Table of Contents
The First Sale Doctrine: Why You Can Resell a Book But Not a Digital Song
Comparing Kirtsaeng v. Wiley to Software Licensing
I. Introduction
The First Sale Doctrine is a cornerstone of American copyright law, enshrined in §109 of the U.S. Copyright Act. It limits the rights of copyright holders by permitting the lawful owner of a copyrighted work to resell, lend, or otherwise dispose of that particular copy without the copyright holder’s permission. This doctrine has underpinned practices such as used bookstores, video rentals, and libraries. However, the digital age has introduced formidable challenges to its scope and application.
While one may freely resell a physical book, the resale of a digital song or a piece of software is often prohibited under the guise of licensing. This essay examines the legal foundations and implications of this distinction by comparing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013) to the regime governing software licensing and digital distribution.
II. The First Sale Doctrine: Origins and Function
The First Sale Doctrine, rooted in principles of common law and formalized in American statutory law through 17 U.S.C. §109(a), embodies a critical balance between the rights of copyright holders and the liberties of purchasers. At its core, the doctrine holds that once a copyright owner consents to the initial sale or transfer of ownership of a particular copy of a protected work, their exclusive right to control the distribution of that particular copy is exhausted. This legal concept is also referred to as the “exhaustion doctrine” and applies specifically to the distribution right, not the rights of reproduction or public performance, which remain unaffected.
Historically, the First Sale Doctrine finds its origins in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908), a seminal Supreme Court decision. In that case, a publisher attempted to restrict the resale price of a book by including a notice within it stating that any retail price below $1.00 would constitute copyright infringement. The Court rejected this position, holding that copyright protection does not permit the holder to impose post-sale restrictions on the distribution of a lawfully sold copy. The reasoning articulated by the Court—that property rights in the copy pass to the purchaser—laid the groundwork for the codification of the doctrine in the 1976 Copyright Act.
The function of the First Sale Doctrine is twofold: legal and economic. Legally, it protects the autonomy of consumers by recognizing that ownership entails the freedom to alienate one’s property. Economically, it enables the formation of secondary markets, such as used bookstores, libraries, thrift shops, and lending services. These markets promote the circulation of cultural goods, expand access to information and education, and ensure that copyright does not unduly interfere with commerce and individual liberty.
A particularly vital distinction embedded in the doctrine is that between ownership and license. Ownership confers full dominion over the physical instantiation of the work—what is often called the “material object” in which the copyrighted expression is fixed. A lawful owner of a book, DVD, or CD can lend, resell, or even destroy that object without fear of infringing the copyright. Licensing, by contrast, often restricts such liberties. A licensee receives only a defined scope of use—typically non-transferable and time- or purpose-limited—without acquiring the property in the copy itself.
The delineation between ownership and access has become increasingly relevant—and problematic—with the digitization of media. Physical copies are increasingly replaced by digital downloads, streams, and cloud-based services, most of which operate under license agreements. These agreements, frequently drafted unilaterally by copyright holders, purport to deny the consumer any real ownership, despite what appears to be a sale. Even a one-time payment that grants perpetual access to a digital file is typically framed as a license, not a sale.
This shift has led to a growing disparity in consumer rights. For example, one may buy a printed book and sell it on a second-hand market; however, a digital eBook, even if similarly priced and formatted, cannot be legally resold or given away, as the user never truly “owns” the copy. The rationale offered by copyright holders is rooted in the ease of duplication and the difficulty of controlling redistribution in the digital context. Yet this functional difference challenges the coherence of the legal framework: it raises normative questions about fairness, consumer expectations, and the erosion of ownership culture in favor of conditional, revocable access.
Moreover, the digital context blurs the boundaries between distribution and reproduction. While a physical book changes hands without creating a new copy, the transfer of a digital file inherently involves the making of a copy—one on the recipient’s device, and potentially one retained by the sender. This technical reality has been leveraged by courts and content owners to sidestep the First Sale Doctrine altogether.
In conclusion, while the First Sale Doctrine was designed to promote the free circulation of lawfully acquired goods, to empower consumers, and to prevent perpetual monopolistic control by copyright owners, its effectiveness is diminishing in the face of technological change. Its traditional safeguards are circumvented by licensing practices, particularly in the digital domain, creating an environment in which the public’s historic rights to transfer and share lawfully acquired content are significantly curtailed. This doctrinal shift invites a reconsideration of the scope and applicability of §109 in a world increasingly defined by immaterial content and restrictive contractual terms.
III. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: A Landmark Affirmation
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), stands as a pivotal affirmation of the First Sale Doctrine’s breadth, particularly regarding its geographic scope. At its core, the case addressed whether the exhaustion of distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. §109(a) applies to copyrighted works lawfully manufactured outside the United States.
Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai national studying in the United States, had family members purchase legally printed foreign editions of Wiley textbooks in Thailand, which he then imported and resold in the U.S. market at a profit. These foreign editions were often significantly cheaper than their U.S. counterparts, although they were produced under lawful license by Wiley’s Asian subsidiary. Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, asserting that the First Sale Doctrine did not apply because the books were made abroad and thus were not “lawfully made under this title”—that is, under U.S. copyright law.
The legal question before the Court was whether §109(a) applied only to copies made within the territorial United States, or whether it also included works lawfully made abroad with the copyright holder’s authorization. The ambiguity stemmed from the phrase “lawfully made under this title,” which Wiley interpreted narrowly to mean domestically produced copies.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court rejected Wiley’s position. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer reasoned that a geographic limitation would have significant and unjustified consequences for commerce, education, and cultural exchange. He emphasized that such a reading would bar the resale of a wide array of foreign-made goods containing copyrighted elements—books, CDs, DVDs, artwork, and even electronics with embedded software.
Justice Breyer underscored the First Sale Doctrine’s historical function as a bulwark against perpetual control by copyright holders. He invoked the doctrine’s common law roots in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus and reaffirmed its role in protecting consumer ownership and enabling robust secondary markets. In his interpretation, the phrase “lawfully made under this title” must include foreign-manufactured works made with the copyright owner’s authorization, because they are lawfully produced and not pirated or counterfeit. Thus, once Wiley sold those copies—even abroad—their distribution right was exhausted.
Justice Ginsburg, writing in dissent, expressed concern about undermining territorial rights and international copyright arrangements. She favored a more restrictive interpretation that would preserve the copyright holder’s power to segment markets geographically.
The majority’s decision in Kirtsaeng has far-reaching implications. It firmly anchors the First Sale Doctrine in the notion of lawful ownership, rather than territoriality. It prevents copyright holders from using the place of manufacture as a legal loophole to circumvent exhaustion and impose ongoing distribution restrictions. It also affirms the legitimacy of importing and reselling lawful copies, thereby reinforcing the legal infrastructure of international secondary markets.
However, while Kirtsaeng robustly defends consumer rights in the context of physical goods, it does not extend to the digital realm. Digital goods, such as eBooks, software, and music files, are generally not sold outright but licensed, often with contractual terms that prohibit transfer. Courts have consistently upheld these license-based restrictions, distinguishing them from the type of sales that trigger the First Sale Doctrine. Moreover, the technical process of “reselling” a digital good often involves reproduction—creating a new copy—which falls outside the protection of §109 and implicates the copyright owner’s exclusive right under §106(1).
Thus, Kirtsaeng reveals a paradox in modern copyright law: the law grants more robust rights to consumers of physical goods than to those who purchase digital equivalents. This doctrinal asymmetry underscores the growing divergence between legal ownership and digital access. While the Court in Kirtsaeng championed the free flow of physical goods, that logic has not been carried into the virtual marketplace, where licensing regimes continue to dominate.
In conclusion, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley reaffirmed the principle that copyright law should not serve as a tool of market control beyond the first sale. It protected consumers from being bound by geographically segmented pricing models and recognized the exhaustion of rights in lawfully produced foreign goods. Nevertheless, its impact is largely confined to the tangible world. As digital content continues to eclipse physical media, the challenge remains: can—or should—the First Sale Doctrine be adapted to preserve similar freedoms in the digital environment?
IV. Digital Goods and Software Licensing: A Legal Grey Zone
Unlike physical books, most digital songs and software programs are distributed not through sales, but through licenses. This distinction is critical. In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. (2010), the Ninth Circuit held that the First Sale Doctrine does not apply where the copyright holder grants only a license and retains restrictions on use, transfer, or duplication. In this case, Vernor purchased second-hand copies of Autodesk’s AutoCAD software and resold them on eBay. Autodesk sued, claiming the software had only been licensed, not sold, and thus the doctrine did not apply.
The court sided with Autodesk, establishing a tri-partite test to determine whether a transaction is a license or a sale:
- Does the copyright owner specify that a license is being granted?
- Are restrictions imposed on the transferee’s ability to transfer the work?
- Does the copyright owner retain control over the work?
In most digital transactions—iTunes downloads, Spotify streaming, software installations—the answer to all three is “yes.” These digital products are typically governed by End User License Agreements (EULAs), which reinforce the licensing framework and preclude resale.
V. The Functional Distinction: Tangibility, Transferability, and Control
At the heart of the legal and philosophical divide between physical and digital goods lies a crucial functional distinction: tangibility. A physical book, vinyl record, or compact disc is an object embedded in material reality. When ownership of such an item is transferred, what occurs is a zero-sum transaction—the original owner relinquishes possession, and no additional copy is created. Thus, the resale of a physical item involves no act of reproduction, only the lawful transfer of an existing embodiment of a copyrighted work. This act falls squarely within the protections of the First Sale Doctrine under 17 U.S.C. §109(a).
