Contracts and copyright

Mark Lemley wrote:
>
> If we let them [copyright owners] avoid copyright law by contract,
> what is the point of having copyright rules such as fair use, first
> sale, etc. in the first place? Are all copyright statutes just
> default rules to be applied in the unlikely case that the copyright
> owner does not require buyers to sign a contract?

Buford Terrell wrote:
>
> On a more technical ground, contract law is probably preempted if
> it tries to create greater rights in the copyright holder or decrease
> the rights of the purchaser than are established in the federal statute.

    Forgive me for rehashing what was already dicussed in the preemption thread some time ago, but I thought we'd agreed that one *can* contract around at least the first sale doctrine. The legislative history seemed pretty definite on that -- the contract is enforceable against those in privity.

• Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law <volokh[_at_]law.ucla.edu>