Watchdog To Represent eBay Seller In Autodesk Suit

New10k writes "Following up on a recent Slashdot discussion, nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen has agreed to provide an attorney to eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor, who is suing Autodesk in federal court over misuse of the DMCA to stifle competition. The advocacy group has identified elements of the Vernor case as some of its key litigation priorities for 2007. The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."

Comments

Sorry for OT

[Opportunist]

But ...

"The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."

I don't know what to think of that. Does working for MS tell you that there's more money and better job security in the IT field in the legal department than in development?

Re:Sorry for OT

[gigantu']

Does working for MS tell you that there's more money and better job security in the IT field in the legal department than in development?

It's not MS, it's the world telling you that. Consider a company going down. Let's say SCO. Don't you feel more secure in the legal department? You can litigate till retirement. If they don't pay you, you can sue. And you already have plenty of experience with that.

Re:Sorry for OT

[Aladrin]

Why would you make that assumption from a single person's decision? He obviously felt he would like being a lawyer better for whatever reason. You don't know the reason, and don't have any clue what it could be.

People change jobs and careers all the time and to paint everyone with the same brush because of 1 person's decision is lunacy.

Re:Sorry for OT

[geminidomino]

Why would you make that assumption from a single person's decision? He obviously felt he would like being a lawyer better for whatever reason. You don't know the reason, and don't have any clue what it could be. Well, we know it wasn't for ethical reasons...

Re:Sorry for OT

[Opportunist]

Says who? Just because it would be horribly worrying doesn't mean it's impossible.

Re:Sorry for OT

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't do it for any of the reasons listed. His non-compete clause with M$ was so harsh that he'll never be able to program for another company again. Hence he decided to go back to law school in the hopes of someday saving another poor impressionable soul from having the same thing done to them :)

- v

Fleeing sinking career.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."

I guess that means that IT doesn't pay well.

Autodesk? Suit?

[pimpimpim]

I've never heard of this case before, running through the article I guess the problem is Autodesk doesn't want him to sell used software packages of their software AutoCAD.

The bastards, I would say! It's like trying to prevent selling used music CDs or used books. How long will we have to cope with companies 'selling' us stuff when they mean 'lending'. Either they let us SIGN a contract BEFORE we buy explaining how they want to deliver their product (lend it, lease it), or if they don't do that, we can consider it BOUGHT and our property. You can not in retrospect claim someone didn't buy (gain ownership) to the product if you didn't make that completely clear beforehand. They ask enough money for the product to make it sure look like you have the right to own it and do what you want with it.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[91degrees]

Quite true, and everyone involved in the transaction except Autodesk is pretty certain it's a sale. I bet even Autodesk do at some point.

Customer to shop: "I'd like to buy a copy of AutoCAD" Shop to Customer: "Sure. There's your copy. That will be $799" Shop to Autodesk: "We'd like to buy another 20 copies of AutoCAD" Bet you Autodesk don't say "Well we can only sell you a license" at this point. It certainly doesn't clearly say "License to use AutoCAD" on the box.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[speaker of the truth]

Not just once, you could start your own CD printing factory and sell million of copies. This isn't how copyright law works. You can sell a copyrighted piece of work that you bought (such as a book) but only the original copy you originally bought (i.e. You can't start your own printing press and sell the book).

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[pimpimpim]

You only get to see the contract AFTER buying. Someone should test how legal this can be. There are things I won't own but pay for it, say my DSL connection. I do get to read and are asked to read the contract before I buy it. I am ok with that because I can be fully aware of the conditions before I pay for it (I actually do read this stuff to be sure when and how I can get rid of the contract in the case I want to switch). But if I buy a watch or a bread or anything that didn't ask me to sign a contract before buying it, I would surely not expect or comply to any "suprise!" contract that is in the package after opening it.

Let them sell personal licenses straight up front then! If I want to use matlab, I contact the sales representative and he will tell me the price for one year of Matlab use, it would be fully clear I don't own the software. Even then it might be legal to sell, say a remaining license period. Why not, I can also transfer my DSL contract to someone else when I move.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[pimpimpim]

Yes, I just checked the autocad shop and nowhere it mentions that you will buy a license. Instead you spend about 4000 dollars on something for which it mentions "Reasons to Buy" (so not Reasons to license). Nowhere on the page it gives us any buying conditions. (or did I miss them?)

