Slashdot Mirror
Software Transferability? (or the lack of it)
"I seem to recall hearing stories of courts overturning these schemes; does anybody have any specifics? Cases/judicial opinions, perhaps? I've checked FindLaw, Google, and others, but haven't found anything (haven't found anything upholding them, either...). Have these clauses ever even been to court, or do the companies just depend on FUD to bludgeon the end user into compliance? Anybody with experience, I'd love to hear it. Lawyers, your opinions? (Lawyers, would you be willing to fight one out in court, if given the chance?)"
As many of you may know, the concept of "owning" software is fallacy. You own nothing. What you do posess when you purchase your new piece of commercial software, is a corporate-skewed set of limited-use rights, which are getting more and more limited each day. For those interested, the latest print issue of Wired (October, 2001) has a big "article" on this (see p.170). It attempts to illustrate thru humorous example, what software has been seriously doing for decades.
No one would own (or lease) a car if the contract said, "You must not sell this car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so why is this true for software?
We shouldn't worry about that GPL 'virus'.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Software is like prostitution. You got the product. You sell the product. You still got the product. The consumer doesn't get money back just because he's done with the product, it's a totally different concept than just buying tangible things.
spacefem.com
i recently transferred several copies on windows to my garbage...no problems, no visits from the police. it keeps the vagrants out of your trash too.
But you agree to the license by using the software, or opening the package, or looking at the product crosswise....
-= Rhyas =-
Well, for one thing, you can't make a perfect copy of the car to keep and then sell the original. You can with software. I'm not agreeing with the liscensing restrictions, but there is a difference between the nature of the products.
I think I'll stop here.
The reason MS stopped those auctions is because most of them are pirated software. Or it is software licensed to OEM (you cannot separate the software bundled with the hardware) at a much lower price. If it is a shrink wrap package, I don't think you have a problem reselling.
¦ ©® ±
The biggest problem here is that people who use [and therefore in some cases buy] software do so because of the features of the software. While it would be nice if the company was cool enough to allow transfer of licences, or support multiple operating systems, or any other of nice things... it does not tend to be a factor affecting purchasing.
To take an example from another arena: if I write to one of the media syndicates and get permission to use a Peanuts cartoon in some publication I'm working on, I can't then grant others access to use that cartoon, because I don't own it.
Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this particular way that people use/buy/license software.
Im sure if MS ever got any brains and would lower the price of their OS for the consumer, piracy of their OS would be somewhat lower (not a great number lower, but Im sure there would be some type of decline). They charge an arm and a leg for the average computer just to stay up to date in terms of operating system, yet people wonder why Linux is such a threat to Microsoft. You know why? PRICE. Lower the price, lower the piracy of MS products...
car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so
why is this true for software?
It's true for software because the buying public has come to accept it as a condition for using the software licenses that they purchase. Obviously cars aren't software, particularly since when you buy a car, you buy the car. In a way, of course, a lease is like a license to use the car and, I suppose, the lessor could put that language in the contract, but the buying public wouldn't accept it. The bottom line is the subject line.
-h-
You only ever buy a license, never a product. That's always buried in the fine print somewhere, and is the difference that let's them restrict use 6 ways to sunday.
You end up licensing your dishwasher
Your hamburger comes with an EULA
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
A German court has ruled that you can even sell your OEM versions, and Microsoft can't do anything against it (even though they tried). But in the US this is probably different, thanks to the DMCA...
What's next? Microsoft goes after Best Buy/Circuit City/CompUSA/etc. for violating their licenses?
Deus Meus! Securis in capite meo est.
But what about books? Once you buy a book you're free to resell it. And don't tell me you can't make a perfect copy of it. What about music and movies? Shouldn't the whole "used CD" and "previously viewed movies" sections of media outlets be illegal?
If a shop required you to sign a contract prior to purchase that said you could not sell your new property, is that evil? I do not see how, though of course I'm not sure I'd be all that interested in buying stuff in that shop.
Bjarke Roune
"Hi, my name is Bill, and this is my 900lb gorilla. Although I really don't know what he's going to do, if you do something I don't like, I'll try to make him stomp on you. Do you want to take that chance?"
In other words, unless you are guaranteed to win the case, you're not likely to take MS to court over their license agreement. At that point, the license agreement becomes a de facto law.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'd buy a Porsche, install a copy in my garage, then sell the original. Get it now?
So that explains why I feel so dirty after buying software!
you seem to be missing the point. you are licensing the software, not buying it. it is a strange world, when you pay someone money and they ship you a physical thing, yet you do not own that thing, you own a license to use that thing.
i was going to ask 'imagine if computer hardware was the same way' and then i immediately realised we are definately moving in that direction. ditto for televisions, etc, anything which can access digital media.
zero-cost duplication is a beautiful thing. too bad it would destroy most 'modern' companies ability to function.
remember when 'modern' meant something like 'forward-thinking'? now it seems to mean the opposite. the modern age is over. something else is here, and it may be a dark age of information if these 'modern' companies are able to hold onto the past as well as they are trying to.
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
I believe this was subsequently written into law for records, but this may have been turned on its ear by passage of UCITA, which gave EULAs teeth.
I remember when the EULA included transfer-of-license clauses, such that As long as you deleted all your installed copies and transferred the legal license document along with the software, it was fine and good to sell your license to someone else. In fact, this used to be a big part of the MS license. I think at the time, they were attempting to play nice with the First Sale doctrine, although that seems to have been thrown out the window along w/ everything else.
If you sold a car you were leasing you would be tossed in jail for grand theft auto, it's sort of implicit in the idea of lease. Which is why MS and others are moving (back to) a software leasing model.
Best Slashdot Co
We could call it a new DMCA: Deny Monopolistic Corporations from being Assholes. :)
"I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
You buy the right to use it. In that sense, the software vendor (the only owner) grants you the right to use the software. You can't transfer this right, I guess, since it was granted to you by someone else.
So what we need is an extra agreement by the software owner that they will uphold the license to someone else if you "sell" it.
I still think this whole thing sucks though. But what really pisses me off is when you buy a software and just by opening the box you can't return it. So you buy that game that's supposed to run fine on a Pentium 75MHz with 16MB of memory and when you install it in your Pentium 133MHz with 64MB of RAM the thing doesn't run. Too bad. You can't return it because the software industry thinks you're a "PIRATE". Sucks.
Yep, I know it sounds stupid (and means, for example, that online documentation has more restrictions than the exact same information printed on paper). But there are federal legal precedents for that interpretaiton. Check out, for example, MAI vs. Peak Computer, from 1993.
IANAL.
The DMCA and UCITA have given software licenses some bite where before they were nothing but bark. I fully expect to see a great deal more of this sort of thing.
Buying software is more like buying a music CD/record/tape/etc. than it is like buying a car. You are buying the *right* to use the IP in a limited way. The difference is that the record companies have not yet managed to prohibit reselling of their media. Give them time.
--john
it depends on joe sixpack. i would offer the idea that the average 'joe sixpack' wouldn't read the note. and even assuming the note was big and bold and could not be missed, i would offer that he would not read it. and even if he read it, he probably would ignore it. and even if he didn't ignore it, he probably wouldn't understand the ramifications of it. and even if he understood all that, more than likely he wouldn't care. he just wants the stereo to listen to his MPAA and RIAA productions.
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
You mean like CD, VCR tapes and DVDs, which you can buy/sell for now?
I have a license to drive a car. I cannot possibly transfer my license to another driver.
I have 2 copies of NT 4.0 and a copy of W2K FOR SALE!!
If M$ want to take us to court on this be our guest!!!! These are legit copies... NT4 were never opened and the W2K - well - we couldn't get it running properly.
I'm sure some
Legit? Yup. Bought NT4 as part of a 3 pack from Merisel (we're a dealer). M$ will not allow us an exchange into 2K. Bought the W2K OS for a client who is an artist. After weeks of work we found the years of incompatibilities in M$ crap caught us. We couldn't get her cards to work. So W2K was dumped and she's still on w95. Go figure!
So the stuff is for sale and my experiance is that our breif foray into selling M$ products was a nightmare. It just cost us money! We don't sell or even recomend M$ products anymore.
I've sold my share of Microsoft software on eBay, and had my share of auctions cancelled by the beast, so I think I know how this works.
I've considered suing Microsoft regarding all of this (seriously) but have put that on the back burner for now.
Microsoft is of the opinion that they never sell their software, they only license it. Most people who have some MS CDs sitting around got them in one of two ways, either bundled with hardware or in a retail transaction. Those two cases are handled differently.
In the case of bundled software, MS requires that it be resold with the orginal hardware. Since systems can be upgraded, they are pretty reasonable about what they will consider to be the original hardware. Since eBay can't police exactly what hardware is being sold with what software, you see people selling Microsoft Windows with broken hard drives and stuff like that. When I have to sell something and include some hardware, I usually tape a capacitor inside the envelope (no shit).
In the case of retail packages, Microsoft requires that you sell the software complete with everything that was originally in the box. So if you threw away the friendly pamplet on "ten reasons you will love the talking paperclip" then you have rendered the rest of the package unsellable in the eyes of MS.
One good way to get around all this is to use the "Buy-It-Now" feature of eBay. List your item with a reasonable BIN price and it can get snapped up quicker than MS can have it canceled.
Asta!
The problem is that publishers are able to take advantage of two sets of laws, the commercial law that enforces licenses and eula's, as well as the copyright and related laws (DCMA) that attach penalties, (sometimes criminal) to unauthorized copying.
