Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Says First-Sale Doctrine Covers Software, Too
New10k writes "The US District Court in Seattle has rejected Autodesk's myriad arguments regarding its software licenses and found in favor of eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor. The ruling started by ruling that Vernor was within his rights to resell copies of AutoCAD Release 14 he got in an auction. Once the court settled the legitimacy of reselling, it used that ruling as a lens to dismiss all of Autodesk's various claims. More than once the court described Autodesk's arguments as 'specious' and 'conflicted.'" Autodesk managed to have Vernor's eBay account pulled, after he listed for sale copies of AutoCad 14. He sued Autodesk in response.
Score one for the little guy!
Can autodesk skirt this by making its software connect to an autodesk server and validate the presence of a (non transferrable) user account?
Because that is exactly what World of Warcraft (and all MMO's, for that matter) does.
Autodesk would then give the software away for free, but sell the user accounts for whatever they want.
Those of you who have not had to deal with their software and their heavy handed approach to licensing and upgrades are lucky.
and people who resell it?
What I could not figure out from the article was: What happens now to his ebay account? If it was pulled, I hope ebay restores it. Bugs me that ebay, google, youtube etc. always gets away for enforcing bogus claims. I did RTFA, but please enlighten me if I have missed something.
Dvorak on Doomtech
AutoCad aggressively attempts to make itself irrelevant. Why generate such bad press over a single copy... This follows the same backwards mentality of the book publishing industry, which thinks the less books in the hands of people the better.
There's no way Autodesk is going to let this ruling stand unappealed, and if the appeals court rules against them again, there will be a cavalcade of software companies prepared to flood the Supreme Court with amicus briefs on their behalf.
A bit off-topic, but I'm wondering if Apple was actually waiting on this ruling before going after PsyStar for OS X.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
A similar ruling is in effect in Finland since a number of years. The case was vs. Microsoft, decided by the supreme court that reselling MS Windows licenses is perfectly OK and Microsoft can't stop it. Don't have the reference handy, sorry.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
It's about the courts re clarified this for software. When you buy a physical product, you should have the right to sell it.
What happens now with all the authentication and tying copies of software to the hardware it's first installed on such as Windows XP/Vista?
You have a right to sell your copy, but effectively you can't because it's been tied to your hardware.
I created a 4 hour video on building boats. I sell probably 30 a year. An online video rental site bought a legal copy and now rents my video out at $15 per week.
So why should people buy my video at $80 if they can get it for next to nothing on the web and most likely just burn their own copy? That's First-Sale Doctrine and it can also suck for the little guy.
How many of you have found the actual license agreement is on the media stored in the packet? So in order to read the agreement, you have to open the packet.
Woot! This is a good day for consumer rights!!!
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Some people would prefer to buy non-transferable software licenses at a lower price. But if a software developer can't sell a non-transferable license, then folks are stuck paying for an option to sell they don't want and will most likely never use.
The courts found you are allowed to sell your own property. Even if the person you bought it from says you can't. At least in the area where software is concerned ;P
The ruling is important because it calls into question the whole concept of a Non Transferable license. The court found that âoefirst saleâ doctrine of copyright law did apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
If this hold, it will largely eliminate the non-transferable license in software.
And why shouldn't it? As long as the original owner retains no copy, selling an unused license simply keeps that copy under maintenance (maintenance charges frequently exceed sales revenue) and keeps the money flowing to the authors.
Nontransferable licenses are usually attempted by companies that have some sort of a near monopoly lock, so that not only do they gain from a new sale, they also gain from maintenance charges. If there are multiple vendors of equivalent software you really can't get away with nontransferable clauses.
As a software author, I'd gladly accept continued maintenance fees instead of new sales revenue. If my customers know that unused licenses have residual value when their projects are completed its good for me, and good for them. They buy extra licenses to handle the surge effort of development, and retain a few licenses for maintenance.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Well, why wouldn't it cover anything that's sold?