Additionally they have a subscription service with a different pricing scheme. Autocad there is about 400 dollar I guess, it doesn't mention on what timespan, a year probably.

All this data on their own website points in one direction: for 4000 dollars you buy the software package after which you own that copy of the software package, to do what you want with it. For a subscription price you can buy a subscription where you don't own the software but it makes sure that during your subscription they 'lend' you the most recent software.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Wowsers]

I think if someone has old software that they no longer need (possibly because they upgraded to a latest version of it), and there is someone willing to buy/use the older software, and provided the older software has a valid licence key, then there should be no problem offering the software.

It's not as if you can go to most companies these days and buy an old version of software to install on older equipment. It's the newest version or no version. That also means buying a new computer when you don't necessarily want or need one. Madhouse economics.

Autodesk should be happy someone wants to install something like Autocad, even if it is an older version.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Tim C]

If you "owned" a piece of software, you could resell it. Not just once, you could start your own CD printing factory and sell million of copies.

That's what ownership means.

No, that's what being the copyright holder means. Owning a box, manual and CD/DVD means that I can sell that on to anyone I choose and no-one can stop me.

Or would you equally argue that the shops that carry software don't own it? Somehow I don't think you would get very far using that as a defence if you tried walking out with it without paying.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Sique]

For some reason you seem to believe that you can't resell a license. Why not?
And for some reason you seem to believe that you can't sell some property that comes with a license.
What happens if the shop that bought AutoCAD burns down? What do they claim from their insurance: 1 copy of AutoCAD? Or do they tell Autodesk: "Hey, your CD-Box which we happened to license from you just burnt down, please do your own claim!"

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[mcbridematt]

Hint: There is no such thing as 'legal' second-hand Autodesk software. They have the most draconian license agreement in existence. Of course, they have the market share to make customers eat it, and as long as the customer makes money they won't care too much - everyone raises the price tag.

They might as well sell computers than only run Autocad etc.. the licensing terms are equivalent to OEM software. Oops, you want to SELL the computer? Sorry, can't do that!

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[joeyblades]

Actually, under "Licensing, Registration, and Activation", Autodesk makes it very clear that you are not purchasing software, you are purchasing a license to use software. They also make it clear that this license is not universally transferable.

The licensing of software is not unusual for very expensive software, especially when external IP is involved. If Autodesk licenses certain IP from external sources, they are obligated to track it's use explicitly through their own licensing policies.

One might make the argument that Autodesk does not go out of it's way to make it clear to the casual shopper that they are not selling software, merely licensing software. However, if Autodesk is guilty of this, so is every other developer of licensed software. Also, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item you pick up in the checkout line at Frys, next to the peanuts and the $4 laser pointers. If you're planning on plopping down $4000 on a software product, you'd better do a little research. And if you find that same product on eBay for $40, you should be very, very suspicious that something is not on the up-and-up.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[rgaginol]

Yep - as long as you remove any installed copies that you've got running, there should be nothing to stop someone transferring ownership like this.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[pimpimpim]

Hmm thanks, I didn't find that one, since I wasn't looking at 'services & support'. From the site:

An individual stand-alone license entitles the purchaser to run an Autodesk® product on a single workstation. Its an ideal solution for individuals and small workgroups because it doesnt require centralized license management.

Your Autodesk product may be installed and activated on one additional workstation, such as a home or remote workstation, provided that the workstations are not used concurrently, are used exclusively by the same person, and are owned or under the control of the license holder.

First of all, if it should be used exclusively by the same person, how can this be a solution for small workgroups? And I get the point that it can be used by only one person at the same time, but I am not sure if they either implicitly or explicitly state that it is non-transferrable. Food for lawyers I guess.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Atraxen]

When a company is playing the 'you didn't buy, you leased' shell game, that strikes me as an ideal place for open-source alternatives to step up to the plate. I'm aware of some that are under development, but when I was looking for a CAD program a few months ago I wasn't able to find one that was out of the development stages (and ended up using AutoCAD in another research group's lab). Does anyone know of a good open-source CAD program with GUI that's working now?

