can make infinite copies of an e-book.

infinite8s 12y ago
You can also make near 0-cost copies of physical books. Only thing stopping you is copyright law.
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  Ok, i'll bite. How do yo do that? Let's say I have an 800 page Neal Stephenson hardback. I don't want to destroy the book, but I want to copy it. How do I copy that at 0-cost? Even with a borrowed laser printer/copier with free toner and paper I imagine I have to open the book 400 times and push it onto the copier glass and make a copy. That will take me 5 sec per spread, so say 10 spreads per minute. If I am done just under an hour, then I will have lost $100 of invoicable time. So, that wasn't 0-cost. You must have another way?
  - teddyh 12y ago
    The marginal cost is 0. Since, once you have made your digital copy, you can make infinite copies, your amortized cost per copy approaches 0.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      And what would the marginal cost be if paper and ink were not free? Not the full price of a new book, but I'm guessing a significant portion.
      - teddyh 12y ago
        The marginal cost of a physical copy does not approach 0, true.
  - miahi 12y ago
    That's just because your opportunity cost is high. Compare it to a person who makes $100 in a month (there are countries where $100 is close to the median income) and you will understand why there are people who do actually copy or scan books instead of buying them.

tomphoolery 12y ago

"Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it. Why do you get the money for it? Fuck you, I want my money!" is pretty much how I feel when I hear about people re-selling digital goods. It doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain how the original content creator profits off of this, if he/she doesn't then I believe this ruling is not only immoral, it's also completely stupid.

teddyh 12y ago
If you could clarify why your argument applies to digital media but not physical media, it would help. Or, alternately, do you believe that resale of a thing you made should benefit only you? Is that in perpetuity, or how long should this last?
- baddox 12y ago
  I'm not a fan of the way that argument was phrased, but the obvious difference is the physical difference between how a physical object is "stolen" and how a digital work is "stolen." It just comes down to property rights, which are subjective and change over time. Under my own subjective impression of property rights, someone breaking into my house and taking a sculpture I made is a violation of my rights, but if I sell a CD to someone and they give away a copy of it, I don't feel like there was a violation.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    When it comes to unauthorized copies that do not fall within the parameters of fair use, the theft - for lack of a better word - is not of the copy in question. The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. It's kind of like "saving" money on milk by walking out of the store without paying for it. Whether you're taking possession of a finite physical good, or increasing the legally regulated supply an intangible one, you're doing something that - by law - triggers an obligation to pay another person money. Disregarding the obligation by making a copy and retaining possession of the money which, by right, you now owe another, is where specific and definable deprivation enters the picture. When people who understand what they're talking about refer to "theft" in relation to the unauthorized duplication of intangible goods, this is what they mean.