There is a principle in copyright law call first sale doctrine (or somethign like that) that means that once you buy a book, you can go ahead and sell it again and the publisher can't restrict you. This applies to software as well, but software publishers try to get around it by creative EULA's. I wouldn't have a problem with that if they were forced to choose between the protetections of a EULA or the protections of copyright law, but like anyone else, they want it both ways. They try to take the benefits of copyright law (criminal penalties, etc.) while cutting out the public's rights to copyrighted materials (first sale, fair use, etc.) wiht EULA's.
Bad, Bad evil people.
Where do you get *your* entropy?
It is true that software has a more ephemeral quality than other products of our modern civilization, but the trend is clear. The Music, Publishing, Broadcast, Cable and Movie industries are taking notes, and getting more viscous and devious in their pursuit of squeezing every possible dime of revenue from the public.
What make this all the more insidious and timely is the tracking and invasion of privacy most of these schemes require to enforce. Encryption is a bandaid that will never work without tracking and verification. If companies offered a good product at a fair price that we had complete control of how we wished to use these products, software pirates, cable tappers, CD rippers, would be seen as petty criminals instead of modern day robinhoods.
Mark my words in the wake of the WTC bombings, media companies of all types will jump on the band wagon of information tracking, where no individual may view or own any type of information without someone, somewhere, knowing what they are looking at.
It doesn't get much more Orwellian than this.
Letter To Iran
For Sale: One copy of MS Windows 95 media with book. Note: Purchaser does not have right to run said software.
Could they pull that off of E-Bay? (Of course they can. *They* can do anything!)
But what about the nice box (ahem) that software comes (ahem) in? What about the manuals, the CD, and all the other goodies you get in a box of software? Why do you get it in a store, see a price sticker on it, give a cashier money for it, and walk out with it?
MS wants software to be prostitution. They want you to pay each time you use it, and they want the US legal system to be their pimp.
Chances are, whether we like it or lot, they'll get to do that. If we're lucky, however, there will be some alternatives in the form of Free software.
The problem, as I see it, is that right now software is more like marriage. You find what you want, pay a big up-front cost -- the wedding -- and make a commitment for life. When new, improved versions become available you can go through a long, involved process to get them, but you can't recoup the original cost of the wedding. If someone wants your old version, you can't just give it to them, they have to pay for a wedding too.
Not everyone realizes that they don't own the access card in their DirecTV receivers. DirecTV now has legalese on the box of new receivers stating that fact.
Of course, Joe Sixpack doesn't care--it's only the card hackers who it truely affects.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Many years ago, Nintento was suing stores selling used Nintendo games. However court decided that it was legal to sell used games. Unfortunately I don't remember more about this - maybe someone else does.
To me I'm paying for the right to use a single copy of that software since that is what i paid for. All the lisences I've read say you can only use the product on 1 computer since that's what you paid for. Therefor, if I have Office 6.0, remove it, and install office 97 or 2000 on my computer... I am no longer using my office 6.0, and the lisence is again valid for use on a single computer. I can therefor "transfer" my lisence to a friend for a fee, and they are legally allowed to use that lisence since it would again be used only on ONE system (just not mine anymore). This is how I've always understood it.
Took years before MS lost the case, but now selling OEM versions was officially declared legal despite MS telling you the opposite. (The full shrink-wrapped edition could be sold legally before, despite MS telling you the opposite).
...
But of course MS raised the bar and now nearly all preinstalled MS versions are delivered with "recovery only" CDs, which simply don't make sense on a different computer
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Is that I sold a computer with M$ software on it, that was OEM from a different machine. Ebay cancelled my auction 31 hours after the auction ended, the buyer had already payed and picked it up in person. If they're going to enforce this, they need to be a little more accurate ;)
Everything you can buy legally, you can
also sell legally
There is a fundimental flaw that software is permitted to enjoy the protection of copyright (and trade secret and patent law for that matter) and yet can still be sold thru contract law which can be used to get around those aweful fair use provisions found as part of any other kind of copyrighted good or service. No other form of good or service is restricted by all four of these methods in such a way.
If software is sold thru contract, then it should not legally be permitted the public's copyright, and vice versa. It is that all these methods can be applied and that a simple OR of all the resrictions implied that results in the greatest loss of freedom to the consumer.
I do not believe proprietary software even meets the means test for something that can or should be permitted to use copyright. Copyright implies publication. If I write a book in a language nobody can decipher, I have not published a work, nor can the public recover their rights to the work once the copyright expires. EULA contract sales and copyright are mutually exclusive.
The GPL is a wonderful example of a copyright contract and could even be used as a model for creating copyright contracts for proprietary software. But proprietary software that chooses to use contract law to impose and restrict rights should never be permitted the privilege or protections of copyright since it refuses to honor the obligations that copyright also incurs. If anything, we should lobby to have copyright protection invalidated for such goods (or perhaps a class action), for this is clearly a misuse of copyright, and removal of copyright is a perfectly valid legal basis to address such misuse.
Businesses, of course, make money from selling as many licenses as they can. A used software product is just as good as the original, and thus the companies do not want discounted used copies circulating. Plus, their business plans are sustainable. People don't buy software thinking about reselling it, they buy it for their own use! Plus, they often need this software (or think that they need it, not aware of alternatives), so they aren't in a position to negotiate. Thus, the license based system, while arguably morally wrong, is sustained.
P.S. There have been studies showing that over 90% of software sold on ebay.com is pirated. Even if 10% should be allowed, if you were an honorable software company selling useful software, would you want these 10% to benefit while 90% being pirated software cutting into your revenues?
P.P.S. I do not necessarily believe all of the preceding comments, I simply wish to advocate logically for a source that does not find much sympathy on this site.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Oh, but record labels and book publishers would LOVE to limit sales of used product. There was recently a push to prevent music stores from carrying used CDs; see this article. Garth Brooks, the country singer, was particularly outraged that his CDs could be resold without his getting a cut of the profit.
Further, book publishers have recently been getting miffed that public libraries let people read books without having to buy them, and are looking to set higher prices for public libraries, or worse yet, to ban libraries from making certain books available. (I'm having a problem finding a reference for this.)
In many states, the commercial code says that if a product is to be licensed or leased, (like a car) the full disclosure of the lease or license agreement must be available before the exchange of tender. If the agreement is not available, and a transaction takes place, then it is not a lease or license, but an outright sale. Since the EULA is only available to you after you purchase and open the product, would this not make it an outright sale? IANAL, however if it is an outright sale, shouldn't I be able to do as I please with MY product?
In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
No one would own (or lease) a car if the contract said, "You must not sell this car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so why is this true for software?
I have never signed any kind of lease that allowed me to sell what I was leasing.
If a software maker wishes to lease software, isn't this their right?
And why do you think people who write software aren't entitled to put conditions on its use? If you write the software -- its yours. If you tell someone they can use it only under certain conditions and they agree, then they are obligated to keep their word.
Is this just Microsoft? I've sold some games on Ebay (in their original boxes, with all the docs) after I finished playing them, and no one complained. is this just another example of Microsoft being heavy-handed?
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
What about people who are still using computers that are considered obsolete and unsupported by software manufacturers?
There isn't any shrink-wrapped software available to them, but if they buy and use second-hand software they may be breaking the law.
It almost makes you think that there's a conspiracy designed to force people to upgrade...
this has only been passed in Maryland (I think)
sulli
RTFJ.
You can't sell it, give it away, or transfer ownership. However, you can let anyone use it forever, but just don't offically transfer it,a nd don't accept compensation for it. You may transfer the hardware to another owner while still retaining the software licenses. Fine point, but it appears valid. It is perfectly valid to run your software on someone elses hardware. 100% legal loo hole (TM).
i remember somebody telling me that some 'professional', sports-tickets scalpers were actually legally selling team / game programs for very high prices, but also including 'free' tickets with the purchase.
in the same manner, couldn't a person on ebay auction the manuals to a piece of software for a desired price and include the cd roms free of charge? i know that the license would not transfer legally, but the sale of manual would not be illegal.
andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
The following is not necessarily based on any people, places, events, companies, or laws, real or imagined, and any similarity is coincidental. So there.
Here's Microsoft's worst nightmare (assuming that Microsoft is a collective entity that can think and dream):
Person A has a copy of Windows but doesn't want it. Person A just wants to get rid of the piece of junk, so Person A's asking price for the software and license is very low.
Person B sees a good deal on Windows from Person A and takes advantage of it. Person B notices that there are more people like Person A, giving Person B an idea.
Person C is being audited by Microsoft and is knee-deep in bovine excrement. Once the manure truck accident scene is cleared, Person C continues on to work, trying to figure out how to deal with the Microsoft situation.
Person B saw Person C at the scene of the accident swearing about some "Microsoft bullsh1t." Noticing that the manure truck didn't have Microsoft painted on the side, Person B realizes that Person C is being audited by Microsoft. Person B decides that the time is right to act.
Person B visits Person C's workplace and proposes a solution to the Microsoft problem. After some negotiation, Person B sells the necessary number of Windows licenses to Person C's company, at a substantial profit.
Person A is happy to be rid of Windows, Person B made a nice profit, and Person C didn't have to pay Microsoft off. Microsoft loses "potential sales" and doesn't get to torture Person C's company anymore.
Then Microsoft wakes up screaming, but realizes it was all a dream, making note to take action to prevent this horrible thing from ever happening. After reading "The Little Monopoly that Could," Microsoft was once more asleep, content that nothing could harm it.
The End
What's worse - they hassled the hell out of me when I came back to buy more product. Their online order site shut my account off and when I called in, their ordertaker had some mention on the ordeal on file and had to get manager approval to even sell the product to me.