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[DustyShadow]

Actually, you can get all the way to the checkout page with only one minor reference to a license at the bottom of the page:

"Software Products and services
sold from this online store are only licensed for use within US and Canada. Training materials, books, manuals and e-courses are available for sale worldwide."

So wait, are they selling it or licensing it? The language is obviously ambiguous. They should be more up front about their policy, no matter what the standard is in the industry. If the court determines it to be a sale, they are out of luck due to copyright's first sale doctrine.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[DustyShadow]

sorry, I meant to bold "sold" also.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[DustyShadow]

Actually it is well known that you can license or contract on top of copyright to prevent people from reselling a copyrighted work that they have paid for. Courts are kinda wishy washy on EULAs but I believe a majority of them hold them up. You can contract away the first-sale doctrine that you are speaking of. It should be considered a copyright misuse IMO but it's not.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Bravoc]

So... am I missing something fundamental here?

If the issue is copyright (read copy right) and no copy was made, how can someone claim that their right to copy has been violated?

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[JoshJ]

I think qcad is working now (sudo apt-get install qcad on ubuntu), but I make no promises as to its capability or functionality. I played with it for like 3 minutes once.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[Ajehals]

...are used exclusively by the same person...

So its per machine *and* per concurrent seat *and* named individual licensed? Reading that I would assume that if I buy one copy of AutoDesk and have two part time architects use it on the same machine (At different times of course) that I am violating the license.

I hope I am totally wrong, and I doubt that anyone will shy from pointing that out in the most direct fashion.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[mrchaotica]

Hint: There is no such thing as 'legal' second-hand Autodesk software. They have the most draconian license agreement in existence.

Hint #2: There is such a thing as legal second-hand Autodesk software, because their draconian license agreement is bunk, as this lawsuit aims to prove.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[jayp00001]

Right now but in florida they are closing down used CD shops.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-record-shops-used-cds-ihre-papieren-bitte.html

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[rs79]

" For some reason you seem to believe that you can't resell a license. Why not? "

Look at domain names. You never own one. When you grt right down to it you're licensing them. And you sure can resell them.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[ultranova]

You can not in retrospect claim someone didn't buy (gain ownership) to the product if you didn't make that completely clear beforehand.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." - Darth Vader and, apparently, the Copyright Empire.

There is nothing you can't do if you have sufficient power and ruthlessness. Since money represents power - or, to be exact, resources - in a capitalist system, and since corporations are both rich and amoral, there is very little they can't do.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[operagost]

One might make the argument that Autodesk does not go out of it's way to make it clear to the casual shopper that they are not selling software, merely licensing software. However, if Autodesk is guilty of this, so is every other developer of licensed software.

That's an appeal to popularity. It's still wrong. If I lose my copy of Autocad in a fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.

Also, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item you pick up in the checkout line at Frys, next to the peanuts and the $4 laser pointers.

Irrelevant. Once could also argue that the high price warrants better treatment from the seller.

If you're planning on plopping down $4000 on a software product, you'd better do a little research. And if you find that same product on eBay for $40

Straw man. Autocad doesn't care at what price you sell it-- they don't want you to sell it.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[sjbe]

There is no such thing as 'legal' second-hand Autodesk software.

disclaimer IANAL

The license may not extend beyond the first purchaser (that's a contractual agreement assuming everything is done correctly in the license) but the license very likely does not extend to the physical medium (box, CD, etc) on which it was shipped. Without knowing the exact terms of their license the buyer probably does own the CD and can resell it for whatever amount of money they desire. The license is probably not provided prior to purchasing the medium on which the software is delivered. It's quite possible to own a copy of some software without having a valid license to use said software.

Whether Autodesk is bound to honor a transferred license is a separate issue and a purely contractual one as far as I can tell.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[2cv]

There aren't many. progeCAD is one - www.progecad.com. That's based on the IntelliCAD platform - www.intellicad.com.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[CCTalbert]

Actually, the pricing scheme is a bit more evil than what you just described....

