# First Sale Doctrine **URL:** \ **Category:** E-commerce Business Management\ **Tags:** first-sale-doctrine\ **Created:** [March 4, 2024, 6:45pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544 "2024-03-04T18:45:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/87869e/32.png) [@GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/GGX)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:28pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/1 "2024-03-04T18:28:20Z")
Right, on Amazon nowadays it’s a risky game if you’re not authorized by the brand. For people selling in their own private businesses the first sale doctrine gives them the right to resell whatever they want. That of course does not apply to Amazon or most other major platforms now. That’s the key point most “I watched youtube” sellers miss. Having the legal right to resell doesn’t mean you’re following the platform’s private rules. ---
**Author:** ![Pepper\_Thine\_Angus](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/pepper_thine_angus/32/56_2.png) [@Pepper\_Thine\_Angus](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/Pepper_Thine_Angus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:31pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/2 "2024-03-04T18:31:34Z")
> [@GGX](#): > > For people selling in their own private businesses the first sale doctrine gives them the right to resell whatever they want. Very very correct. > [@GGX](#): > > That of course does not apply to Amazon or most other major platforms now Legally it applies to NO OTHER platforms. 1st Sale does not dictate what you are allowed to do on private platforms or businesses owned by others. Only to your own business, and this is what people fail to learn when they scream 'BUT THE 1st SALE Doct!" > [@(PUBLIC) busts\_in\_silhouette Amazon consultant Ed Rosenberg bribery case updates](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/public-amazon-consultant-ed-rosenberg-bribery-case-updates/327/299): > > Items that are on sale will have a quantity limit. Correct There are still limits on some normal priced items I’ve seen recently. Nothing stupid, but like Limit 5 on a BBQ Grill ---
**Author:** ![GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/87869e/32.png) [@GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/GGX)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:32pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/3 "2024-03-04T18:32:22Z")
> [@Pepper\_Thine\_Angus](#): > > Legally it applies to NO OTHER platforms I said most because there’s some platforms that don’t give a crap what you do because they’re outside of US law. ---
**Author:** ![VTR](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/vtr/32/14279_2.png) [@VTR](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/VTR)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:45pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/4 "2024-03-04T18:45:13Z")
> [@GGX](#): > > For people selling in their own private businesses the first sale doctrine gives them the right to resell whatever they want. Nope… The days of the wild west of online selling are coming to an end, as are mom and pop stores with grey market goods. Thank (enter your preferred deity name here) it has finally started and the legal system is starting to pick the scabs off the marketplace. > **[First Sale Doctrine Fails to Free Unauthorized Online Retailer from...](https://natlawreview.com/article/first-sale-doctrine-fails-to-free-unauthorized-online-retailer-infringement-claims)** > > Many brands consider gray market goods sold on Amazon a perennial problem.  In Otter Products, LLC, et al. v. Triplenet Pricing, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted partial summary judgment in favor of the... ---
**Author:** ![GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/87869e/32.png) [@GGX](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/GGX)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:55pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/5 "2024-03-04T18:55:00Z")
That case is specifically because the warranty doesn’t apply if it’s an unauthorized seller, which makes it “materially different.” If the product has no warranty or something else that doesn’t apply when it’s purchased from an unauthorized source, there’s no real case. Also, you can always sell anything if you don’t falsely advertise that it’s “new with all warranties” ![image](https://sellersasksellers.com/uploads/default/original/2X/1/12d9b03e48bdfbe7f51c0f12fe006c5ff9f4362d.png) The primary dispute here is over the fact that Triplenet included the invalid warranty. ---
**Author:** ![Pepper\_Thine\_Angus](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/pepper_thine_angus/32/56_2.png) [@Pepper\_Thine\_Angus](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/Pepper_Thine_Angus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:58pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/6 "2024-03-04T18:58:06Z")
> [@GGX](#): > > The primary dispute here is over the fact that Triplenet included the invalid warranty. That’s just the only legal angle they could go after them for ---
**Author:** ![VTR](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/vtr/32/14279_2.png) [@VTR](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/VTR)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 7:17pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/7 "2024-03-04T19:17:30Z")
> [@GGX](#): > > The primary dispute here is over the fact that Triplenet included the invalid warranty. They also went after them for damage to the brand and associated dealer network and quality control. " Foremost, Otter established that it had legitimate quality control measures insofar as it allows its products to be sold to consumers only by it or authorized resellers.Additionally, Otter’s authorized resellers must follow detailed instructions on shipping, product inspection, removal and reporting of damaged goods, and product display. Otter established that its quality controls were not pretextual by producing evidence that, for example, it regularly audits its online authorized sellers’ websites and product listings. Moreover, the court found that Triplenet’s nonconforming sales **diminished the value of Otter’s trademarks because such sales interfered with Otter’s ability to ensure its products adhered to its quality standards.**" F all the amateur grey market trash. If a brand does not care and states as such to a seller that is one thing. To assume a seller can do it simply because inventory is available/accessible is not right, and I very much enjoy watching them burn for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![papy](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/papy/32/7639_2.png) [@papy](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/papy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 7:20pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/8 "2024-03-04T19:20:01Z")
#### [109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html) > **Full text** > > > [@](#): > > > > (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of [section 106(3)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under [section 104A](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104a) that are manufactured before the date of restoration of copyright or, with respect to reliance parties, before publication or service of notice under [section 104A(e)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104a), may be sold or otherwise disposed of without the authorization of the owner of the restored copyright for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage only during the 12-month period beginning on— > > (1) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of the notice of intent filed with the Copyright Office under [section 104A(d)(2)(A)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104a), or > > (2) the date of the receipt of actual notice served under [section 104A(d)(2)(B)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104a), whichever occurs first. > > > > (b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection. > > (B) This subsection does not apply to— > > (i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or > > (ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes. > > © Nothing in this subsection affects any provision of [chapter 9](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap9.html) of this title. > > (2)(A) Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. > > (B) Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, and at such times thereafter as the Register of Copyrights considers appropriate, the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with representatives of copyright owners and librarians, shall submit to the Con gress a report stating whether this paragraph has achieved its intended purpose of maintaining the integrity of the copyright system while providing nonprofit libraries the capability to fulfill their function. Such report shall advise the Con gress as to any information or recommendations that the Register of Copyrights considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection. > > (3) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any provision of the antitrust laws. For purposes of the preceding sentence, “antitrust laws” has the meaning given that term in the first section of the Clayton Act and includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that section relates to unfair methods of competition. > > (4) Any person who distributes a phonorecord or a copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) in violation of paragraph (1) is an infringer of copyright under [section 501](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501) of this title and is subject to the remedies set forth in sections [502](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#502), [503](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#503), [504](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504), and [505](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#505). Such violation shall not be a criminal offense under [section 506](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506) or cause such person to be subject to the criminal penalties set forth insection 2319 of title 18. > > > > © Notwithstanding the provisions of [section 106(5)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located. > > > > (d) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and © do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it. > > > > (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections [106(4)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106) and [106(5)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106), in the case of an electronic audiovisual game intended for use in coin-operated equipment, the owner of a particular copy of such a game lawfully made under this title, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner of the game, to publicly perform or display that game in coin-operated equipment, except that this subsection shall not apply to any work of authorship embodied in the audiovisual game if the copyright owner of the electronic audiovisual game is not also the copyright owner of the work of authorship. ---
**Author:** ![Dogtamer](https://sellersasksellers.com/user_avatar/sellersasksellers.com/dogtamer/32/4766_2.png) [@Dogtamer](https://sellersasksellers.com/u/Dogtamer)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 7:58pm UTC](https://sellersasksellers.com/t/first-sale-doctrine/3544/9 "2024-03-04T19:58:10Z")
> [@VTR](#): > > They also went after them for damage to the brand and associated dealer network and quality control. > … Yepper. Material Difference & Quality Control are the two exceptions to FSD that are currently prevailing as riding precedents in _stare decisis_. I once had a tutorial on this posted in several of the Vorys-bashing OSFE threads, but they are currently n/l/a beyond our own archives (@ least w/o a disclosure order, and/or some elevated skill in penetrating databases which are obscured by clouds).