I kind of think that it sucks, you pay $200, use it up and throw it away. Like an expensive condom. And you can't give it away to a friend to use or study with. Why do we have no rights as consumers to products we've paid for? From music CDs to software this seems to be a trend.
We should put a stop to things like this before it gets worse.
What if, the product you were selling is the manual and pretty little box the software comes in, and you just so happened to be giving the software with it. You're not making a profit from the manufacturers software, you are however reaping the benefits of having the manual and the pretty little packaging the software comes in. Would this still be illegal? I know it's an odd avenue to take, and probably very difficult to prove.
OK, last week I went down to the DMV and bought a license to drive. Now I have the "right" to drive on the roads. This week I decide I don't want to drive any more so I sell the license to Joe Blow down the street.
Does Joe Blow now have the "right" to drive?
Software licenses work exactly the same way. You have the right to use, but not to transfer the right to use.
I was looking for a new free popmail service and came across Juno. I, living in Canada, had to enter the address of some hotel in Atlanta, Georgia in order to download the software due to some new encryption export laws or something. Anyway, I decided to actually read the license agreement this time and this is some of what I found in it (I especially like how it is essentially a violation to not have your computer on and connected to the net all of the time):
1.2. Please refer to your initial signup communications for specific information with respect to your service level. Juno may discontinue or alter any service level or aspect of the Service at any time, without notice, without liability and in Juno's sole discretion.
2. Your Obligations
2.4. You expressly permit and authorize Juno (and such third parties as may be authorized by Juno, subject to the Privacy Statement) to furnish you, electronically when you use the Service or by any other means selected by Juno, information prepared by Juno or by (or on behalf of) other entities, including advertising information and solicitations. You acknowledge that any such information, advertisements and solicitations are an inseparable part of the Service, and you understand and agree that the furnishing of such information, advertisements and solicitations to you cannot be terminated unless the Service is also terminated. Some third parties furnishing you with advertisements and solicitations through the Service may permit you to "opt out" of receiving such communications from them, in which case you can do so by following the instructions they provide. However, Juno is not responsible for any such party's failure to comply with its own "opt out" policies, nor does Juno endorse the views or content of any third party advertisements or solicitations. All such advertisements and solicitations will be understood to be "requested" by you through the act of using the Service, and each time you use your account reaffirms such request. Juno's policies relating to privacy and the collection and use of subscriber information are set forth in the Privacy Statement, which forms an integral part of this Agreement.
2.5. You expressly permit and authorize Juno to (i) download to your computer one or more pieces of software (the "Computational Software") designed to perform computations, which may be unrelated to the operation of the Service, on behalf of Juno (or on behalf of such third parties as may be authorized by Juno, subject to the Privacy Statement), (ii) run the Computational Software on your computer to perform and store the results of such computations, and (iii) upload such results to Juno's central computers during a subsequent connection, whether initiated by you in the course of using the Service or by the Computational Software as further described below. In connection with downloading and running the Computational Software, Juno may require you to leave your computer turned on at all times, and may replace the "screen saver" software that runs on your computer while the computer is turned on but you are not using it. The screen saver software installed by Juno, which may display advertisements or other images chosen by Juno, is an integral part of the Computational Software and you agree not to take any action to disable or interfere with the operation of either the screen saver software or any other component of the Computational Software. Juno may set different requirements for different subscribers with respect to the Computational Software (including without limitation whether use of the Computational Software is required and the volume of computations required to be performed) depending on service level or other factors we determine. You agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs or expenses resulting from the continuous operation of your computer, including without limitation any associated charges for electricity, and that you shall have sole responsibility for any maintenance or technical issues that might result from such continuous operation. You agree that, as between you and Juno, Juno shall have sole rights to the results of any computations performed by the Computational Software, including without limitation any revenues or intellectual property generated directly or indirectly as a result of such computations, without further compensation to you. If your usage of the Service is infrequent, Juno's ability to obtain the results of completed computations may be impaired. Consequently, you expressly permit and authorize Juno to initiate a telephone connection from your computer to Juno's central computers using a dial-in telephone number you have previously selected for accessing the Service; Juno agrees that it shall exercise such right only to the extent necessary, as determined in Juno's sole discretion, to upload the results of completed computations to Juno in a timely fashion; and you agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs and expenses (including without limitation any applicable telephone charges) resulting from the foregoing. Any software, data, or other materials downloaded to your computer in connection with the activities described in this Section 2.5 will not be used to collect personal Identifier Information (as defined in the Privacy Statement) from your computer and will comply with Juno's privacy policies, as reflected in the Privacy Statement. You agree that you will not attempt to reverse engineer any such software, data, or other materials or transfer or disclose any such software, data, or other materials, or the results of any such computations, to any third party. You acknowledge that your compliance with the requirements of this Section 2.5 may be considered by Juno to be an inseparable part of the Service, and that any interference with the operation of the Computational Software (including, but not limited to, any failure to leave your computer turned on to whatever extent Juno requires of subscribers at your service level) may result in termination or limitation of your use of the Service. You acknowledge that Section 6 of this Agreement shall expressly apply to the activities described in this Section 2.5.
slashdot shenanigans
Even if the courts decide that you may legally transfer your license, it won't matter. For example, Microsoft will have mandatory customer registeration of their software soon. Your software will ensure that you have registered your software and won't run otherwise. The registration process will ensure that only one person can register a given copy. This means that once you register your copy of your software, Microsofy will only let you use the software. You may be able to legally transfer your license to another party, but I believe that Microsoft wouldn't be obligated to ensure the transfered license is effective; that is, they aren't required to make the software work for the purchaser of the re-sold copy.
I certainly don't accept it. I ignore it.
One of my favorite places to buy software
has been at used PC shops. They often had
quite recent copies of used software, in-the-box,
and with all the docs.
I don't see MS running around trying to close
these little shops down.
Do they have to obtain all new licenses for every piece of M$ software?
Sounds pretty impossible to enforce, IMHO.
What about the boxes of used games lining the walls of Electronics Boutique, etc.?
Is that practice illegal, too? Or do game licenses read differently?
Ever since UCITA passed here in MD I've been tempted to go to stores and buy copies of Windows, and return them opened the next day. Since I'm bound now by the license in the box, and I must open the box to see the license I am legally in the right to return the product if I refuse to agree to the license. It shouldn't matter what the return policy of the store is.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
While I find MS' concept of enforced single licenses loathsome given my all to often need to use their stuff on multiple machines, I can't really find an issue with this (the new XP thing is what I'm talking about).
Howevere, the single license I purchase isn't and shouldn't be for MY use. I buy a car with parts made from a variety of manufacturers, and for some reason I can still sell my car to someone down the road. Should I be forced to remove the alternator, the tires, etc., before I resell it?!?
This whole argument is ridiculous, and it's a tribute to the utterly laughable state of the justice system on MULTIPLE fronts that they let stuff like this go forward. Just because it is software and CAN be duplicated DOESN'T mean it will be or MUST be, and the courts seem to operate on the worst case assumption rather than benefit of the doubt.
Hell, I thought this was a democracy predicated on individual freedoms.
-rick
No one would own (or lease) a car if the contract said, "You must not sell this car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so why is this true for software?
No one would own (or lease) a car if contract said, "You must not make modifications to this car and sell it unless you give the instructions on how to make those modifications to the new owner". Or if it said "You cannot add a stereo system to this car, thus creating a derivitive work, unless you release that stereo system under the GPL".
So why is it that the GPL tries to do this for software?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Microsoft has proven time and time again that no matter how hard they're giving you the shaft, you're still buying the software. Thank you, sir, may I have an upgrade? It seems to me that this is needless controversy. Speak with your dollars. If you don't agree with the license, don't buy the software. It's no use complaining after you've already signed the contract. I wish companies would make license information easily availible online, so that we could find out what we're getting into before we lay down the dough.
there's more than one way to do me.
Think of it like a drivers license. Just because I have a card that is my drivers license, doesnt mean that I can just sell my card to another individual, and then that person has a drivers license. Doesnt work that way. However if I damage my card I can get it replaced for the cost of the card, not the total cost of getting a license.
A Software CD is like the card. I bought the license to use the software, and I cannot sell that license by selling the CD. I can get the CD replaced for just the cost of the CD and shipping ~$7 if it gets a scratch and doesnt work.
Cars are not like software, if it breaks down, I have purchased the right to use that car, I have purchased the car, so I cannot have it replaced when it breaks down. I may have a warranty, but that is more like insurance.
As for music and video, I am not sure if I purchased a license or the CD. If I purchased a license, then I could just get my VHS tapes replaced at the cost of the DVD, because I already have a right to the information on the DVD. Wouldnt that be great, just mail in your old VHS tapes and for ~$7 a piece you could have them all on DVD.
-the Hun
--
Bad Spellers of the World Untie!
I'm a Tasty-vore. If it's Tasty, I'll eat it.
The current software sale model is sort of half way between what two other posts were talking about - prostitution and car leasing.
Software sales are more like a car rental; it's just that you pay a fixed price for an indefinate rental. Think of it this way... you're not supposed to let anyone else drive your rental car (unless you pay extra), and you certainly can't re-rent it to someone else!
But now they're trying to charge you per day%^$$!
I'd be more than glad to tell the guy who buys said fictional car how to engage the James Bond smokescreens and the autocannon that I put on in a moment of paranoia, and how to take them off if he doesn't want to be liable for carrying military hardware. But those can be added and removed freely, like modules. The GPL says that you can indeed make closed modules. And so it would be the same if the fellow put his stereo in the car after I sold it to him, because a stereo component is a module.