In contrast, the transfer of a digital good—whether an MP3 file, an eBook, or software—typically involves the duplication of data. Even if the seller deletes their own copy, courts and copyright holders emphasize that the transfer inherently requires the creation of a new copy on the recipient’s device or server. This act implicates the reproduction right under §106(1), which is not extinguished by a prior sale or license. As such, digital “resale” becomes not merely a transfer but a legally significant act of copying, thereby escaping the scope of exhaustion.
This distinction is not merely technical; it reflects the core structure of copyright law, which separates the right of distribution from the right of reproduction. The First Sale Doctrine was designed to limit only the former. When digital transfers are recharacterized as implicating reproduction, they effectively fall outside the doctrine’s protective shield—regardless of consumer expectations of ownership.
Moreover, licensors of digital content—publishers, software developers, and streaming platforms—have an additional incentive to maintain this distinction. They argue that permitting digital resale would facilitate piracy and destabilize pricing structures. Unlike a used paperback, which might be dog-eared, annotated, or discolored, a “used” digital file is perfectly replicable, indistinguishable from the original. This disrupts the fundamental economic logic of a secondary market, which depends on the idea of degraded value and market segmentation.
For this reason, digital content distributors have largely adopted licensing regimes, often presented through shrink-wrap or clickwrap agreements, which explicitly deny ownership to the end-user. The consumer receives a non-transferable, non-exclusive, and often revocable license to access or use the content under specific terms. These licenses often survive even if a payment is made up front—thus transforming what appears to be a sale into a legal fiction of temporary access. Courts have generally upheld these licenses, as seen in cases like Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. (2010), where the Ninth Circuit concluded that software users were licensees, not owners, and thus not entitled to invoke the First Sale Doctrine.
However, this legal formalism invites criticism. Scholars, consumer advocates, and civil liberties groups argue that the license model erodes traditional ownership rights, reducing the consumer to a perpetual renter in a digital marketplace dominated by terms-of-service agreements rather than property law. This shift has profound implications. First, it undermines personal autonomy by prohibiting sharing, lending, and resale. Second, it consolidates power in the hands of content owners and intermediaries, who can control access, revoke permissions, or modify terms unilaterally. Third, it reshapes the market landscape by eliminating secondary markets, which historically served not only as avenues for affordability but also as mechanisms of democratic access to knowledge and culture.
From a broader perspective, this functional distinction reveals a philosophical tension between copyright as a vehicle of control and ownership as a mode of liberty. In the analog world, ownership conferred freedom—the freedom to lend, to donate, to resell. In the digital world, ownership has become conditional, revocable, and monitored. The transformation is not merely economic but ontological: it affects how individuals relate to their possessions, how they engage with cultural artifacts, and how knowledge circulates in society.
In light of these tensions, some scholars and policymakers have called for a “digital first sale” doctrine—a legal adaptation that would allow controlled transfer of digital goods, perhaps through certified deletion or blockchain-based verification systems. Others propose greater consumer protection laws that would mandate transparency and fairness in licensing terms. Still others advocate for user-centric copyright reform, one that rebalances the asymmetries between authors, distributors, and consumers.
In conclusion, the tangibility of physical goods grounds the traditional logic of the First Sale Doctrine in a world of finite, ownable objects. The intangibility and replicability of digital goods disrupt this framework, enabling licensors to assert continuous control while denying users the rights historically associated with ownership. This functional distinction is not merely a matter of legal classification—it is a reflection of broader transformations in property, market structure, and cultural access in the digital age.
VI. Policy and Reform Debates
Legal scholars and policymakers have long debated whether the First Sale Doctrine should be extended to the digital domain. The European Court of Justice, in UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. (2012), held that under certain conditions, the resale of downloaded software is permissible under the EU’s exhaustion doctrine, even if governed by a license. This suggests a more consumer-friendly approach that emphasizes function over form.
In the U.S., however, legislative and judicial inertia persists. Courts tend to uphold licensing agreements, viewing them as consensual contracts. Efforts to reinterpret or expand §109 to cover digital media face resistance from powerful content industries.
Nevertheless, some propose a “digital first sale” doctrine, possibly involving technological safeguards (e.g., deletion of original copies upon resale). This would restore balance between copyright protection and the rights of lawful purchasers in the digital age.
VII. Conclusion
The First Sale Doctrine reflects a fundamental principle of ownership in copyright law: once a lawful sale occurs, the buyer has the right to dispose of the copy as they see fit. Kirtsaeng v. Wiley reaffirmed this for physical goods, strengthening the doctrine’s cross-border applicability. Yet, in the digital realm, the dominance of licensing has marginalized this doctrine, effectively excluding digital goods from its protective ambit. As technology evolves and the line between access and ownership blurs, the law must reconcile these tensions or risk eroding the rights of consumers and the very balance copyright law was designed to uphold.
0 Comments