Wow, that guy has some rocks. In the second link, you find out he sues them without a lawyer. That's not an easy thing to do in a US District Court.
I just read this article. The author has no idea what a summary judgment motion is, nor the significance of having it denied. Summary judgment motions are just long shot motions brought early in a case to try to dismiss it if there are no facts in dispute. The significance of a *denial* of such a request simply means there are facts in dispute, or the law isn't so clear. IT IS A NON-EVENT. Nobody has won -- the case simply proceeds.
I mean, look at how libraries have put all those authors and publishers out of business.
You can get the books for free there! It totally destroyed the book selling market.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm glad to see this was slapped down. From my understanding (from reading the article) is that Vernor obtained boxed copies of AutoCAD (through some legal means) and then sold them on eBay. AutoDesk was claiming that Vernor was bound by their software license agreement. Even if you accept the validity of a click-through license (a big IF, I know), how would he have been bound by a license that he never clicked "I Agree" to? In AutoDesk's reasoning, did his mere purchasing of the boxed software bind him to the license? I can see how a judge would laugh this out of court. At least with a click-through license, you can present the license's text. In a "buy the box, bound to the license" agreement, where would the license be presented to you? As you were about to pay for the box, would the Best Buy checkout clerk hand you a 10 page agreement to sign? If they didn't, then the license can't be binding (you need to be able to read a contract before agreeing to it), if they did, a lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable signing a big, legal looking document every time they picked up a piece of software.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Fuck yeah I have a whole shelf full of old Autodesk products waiting for the bay.
Since I can't sell a game I've purchased through Steam, does this ruling have any implications for DRMed download-only software?
Well, this is what happens when you go to court. You sometimes lose. Expect Autodesk to quickly settle this out of court with quite generous, but non-disclosed, terms to Mr. Vernor. I don't see how they can take the risk that an appeals court will uphold this, so I expect them to pay him a lot of money (maybe $100,000 or more) and have him agree to a non-disclosure of the settlement. The court case will be dropped and Autodesk will not admit to wrong doing and the ruling won't apply since they settled. This will keep the door open that Autodesk or some other company might be able to try a similar case in the future and get a ruling in their favor.
If you read some of the other articles listed on the mentioned site, you'll learn that after he got each attempted sale pulled because of AutoCAD's DMCA complaints to eBay, and then restored (5 times!), he then got his entire sellers account frozen and not restored for a month. This affected not only the disputed AutoCAD sales, but everything else he was selling (vintage comic books, apparently).
All this from spurious DMCA complaints when the guy wasn't copying anything. Here's a boxed, legitimate version of AutoCAD, a copy made by AutoCAD, for sale. In what bizarro world does copyright even apply to that situation?
By the usual analogy, it would be like Ford suing a used car dealer for selling used Ford cars on the grounds that Ford's copyright had been infringed. Huh?
At most it's a contract issue. And a dubious, shrink-wrapped contract at that. The DMCA is irrelevant.
But what the court actually determined is that software licensing agreements (as currently written) do not apply to third parties. And that those third parties have the right to resell software under the first sale doctrine.
Even so, it's still an amazing ruling.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I have a client that was recently nailed by the BSA for having illegitimate copies of Autocad, because they purchased them online through various Ebay auctions (they only needed 2005 LT, not the latest and greatest, expensive version). The BSA deemed their less than 10 copies to be illegal, and nailed them with a hefty fine. My client wanted to avoid a legal battle, so they settled and paid this fine.
That being said, does anyone know what the laws are in Canada regarding reselling retail, boxed Autocad, and if my client had a foot to stand on?
nt
This blog entry by William Patry adds quite a bit of background.
Patry is Senior Copyright Counsel for Google.
Cisco has always claimed that when you buy a new router or catalyst switch from them that the IOS license is only good for the original purchaser of the hardware. You can legally sell the h/w as used equipment to another party later, but cannot legally transfer the firmware license to the buyer, they are supposed to have to re-purchase the IOS license again from Cisco, else they are illegally running it if the used router or switch came with the IOS software still present in its flash memory.