I imagine there might be a case for a lawsuit if you made your car run on Russian rocket fuel or some such thing and didn't tell the guy you sold it to. So, integral modifications are already covered.
Can we get away from comparing apples to socket wrenches?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Why not set up a non-profit oganization to donate your old software to? Going to throw out that old PII box? Why not donate the software and wipe the drive before you sell it for parts?
Maybee the EFF could set this up. You would be able to buy great software like Excel97 for peanunts, and M$ would get the shaft. Licence management would be tricky, but as long as you have the origninal CDs and certificate of authenticity I doubt M$ could have any valid legal claims.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
As someone with a very strange cognomen pointed out earlier, a long time ago some book publisher tried this "licensed, not sold" stuff with a contract printed on the flyleaf of the book. The courts disallowed this, and created the first sale doctrine. That is, when you sell it, you have no say over what they buyer does with it.
The difference with software is less because of the less tangible nature of the product (bits aren't tangible, but the CD and manuals certainly are), but that judges are over-impressed with arguments that cyberspace is different. And precedents concerning software license agreements were set several decades ago, when the judges were not sure whether copyright law covered bits at all, and software patents were even more dubious, so the (then generally quite reasonable) license agreements were the only real protection software writers had. Since then the copyright law has been amended to clearly protect bits, the old ban on patenting mathematical algorithms has somehow disappeared, and so software does not need license agreements to protect against piracy. But they are still putting out those license agreements, and getting more unreasonable about the terms every year.
Maybe eventually enough technical savvy will filter into the courts that the judges will decide that software should sell under the same rules as everything else. That does not imply just the first sale doctrine -- what would really hurt MS is if the courts decide to apply the UCC's mandatory warranty of merchantibility to consumer software sales -- that is, if software follows the usual rules, the software vendor would be responsible for the software working _right_ in home computers. Given that possibility, their continued pushing of egregious license agreements and on-line activation seems almost like a corporate death wish, an attempt to push until they fatally tick off some judge.
But right now it might be more effective to agitate for legislative action, instead. The software vendors may be flooding Congress with contributions, but the corporations that buy software instead of selling it outnumber them many times, and they are getting hurt by this !@#$%^.
We need an anti-UCITA:
First Sale: Purchasing an individual software distribubution gives you the right to put it on any one computer of your choosing, to resell it, give it away, or even loan it as long as you can ensure it is operable on only one computer at a time. (Note that this does not apply if it is leased, not purchased, but the package had better make it clear that this is a lease for a specific time period. Also, it does not apply to site licenses, IF the full licensing agreement is presented before the sale.) Nor can individually purchased software be locked to the first computer you install it in, or shut itself down after a time period. If the vendor chooses to install and use a remote-shutdown feature to combat piracy, then if they shutdown a legal copy, they are liable for $100/hour until it's back up, and all incidental and consequential damages.
Implied Warranty: The UCC law makes many common "limited warranty" clauses null and void, like one saying that if the steering linkage falls off your car, your heirs are entitled only to a new steering linkage. Per UCC, the carmaker is responsible for the accident, too. Putting software fully under that now would put software vendors out of business, but as long as they get off scot-free for bad quality and even get to charge you for the bug-fixed version, most of them won't improve their quality. We need at a minimum the right to take the software back and get a full refund if bugs, which prevent it from operating as advertised, are not fixed promptly and at no cost. Also there should be compensation for phone bills and time and hold, and punitive damages when tech support tells you it isn't a bug and they already know about it.
You know, this has been one of the few clear posts I can recall that helps explain the new MS sales model. Thanks for the ilumination!
But why post this as AC? This was a good comment.
robi
The answer to this is simple, and I would have thought that this would have been a non-issue to any slashdotter..
The skinny of it is this: you don't own the software you bought. You purchased a license to use the software. And in M$'s case, your license does not include transfer ability.
Is this strange? No, and it's pretty much the same as have a driving license, or most any other license for that matter. (In the general sense.. don't get picky here).
If right to use was declared transferable, MS would be obliged to grant the use of their product to the new licensee.
No warranty perhaps, no support if you like, but the only thing any software company could arguably do would be to ensure that one and only one copy derived from a given right to use is running at the same time.
Why to get into this mess? Open Source is the way to go.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Does anyone know where the article mentioned in the story actually is? I have the October 2001 issue of Wired, and page 170 is music reviews.
I have a question about this. Is a contract legally binding just because it states that by performing some action I agree to it? Like when these websites say
"Copyright blah blah blah. By viewing this website you agree to the terms of use."
Or like "By using this software you agree to the license agreement".
This doesnt sound like it would hold up very well in court. If it did, then I could make a sign in my front yard saying "By viewing this sign you agree to the terms of an eight page contract that I keep in my house."
any thoughts on this?
I don't believe this question has been answered yet.
Does anyone out there know of any acutal cases involving this issue?
An article about the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
Microsoft 1990: "Keep using Windows because you'll have to buy all of your old software again if you switch."
Microsoft 2001: "Users do not and cannot own software. Transferring from one computer to another requires a special license and transfering ownership is prohibited."
You may have noticed that most commercial software is so bad that users wouldn't want to transder it onto a new machine.
There's also the issue of registry faults as an inadvertant form of copy protection...
The underlying theory seems to be that vendors should be able to establish price discrimination schemes and that the EULA by forbiding reselling. The opinion is pretty well written even if you disagree with the conclusions. Sorry no link but it is from the Court of Appeals for the 7th district.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
...is Microsoft's real response to this. They know they're on shaky legal ground with this whole thing, and the only way to get off it and onto something solid is to not sell any licenses. And the only way to stay in business after they stop selling licenses doing that would be to sell subscriptions to use their software.
After this changeover happens (when/if it happens) they'll probably provide freely downloadable thin clients for Word, Excel, etc, and you'll have to pay whatever they determine the market will bear (because even Microsoft has to consider what the market will bear, whether they are correct or not is another topic) per month, per product you want to use.
In this situation there's no tranferrable license you need to worry about because you give away the only software you distribute to anyone for free, as it's useless to those who don't subscribe. You control the only software with any functionality and no one other than yourself will possess that software. Anyone else running a server that allows people to use Word that you haven't specifically allowed couldn't have bought it anywhere because you don't sell it, then you're well within your rights to throw them in jail for theft.
That's a poor use of the word "license" as indicated by this topic. Here, let's try this rephrase:
.Net is so big - no source media, no ownership, no issues for Microsoft on this end. You don't own anything because you never got the CD.
OK, last week I went down to the bookstore and bought a book. Now I have the "right" to read this book. This week I decide I don't want to read any more so I sell the book to Joe Blow down the street.
Does Joe Blow now have the "right" to read this book?
Software licenses work exactly the same way. You have the right to use, but not to transfer the right to use.
I don't have the right to use or transfer the book I bought to Joe Blow? That's cockamamie!
Remember, software companies might try to "license" their goods to you, but the courts have *repeatedly* made it clear that if you bought the source media, you own the right to sell or transfer the original media. That's one reason why
IMHO one of the great things about ebay is that it brings capitalism to the masses. Millions of people all over the world can now now make their lives more efficient (in an economic sense) by trading even the most trivial things that they own. It's a grand bazaar where everyone profits. So it's not surprising that we see EULAs in conflict with the philosophy of ebay.
EULAs are anti-capitalist. They are the product of a lobby economy - one where people who bribe politicians get to determine where resources in an economy should go.
-- SIGFPE
I think the real problem is with the customers, not the companies that
sell software.
Allthough I totally hate the concept that I shouldn't be allowed to
sell an item I've purchased, whether it's a tangible thing or an
abstract notion, I feel that in general everybody should have the
right to try to sell whatever they want under whatever conditions they
feel like.
If someone want to sell a car with the restriction that it may not be
used on tuesdays, well, let them try. In the end, it will be the
customers who decide whether this is "allowable" or not by choosing to
buy or not to buy the car.
Companies have tried to screw its customers since the dawn of time,
and they will continue to do that to whatever extent we allow them to.
If we disagree with a certain practice, then our main weapon is to
boycott the product or seller.
In Japan, it is illegal to resell video games once they've been purchased from the retailer. Nintendo was basically the major push for this, since there were so many Nintendo games they were trying to make everyone buy their own copy. Instead, what most Japanese folks do is go to something akin to a trading house. For a monthly membership, members can give their games to the shop and essentially "trade" them for other games. Since there is no explicit money exchange for the trading of the games (you can trade as many or as few as you want), this circumvents the law.
This certainly isn't fair practice, especially since we're dealing with a very tangible product (i.e. a cartridge or CD). And I'm wondering how it is that Nintendo ever managed to get such a law passed in the second most capitalistic society in the world. Go figure...
I was able to sell the CD, but the auction winner could not use it because the CD key was tied to my credit card number and sony online account. Sony refused to transfer the account or reset it. They claim it's to stop people from auctioning ebay characters or items, but since I only played the game for a few hours and then deleted the characters this was not an issue. They really want to force people to buy the new Everquest CD. I suspect to be seeing a lot more of this in the future.
Peace, or Not?
so i guess the thing i wonder then is: will this eventually blow over, like the used CD issue? no-one cares about that any more, do they?
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
A driver's license and a software license are different things, since a driver's license is essentially a right to render a "service" in public, whereas a software license is not a right to render a service but a right to use a product. A product. A car is not so much a product in the sense of a driver's license as it is a means of conveyance and the right to use any legal conveyance on a public road. It could just as well be a little red wagon with a lawn mower engine on the back. It's not a car. But software is still software.
