Joey_sw wrote:

those 'copyright infringement' is false charges as theres no 'illegal duplication of the same goods' were take place in first pl […]
Show full quote

those 'copyright infringement' is false charges as theres no 'illegal duplication of the same goods'
were take place in first place, in that case.

it should be read as 'profits infringement' though,
the company coveting their own imaginary profits if those books were First-hand sales.

Seconded.

This is what I've been suspecting for a long time: that fair use-killing copyright laws like DMCA is not intended to stop copyright infringement, but to stop profit infringement instead. Duplicating copyright works without permission is copyright infringement, transferring them is not. Duplicating and distributing a game I own is copyright infringement, selling them in second-hand market is not. It may infringe the publisher's imaginary profits, but it is all legal and moral to do so. I fail to see any moral reason whatsoever why a company's profits should be protected by law.

Wonder what silderider would say about it.... 🙄