Why is it legal to buy and sell used books/discs but illegal to buy and sell used digital files?

In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.

I don't personally agree with this view, but I believe that's the argument.

There's a few things about this

1. Many times you don't own the digital good, you subscribe to it. No I'm not joking, that's why services can usually take it away at any time. You normally own "a licence to play it on a single PC" or similar.
2. This isnt apples to oranges per se. Selling digital goods is fine, it's copying it. Similar to how photocopying a book and selling it would not be okay.
3. It's important to note there is a narrative push by companies too. They spend lots of money putting videos on every DVD saying "downloading is stealing" because if society thinks piracy and stealing is the same, it helps them litigate and make more money.
4. Your idea of a lost sale is a hard one, from a media company point of view, it's about making money. So if you can make people believe "a download is a lost sale" or "sharing a digital file is a lot sale" etc, then you can use that to sue individuals, isps, sharing sites, search engines etc and make more and more money while also having more power over your product.

There is no difference, they just want you to believe there is a difference.

Cos if you believe it then they can make more money.

The point: GREED that's the difference.

Because the book and disc guys couldn't figure out a way to stop you back then.

Nowadays college books have one time codes for tests, and games will sometimes have codes included for inportant unlocks to force used purchasers to pay up.

One thing to keep in mind that may be relevant: copies of non-digital things are different than digital copies.

Digital (meant here as bit-for-bit) copies are effectively impossible with analog media. If I copy a book (the whole book, its layout, etc., and not just the linguistic content), it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn't true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.

If it sounds like an infinite money glitch on the digital side, that's because it is. The only catch is that people have to own equipment to interpret the bits. Realistically, any form of digital media is just a record of how to set the bits on their own hardware.

Crucially: if people could resell those perfect digital copies, then there would be no market for the company which created it originally. It all comes down to the fact that companies no longer have to worry about generational differences between copies, and as a result, they're already using this "infinite money glitch" and just paying for distribution. That market goes away if people can resell digital copies, because they can also just make new copies on their own.

Because 🤡

(there is no actual reason)

Physical media doesn't have the luxury of endlessly replicating itself via a simple copy and paste.

If they could, they would. Laws aren't passed because it makes sense, but because they benefit the rich.

Logically yes, downloading or a sharing a digital file is a "lost sale" - but as Aaron Swartz said - "lost sales" are also caused by Earthquakes, Libraries/DVD Rentals, Negative Yelp reviews, Market Competitors, and so on. Why just blame it on file sharing...

Legally speaking you don't own the digital files, you have a license but you don't actually own it.

It's in the name. Copyright. As in, the right to make a copy.

It's perfectly legal to sell a digital good as long as you don't retain it as well.
It's illegal to make a copy of a book and then sell that copy.

From probably the most biased source possible: https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/limitations-on-a-copyright-owners-rights/first-sale-exceptions-copyright/

As they point out, most digital works are licensed, not sold, so there are terms and conditions associated with how you can use them.

So it's perfectly consistent, just grossly out of date for it's intended purpose of "make sure writers can make money selling their books without worrying that getting copies made will be pointless because someone else will undercut them and leave them with 1000 prepaid copies of their book that everyone bought cheaper".

We should have a system that preserves that original intent of "creators get compensated", without it turning into our culture gets owned by some random company for more than a lifetime.

Its legal in the EU. You can sell your windows key for example, despite the windows eula disallowing it

Permanently Deleted

Because companies have money, and money makes laws.

Both require a license and that license is revocable in both cases. It's pretty much impossible to enforce the legal use of physical media, so they don't. Rather, they go after those making copies.

If you ever want to REALLY own your media, make sure it is physical.

It's not? I see digital files being bought and sold all over the place. 3rd party key retailers and even the digital goods earned within games themselves. It's only illegal for you to copy and sell copies of digital goods. If you have a way to sell the original thing and no longer have access to it, it's perfectly legal. It's just not many things let you do that.

Usually, when the question is "why is copyright restrictive in these evil and/or dumb ways" the safe bet is that the the answer is "Disney."

Because they somehow don't consider that someone could have copied the books or discs before reselling them, but it immediately comes to their mind with digital copies riddled with DRMs

Because lawyers, accountants and MBAs making policy for things they don't understand.

