Trio Of Important First Sale Cases All Hit Appeals Court In Early June

from the it's-first-sale-month dept

Zusha Elinson has noted that a trio of important cases concerning the "first sale doctrine" in copyright law will all be heard on appeal in the (at times wacky) 9th Circuit in early June. We've written about all three cases here before. There's UMG v. Augusto, which questions whether or not it's legal to resell "promo CDs" that record labels stamp "not for resale." In that case, the judge ruled that reselling was perfectly fine, and preventing such sales was a violation of the first sale doctrine (and would, effectively, give record labels a way of creating perpetual and all-controlling copyright, if the decision went the other way). Then there's Autodesk v. Vernor, similarly involving the right to resell software. Again, the district court ruled that this was allowed, noting that software is really sold, not (as Autodesk claimed) just licensed.

The third case is the troubling one. MDY v. Blizzard is the one case that went the other way, in a ruling that left many copyright experts scratching their heads, noting that it seemed to go against everything that the first sale doctrine stood for -- and that nothing the guy did (he made a bot that worked in World of Warcraft) actually violated copyright law.

Hopefully, the appeals court upholds the first two cases and reverses the third... but these days, you never know how courts are going to rule on these sorts of issues. And, the 9th Circuit is often notoriously... weird in some of its rulings. Either way, these are three cases worth watching, as they could have a pretty big impact on the question of whether or not you have the right to do what you want with products you bought.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: augusto, copyright, first sale, mdy, vernor
Companies: autodesk, blizzard, umg

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Nick Coghlan (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:47am

    The 3rd case is not the same, but should still be reversed on appeal

    I agree the third situation is somewhat different from the first two, but I also believe the decision in that case should still be reversed.

    The problem is that Blizzard can ban bots in their Terms of Service and cancel people's account if they catch them using a bot. That's all fine and well within Blizzard's rights (and as a WoW player, hooray for them doing it - bots can seriously mess up server economies).

    What Blizzard have done in this third case, however, is to go after the *maker* of one of the bot programs and attempt to use copyright law to get the bot program *itself* declared illegal.

    That's an abuse of copyright law, and the courts shouldn't allow it. Sure, the bot maker is creating a tool that has the sole purpose of helping people to violate Blizzard's Terms of Service in WoW, but that isn't illegal as things currently stand. If Blizzard would like it to be illegal, then they should be lobbying the legislative branch rather than persuading the judicial branch to get creative in interpreting the law.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.