[kefka]

>The only form of "DRM" I don't mind are the e-book stores that provide you with a personalised copy that includes my name/e-mail, but otherwise leaves the book unprotected.

And that also implies that you give up right of resale.

I can sell a physical book after I have it. I can choose to write my name in there... Or not. Having my name plastered as you indicate is OK, means giving up my own guaranteed rights of resale.

[PhasmaFelis]

I feel like right-of-resale is legitimately complicated for digital products. The right to resell a physical object doesn't give you the right to mass-produce it, but for digital products the two processes are identical.

[comex]

Not really. You can still legally sell a physical book if you've written your name in (if the buyer doesn't mind), and you can always remove your name from a non-DRMed eBook (though there may be more subtle forms of tracking left in).

The first sale doctrine is a legal matter, and unfortunately in the US it's been found essentially inapplicable to digital copies [1] whether there's a watermark or not. In other jurisdictions it may be applicable, but again probably regardless of the presence of a watermark.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi....

[vidarh]

That's fine with me - I never resell my books.

But yes, you need to keep it mind.

[JoshTriplett]

> And that also implies that you give up right of resale.

I'd love to see that tested.

[z3t4]

is it not the copyright owners right to allow others to resell or not!?

[Silhouette]

That certainly wasn't the original intent of copyright law, and in most places it wouldn't be the default position. Copyright is normally about controlling the making of new copies, not retaining control over an existing one after sale. The difficulty is that copyright law has been extended in various ways over the years.

Some of those extensions might seem reasonable and in the spirit of the original law. For example, in some places buying a single private copy of a movie on DVD doesn't give you a legal right to show that work, for money, to the general public, even if it's still your physical DVD in the player.

Other extensions in the scope of copyright protection have been much more dubious. For example, just about anything in the digital world tends to be vulnerable to arguments about making copies in a computer's RAM while you're running the software, playing the movie, listening to the song, or whatever it might be. Some horrible law has been made in some places using this kind of argument, even though it's totally distorting the spirit of the original copyright principle since you're only enjoying the copy you lawfully possess and not really making further copies to redistribute to anyone else. Trying to limit resale rights is another hot topic.

Some places have rather more sane laws in these respects, and even some reasonable discussions among the governing and lawyerly classes about how digital works should be handled in the modern age and how to balance the intended protection of creators with the legitimate right for customers to enjoy what they paid for. But there is still a long way to go even in the more enlightened legal environments today, and plenty of first world countries are far behind in their thinking so far.

[kefka]

I absolutely have the right to buy a copy , watch it/read it, and sell it to someone else. First sale doctrine states that.

I don't have the right to make and sell copies. I do certainly have that right for the original.

[6stringmerc]

Part of the issue with this case, to me, is that the standing for bunnie does not adequately describe what is believed to be "paid for" content. As in, there is no differentiation between a streamed license or a purchased 'copy' in technical terms. To me this is a very important sticking point, legally, simply considering the nature of modern commerce.

[michaelmrose]

With physical items it most certainly is not on principal a digital item ought to be the same however I don't know how you enable that without drm.

Maybe the inherently absurd situation is best resolved by giving up the absurd notion of artificial scarcity.