The legalese in the US (which might as well be everywhere as you need to have compatible copyright with the US to have a trade deal with the US, and your country is in trouble if it doesn't have a trade deal with the US) is basically that:

• If you buy a physical copy, you've become the owner of that one copy of the IP contained within. As the owner of that copy, you can do stuff with it like read it, display it, destroy it, or sell it on to someone else thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (but you can't do other things like copying it, unless it's a DVD as there's a specific exemption for the copy your DVD has to make to RAM in order to decode the DVD). There's nothing the copyright holder of the original can do to stop you exercising these rights.
• If you buy a digital 'copy', you've not bought a copy, you've bought a licence to use one of the publisher's copies that they've given you permission to have on your device(s). They'll also have given you permission to do things like read it if it's an ebook or play it if it's a video game, but as it's their copy, not yours, you don't automatically get rights to do anything they've not explicitly permitted you to, and it's not in their interests to permit you to sell it on unless they think you'll pay enough more for a resaleable copy that it covers a potential future lost sale.

I'm sure plenty of publishers would love for the second set of rules to apply to things like books, and from a quick googling, it seems like occasionally academic textbooks have included a licence agreement instead of you actually owning the physical book, but I imagine that most publishers are concerned about bad PR from attempting this with a hit novel and also don't want to be accused of fraud for having their not-a-book-just-a-licence on the shelf next to regular books and thereby tricking consumers into thinking they were buying a regular book. EA attempted to double-dip over a decade ago with Battlefield 3, which included a copy of the game (with regular First Sale Doctrine rights) and a licence key for the online pass (which wasn't transferrable) and got bad press because of it. Newer PC games often come as a key in a box with no disk or a disk that only runs a web installer, so you've not got a copy of the game to claim you've bought and obviously only have a licence, and this seems to have caused less upset. This wouldn't work with a book, though, as you have to fill in the pages at the printing factory, and can't magically do it only after the user's got it home.

bourgeoisie lobby in the State

Pretty sure they tried to prevent the sharing and reselling of CDs at one point.

“Reasons”

The theory probably revolves around there not being a transfer of the file as much as a copy paste of it.

Physical media can be copied but you need blank physical media to copy it to, in a purely digital eco system both the buyer and seller end up being able to have copies of the sold product, which effectively treats the seller as if they are a vendor of the product being sold.

Basically in a world built on copyright law, being able to buy and sell digital media the same as physical media looks a lot like someone scalping the original product to cut into the maker's bottom line. Megacorps eating it is pretty dope but it significantly diminishes an individual developer's ability to profit off their own work as well, especially when software development already encourages so much copy pasting to make software that should be working into software that is working.

Because you rent them and not own them. It's also illegal to sell a book that you rented from the library. Or get a dvd from the library and then copy it. It's a measure they put into place so you're not allowed to duplicate the thing. Hence they don't grant you the same kind of ownership you'd have over a physical item.

Is it actually illegal? Has anyone in the US ever been charged for selling digital software they had legally acquired?

I believe selling and sharing ebooks is illegal too. So digital and physical contents is different

Under US law (I see someone else posted about EU law):

Physical property has a long tradition of legal rights that are a part of ownership. There's a thing called "right of first sale" that means you have the right to sell an object that you own. This legal framework falls under property law, even if the media on the disc is also governed by copyright law. In this case, property law is inviolate - it trumps copyright law.

Digital files are instead governed only by copyright law. Further, media companies could not modify copyright law fast enough to keep up with the digital revolution, so more than copyright, digital files are controlled by digital rights management (DRM) code, and contract law (the long TOS when you access a service or site).

The contract law in the TOS, and code in the DRM, do two things: they force a digital file owner to treat it as a "license," and give media company the ability to severely restrict use after the purchase.

So basically, when you buy a disc, you are simply getting a lot more rights to use that content. You literally own the copy.

This is why media companies are doing everything that they can to switch customers over to streaming services and stop selling physical content. It's also why it's a literal lie when you are told you can "buy" digital copies that have DRM, because those companies will simultaneously charge you the higher "purchase" price and deny you ownership rights as if you bought a disc.

This may be a dumb question, but why can't crypto something or an NFT be imprinted on my copy of the album/picture/whatever so I could sell it and lose my access? It's this a function of no standardized marketplace for digital goods and services?

Y'all don't really give a fuck about the actual musicians, do you.