Its a little more than that. Amazon immediately pulled it and ebay stated they will start delisting auctions of the books. Sure, its not the government, but once big tech groups up to stomp something out it may as well be banned. I would be surprised if the hosting company pulls the plug on this site.
The estate requested that sales be ceased, in addition to their decision to stop publishing.
This was likely coordinated with requests to Amazon and other sellers/resellers to pull the books from their shelves/catalogs.
Having Amazon independently decide to stop selling a book is one thing, but it is not this - this the author's estate requesting that sales be stopped.
> The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner.
Yes, Amazon and Ebay are allowed to stop selling the book at the publisher's request, but they're not required to. This is voluntary action on their part.
I'd say: The First Sale principle says they can't ban you from selling it second-hand. It doesn't say that can't ask people to not do second-hand sales, nor that people can't choose to comply with that. And barring some other rule, "people" includes eBay here? (Are there examples of people successfully challenging eBay prohibitions? I would assume this has come up before in other contexts, which would give us hints)
Ebay is a company, they can choose to sell (or not) whatever they wish (within legal bounds).
That doesn't violate First Sale Principle, nobody is stopping you from selling the book, Ebay just doesn't want you to use its platform to do so - which is entirely in its rights. There's a large number of items which Ebay won't allow to be sold, including souls.[1]
And they reviewed the item and decided not to sell it any more. This sort of thing happens all the time. Dicks Sporting Goods decided not to sell guns. What if it?
Many things were auctioned on eBay that got pulled after review. Ie. someone tried to auction their kidney, driving bids up to 5 million dollars and still got pulled. Ebay should do whatever they see fit to improve their business.
Well there are two different arguments here. One is that eBay is free to take down whatever they want. That's true. The other is that a publisher can request that something be taken down in the used market, which I think isn't true, ...maybe?
Correct - the publisher does not have the power to stop used copies of their books being resold, as per first sale doctrine. You can definitely still sell or buy used copies, although one of your most convenient markets (eBay). But that's eBay's decision, they have the right to decide that.
The elephant in the room is the contradiction between laissez-faire, libertarian free market capitalism where everyone is free to enter into contracts or decline to do so, and de-facto monopolies where essential functions of society are taken over by monoliths.
"Consensual" collaborative actions by large market players have historically been heavily regulated. You're not typically allowed to telephone your biggest competitor and "politely request" that they double their prices, on the condition that you will do the same. That's because we recognize that there is simply a limited supply of competitors, and once a company gets big enough to throw its weight around it has a responsibility to be "fair".
>Having Amazon independently decide to stop selling a book is one thing, but it is not this - this the author's estate requesting that sales be stopped.
The latter point is irrelevant, thanks to the first sale doctrine. The publisher's opinion should hold no sway.
Little by little, they chip away at freedoms in pursuit of social justice, until we're left with neither freedom, nor social justice. How did a liberalism that was formerly staunchly pro-free-speech turn into such authoritarianism? It's not just any old authoritarianism, but the worst kind - mob-driven and accountable to no one.
This was the author's estate, not a publisher, and they made a request that was apparently granted. You're correct that due to First Sale Doctrine that by law the request didn't have to be granted, but Amazon and Ebay are free to make their own decisions.
As for your second statement, I don't understand it. What freedoms have been lost by this action? There was no change in law. And you can still go sell or buy the book on your own.
> BOSTON (AP) — Six Dr. Seuss books — including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” — will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said Tuesday.
> “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises told The Associated Press in a statement that coincided with the late author and illustrator’s birthday.
> “Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ catalog represents and supports all communities and families,” it said.
> The other books affected are “McElligot’s Pool,” “On Beyond Zebra!,” “Scrambled Eggs Super!,” and “The Cat’s Quizzer.”
> The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion, the company, which was founded by Seuss’ family, told AP.
(Emphasis mine)