In "the good old days" (I've worked with AutoCAD since about '86) you bought the product, and had support for it; when a new release came out you could upgrade for the difference in price- for example if Rel.9 was $1400, and Rel.10 was $1550, your upgrade cost was $150. If you skipped a couple releases no problem, you paid the total difference. If you wanted to transfer your license to someone else, you'd inform AutoDesk and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Now, though, things are a bit different. (Personally I think Autodesk has become evil than Microsoft.) You have to both "buy" and "subscribe". You buy (around $4000 depending on the product), then you either subscribe for around $400/yr (and get support and all upgrades) or you don't (sorry Bud, you're on your own!). If you choose not to subscribe, can still upgrade of course, but if you happen to wait a few releases, you become "Legacy", which means your already owning the software only gets you a 50% discount; if you go a little farther then you're dropped entirely and you have to pay full price to get back in the game. And now you can't sell (or even give away) your software to someone else- say you're a small owner and decide to get out of the game- you can't sell your $4000 investment to anyone. IF someone buys your entire company they'll transfer, but they won't accommodate much less than that.

IF it was subscription, and you paid a monthly/annual fee for support, upgrades, etc., that would seem fair enough to me. I like that model, actually. OR if you really bought it, that would be fine too. To have to both buy and then tithe seems a bit excessive. It's no wonder Autodesk products are pirated so much!

We won't even talk about what an enema Rel.13 was :)

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[gnuman99]

Qt license runs for $6600 and Trolltech also does not provide the terms of the license on their website. Not sure, but I think they'll provide them if you want prior to purchasing (ie. licensing) the software. Also, the commercial license prevents you from reselling. Furthermore, prevents you from transferring the license more than once every 6 months (eg. someone quits and new person is hired to take their place).

Autodesk does nothing more evil here than Trolltech.

Furthermore, it is quite common knowledge these days that you do not buy software, you license it. You buy the CD/DVD and box if you wish, but the license may be non-transferable. In this case, Autodesk will argue that the license is not transferable therefore re-selling the CD/DVD for the asked sum of money cannot have a legitimate purpose.

The test in court will be whether non-transferable licenses are valid. If it is anything else, then the lawsuit is irrelevant.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[joeyblades]

> That's an appeal to popularity. It's still wrong. If I lose my copy of Autocad in a
> fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.

That's an interesting assertion you're making. What evidence do you have to back it up? I suspect you're just projecting your own sense of fairplay. Based on my dealings with Autodesk, I feel fairly certain that they would confirm your license and send you a fresh copy. I've not tested this theory, though.

> Irrelevant. Once could also argue that the high price warrants better treatment from the seller.

By better treatment I suppose you mean that Autodesk should look the other way when people try to cheat the system and pirate their products? How many installations of PhotoShop do you think are out there in the wild? What percentage of them do you think are legitimate? Adobe estimates that less than 10% of PhotoShop installations have a valid license. Can you blame Autodesk for trying a different approach?

> Autocad doesn't care at what price you sell it-- they don't want you to sell it.

You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.

Autodesk does have provisions for legitimately transferring a license, BTW, and it doesn't necessarily involve more money feeding their pockets.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[falconwolf]

You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.

It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay. And if they use a credit card to pay for it they can dispute the charge, make a chargeback, on the CC. Though I haven't bought anything from eBay, because of the price I've though of buying Photoshop there. Searching eBay you can find where the seller has a Transfer of Ownership form from Adobe.

Falcon

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[joeyblades]

> It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay.

Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.

Caveat emptor.

Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.

I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[flappinbooger]

Well, there is the copy that you bought in the first place... Perhaps there are certain rights you do or don't have regarding THAT copy as well.

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[brassman]

How about a different movie? Say, The Wizard of OZ with Bill Gates as the Scarecrow.

"You know it really isn't funny;
my software costs you money.
My software isn't free!

Read E.U.L.A. For Suckers
then pay up, you mothertruckers!
All your base are belong to me!!! "

Re:Autodesk? Suit?

