". . . [G]ranting the exclusive right to vend (and publish) is a necessary supplement to the prohibition on copying in order to make fully effective the copyright
owner's right to prevent public distribution of his work.
This rationale becomes inapplicable in the situation where the copyright owner first consents to the sale or other disposition of copies of his work. In such
circumstances the copyright owner wishes still to prevent unauthorized copying, but it is no longer for the purpose of preventing distribution of the copies
which he has released into the public channels consented to such disposition of his work. Therefore, the right to prevent unauthorized vending at that point
(although still no doubt desired by the copyright owner) is no longer a necessary supplement for the purpose above described. In such circumstances,
continued control over the vending of copies is not so much a supplement to the intangible copyright, but is rather primarily a device for controlling the
disposition of the tangible personal property which embodies the copyrighted work. Therefore, at this point the policy favoring a copyright monopoly for
authors gives way to the policy opposing restraints of trade and to restraints on alienation.
* * * * * *
"It is clear that once the copyright proprietor consents to the sale of particular copies of his work, he may not thereafter exercise the right to vend with respect
to such copies. Thus, in the usual situation the Sec. 27 exclusions mean that the right to vend may be exercised with respect to the initial sale of copies of the work,
but may not prevent or restrict the resale of such copies."[5] 1 M. B. Nimmer, 192 Copyright § 103.3 (1972)