This is in Canada, but the actions occurred because of bi-lateral trade agreements, that said something to the effect that software could not be rented (presumably because people are too dishonest to remove it from their systems when they were done with it.)
Personally, (and I write software for a living) I though it was a great way to increase sales. I think people who took it back wouldn't have bought the software in the first place, so those sales wouldn't have taken place in the first place. He was moving product, where other stores weren't.
It's things like this that make me think that capitalism is dead for the little guys in the world.
My sister has, for the last few years, been running a "grey import" company. Basically, some guy in the states buys up a load of microsoft products which are marked purely as OEM, not for resale, not to be sold outside of the US etc. As far as I understand it, the guy in the US is basically classified as a villian, even though he buys most of his stock from US system builders who have gone bust. However, my sister buys his stock after he has shipped it to the UK, where all these dumb clauses aren't applicable under EU law. Therefore her company is completely ligit - a publicly owned company, with a 'net presence etc., and able to sell microsoft products at a vastly reduced price to normal retail outlets.
A few years ago, microsoft were really trying to stamp out companies selling grey imports: Basically turning up at the office of some tiny company one monday morning with 15 lawyers and 70 boxes of legals. These companies closed down pretty darn quick. However, I think one of these companies took the case all the way to the EU court and won! Hence, my sister is now safe in her business.
I'm sorry I cant rember the exact details, but my sister has this great legal schpiel whenever anyone accuses her of being a crook - EU case numbers, reference subsections, grand judge rulings (I'll try and get her on slashdot later to fill in the details). All I can remeber about her little diatribe is that it usually ends with the sentence "Microsofts license is almost as buggy as its software".
She has allways been a good bussinesswoman & salesperson (she even managed to flog me one of those millenium bug kits, convincing me my computer would die otherwise, even though I know for a fact ahe actually knows nothing about computers!).
A while back she was approached by one of the major linux distributors about being their UK distributor. She took one look at the GPL and almost died laughing. I remember her words:
"How the fuck am I supposed to make money selling this? It makes the MS licence look good."
As I said, she's allways been a good bussinesswoman!
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I sell software all the time on eBay... All the licenses i've read state that it's fine to transfer the license as long as you transfer everything about the software (packaging, manuals, original disks, backups, etc...).
Generally, i'll quote from the license saying where it's okay to tranfer, explain that i'll do exactly that, and i've never heard of a complaint... Sold Microsoft, Adobe, and many other big title software that i simply didn't need anymore...
I think the key is to be clear about exaclt what you're selling, so that companies can't be under the impression that you're possibly selling a counterfeit product.
And here's the root of the problem.
To Microsoft, you are not 'purchasing' a product. You are *licencing* software. This is fundamentally different than buying a car, or a book, or anything else, where there is a definite product. This is how they try to tell you you can't re-sell it.
Now.. the problem is, according to the average consumer.. it LOOKS like a product, you can walk into the store and buy it off the shelf.. there are no negotiations, no lawyers involved... just a click-wrap agreement that we all know nobody reads.
Stores *Treat* it like a product.....
So it's a deception.
We all use software stores. General public, my self included, normaly view retail stores in terms of sales. Were these places termed with words such as lease and rental the resale right might be less confusing. Also many of such said places do sales in console games. No restrictions on resale of these it would seem. Most consumers I feel consider software to be long any other packaged product.
Also, to the piracy issue, reduction in resale is not in the benefit of the average consumer. It's nice to be able to buy a proffesional graphics/3d app/etc. on occasion even if it is a bit old. Most of us can't afford the brand new app, a lack of older products for this secondary market only helps to promote piracy.
Just my thoughts...
Then why did Caterham have to purchase the rights to the Lotus 7?
Software contracts regarding the original purchase & support & software for that Cray were not shrinkwrapped click-through agreements sold in a box at computer-city. They were agreed to by lawyers, principals of the university, accountants, etc.. there were negotiations, and a contract was agreed upon for the use of the software.
This is what MS is trying to claim happens when you walk into the store and buy MS Windows.
The problem is... although the contract might be there.. the perception to joe average is that he bought a product off the shelf.. and the click-through is really deceptive.
If you sell it, you're implying that it's actually worth money.
Give it away. Give it to the Red Cross. Give it to a local church. Leave it in a box that says "FREE SOFTWARE" on the side of the road. Trade it to a friend. Find a used software shop that might want to buy it from you...
There are other options besides ebay..
... could pull it off you'd hear accounts like:
Methinks that software vendors need to GET REAL! At a company where I used to work several years ago, new PCs were routinely wiped and loaded with whatever software was actually needed for the task for which the PC was purchased. (Lord only knew what crud had been loaded and what horrors in the registry awaited the unsuspecting user.) Sometimes the PC was purchased to run Linux or Novell. Do they think that someone's would actually toss out the Windows CD that came with the box? Har har har.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Proof I shouldn't post and eat at the same time. That should read the the ... "that the EULA by forbiding reselling of a product helps maintain price discrimination."
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
And, although I can't speak to licencing issues...
When I buy the win2k kit at London Drugs.... I *OWN* the media, books, everything else I just purchased. The clickwrap 'license' only appears when I use it.
Ergo.. I have a de-facto right to RE-SELL what I initially purchased.
Last I checked, Utica can only be passed on your way through New York state....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Your comparison is invalid, if not a complete fallacy.
...
First of all, you don't "buy" a driver's license at the DMV. You are granted one, and (possibly) pay a fee. No, it's not the same as buying. In some states/countries driver's license are free or at a symbolic price (say, $1). You may be forbidden to get a driver's license for medical reason or legal reasons (like prior drunk driving).
Just because software license and driving licenses are both "licenses" doesn't mean they're the same. You're just playing with words.
Orange, apples
Just because I have a card that is my drivers license, doesnt mean that I can just sell my card to another individual, and then that person has a drivers license. Doesnt work that way.
A Drivers license allows you to drive any car.
Does a software license allow you to use any software?
With your analogy, that would be "Yes!"
Who's the moron that labeled this guy as "insightful"??!?!
The 9th circuit distict court of the US has ruled that once a manufacture vends an item it cannot control the vending of said object. Does it keep you out of court? Nope....Microsoft sued me into oblivion for selling OEM software. I just got done paying them most of my salary for the part 2 years. Do you think that I would ever hire an ex-microsoftie? Not a chance!
There is a huge difference between music/software (or other various intellectual properties) and tangible things like cars and clothes that people are comparing them to - you can't miraculously copy the car or clothing article for pennies. You obviously can copy words, sound, or programs and keep a copy for yourself before you sell the original. This seems like a very obvious difference that people are just glazing over in the name of consumer rights.
Now, the record, publishing, and software industries are all greedy bastards... there's no doubt about that. But to say that they have no more reason to be upset about the reselling or the nature of ownership of their products than Ford or Chevy is a little shortsighted, to say the least.
Again, this is a completely separate issue from those industries being *reasonable* about their business practices and demands on consumers. But it's important to note the differences between products.
With most new cars, you can sell the car, but
it voids the manufacturer's warranty. At least
you can still sell it, but the point is that
car companies would like to encourage you to buy
new cars, too.
... And there will be a big boom in used CDs if/when Universal's copy-protected shite hits the stores. Good!
sulli
RTFJ.
Why isn't everybody up in arms against the "lifetime/long-term warranty to original owner only" deals? Granted, such clauses do not reduce the value of item for resell to zero (as the no-resell provision for software does), but they do seriously affect its attractiveness, thus (one might argue) artificially inflating the "brand new" market by providing an incentive to buy from mfr. These are quite common for musical instruments, for example.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
the software companies addmitance that their SW is GARBAGE, and that what you are really getting is a time limited access to support to try and make their crappy SW work. When you move on to another piece of SW, the support time has been used up :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Clearly Microsoft (and most of the software industry, not to single out just Microsoft.)is trying to have it both ways. They want to sell it like a product, but continue to collect revenue on it like a service. Another model says give away the software, and sell the service. Unfortunately that model hasn't worked very profitably so far.
But just because the 'software as a service' model hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it's wrong. Nor does it make 'software as a tangible good' or 'software as a tangible + continuing revenue' good.
In practice, it appears that after taking a considerable amount of time to bring a given piece of software up-to-snuff, it really is mostly done. Then, in order to treat it as a 'tangible + continuing revenue' product, you have to keep overdeveloping it, adding features and junk to 'justify' the continuing revenue stream. Hence the mess we call MS Word today, dancing paperclips and all.
The historical side of all of this is that software is sufficiently new, and the hardware it sits on has evolved so much that we've barely reached 'maturity' on anything. So thus far, software has had the appearance of tangible goods. I suspect that MS Office may be one of the few/first pieces of software to move past that category.
We're really talking about something fundamentally new in the past 20 years: Revenue for IP. Up until 20 +/- years ago, IP was sufficiently bound into some form of matter (books, records, etc) that it wasn't commonly distinguished from something physical. Now it is, due to super-cheap media like CDs and the ease of electronic distribution of the Internet.
Publishing (music, text, software, what-have-you) has always had two aspects, content creation and duplication/distribution. In a very fundamental way, the duplication/distribution part of the publishing industry is as obsolete as a buggy whip. But the duplication/distribution side is where most of the publicly perceived value lies.
Therefore the publishing industry is hanging on to that role as hard as they can, trying to keep their buggy-whip in the pre-automotive model, and using the government and copyright law to do it.
They're simply making too much money to let go of that revenue stream.
