"dsimcha" <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:guinsl$g7...@digitalmars.com... > == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article >> > (By the way, how do intellectual property freaks deal with this?) >> I've wondered that too. >> I suspect, in the case of books, they've either given up on it or never >> even >> thought about it. I mean, public libraries have been around a loooong >> time. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine > > Of course, the RIAA/MPAA fascists seem to be doing everything in their > power to > make sure nothing like a digital equivalent to the first sale doctrine > ever exists.
That just made me think of something that never really occurred to me before: For a long time now (before optical discs), recordings (definitely videos, not sure about music) have been sold (ermm, excuse me, *cough* "licensed" *cough*) with the license restriction of "not for public viewing" (or something along those lines). But I'm not aware of books having a similar thing. I admit I'm purely speculating here, but I could easily imagine that restriction as being intended as a way to get around the first sale doctrine enough to prohibit library use. Oh, also, a large portion of the videogame industry also belongs in your statement above about the RIAA/MPAA trying to prevent a digital equivalent of first sale doctrine. There are a number of big-name people in the games industry that fully believe in first sale doctrine for videogames, but most of the industry has been very visibly moving towards a model (DRMed digital distribution) that would enable them to eliminate the second-hand market (despite the fact that the sales fairly clearly indicate that consumers usually prefer a physical medium). But the real scary thing is that many of these people are completely open about their, in many cases, outright contempt for the second-hand market. (Although some of them are a bit more veiled about it, like Nintendo, but in those cases their actions make their stance pretty clear anyway.)
