Consumption of copyright materials such as books music games has changed dramatically in
the internet age. We no more consume them as tangible goods. Instead we consume them as digital
goods which have characteristics different from tangible goods. The first sale doctrine in
copyright law has been applied to tangible copyright goods since it was codified in the United
States of America s Copyright Act of 1909. But due to the difference in the method of
consumption of copyright goods it is hard to apply the doctrine to digital ones. The question
whether it should be applied to digital goods gained prominence when Redigi a second hand
market place for digital copyright goods was sued by Capitol Records Inc. for infringing its
copyright. Is it appropriate to abrogate the doctrine when it comes to digital goods or whether
the doctrine should be applied irrespective of the method of consumption takes centre stage.
There are divergent views to this debate. In the European Union after the UsedSoft case the
view is generally more favourable towards the application of the doctrine to digital goods
whereas in the United States of America the view is more restrictive. But what copyright needs
is a harmony between the divergent views more favourably towards the views of the European
Union since there have been technological advancements that do replicate the transfer of
tangible goods in the digital domain. The doctrine of first sale is necessary in copyright law
irrespective of the method of consumption as it tends to achieve a dual purpose. The first is
public benefit. This it achieves by allowing more people to have access to literature and art.
The second is economic benefit. It increases the overall economic activity by creating a market
for second hand goods. But what should be kept in mind is that digital goods do have
characteristics that make them easy to copy and distribute which increases piracy. But should
the answer to the problem lie in abrogating the doctrine for digital goods or in technology
itself there will be a problem. This is because once the doctrine has been abrogated it will
be almost impossible to reintroduce it if and when technology should change and there rises a
need for the doctrine. But if you let the doctrine be as it is and let technology accommodate
the doctrine then it is much safer.