No doubt, part of the problem it has with piracy comes from the way that software isn't held to the same expectations as physical property, adjusted for the ability to copy it. If I buy a copy of Autocad, I should be able to sell my one copy of it. I can do that with anything else in my home. Why should software be exempted from this social and legal convention of property use?
The principle of demand and offer still counts. Being allowed to resell an otherwise unused license that you first couldn't sell should make the price go down, not up.
This kind of ruling must scare the sh1t out of companies like AutoCAD.
Because they were hoping to set a precedent, that's why.
Same reason the RIAA backs out anytime one of their victims looks like he can put up a decent fight. Precedent is powerful.
The difference here being that Autodesk got their asses handed to them because they decided to see their illogical claim all the way through to a ruling. I'm sure they were hoping for a ruling in their favor so that future claims would be a rubber-stamp process.
Unfortunately for them, they lost. Surprise! Now the rubber stamp is in the hands of the consumers. You takes your chances and you rolls your dice, right?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
and? How is it different from any other video? Should we outlaw all video rental stores just so you can make $80?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Reselling a copy of Microsoft Office you no longer use because you upgraded to Open Office?
~smith55js
Certainly more than a non-event.
The denial means that if Vernon's version of the facts are correct, he wins. The only question is whether his version of the facts are correct.
The case still goes on, but the opinion is good precedent for future cases with similar facts.
Sure, that's true of software issued before this ruling. But when software companies realize that they can't sell non-transferable software, they will have their economists do some calculations to determine how that will affect total sales, since people who would have had to buy the software will now buy it second-hand. From those calculations, they will raise the price by an amount necessary to replace the lost revenue. Software prices will fall in the short-term, and rise more in the long-term. If they were allowed to sell non-transferable software, they could offer it at a lower price than transferable software, giving consumers more options.
Of course, that is the ideal, in practice they would probably just sell NOTHING but non-transferable software and use the subsequent monopoly to inflate the price ...
I suppose, in summary, it's just hard to say either way. I guess all you can really hope is that for every type of software, there are a few viable alternative, so that regardless of the licensing schemes it will not be profit maximizing to inflate the price beyond what is realistic, due to price competition.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I think a very valid argument is being made, and people have been saying this for awhile. People share and lend books to friends all the time. Yes, it is difficult to get a break in the book market, but the real advantage in movies and music (fir the producers) is barriers to market. As Lawerence Lessig argues (in part) in his book Free Culture, movie companies don't care about piracy, what they worry about is a reduction in the barriers to market. P2P enables anyone with a $200 camera and a $1500 computer to be a movie producer and seen by anyone almost instantly with no restrictions to geographic region. This terrifies the big movie companies. It has been easy for them to make lots of bad movies because there are not a lot of alternatives when it previously required millions of dollars and the studios permission to get in on the game.
As for CD's? It is as dead as AM radio (AM Radio has a dirty history, read Free Culture)
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
I don't know whether to laugh or cry :)
I got a VERO notice and my auction was removed. All bidders were basically sent an an email saying that i was a copyright criminal and not to pay me. I was furious, and there seemed to be nothing I could do. All I was doing is selling a plain ordinary book. Anyhow, I applied for a job at the publishing company. I was interviewed twice, beat out the other candidates, got offered the job, accepted the job, then called the company an hour before my start time and told them that I would not be working for them. Petty? maybe. but it made me feel better.
...who thinks the most amazing part of this is that Autodesk products are still being used?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
While first releases were often more expensive than perhaps a few months later,
until the mid 90's the method of studios recuping rental revenue was to have a different pricepoint for VHS videocasettes that were sold as licensed/ allowed to be rented, vs private home use casettes sold at Kmart Etc.
small video stores would literally pay 5-8times the price for a copy destined to be rented repeatedly.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Autodesk has not established that its license binds Vernor or his customers;
One wonders what this means for click-through EULA's. If Autodesk can't establish that their license binds Vernor, then it doesn't bind anyone. And that's true for every other click-through EULA.
