• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      What law?
      The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren’t sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it’s use, and you can’t sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.

      I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 minutes ago

        The law you linked is 100 years old

        Laws don’t expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?

        Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn’t ruled until 2018.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.

        because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)

        You aren’t necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.

        The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn’t necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn’t a law. That’s why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.