Same as prostitution.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
- However (and this also applies to books: sometimes you can read in the small print that you should not resell the book. Sometimes such statements can also be seen on dvds or vhs tapes), you normally don't sign a paper stating that you won't sell the product.
I know, during installation many programs force you to accept the "terms and conditions" but I seriously question the legal value of such a step since this decision is forced upon you AFTER you bought the product. It could be an interesting case in court (of course few mere mortals would dare to face a big software publisher in court)...
comments? best regards, Tom
You know, the server-licenses for all those boxes may cost a lot of money, unless you have a good contract with Microsoft...
Maybe its time for Ebay to switch to Linux (as Amazon, Altavista and others did) to be finally free.
BTW: in Italy like in Germany (and maybe all EU) it is perfectly legal to resell software - I did it several times.
Just my 2c.
ms
...why *haven't* MS taken someone to court over this? (as opposed to just bullying eg eBay). Could it be because there's a very good chance these kinds of licences *would* be struck down?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
I ran an auction for a demo version of Novell Netware 5.0 that also included a cd of test prep and other software demos that I had received from Novell Users International. I've never used the software since my company moved to NT (don't do it). It was a 3 user demo that I wanted to sell. I put it on ebay and within 2 days it was removed because the license needed to be transfered with permission from Novell. I never agreed to their license and it was given to me by NUI. But they removed it and would not return my emails and phone calls.
m.kelley
life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
Abraham Lincoln
E
(Nov. 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/hyperion.htm#AB
Or is that only if there is a federal issue involved?
You can buy and sell used software in Canada at least. Electronics Boutique will buy your old software as long as you have the manuals and original CD's for the software. At least games anyway, I have never tried to sell a copy of say Windows or something. This goes along the lines that I have bought a physical thing, the box, cd's, manuals, etc. and that as with any physical purchase I can resell it at any time. It makes no difference whats on that CD as long as its original. The license only takes effect upon installation. Therefore if you remove it and there is nothing left of it on anything you own, you are not using the software that you only agreed to use (via the EULA) and can then sell the physical part (CD's,Books...)
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
Your post reminded me of a notion I had. The famous Apple commercial had the line "Why 1984 won't be like 1984". You could do a similar spot against Windows ME saying "Windows ME: why 2001 won't be like 2001."
Just a small question that I think backs up your position,
Do shopkeepers have to buy a special licence to sell software on to us or by the terms of M$'s own licence are all upgrade copies of all their software illegal because we have bought them from shops. Surely if we follow the line of reasoning in their licences then when the retailer buys a copy of windows from them then they are not allowed by law to sell it on to anyone else.
If this isn't true then somehow at some magical point then the package that you have acquired in the shop undergoes a transformation from Item of goods to work of art. and so is covered by copyright licensing rather than object sales laws.
If you want to follow this to a really convoluted end then It could be argued that Software pirates are not doing anything illegal as long as they never install the software on their computer
I've always been wondering this, and Slashdot is pretty smart, so I guess I'll ask him (Her?). What is the deal with the inside of books, where they say:
"If you purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen property."
It goes on; pick up any paperback nearby for the rest.
Are book thieves somehow required to tear the cover off of all the books when they rob Borders?
What do they do with the covers? Is the cover my license? (Hopefully that makes it an iota closer to ontopic)
Of course software is regarded differently than more tangible products. The reasons lies in the ease of which it is copied. Someone who Xfers ownership of a piece of software could very easily copy it first. Then, there are two copies of the SW. If, on the other hand, I buy a television set, it would be relatively hard for me to copy it before I Xfered ownership. There is no risk of piracy here, where there is for software.
Interesting. About 4 years ago, Microsoft was doing this, and I got a little tired of it. A quick restraint-of-trade complaint to the CA AG's office, they talked to eBay, and Microsoft shut up and went home. Looks like eBay needs to be reminded of this, and have it pointed out that that they've already had their hands slapped on this once.
Software often gets compared to other products and analogies drawn - these analogies are often flawed and really make trying to figure out WTF's going on tough. They are flawed because they compare software to the two other primary forms of commerce that occurs in modern society.
- Sales of products
- Sales of services
A product is a physical entity, it is consumed and used; while the CD software typically comes on is a physical entity, it is just a medium: by destroying the CD you don't destroy the software, just one physical representation of it. So software can't be a physical product (and isn't). A service is something that is done for you by someone else, it expires. Software does not expire, and it is not something someone does for you (ASPs would fall into this category, however). Software does not expire, it is something you use yourself (with the assistance of a computer) so software can't be a service (and isn't).Software is the rarely discussed third type of entity, software is information. It isn't a product and it isn't a service, it shouldn't be treated as such.
Information is intangible, it can't really be sold or bought and this is the stance a lot of people like to take. This is perfectly correct but like everything else, its use can be restricted and protected; enter copyright law. Copyright law implies that you don't have the right to use information (whether it be music, art, pure information or software) without the creators permission (or whomever the creator has given the right to). When you 'buy' software at the store, you buy a box, some pieces of paper and a CD medium of the information...and a license. The license is important bit, though; it's the legal agreement that gives you the right to use the information presented on the CD. You don't have to agree to this, but as it says in the GPL, nothing else gives you the right to use the software; if you don't like it, too bad. A previous posted noted that installing/running software involves it be copied to the hdd and ram, which is restricted by copyright laws.
The great thing about the law is it gives you a whole slew of legal protections, unfortunately with the exception of a very few rights (like right to not be imprisoned, killed, etc...), these rights are alienable - you can sign these rights away in a contract, and it can be legally binding.
This, of course, is where EULAs get their teeth.
Jump to the real-world. There are further legal protections: there are things you are not legally allowed to include in copyright licenses as opposed to normal contracts since they're not signed, etc... (hence side-stepping the whole alienable rights and copyright protection issue) which is usefull somewhat, but the story doesn't end there. If you have a contract (or license agreement) which has sections which are found to be illegal, the entire contract (or license) is null & void - not only do you not have the right to resell the license onto someone else, you don't have the right to use the software product at all, except where the contract/license has provisions which explicitly deal with the situation where some of the license is found to be illegal (in which case what the contract/license says goes).
Of course, there's no such thing as a perfect contract (and by extension, license), and you can always get around them with enough subtlety of thought (and a good lawyer).
So I better not hear anymore software/service or software/car analogies. :)
(Assuming target clientele=female) as if any girl would pay for it!
In either case, the 'client' could come (pardon the pun) away with a tangible good.. It would just take 9 months.
More likely she would come away with a tangible liability, and you'd spend the next 18 yrs. paying for it!
-- What would Missy Elliott do? --
I think the public's perception with regard to software is more along these lines:
From what I've seen, average consumers haven't given much thought to the details of software licenses/use/ownership issues.
But I have seen rumblings that indicate that they do not much care for having to rent software that expires and causes their computer to cease functioning unless more money is paid. That starts to resemble an essential utility, like electric, phone, or, in this era, the Internet Service Provider.
I can't tell yet whether the average consumer will make such a transition easily, or will look to see if there are any alternatives to the software subscription model.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
- With the speed of distribution, virtually every major software house would be out of business the moment a bug was discovered,
- Joe little guy sells his way-cool nifty program, with an unknown bug. See case #1, then add any large client taking away all of Joe little guy's assets if the bug takes too long or isn't resolvable
- the software failure is in a mission critical application (a SQL server instance connected to IIS perhaps), in which repairing and reimbursing a serious flaw needs to cost much much more, and
- What about proprietary software on an open source platform? Who pays if the bug is in the OS?
That said, in order for corporate produced software (i.e. non-Open Source, non-Shareware, proprietary & EULA'd software to be sold, I believe that it makes sense for some type of minimal or greater warranty to be required, just like the lemon laws which apply to "real goods".Which is why big companies demand "Service Level Agreements" or "SLA"(s) from virtually all of their outside computer hardware and software vendors, with all of the nit picky details hammered out by the attorneys for both sides in advance of the software licensing deal being signed.
Or why every line of code used by any component of an airliner has to pass some fairly rigorous testing in order for the component to be sold, and I imagine [but can't reliably state] that medical tech software probably has similarly stringent legal requirements.
Shouldn't the little guys be able to collectively negotiate some of the same rights via legislated warranty minimums?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Walk in to a local Babbages, EB, whatever, youll see shelves of used console games, be it for playstations, or even the original NES. But one of the chains sells used COMPUTER games, but as i understand it, thay have a list of what publishers they can take, and everything else is off limits. So it would seem that this company got permission to re-sell used titles. If you think about it, this is a double whammy, since they are sold, then resold =)
There were huge legal battles over the resale of used console games if memory serves, and now, you can freely sell and resell.... why would this not apply to computer software, they have pretty much the same licenses....
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
"Software is like sex, it is better when it is free."
We had a Cray at our university some years ago. It was leased, and when they stopped using it, people from Cray came and took the hardware and destroyed it (secret hardware etc.). Now only the empty "box" is left, and is used as a sofa (you can actually sit on the boxes where the power-agregators where) at the faculty of electronics.
"The assembler gave birth to the compiler. Now there are ten thousand languages." - Tao of Programming
Ditto for DVDs and the DMCA; if I'm just licensing the right to view the flick, then I damn well expect the studio to replace damaged media at any point during the term (indefinite?) of the lease.
Most every EULA includes a clause forbidding the transfer of ownership of software
It makes for an interesting point. It probably means that Time Warner needs to re-purchase every MS license they have, since that software cannot legally be "owned" by the new AOL-TW entity. Same for my local power company, which covers a good hunk of NYS... they just got bought by some British corp. I guess their EULAs are all null and void, too...