[pimpimpim]

Amazing bastards then :( I guess that's what a monopoly does to you... Or is there any good alternative?

eBay's the guilty party here

[mwvdlee]

Autodesk was probably just sending DMCA's for any eBay ad that sounded like warez being offered.

They could have done a bit more to research this propperly, as the DMCA assumes, but the real problem here is that eBay just ignores any complaints about blatantly obvious (and provable) warez offered on their service without having to resort to legal measures.

Their own Vero service which is supposed to help in this department is a total sham; I've never even gotten response or noticed any actions being taken despite sending clear evidence that warez were being offered.

To me, the guilty party is eBay, for not taking any responsibiliy in upholding their own anti-warez policy. The only way to get eBay to stop being a warez middleman is by sending out DMCA's and with the sheer amount of warez on eBay, it was only a matter of time before this would happen.

I'm not saying Autodesk is innocent here; technically, they should have done the research. Just saying that none of this would have happened if eBay just did what their policy claims.

Re:eBay's the guilty party here

[julesh]

Autodesk was probably just sending DMCA's for any eBay ad that sounded like warez being offered.

Even in that case, Autodesk is in the wrong. The DMCA requires them to declare that they "a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials [...] is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." To have such a belief, I'd say they need to do more research than just bulk sending takedown notices without checking if there's anything to imply the belief. "Good faith" requires them to make reasonable efforts here.

Re:eBay's the guilty party here

[mwvdlee]

Please read beyond the first line of a comment before replying next time, please.

Re:eBay's the guilty party here

[MontyApollo]

eBay just doesn't want to police itself for some reason. Maybe they are so pro-seller that they don't want to get involved. I reported pretty obvious fraud a few times and they did nothing.

In one case someone hijacked a seller's account with positive feedback. The fraud ads were for expensive lab equipment in Georgia, but the account previously only sold hundreds of home accessories from Ohio. eBay did not even respond when I pointed this out.

In another case, someone just duplicated an ad for $20,000 piece of equipment including the description of all the custom add-ons and even the photos of it in place in a facility in California, but they were trying to sell it from Europe in the fraud ad. I notified eBay of these two almost identical ads, one from California and one from Europe, and eBay's response was that they did believe any copyright infringement was taking place and did not even address the whole fraud issue at all. (As far as copyright, the photos were identical, clearly images of some guy photographing his custom rig, and they did not even contact the parties to see if one might be infringing the other.)

Re:eBay's the guilty party here

[mrchaotica]

I'm not saying Autodesk is innocent here; technically, they should have done the research.

"Technically?!" Are you not aware that Autodesk's lawyer perjured himself by sending a fraudulent DMCA notice? That's a felony, you know! Unfortunately, the odds are next to nothing that he'd end up getting prosecuted for it, but still...

About Time

[Jane Q. Public]

That's about all I have to say. About time. Cheers.

I'm starting to get what they say about ebayers...

[Mikachu]

Watchdog To Represent eBay Seller In Autodesk Suit

I guess I'm starting to get why they say ebayers are stupid. I mean really, would you let a watchdog represent YOU in a suit?

Numpty or troll?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If you "owned" a piece of software, you could resell it. Not just once, you could start your own CD printing factory and sell million of copies.

Distribution of the copy you own is completely different to making & selling multiple copies. What you said here could apply to a book, video, etc. Do you not own the books you have?

Are you a complete numpty or merely a sad troll? I'm guessing troll, with a dash of clueless fuckwit.

Autodesk? Suit? Common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again, if you don't like that, don't use the software, period."

Were's the fun in that? The present situation allows one to push all the right buttons. Big company, software, contracts, little guy, etc. What you're asking for sounds reasonable and common sense and we just can't be having that on this forum. Demons are so much more entertaining, and profitable (page views).

Great choice of ads, slashdot!

[vrmlguy]

Check the ad appearing next to this article: http://samwyse.googlepages.com/slashdot-autodesk.jpg

Re:Great choice of ads, slashdot!

[Captain_Chaos]

Check the ad appearing next to this article: http://samwyse.googlepages.com/slashdot-autodesk.jpg

There are ads on Slashdot?

Re:Great choice of ads, slashdot!

