Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 … -doctrine/


A federal appeals court said Friday that software makers can use shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses to forbid the transfer or resale of their wares, an apparent gutting of the so-called first-sale doctrine.

The first-sale doctrine is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows legitimate owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. That defense, the court said, is “unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works.” (.pdf)

The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, if it stands, means copyright owners may prohibit the resale of their wares by inserting clauses in their sales agreements.

“The terms of the software license in the case are not very different from the terms of most software licensing. So I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t own their software,” said Greg Beck, the defense attorney in the case who represented an eBay seller sued by Autodesk. “The other ramification, there is no reason a similar license could not be put into the cover of a book. It wouldn’t be difficult for everybody to implement this.”

Beck said he will ask the San Francisco-based appeals court to rehear the case with 11 judges.

The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did. The Motion Picture Association of America also sided with Autodesk.


This is only half of the article, but basically, your right to resell a product looks like it's going to be much more restricted very soon.

All these idiots are doing, however, is encouraging more piracy.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
I'm not sure where I stand on this one.  No one forces you to buy the software with a clause in its EULA that says you can't resell it.  Perhaps its a case of "buyer beware"?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
EULAs are already notoriously lengthy and treacherous as it is.  This is just going to kill companies like Ebay.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
Hello black market. Scofflaw to the nth degree.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
TheDonkey
Eat my bearrrrrrrrrrr, Tonighttt
+163|6002|Vancouver, BC, Canada
It's not really restricting anything that isn't already. It's just placing a specific law and wording to something that could have been done at any time.

That being starting to sell Licenses instead of hard CD's. The CD's are just a means of accessing the license. So "ideally" you can buy the CD then get the license for a cheaper fee since the developer doesn't have to press the plastic.

But all in all it screws consumers and resale companies/services over.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7056|PNW

This actually makes legal sense, since there are already products that are not licensed for resale. Doesn't mean I love it, though.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
When I went to college I remember at least one of my classmates in my drafting class buy AutoCAD 11 for $1400 and then turn around and sell it for $2200.  I believe the retail price for a non-student version at the time was $2400 or $2500.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

This actually makes legal sense, since there are already products that are not licensed for resale. Doesn't mean I love it, though.
The problem is that it discourages buying things on the used market.

Someone who wants a product but can't afford it new will aim to buy a used version for a cheaper price.  However, if the price difference between a new product and old one is reduced by something like a license fee (which the seller will pass onto the consumer), then there's more incentive to just pirate the product.
Ticia
Member
+73|5620

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

This actually makes legal sense, since there are already products that are not licensed for resale. Doesn't mean I love it, though.
The problem is that it discourages buying things on the used market.

Someone who wants a product but can't afford it new will aim to buy a used version for a cheaper price.  However, if the price difference between a new product and old one is reduced by something like a license fee (which the seller will pass onto the consumer), then there's more incentive to just pirate the product.
Especially when there's so much talk about fighting the conspicuous consumption and affluenza as well as protecting the environment and reuse. What a stupid idea.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom

Harmor wrote:

I'm not sure where I stand on this one.
wait till rush or beck come out with their positions then Im sure youll know how you feel.
Tu Stultus Es
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5463|Sydney
I can see what they're trying to do but this goes a little too far. This goes beyond trying to prevent piracy and suggests that when you forked out $100 to buy your very own copy of Starcraft 2, it was never yours in the first place, and now we have your money we want to make sure you keep the product forever and can't pass it on when you're done with it. All it will ultimately create is consumer backlash and just make piracy more justifiable in people's minds. The long term solution is perhaps a tricky one to resolve but it certainly isn't this.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA

eleven bravo wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I'm not sure where I stand on this one.
wait till rush or beck come out with their positions then Im sure youll know how you feel.
You're right.  They'll probably have a much better informed opinion on this.  But I doubt it would be different than what I already said.

Buyer beware.

And to the point about buying used software that has a license like this...again buyer beware. 

Anyone try to buy a used copy of Windows?  Sounds kinda silly how doesn't it.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7056|PNW

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

This actually makes legal sense, since there are already products that are not licensed for resale. Doesn't mean I love it, though.
The problem is that it discourages buying things on the used market.

Someone who wants a product but can't afford it new will aim to buy a used version for a cheaper price.  However, if the price difference between a new product and old one is reduced by something like a license fee (which the seller will pass onto the consumer), then there's more incentive to just pirate the product.
Especially when there's so much talk about fighting the conspicuous consumption and affluenza as well as protecting the environment and reuse. What a stupid idea.
I said it made legal sense, not common sense.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard