Comments on: 100 years of the first sale doctrine http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/ Libraries for everyone, by everyone, shared with everyone, about everything Mon, 20 May 2013 15:27:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: steve http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/#comment-339 Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:12:02 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.wordpress.com/?p=46#comment-339 I run a used textbooks exchange site and at first I felt iffy about it – but I figured if the universities and bookstores are buying them back and reselling them, then I see nothing wrong with it. I’m glad I came across your post that explains the First Sale Doctrine – thanks!

]]> By: Diane http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/#comment-223 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:44:19 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.wordpress.com/?p=46#comment-223 As of this date (9/15/08) BBC Audio is making rather threatening noises to public libraries regarding the purchase and use of BBC “trade” editions in libraries instead of their (much more expensive) “library” editions. They claim that they sell an “unlimited circulation license” of audio books to libraries (as a form of software), and a “personal use license” to consumers, and that sale of the consumer version to libraries for multiple uses is illegal, and violates the Lanham Act. Supposedly, the publisher must pay “library edition rights” to authors’ agents in order to sell to libraries. As a buyer of audiobooks for libraries, I’ve never heard of this (and never seen a license on an audiobook) but it appears to be an attempt to go around the intent of the First Sale Doctrine.

]]> By: John Mark Ockerbloom http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/#comment-189 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:49:48 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.wordpress.com/?p=46#comment-189 Autumn: Feel free! Blog posts are meant to be linked to and commented on.

CD Falco: Section 109 of the Copyright Act, which I link to in the post, does place some restrictions on certain kinds of rentals, in particular software and recorded music. That’s one reason you don’t see music rental places along with video rental places.

My non-lawyer understanding is that Blockbuster wouldn’t have to pay royalties on the rents of any movies that buy in ordinary retail transactions. But some video chains may make special contracts with the studios in which they get free or reduced-price disks or tapes in exchange for agreeing to pay the studios a cut of the rental fee. This 2001 First Monday article says that was how Blockbuster’s “guaranteed in-stock” program worked. I don’t offhand know how common this arrangement is in Blockbuster and similar chains today.

]]> By: CD Falco. http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/#comment-188 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:04:35 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.wordpress.com/?p=46#comment-188 I’m curious does this also allow rentals?

Does blockbuster pay royalities on the movies it rents out?

]]> By: Autumn http://everybodyslibraries.com/2008/06/01/100-years-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/#comment-187 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:36:17 +0000 http://everybodyslibraries.wordpress.com/?p=46#comment-187 Great article! I shared your message with my readers, and linked them here. Hope you don’t mind.

]]>