[bongey]

I submitted it as a story a while ago, just wondering where slashdots values lies, but then again it is probably just an ad service.

Re:Great choice of ads, slashdot!

[Ajehals]

Yeah they are fairly unobtrusive and presumably go some way to pay for the bandwidth I consume whilst I am here,so it doesn't bother me.

And anyway, didn't you know that using adblock is both morally wrong, ethically wrong, a copyright violation, stealing and terrorism (in some areas). So there.

(there may be some sarcasm in this post, if you cant find it try looking at the text after the 137th character)

From career at MS to lawyer???

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno how he did it, but apparently that guy has forfeited his soul TWICE!

Re:From career at MS to lawyer???

[ultranova]

I dunno how he did it, but apparently that guy has forfeited his soul TWICE!

He didn't sell or forfeit it, he licensed it with a condition which allowed him to terminate the license at will, which he did to relicense it under similar but reworded license.

Re:I'm starting to get what they say about ebayers

[Farmer Tim]

would you let a watchdog represent YOU in a suit?

I wouldn't let one represent me nude. I have dress standards!

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watchdog To Represent eBay Seller In Autodesk Suit

If only it had said:
eBay Seller To Represent Autodesk In Watchdog Suit

That would have been funny

The precious anti-VERO fight

[freepath]

Anyone seriously interested in this issue should read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone, who singlehandedly defeated many corporate DMCA abusers trying to maliciously end their auctions:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/OurFight.shtml

It's a wealth of information for the self litigator. ...

~ f

Re:The precious anti-VERO fight

[rs79]

" read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone "

This is the coolest thing I've read in a very long time. I thought I knew a little about copyright and trademark law but had no idea that stuff produced by slave or force labour invalidates copyright.

Nice to see the little guy take on a handful of huge companies and win fairly consistanly by simply pointing out that what these big companies do it flat out illegal.

Laws at Issue

[Evets]

AutoDesk used the DMCA to try to prevent a sale of their software. The DMCA is not in place to enforce breech of contract disputes - it is for copyright protection. Using the DMCA in this way constitutes fraud. They are trying to enforce part of their licensing terms that say you cannot transfer a software license. Certainly whether or not that provision is legal or enforceable if it is legal will come up at trial.

California has a law that if a company guilty of fraud and they are sued, they can be forced to transfer all profits from that fraudulent activity to the plaintiff. I believe last year that some of the teeth surrounding this law were removed partially because people were using the law to extort money from small business owners all around the state - but given the fact that AutoDesk has done the same thing to the same guy 7 times I would bet they are in a bit of trouble.

Re:Laws at Issue

[Belacgod]

Breech of contract? Did Audodesk hire Roy Pearson as their lawyer or something?

yet another glorious victory

[Anonymous Coward]

in the war against freedom/humanity, etc... for most of US.

Well well now!!!

[axia777]

I tired to sell a few used copies of the educational versions of Maya on eBay recently. Autodesk forced eBay to remove my auctions. All told I most likely lost about $1500 from the way my a auctions were going. So does this kind of stuff apply to me? To bad it is not a class action suit. I pretty pissed about it really. I hope this guy wins so I can go back and sell my copies of Maya.

Re:Well well now!!!

[Footsienabackyard]

A recent seller, gave away AutoDesk 3ds max, with the license, and charged like hell for shipping and handling.

Re:I'm starting to get what they say about ebayers

[m94mni]

In Soviet Russia, YOU represent WatchDog!

Why is eBay subject to DMCA takedown provisions?

[yuna49]

I asked this question the first time this case came up and got no replies. I'll ask it again.

Under what theory does the DMCA apply to eBay sellers? Unlike YouTube, eBay hosts no copyrighted materials. (For simplicity's sake, let's leave aside trivial objections like when a seller's advertisement includes a photograph of a copyrighted work.) Is the claim based on some extension of the Grokster decision, arguing that eBay somehow constitutes a "contributory infringer" if it hosts an auction for copyrighted materials? That seems to run squarely up against the first-sale doctrine. If I buy a book, there's no reason why I can't resell it on eBay.

