Alice produces some copyrighted work and commits it to physical form as The Item (e.g. a printed manuscript). Alice then writes "not licensed for resale" on the item and gives it to Bob. Bob sells it to Clarice, who sells it to David, who gives it to Eunice, who dies, resulting in Fred inheriting the Item.

1. Which party, if any, has committed a crime (or tort)?
2. Which party can Alice compel (or ask a court to compel) to surrender the item while in their possession?
3. Ignoring explicit theft (i.e. assuming that all parties surrender possession of the Item willingly), are there other change-of-possession scenarios I've omitted? If so, please answer (1) and (2) for those as well.
4. How does time factor into the above? (For example, does it make a difference if Fred comes into possession of the Item five days after Alice gives it to Bob, vs. if ten years pass in between each change of possession?)
5. Is there any validity to the conjecture that, while Fred might legally possess the physical Item, he does not have a valid license for the copyrighted material and is therefore not permitted to read the Item?

Note: This is similar, but not identical, to Licencing restriction and first sale doctrine UK re. secondhand book.

Alice produces some copyrighted work and commits it to physical form as The Item (e.g. a printed manuscript). Alice then writes "not licensed for resale" on the Item and gives it to Bob (who is aware of the claimed restriction when he receives the Item). Bob then sells the Item to Clarice, who sells it to David, who gives it to Eunice, who dies, resulting in Fred inheriting the Item.

1. Which party, if any, has committed a crime or tort?
2. Which party can Alice compel (or ask a court to compel) to surrender the Item while it is in that party's possession?
3. Ignoring explicit theft (i.e. assuming that all parties surrender possession of the Item willingly), are there other change-of-possession scenarios which would result in different answers to (1) or (2)?
4. How does time factor into the above? (For example, does it make a difference if Fred comes into possession of the Item five days after Alice gives it to Bob, vs. if ten years pass in between each change of possession?)
5. Is there any validity to the conjecture that, while Fred might legally possess the physical Item, he does not have a valid license for the copyrighted material and is therefore not permitted to read the Item?

Note: This is similar, but not identical, to Licencing restriction and first sale doctrine UK re. secondhand book.

Alice produces some copyrighted work and commits it to physical form as The Item (e.g. a printed manuscript). Alice then writes "not licensed for resale" on the item and gives it to Bob. Bob sells it to Clarice, who sells it to David, who gives it to Eunice, who dies, resulting in Fred inheriting the Item.

1. Which party, if any, has committed a crime (or tort)?
2. Which party can Alice compel (or ask a court to compel) to surrender the item while in their possession?
3. Ignoring explicit theft (i.e. assuming that all parties surrender possession of the Item willingly), are there other change-of-possession scenarios I've omitted? If so, please answer (1) and (2) for those as well.
4. How does time factor into the above? (For example, does it make a difference if Fred comes into possession of the Item five days after Alice gives it to Bob, vs. if ten years pass in between each change of possession?)

Note: This is similar, but not identical, to Licencing restriction and first sale doctrine UK re. secondhand book.

Alice produces some copyrighted work and commits it to physical form as The Item (e.g. a printed manuscript). Alice then writes "not licensed for resale" on the item and gives it to Bob. Bob sells it to Clarice, who sells it to David, who gives it to Eunice, who dies, resulting in Fred inheriting the Item.

1. Which party, if any, has committed a crime (or tort)?
2. Which party can Alice compel (or ask a court to compel) to surrender the item while in their possession?
3. Ignoring explicit theft (i.e. assuming that all parties surrender possession of the Item willingly), are there other change-of-possession scenarios I've omitted? If so, please answer (1) and (2) for those as well.
4. How does time factor into the above? (For example, does it make a difference if Fred comes into possession of the Item five days after Alice gives it to Bob, vs. if ten years pass in between each change of possession?)
5. Is there any validity to the conjecture that, while Fred might legally possess the physical Item, he does not have a valid license for the copyrighted material and is therefore not permitted to read the Item?

Note: This is similar, but not identical, to Licencing restriction and first sale doctrine UK re. secondhand book.