First Sale Doctrine Digital

The cluster discusses whether the First Sale Doctrine applies to digital goods like software, movies, and games, debating ownership versus licensing and the inability to resell digital purchases due to EULAs and TOS.

📉 Falling 0.3x Legal
4,090
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#6810
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
7
2008
11
2009
70
2010
120
2011
143
2012
275
2013
213
2014
112
2015
113
2016
139
2017
192
2018
209
2019
247
2020
322
2021
343
2022
475
2023
491
2024
347
2025
249
2026
12

Keywords

e.g US DVD CD UI TOS FSF UMG tomshardware.com E.g doctrine sale license rights digital buy copy legal resell copyright

Sample Comments

dannyw Dec 1, 2020 View on HN

You’re describing the first sale doctrine. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply to digital licenses; at least not today.

jacquesm Jun 28, 2017 View on HN

No. First Sale Doctrine:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

icebraining Dec 1, 2018 View on HN

He can, he just can't make copies of them. It's like selling an used book.In the US, it's called the First-sale doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

ChrisLomont Jun 30, 2019 View on HN

The right sale doctrine doesn’t apply to products like these; these are licenses to use. If they were first sale doctrine products, you could sell your goods on secondary markets, which you cannot.

ballenf Aug 15, 2025 View on HN

Wouldn't the first sale doctrine override such terms in most cases?

dylan604 Dec 9, 2018 View on HN

You can disagree with me, but the legal aspect is still the same. You owned the physical delivery mechanism, and the single use license that delivery mechanism represented. Sure, you could sell that, but the point is still the same in that you never owned the content, legally speaking.

from-nibly Dec 7, 2023 View on HN

digital ownership is the wrong way to put that. This is digital leasing/licensing. The real crime is the false advertising where they say you are buying a copy of something, or even the licensing rights to view it. You are really buying the licensing rights to view it on their platform if they feel like it.

beltsazar Dec 6, 2023 View on HN

Many don't realize that when you buy anything digital, you don't "own" it—what you actually buy is a license to access the content, which can be revoked at any time and for any reason. When that happens, you can't really sue them because there must be a clause in the ToS, that you've agreed on, that covers it. For most media, the only way to "own" it digitally is, unfortunately, by piracy.

amelius Sep 12, 2018 View on HN

Well, there's one thing that could show the difference. If it's a true "purchase" then the first-sale doctrine, [1], should hold, which limits the rights of the copyright owner.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

sneak Apr 25, 2021 View on HN

All these "stores" have the same wording in their TOS: "this content is licensed, not sold", et c. They all use the terms "buy", "sale", "purchases", "owned", and other similar words in the UI. There's a clear contradiction here, and they shouldn't get it both ways.It's very obvious (to those who know how FAANG walled gardens work) that it's a rental and contingent upon them not evaporating your account for some