Software companies have no one to blame but themselves. Making those EULA's more and more restrictive to the point of insanity. It's about time the courts vacated that nonsense.
Be interesting to see if it holds up on appeal.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
w00t. The EULA is toast.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Does this supercede the rulings in the Blizzard cases, or is it a different jurisdiction? Blizzard's cases have been based on the idea that First Sale Doctrine does not apply to their products, because their products are never sold in the first place.
This is in spite of, of course, the fact that you walk into a store, pay money, and walk out with the box, just like you would with a box that has Autodesk's name on it.
When you "buy" a Blizzard product, you're actually using it under the terms of a license, and never obtained title to the merchandise. According to the courts, you don't own a copy of the software (and probably not even the cardboard box itself).
But if this court says you can sell a copy of Autodesk's software, then that implies you must have owned it at some point.
Let's get all these judges in the same room.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That argument works just fine for music, but IMHO not so great for movies.
Reason being, a good song is just that - a good song. Three or four people with a few thousand dollars worth of gear can make some damn good music. Put them in a million dollar studio and the quality doesn't really go up all that much.
A good movie is a lot more difficult. Far more expensive. While scripting lately has sucked, Hollywood can't really be beat in terms of technical prowess. Unlike music, the more money you throw at a given project the better the results. Watch some of the other CDs that came with your Lord of the Rings set to see just how much went into making that, for example.
To put the argument on the other side of the court - how about porn? The one movie market where the large retailers and the home producers are on close to equal footing. Reason being - no script, no special effects, no huge budget. All you need is a room, a camera, and a few willing people. And homemade porn sure hasn't put a damper on the professionally produced variety.
I think the music people are far more worried about the "barrier to market" argument. And the litigation record would probably back that up. It's the RIAA that's going mad with the lawsuits. Compared to those folks, you hear hardly a peep from the MPAA.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Seems like an easy answer to me. Either they will buy another copy or they have made illegal copies of your work and continue to rent those.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
It sounds like this is the first time first-sale doctrine has been applied to software. Nope, in 2001 a similar ruling was made backing up the little guy. Softman v. Adobe. Check it out.
What keeps you from renting out your own copies for $15 or $10 a week?
It's not cost-effective for this guy to distribute his video for lower prices or rent it for a lower price. His main job is not running a rental store. Chasing people down, charging credit cards, et. al. is just too big of a burden for the amount of volume he's going to do with a single title.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Rental stores HAVE to use rental versions of the movies. Just stick it in your dvd-rom -- sometimes the volume label for the disc will even SAY rental. Usually the front of the disc will. Whereas you and I pay $5-$15 for a movie, I believe a rental version goes more for $60.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's illegal, you're naive, and you need to do your search before making armchair declarations that are totally inaccurate. Rental stores use SPECIAL RENTAL VERSIONS that cost 10X the normal retail cost. This is in agreement with the studious, as they COULD NOT do what you just said they could. A video store can't just buy used dvds online and rent them. Doesn't work that way. Do your homework.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
They already have the PLU, which is just ONE way to create an extreme hassle to would-be second-owners, and a deterrent to first-purchaser resales.
Basically, the PLU, or portable license utility, is installed with every protected Autodesk product. Well, at least with AutoCAD. After you register and authorize your licensed copy (electronically or over the phone, etc), the PLU ties that license to that machine. If you install and try to run another instance of the software on another machine, or even reinstall on your own after a total disk wipe, you'll have to re-register or at least get re-authorization.
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=608297
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=478591
http://www.autodesk.co.uk/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=452932&id=6005296&preview=1
http://www.cvis.com/MP/Using_the_Portable_License_Utility.htm
http://www.tovna.com/main/softlock.htm
http://www.cadforum.cz/cadforum_en/qaID.asp?tip=2396
When you want to legally for a day or a week or whatever transfer the user activity from one machine to another, you activate the PLU, specify the target machine to which the license is to be sent. When done, do the same on the current machine to get the license back to your original machine. If you botch it, you've got to call Autodesk. Botch it TOO many times, they'll forever deny re-authorization for that particular license.
