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?
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.
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.
¦ ©® ±
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.
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-
However, at present you can legally resell music that you legitimately buy, and you definitely can make a perfect copy of an audio CD.
The only think that makes software 'special' is the license agreement saying, "You don't own this item. You have the right to use the contents of it according to our restrictions, and exactly nothing else."
That's the key--not the copyability of it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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...
"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
So that explains why I feel so dirty after buying software!
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.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
This stikes a chord. Is it just me or are we moving into a kind of digital serfdom and an age of modern feudalism? It seems big corporations want do do away with private ownership altogether. Just like the pesants of old were tied to the land the aristocrats allowed them to use, we're held prisioner to software licenses that strip us of all rights and subject us to any corporate whim.
As long as we "know our place", pay our Microsoft tax, and don't speak against our lord and masters, they'll graciously allow us to use their software. However, anyone who dares speak out risks loosing everything.
With no real competition, large corporations can make demands that would have been unthinkable a few years ago - all we can do is accept. In the digital age, software is no longer a luxury, and it becomes increasingly difficult to function without it. Those who control that software and can dictate the terms will have more power than any government - and who do they answer to?
Even a land-owning aristocrat could take pity on his peasants now and again, but a corporation is a soulless entity who's only concern is maximizing profit.
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.)
Only as long as you didn't buy an upgrade licensed version of Office 97, or Office 2K. If you bought an upgrade, then you still only have the one license, and you can't (legally) sell or give away your previous version.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
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
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.
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
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!
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.
It does apply to tangible goods. People lease cars, the phone company used to own your actual phone, my cable modem belongs to RoadRunner, and just about anything in the world can be rented to own. The real difference with that stuff is that you have to actually sign a contract that clearly states the terms and agreements-- and you get to read the contract before you pay the money to the vendor. But in most of those lease cases, one of my terms of agreement is that I can keep the item in question by paying a fee (which would allow me to later sell it).
However, if I buy software from Best Buy or Fry's or Computer City without signing a lease agreement, in standard retail parlance I haven't leased (or licensed) anything. I *bought* it. I don't think we need to worry about Joe Sixpack revolting, Joe Sixpack will just bitch about it over Buds during commercials on TV. What we need is for corporations and businesses and people with legal ability to take a stand against this sort of crap, instead of knuckling under when the BSA comes calling with their extortion racket.
I do not have a signature
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.
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.
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.