Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT 5.4

Two Supreme Court decisions, over a century apart, established and later affirmed the legal framework for video rental stores and secondary markets for copyrighted goods: *Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus* and *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc*. The first case, *Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus*, was decided unanimously in 1908 [1]. The core question was whether a copyright holder could control a book's resale price after its initial sale. The Court established the "first sale" doctrine, ruling that the copyright owner's exclusive right to vend a work is exhausted after the first sale of a particular copy. The new owner is then free to resell or otherwise dispose of that copy as they see fit [2]. This principle became the legal bedrock for the video rental industry; stores could purchase a videotape from a studio (the "first sale") and then legally rent that specific copy to customers without further permission or payment to the copyright holder [3]. The second case, *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, was decided in 2013 with a 6-3 vote [4]. The dispute centered on whether the first sale doctrine applied to copyrighted goods lawfully manufactured and sold abroad and then imported into the U.S. The Court affirmed that it did, interpreting the phrase "lawfully made under this title" in copyright law as having no geographic limitation [5]. This ruling was a major victory for modern resale markets like eBay and used-book sellers, as it protected their ability to trade in legitimate copyrighted products sourced from overseas, reinforcing the rights of ownership over physical goods in a globalized economy [4, 6]. ## References [1] Justia. (n.d.). *Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)*. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/210/339/ [2] Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2018). *Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright (2nd ed.)*. University of Chicago Press. [3] Post, D. (2013, March 29). *How the Supreme Court Saved the First-Sale Doctrine*. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidpost/2013/03/29/how-the-supreme-court-saved-the-first-sale-doctrine/ [4] Liptak, A. (2013, March 19). *Supreme Court Protects Resale of Copyrighted Imports*. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/global/supreme-court-sides-with-student-in-copyright-case.html [5] Supreme Court of the United States. (2013). *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519*. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf [6] Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). *First Sale*. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/issues/first-sale

The two decisions were **Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.** (1984) and **Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.** (2013). **Sony** was decided **5–4**; **Kirtsaeng** was decided **6–3**.[1][2] In **Sony**, the core question was whether selling the Betamax VCR made Sony contributorily liable for users’ home recording of broadcast television.[1] The Court held that private, noncommercial “time-shifting” of free over-the-air broadcasts could be fair use, and that distributing a device with substantial noninfringing uses was not contributory infringement.[1] Although not a first-sale case in the narrow sense, the ruling created the legal space for lawful home videotaping and a consumer market for prerecorded cassettes. That, in turn, supported the rise of video rental stores, because once studios sold authorized copies into commerce, retailers could buy those copies and rent them under the first-sale principle without needing a separate rental license.[3] In **Kirtsaeng**, the question was whether copyright owners could use §109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine to block resale in the United States of copies lawfully made and sold abroad.[2] The Court interpreted “lawfully made under this title” to include copies made overseas with the copyright owner’s authorization, so the owner’s distribution right was exhausted after the first authorized sale.[2] That ruling strengthened secondary markets by confirming that lawful purchasers may resell imported books and other goods without permission. Economically, **Sony** underwrote the home-video ecosystem that video stores depended on, while **Kirtsaeng** protected broader resale businesses—used books, gray-market goods, libraries, and thrift retailers—against copyright-based restraints on downstream sales.[2][3] ## References [1] Oyez, “Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/81-1687 [2] Oyez, “Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-697 [3] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “First Sale Doctrine.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_sale_doctrine