But I don't think that'd be reasonable. You gotta figure, a company with 1,000 copies of NTW gets bought by someone else. All assests of that company are transferred, no way in hell do the EULAs expire...
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
How about a central repository where everyone can ship all of there Licenses, keys, boxes, receipts etc?
Then when MS comes knocking and says
"We will be auditing on the 20th of April,"
you place a call to the repository and say,
"Yes, I'll be needing licenses for 420 Win2k Workstations running Office 97 from April 19th until probably April 23rd..."
If M$ is going to continue to be oppressive jerks, I think we owe it to them to be uncooperative. It would be most amusing telling the auditor with a straight face that you did in fact purchase all of your copies of Windows primarily one at a time from assorted stores in 37 states, often simultaneously.
And I have a question... I've heard of people being sent a letter requiring authentication of M$ product licensing for their business/city etc. Then a big internal audit is made and a check is usually sent to M$. The associated cost of doing the audit really is wasteful. Why not just say "Yep - It looks good to me. I'm satisfied. No you are not allowed into our building and no we won't mail you squat... I told you I'm satisfied. Good day sir."
What would their recourse be? It isn't as if the US justice dept. is on their side. They can't just invite themselves in (See Blood Sucking Vampires). If they try to gain the information from offsite and without permission they will be deemed terrorists (if Ashcroft has his way).
So. The new response to software auditing... Just Say No!
-Rothfuss
I have been thinking about licenses lately, and weather or not they hold any legal grounding. Even more because of the people (myself included) who always click right through the license agreements. So, I came up with idea:
Someone writes, say, a network application, and in a very long EULA, includes statements that allows the software writer to, at any time, access and read any files off of the computer... or worse even, format the hard drive of the user. Unsuspecting user that thinks this piece of software will work great in the office, and automatically clicks through the EULA. Now the users computer gets thrashed or somthing like that. Company that the user works for tries to sue the developer, but wait... there is that clause in the EULA that supposedly permits this.
So the result would be that either the courts would have to rule that EULAs are not legal documents, and we can get on living, or that the EULA is a legal document, and its too bad for the company and the worker that installed the software.
What do you think?
A serious case could be made that you really are purchasing the software, because you don't see the EULA untill 'after' the exchange has been made. So effectively the EULA is changing the purchase, a transaction between you and the store, to a licensing agreement after the fact.
The fact is that you never signed the EULA before making the purchase.
This is entirely different from the legacy EULAs and licenses because because the contract was agreed to and known before the money was exchanged.
Clearly MS is doing a bait and swap with their software. As far as I know that's illegal.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Actually, at least back in earlier times, I remember most licensing agreements WOULD allow you to sell your software, as long as you sold all the original packaging and manuals along with it. I don't remember a single product, back when I would actually read these licenses, that ever objected to the sale of their software if it was done legally (aka not pirating).
Have the licenses changed that much since I stopped reading them?
Let me see if I've got this right. The DOJ is at fault because Microsoft engages in questionable licensing practices?
Seems to me there's a pretty simple solution. You don't like the terms of the license, don't purchase the software. Enough folks do that, Microsoft will be forced to either change the license or lose their business.
Or, if it really bothers you so much, file a law suit yourself.
If my memory serves me right, almost all Microsoft Product comes with a Certificate of Authenticity, which has the CD Key printed on it. And I would think that you would need to give that to the new owner-to-be for them to use the software. Is that certificate not sufficent proof? I mean it DOES PROVE IT IS A LEGITIMATE ITEM, doesn't it? Do you REALLY NEED the receipt and box? Is that certificate not good enough? If it isn't then why did they make the freaking thing anyways?
Also, isn't the CD itself has a protection to PROVE IT IS REAL!? That little shinning hologram near the center? (In the case of Win2K the whole disk is like that.) You are transferring EVERYTHING you have. Do you really need the box when it no longer exists?
This seems to compare to map making, which was one of the primary arguments in favor of copright law existing at all. A software cdrom could be compared to a set of plates for a printing press to make a map. If those plates should be availible by licence, so should computer software. That seems to be the logic here.
But this is a symptom of practical constraints more than moral ones. Printing presses were always very expensive and belonged to business before. But the situation has changed now as many people own their own personal printing press(computer), and the plates to print one map(software).
So the real moral question is, should people be allowed so sell their plates along with any licence to make copies of their maps. (legal number of 1 in ram plus more recent fair use protected backup of 1)
So the question really is... Can you resell copyright based licences so long as the number of copies allowed by the licence is honored.
I say yes. That reselling printing press plates with the number of copies allowed by licence is moral and would have been allowed had it come up.
Any lawers with a good understanding of copyright history in the mix?
Are their any legal precidents set? Did reselling printing press plates along with an allowed number of copies ever come up?
For example: A publishing house bought plates and the right to print say 800 maps for resale. They land a contract for printing a best selling book and make more money printing copies of that. Rather than sitting on the plates until the map is inaccurate they resell the plates with rights to print 300 unprinted maps remaining. The map desinger takes them to court, claiming he never gave them permission to do such a thing.
What happened?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
You seem to be associating my $100/hour proposed charge with a lot more than I intended. It's for (shrink-wrap purchased) software remotely shut down by the vendor in error -- that should be a rare occurrence. I think $100 is fair for a home user that's been deliberately shut down, if they fix it promptly. If a vendor has their tech support screwed up, so the hours tick away -- that deserves a much bigger cost. If they screw up so many times that this bankrupts them, putting them out of business is probably a good thing. If the possibility of such a screw-up persuades software vendors to leave out the remote shutdown "feature", that's even better, IMO. But I don't like just flat out banning it.
I didn't consider the possibility that it might not be the vendor shutting software down in the mistaken belief that the software is pirated, but malicious hackers instead. E.g., if Microsoft puts that into their server version of Windows, a lot of people would think it served them right to have it used to crash their own servers. (Oh wait, some of them are still running *nix/Apache...) If the hackers weren't satisfied with that and hit third parties -- what should MS's liability be???
I do know there are servers where the cost of an unscheduled shutdown might be far over $100/hour, maybe even $100K/hour. I'd expect that in that case (1) you won't use an OS that has such vulnerabilities, and (2) you ought to be negotiating the license and warranty terms with the vendors rather than relying on the warranty that's sufficient for Joe Sixpack's porno browser.
See here, among other places (search for "selective incorporation" and/or "Fourteenth Amendment" for more). States are not required to follow the second ammendment, nor the seventh, nor the fifth ammendment right to a grand jury. The first amendment and most of the bill of rights is incorporated, but only because of the fourteenth amendment. Before the fourteenth amendment, states could make laws abridging free speech. It is still unclear whether or not local governments can make laws abridging free speech, and the whole thing rests on the current interpretation of the supreme court (which wasn't always the same, as has been repeatedly disputed by minority opinions).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
The ones we were all reading last week - FrontPage and XP - both expicitly allowed resale. They said you had to delete all copies from your own machines, but could then resell them.
Any time MS shoots itself in the foot I'm a happy camper. The more often they throw around their weight, the more likely it is for their customers to bail.
You can't imagine how pleased I'd be if I never had to fix another shitty installation of Windows ever again. It almost makes me want to go back into Perl/C++ programming just to get away from Really Bad Software (RBS)(TM).
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
It's my understanding that shrinkwrap licenses don't hold up in court, and that the feeling is that if you didn't sign something, you aren't legally bound by anything. The software companies all spent a few measly grand writing those blurbs for the packet of software on the off chance that they would hold up in court.
eBay is just willing to bend over for anyone who can crush them. While this isn't completely unreasonable practice, it does mean that eventually they're going to get bent in so many directions that they break off near the root. If you agree with everyone, and then some of those everyones disagree with one another, you are now in trouble.
While the contents of the media are protected by copyright law, both domestic and international, the media itself is readily transferrable, as is the piece of paper the [unenforcable] shrinkwrap agreement is printed on, and the pretty holograph-impregnated license sheet as well, as they are physical things which you own.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Want to buy some? Go to www.sweaty-crevice.com
... by the corporate powers. Welcome to the New Free Democratic Peopl's Republic of America, comrade.
WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS!?!
There are many cases where licenses are non-transferable, particularly in the case of corporate licenses of intellectual property, but I believe (IANAL) most licenses are transferable by default, unless specifically stipulated otherwise. As I recall some states require consumer product licenses to be transferable (stating that non-transfer clauses are not enforcable within that state). I'm just not certain in which states this is true. The UCITA makes ajustments to the transferability rules, but the site I'm referencing here is not an even-handed analysis of that legislation (primarily because I don't have time to look for a better analysis). If you find what's written there to be disturbing, remember that it's decidedly pro-UTICA so an even handed analysys would be even more disturbing.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
apt-get transfer does nothing for me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually the problem is not with Microsoft (for once) as some other postings claim, it is with US law.
In Germany, e.g., you have the full right to sell or give away a copy of some commercial software product as long as you don't keep a copy for yourself. Incidently MS grants you this right in their german/european EULA, simply because they cannot take it away from you (this was Windows 3.1, have not checked later versions).
At the same time the popular shrink-wrap contracts are completely invalid here, too. As long as you did not sign a specific document or actively agreed with an EULA (by clicking) is is as if it does not exist. Even when you agree actively there are restrictions. For example any clause that probibits reverse engineering is void. The reason is that european copyright law explicitely allows the reverse engineering of software as long as this is necessary to use the product in the intended way. That means you are allowed to find and fix bugs. Now most larger software products have bugs and most of them are difficult to localize...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
Microsoft demands that you have a license for all your applications. Microsoft gives you a Certificate of Authenticity, they give you original media, they give you an End User License agreement... which one of these constitute a license?