I realize that the Autodesk case is more complicated since it brings into play issues of licensing vs. ownership, the enforceability of EULAs and the like. The only way I could see eBay being charged with contributory infringement is if they knowingly encourage the sale of illicit copies of copyrighted works. Even then, I think it's a hard case to make. In Grokster, the Court's argument rested largely on the fact that Grokster explicitly encouraged infringement by distributing its software application and hosting advertising on its website. How does that apply to eBay?

This could be the end of "physical" software...

[BUL2294]

While I'm all for this guy winning (and hopefully turning this into a class-action against Autodesk, eBay, etc.), I do wonder if this means that software manufacturers will no longer physically offer their software (i.e. CD, DVD, etc.) but will require you to download it. Everyone has been saying something to the effect of... "A CD is like a book--you can sell it, burn it, give it away, as long as 1 person has that item..." So if a physical CD is no longer offered, then that will be the next battle because then a software vendor will be able to truly say you licensed it by downloading it...

Re:This could be the end of "physical" software...

[Lithdren]

Or...they could just be straight forward and tell you its a lisance! Wow, there's an idea...

Downloaded, Burned, Sent via Morse Code and Signal Fire, I dont care. If they cant be bothered to confirm its a lisance and not an actual product, they can get lost.

Vero...my own personal Auction...

[AbuBamsry]

Dear XXXXX (XXXXX@yahoo.com),

**PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR LISTING(S)**

We would like to let you know that we removed your listing:

3627618857 Autodesk Discreet 3D Studio MAX R3.1 Bundle

because a Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program participant notified us, under penalty of perjury, that your item infringes their copyright, trademark, or other rights.

We have credited any associated fees to your account. We have also notified the bidders that the listing(s) was removed, and that they are not obligated to complete the transaction.

If you relist this or any other similar items on eBay, your account likely will be suspended.

If you believe your listing was ended in error, or have questions regarding the removal of this listing, please contact the VeRO Program participant directly at:

Autodesk
andrew@donahue.com

eBay is available to answer questions, but since it is the VeRO Program participant that requested the removal of your listings, we encourage you to contact them first.

For more information on the VeRO Program, and a list of VeRO Program participant About Me pages, please visit:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/vero-removed-listing.html
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/vero-aboutme.html

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,

Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department) eBay Inc

Not Relevant

[Jane Q. Public]

As you mention yourself, DMCA (improperly) assumes that the copyright holder has done their homework. It is not eBay's fault if they issue improper DMCA notices, even if eBay is negligent as you say. Those are two different issues. eBay might be lax on their own enforcement, but Autodesk is still legally required to perform their own due diligence before issuing improper DMCA notices.

Damn

[axia777]

That looks a lot like the e-mail they sent me for trying to sell my non-warez, legal copies of Maya. I have every version from Maya 5-7, educational version collecting dust. I might as well donate them to the Goodwill!!! ;P

Re:Damn

[Grimbleton]

Well, if you REALLY want to get rid of Maya 5 I could take it off your hands.... ;D

ads

[falconwolf]

There are ads on Slashdot?

Forget about using ad blocking software, instead use a Host file. Here's a good article on using one for Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File. Google has some links where you can download a Hosts file, all one is is a text file listing IP addies you want blocked.

Falcon

ethics

[falconwolf]

Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.

True, sellers and eBay should be ethical and held accountable. That's true in all walks of life. As for eBay's practices, I don't know what they are however it would seem they'd take care of their brand. If they don't then people could switch to another auction website, Amazon or Yahoo! perhaps. eBay may be dominate now but it could change quickly.

Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.

I don't know all the details so I can't say who's right. Neither can you unless you have inside info. What I do know though is that there are plenty of cases where some corporation screwed up and someone else was made to pay, sometimes with their life.

I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.

And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?

Falcon

Re:ethics

[joeyblades]

> And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?

Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.

Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?

Re:ethics

[falconwolf]

Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.

Ok, I didn't see that in tfa, that it was a license not a sale.

Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?

If he knew it was a license then no it wasn't in good faith. My mistake, I thought he bought software.

Falcon

THANKS!

[axia777]

Now that is freaking SMART. I just might try that. I will see if Autodesk bitches then! ;p