The EULA trap: what 'buying' digital media actually means

A paperback and an ebook of the same novel, bought the same day, for similar money. The paperback you can resell, lend, donate, or leave to your kids. The ebook can be remotely deleted by the retailer — it has happened, famously, with the ebook of 1984 itself. Why do two purchases of the same work carry completely different rights?

First sale: the doctrine that makes ownership real

US copyright law's first-sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. §109) says that once a copy of a work is lawfully sold, the copyright holder's control over that particular copy ends. That's the legal foundation of used bookstores, video rental, game trade-ins, and libraries.

The catch is in the word sold. First sale attaches to copies you own. If the transaction is structured as a license, courts — most influentially in Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir. 2010) — look at whether the agreement says it's a license, restricts transfer, and imposes use restrictions. Digital storefront agreements are drafted to check all three boxes. Result: no ownership, no first sale, no resale, no lending, no inheritance.

The trap, step by step

1. The button says "Buy." The marketing language is the language of ownership, priced accordingly.
2. The agreement says "license." The click-through contract — which virtually no one reads, and courts routinely enforce anyway — defines the transaction as a limited, revocable, non-transferable license.
3. The technology enforces the agreement. DRM ties the content to your account and the vendor's authorization servers. The practical ability to keep what you bought depends on infrastructure the vendor can turn off.
4. The remedies are whatever the vendor chooses. When access ends, some platforms refund everything, and some refund nothing. The difference is corporate discretion, not consumer right — the incidents in our database show the full range.

Each step is individually legal. The trap is the combination: ownership pricing and ownership language attached to a rental's legal substance.

Where the pressure points are

Truth in advertising. California's AB 2426 attacks step 1: if it's a license, say so at checkout. See what AB 2426 changed.

Restitution mandates. No US law yet requires refunds at revocation (step 4). Platform precedents — full refunds at some platform shutdowns — prove it's operationally feasible.

Continuity requirements. The EU citizens' initiative behind Stop Killing Games pushes publishers to leave games in a working state at end-of-life. A US state could require an end-of-life plan as a condition of selling always-online products.

Actual ownership channels. DRM-free storefronts sell downloads you keep. Where a DRM-free option exists, it's the only "buy" button whose plain meaning is true.

The bottom line

"Buying" digital media means paying sale prices for rental rights, under a contract you didn't negotiate, enforced by technology you don't control. The fix isn't complicated — disclose the license, refund revocations, require end-of-life plans — but it requires legislation. Check your state's protections, then do something about it.