If a musician clearly put that on the package of a CD, why not? I dont have a constitutional right to buy an artist's CD.

Instead of making shit up about what you think makes sense, please familiarize yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

In that same article you can see first-sale doctrine gets murky when the distribution is digital. And it pretty much completely falls apart for subscription based services.

I don't think it gets murky. They can't "sell" something but actually mean rent it. That is false advertising, and most people aren't yet accustomed to thinking in this way (i.e. playforsure). A sale is a sale and if people want to redefine it to make what amounts to a highly conditional sale (at best), we should just call that rent.

> The first-sale doctrine does not neatly fit transfers of copies of digital works because an actual transfer does not actually happen -- instead, the recipient receives a new copy of the work while, at the same time, the sender has the original copy (unless that copy is deleted, either automatically or manually). For example, this exact issue played out in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., a case involving online marketplace for pre-owned digital music.

> E-books have the same issue. Because the first sale doctrine does not apply to electronic books, libraries cannot freely lend e-books indefinitely after purchase. Instead, electronic book publishers came up with business models to sell the subscriptions to the license of the text. This results in e-book publishers placing restrictions on the number of times an e-book can circulate and/or the amount of time a book is within a collection before a library’s license expires, then the book no longer belongs to them.

Legally, it does get murky in the U.S. That has nothing to do with whether it's right or not, but it does mean it's not "making shit up about what you think makes sense". It's the actual precedent described in the very article you linked.

What if the recipient receives the physical support that host the original copy , say a usb thumbdrive or a hard drive and the original customer keeps the copy ?

Then what if the customer gives a copy then delete the original but the OS being windows on the FAT entry is deleted and the data still lives on the drive ?

How would one distinguish between original copy and subsequent copy when they're all identical ?

Last but not least, if you read the fine print when you buy an audio cd, you don't buy the music but a piece of plastic and a license to listen to music the piece of plastic hold. This license forbids you from allowing other people from listening, so if you play the CD on speaker with you window open and someone happens to be walking in the street you are now guilty of an illegal communication to the public of copyrighted content.

Instead of cursing, read the link you posted. FSD is about disposing of a physical artifact, not how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed.

So, your argument is that, "how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed" is different than real property?

I agree. We shouldn't afford any of the rights we do to 'intellectual property' that we do to real property. Your argument is completely derived from that of the intellectual property owners (aka rentiers).

My argument is that innovation and creativity will continue with very minimal intellectual property protections.

Edit: Therefore, intellectual property protections are useless in the intent:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;…"

What about physical artifact holding a licensed work ? like an audio CD or CD-ROM ? Are you allowed to transfer the physical artifact but not the licensed content ? so now the person owns a CD but it is illegal for her to listen to it because she does not hold the license that was only given to the original buyer ?

If a musician clearly puts on the package of a CD that black people cannot listen to it, is that okay?

No, just like a restaurant can refuse service for not wearing a suit jacket but not because of race. It's not even a slippery slope.

Can an artist stipulate that a music CD must only be listened to on a mac?