[strken]

The question at hand is whether, when a creator exercises their right to refuse to sell their work, those who can no longer buy it have the right to copy and distribute the work.

It seems obvious that you can refuse to sell your work, but if you don't exercise an exclusive right to distribute content, should you lose that exclusivity?

[TylerE]

Absolutely not.

I don't understand why this is controversial.

Say you release a volume of experimental poetry, in a small print run of 100 copies.

You decline to do any further printing.

Should anyone who wants just be able to make bootleg copies?

[erik_seaberg]

Why should we stop them? If you demanded to buy back those 100 copies and burn them, we wouldn't even consider enforcing that.

[enneff]

Because if people simply are allowed to make bootleg copies of limited edition things, then the limited editions become a meaningless concept, _undermining_ the creator's business model.

[TylerE]

Because the creator has rights?

[detaro]

That's a circular argument if the parent asks "why should the creator have that right?"

[TylerE]

Because they’re the creator and not some random internet punk?