I don't think a single one does. The EULA tells you your rights. The Certificate just prevents counterfeiting.
A receipt represents evidence that you purchased the software from an authorized dealer. The EULA guarantees that you cannot resell that software and break the train of proof-of-license which the receipt provides. If you could sell software, people could shuffle silly paper licenses around whenever an audit occurs... there would be no way to proove that anybody owned anything at any particular time.
From what I hear, an OEM license isn't even valid unless you can prove that the software was purchased at the same time as your CPU, HDD and Motherboard.
Actually, not only has something like this happened, it was on slashdot--and it wasn't just some company, it was public schools that were hard-up to begin with. Granted, there was "piracy" going on, but it wasn't like it was malicious, or (and this pretty much applies to any case of small-time piracy) it wasn't hurting Microsoft any more than losing a penny down the sofa would hurt you or me.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
...have all sorts of rediculous clauses. What other industry makes you agree to a license which states that there is NO guarantee that it will even work out of the box for any purpose? You pay good money and can't even get some assurance that it will function. Naturally, the license isn't printed on the outside of the packaging, and you must actually make the purchase before even seeing this, but that's another issue.
Something else that occurred to me: what about when you sell a used PC to someone? You might have tons of software licensed on that box, and provided you aren't keeping a copy of any of it, you shouldn't be required by law to format the drive and sell them a doorstop, should you?
I've often wondered about the legality of some of these EULAs (like the FrontPage thing discussed a few days ago). We're always discussing the GPL and other open-source licenses, debating whether or not they'd hold up in court; commercial software licenses haven't really been tested in courts much (to my knowledge) either.
I suspect the GPL might actually have a bit more legal ground than most EULAs, simply because of the way the license is presented to the end user. A box pops up, requiring you to click 'Accept', and most people don't read them. The GPL is in the top of every source file, and it's not easily over-looked. Plus developers should have a bit more responsibility than end-users when it comes to using someone else's code...
In my opinion, if commercial software vendors want my business, some of these clauses must go and they must take some accountability (eg, MS is not liable in any way for CodeRed/Nimda/etc thanks to these EULAs). Otherwise, I have no reason to purchase software when I can get much more favorable terms -- for free. The GPL is strict, but from an end-user perspective (and for any responsible developer) it's great.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Consider this; acquitted of criminal copyright fraud, but held responsible for damages due to contract violation in civil court.
Which of the two do you thing M$ would actively pursue? On one side, you must defend yourself in a case you will probably win (still not cheap). On the other side, Bill takes you to the cleaners...
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
I would assume that it's because of the copyability of software. I know computer stores won't let you return non-defective software once it's opened. Re-selling the software amounts to the same risk: you could buy it, install it or burn it, then re-sell it. I think this is what the software writers are trying to avoid, although with Disk IMages and high-speed internet access, it's kind of pointless.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
In my state and I would imagine most, if the terms of the lease are read by the consumer after money has changed hands it's not a lease, it's a sale. No lease restrictions may be enacted after money has been accepted by the seller. Microsoft is also a third party in the sale and doesn't really have much say in it, as they have already taken money from the retail store, and other than copywrite have no legal right to the product.
And exactly how is replicating software equivalent to taking your car apart??
Is there some clause I missed where I have to uninstall spellchecker from word before I sell office?
When you buy some software, or a book, or a record, you own the distribution media, and a licence to use the material contained thereon. Even though I don't own "Amipro" or "Imagine" or "Regular Polytopes", I do own a licence to use a copy of it on my machine. Buying any of these do not give me the right to set myself up as a redistributer.
So, technically, you don't own the copyright to the software, you do own the right to use a copy of it, and to hold such backups of the media as allowed in the agreement.
And it is that right that you might transfer under the cover of sale.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
First Sale is codified at 17 U.S.C. section 109. It is available, unfortunately for your theory, only to "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title."
Show that you own title to the copy, and you're in. Merely being a "consumer," as you say, won't cut it. Unfortunately, you won't be able to in the case of Microsoft software -- your transactional documents will show that you are the licensee to use a copy, not the owner thereof.
When I sell my Microsoft software, I can just say, 'oh, I clicked cancel on the EULA and decided to sell it instead.' There's no proof otherwise.
Maybe Microsoft has seen this hole, and by requiring every copy of Windows XP to be registered with them, has proof that you agreed to their license agreement, and then can prove in a court that you agreed to those terms. hrm...
FlexLM, the bane of many a sysadmin's life, is very similar.
A lot of graphics software (e.g. Maya, Photorealistic RenderMan) in particular is licensed with FLEXlm. This form of licensing is particularly badly suited to this kind of product, because a) managing 1000 licences is a logistic nightmare, and b) you tend to only use your "maximum" number of licences during certain peak times (when you get close to delivery).
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Microsoft needs the corporate buyer, but corporations buy the software their employees can most easily use - so Microsoft needs first to be ubiquitous. (Everyone know Windows.Word/Excell etc . . . )
So anything they do to stop average people from getting a copy to learn on etc. . . plays against their chief selling point.
MS wants software to be prostitution. They want you to pay each time you use it, and they want the US legal system to be their pimp.
This is a very poor analogy, because the service which a prostitute provides (in those countries where it's legal, i.e. not the USA) is normally exactly what the customer wanted. Also the market for provision of those services is quite competitive, there are a lot of providers. Prostitutes are more like hairdressers or dentists than software vendors.
The negative connotations of words like "prostitute" in the USA (and UK to some extent) are just a result of the puritannical traditions of those countries. Lighten up, folks. Girls here get jobs in brothels because they like the work and it pays well. More or less the same reasons programmers become programmers.
I have to agree with the comments on reselling licences, last time I checked the company did not make me sign any documentation saying I actually agreed to their licencing terms.
Additionaly I believe with most software you have to actually use it to read the licence for it, thus nullifying the company's "excuse" of not using the software if you don't agree to the terms.
GCM d+ s+:+ a- c++ U? P! L E-- W++ NM+ V PS- PE+ Y+ PGP- t 5+ X?+ R+++$ tv+ b+ DI++++ D---- G e
When you buy a book, you buy the physical material, as well a limited license to read the text written on the pages. You don't have the right to sell coppies of the text, nor do you have unlimited right to use the text (plagarism comes to mind).
Now why SHOULD software be any different?
I can tell you why it IS different.
It is different because:
A) It's so much easier to copy software than books. Not that a sheet-fed scanner wouldn't do the trick, just that printing it out would be more expensive than buying the book. Meanwhile CD-Rs cost 15 cents/piece, and bandwidth is even less expensive.
B) Because they can! I happen to recall a coin-operated bible in an older Simpsons episode. If it was technically possible for book manufacturers to put such harsh limits on your use of their books, they would. Fortunately for us all, there was a time when congress gave a crap about the people, and in turn created fair-use laws.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Over here, they went to court once or twice. However, even OEM-Windows may be sold without computers.
Here, Software is a product and once it left microsoft's hands, whoever owns it may sell it in any way he likes.
Don't have the details, though.
There was a court ruling that the resale of software (even Microsoft OEM software) is legal. One large german dealer even had a large event where he offered cash for used copies of Windows 98 (didn't slashdot report on this?).
What if you selected NO on the EULA? I have not found a store that will let you return software if you read the GD EULA and find it to be a unacceptable. Seems like it may be a hard agreement to enforce since you can not refuse to buy the product if you do not like the agreement cause you can not read the agreement unless you buy the product and then it is too late to return.
Actually, the transactional document is the receipt you got from the store. This document says that you bought a physical copy. It doesn't say that you licensed the software contained therein.
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
The DMCA also deals with fair use of digital materials; service provider liability and the takedown clause that allows copyright holders to shut down web sites that they believe violate their copyright, without trial or prior review; protection of copyright management information; digital "performances"; allowing copying related to maintenance and repair of computers; and more. The DMCA consists of five separate "Titles" each dealing with a different area, of which anti-circumvention is only one. See this summary, for example.
Obfuscating the purpose of the DMCA lessens the logicical correctness of our argument against it and in so doing weakens our cause. In the future, please be more vigilant.
Pot, meet kettle!
You do good on the soapbox.. feel free to borrow it anytime!
It strikes me as odd, sometimes, how little people understand their rights as far as returning products.
As far as the law goes (in general, dunno about each state)... a store is not really required to have ANY return policy. A sale is a sale is a sale.. with the following exception:
A product must be fit for purposes sold.. there cannot be deception. If the salesman tells you 'this pipe-bender, sir, can bend pipe up to 3/4 inch thick' and you try, and it can't.. then they MUST take it back, as they sold it fraudulently. Similarly, with software....
If a store clerk tells you 'Sir, this works under windows 2000' and it doesn't.. they MUST take it back, they have no choice.
But as for stores simply accepting returns.. it's really a courtesy that they do so at all, in order to please their customers. They could quite legally say 'All sales are final', and as long as they don't deceive people.... not have to take returns, ever.
As a comuter tech in the retail end of the spectrum. I use norton ghost to copy customers drive's on a daily basis, for such reasons as possable hardware failure, or just they need more space. Is this a violation of licence agreements? .cab files to your harddrive violate those agreements as well? does it have to be a CD-rom copy?
As a footnote if i copy say a Gateway harddive which does contain a copy of all the intallation files, as does many other "brand" name computers. Does copying your
Just Limin' Mon
Not. ProCD v. Zeidenberg.