If confused, contact Autodesk, or go visit the AUGI and other sites.
I don't particularly have a problem with the PLU. But, if the PLU is used to deprive resale by legitimate license holders who want to dispose of the product and maybe use a competing product, then "locking in" the user is heinous. I use AutoCAD for WORK. But, for my hobby, I use TurboCAD and Punch! ViaCAD and marine products meant for ship design. AutoCAD 2009 and even 08 have some nifty features, but about all I don't like about TC & VC is their pseudo-command-line is limited to single strokes, not multiple characters. That makes me think AutoCAD has some "patent" lock or threat against other CAD companies attacking AD on the command line. If that is TRUE, then that'll be yet another reason for me to continue using the smaller guy for my non-work activities.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Edgar,
The way around this is to post some segments of your video on youtube so more people can learn about it and then include links back to you own site.
You have a niche product that not many people are going to know about to either buy from your or rent from http://smartflix.com/ By getting more exposure you can increase your sales. Even the presence on SmartFlix can increase your sales.
It is hard for a viewer to digest a 4 hour instructional video sufficiently in a week that they can proceed with a 200+ hour project. If the video is good enough, that is enough time for them to decide they might want to buy it.
I wonder whether the guy would have a claim against Autodesk for improperly interfering with his contractual relationship with Ebay . . .
MS has attached conditions to the license that require the hologram to be intact. I think that is in the light of this ruling clearly an attempt to bypass the first sale doctrine (your license isn't valid until you stuck this thing on the case), but it will take another court session to make that clear.
You must give it to them, when it comes to bypassing the law they DO show innovation..
Insert
This is what pisses me off about Steam, Valve's content distribution system. For those who don't know, Steam is a Windows-based platform which allows people to create an account and purchase games with, digitally delivered through the Steam client. It uses reasonably light DRM in the sense of requiring Steam to be running when launching games purchased with it, and having to log into Steam before you can run such games.
The problem I have with Steam however is that the EULA states that you cannot sell your Steam account, which translates into not being allowed to sell your purchased games to someone else. This kinda sucks because if you get bored with a retail game, you can always eBay it or whatever, but try that with a Steam account and if Valve finds out, they'll not only get eBay to suspend the auction but if they can work out what account was being sold, they'll permanently disable your account anyway!
This is all stated in the agreement thingy you click Next though when installing Steam, but it's still a bone of contention with many people.
He may have won the suit, but does he get any money for his legal bills, months of lost sales, damage to selling reputation, and other damages?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think that's not a great comparison 'cause with rentals/loans/library books, you don't get to keep whatever it is you're borrowing-unless you scan the whole book in (been there/done that-far too time consuming when it's not necessary), bother with decrypting DVD's/MP3's to make copies, etc. With software, once it's shared that's it-give someone software and they're not gonna see a need to buy it. With a library, it's basically exposure and marketing-if the audience likes a book/DVD/CD enough, they'll buy it/more from the same author. (Plus, half the audience are people who'd never buy it in the first place-no lost audience 'cause they weren't an audience in the first place.)
open source modern art: laser taggi
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:W8fbAqRwzqMJ:www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html+rental+version+vhs+cassette+blockbuster&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"1980-1989
December 1980 - Walt Disney Productions announces that it would enter the home video market. It proposes the first "authorized rental" plan to retailers, under which a retailer could pay a flat fee for a cassette and have the right to rent it as many times as possible for 13 weeks. Sellthrough units could be purchased separately."
"January 1981 - Columbia Pictures attempts to impose two-tier pricing for video, with red videocassettes for rental and black for sale and retailer contracts obligating them to abide by the rental and sale restrictions."
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Amen and thank god. We do have rights versus powerful corporations.
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
So, current XP licenses actually look like sales in the light of this ruling. But MS can easily fix it by requirement that all buyers should return their copies of software after, say, 25 years of use. Or 99...
Since eBay suspended his account for 30 days until he convinced them he was innocent and that was his sole source of livelihood, they had and have great power over him and abused it greatly.
With their VERO program it is always the un-American guilty until proven innocent/shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to pulling auctions, but to actually suspend his ACCOUNT (!) thus denying him the ability to buy and sell at all is even more outrageous!
Annoy a VERO member enough, and get banned! The new McCarthyism.
I'd love to see the message they sent him saying why his account was suspended.
He should sue eBay too.
He also should get on with other auction sites so he has a backup (albeit smaller than from eBay) source of income.
What is the point of being self-employed if some company like eBay can suspend and "fire" you by banning you?
Had he been permanently banned he'd be in a world of hurt, as would anyone associated with him, since they ban the address, household, credit card and anything and everything and anyone and everyone at all connected with a banned account and person. They have a very strong BLACKLIST, even very savvy people have been re-banned when caught. As have innocent people married to or living with an "undesirable".
eBay needs to STOP suspending and banning accounts and people over allegations, and only do it for ABUSE. The DMCA does not require account termination unless there is repeated INFRINGEMENT (not mere allegations).
What even weirder is they banned him even though they had re-instated his auctions, which means they did it based on allegations even they thought were baseless at the time!
UNBELIEVABLE!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The ruling was actually a pretty narrow one. The answer it gave depends on whether the transaction was a sale or a license. If a sale - you can resale. If a license - you can not.
Now that question (sale or license) itself depends upon if the copyright owner has requested to get his created work back at some time in the future. Requested back - is a license, forgot to request back - is a sale. Some past 9th circuit precedent was settled this way. So it is binding now. But only for 9th circuit.
So many people that know what they are talking about, so few agree. An interesting discussion but I come away knowing no more than when I posted this.
This person bought the software from another person that probably installed the software. Wouldn't that kinda be like receiving stolen property? The person that sold it to him installed and agreed to the license,so he shouldn't have sold it to him in the first place? And also,Just because Audio Desk makes a license, that doesn't always make that license legal in different states? What makes audio desks software any different then say Console games. Sorry if there dumb questions :)
Jack of all trades,master of none
Understanding software licensing scam
1. The whole software licensing scam is about companies misusing "work on hire" and "copyright" laws.
2. Companies hire people to write software on work on hire basis and then sell the software on copyright basis.
3. The reality is "work on hire" is for internal use of the company only, work on hire does not automatically grant copyright of work produced on hire.
4. Copyright can be obtained only by paying the original author of the work "royalty" for each copy of the work.
5. To overturn software licensing all that someone has to do is prove that software publisher is not paying royalty for each copy to the software authors.
6. Where there is huge profits there is always a "scam" behind it!
and tbh, i do not see the need for watching 'special' editions of anything. they throw in some sh@t that was cut in mass release, because they werent seen as too necessary or vital, they add those crap into the mass release version, and then push it to idiots. a lot of garbage in 'special edition' dvds in the from of 'special features'.
Read radical news here
I knew that would be a bit of an inside joke.
:)
AM radio was a big and powerful medium long before tv, but there were some serious drawbacks (like that annoying perpetual humming in the background). Edwin Armstrong, scientist, was commissioned to improve on AM radio on the promise that big media would license it. Mind you they held all the patents for all the technology and the power to control the future technology in many ways money can.
What was totally unexpected was Edwin went on to develop FM radio, something beating all the problems of AM, and totally outside the scope of big media control. Just as Edison tried to do to Tesla with AC power, Edwin was discredited and sued into oblivion, and during all the distractions of a European war, big media managed to buy protection from congress to ensure FM would have to stay within a narrow band of frequencies and transmission power, despite the fact FM was and is superior in every way. Note:limiting transmission power was necessary to ban it from being usable by the government or telecoms which would have required the kind of power that was only legal for AM, for trans-American and transatlantic broadcast. Edwin, eventually old and ruined, seeing what he knew was great destroyed, went on to blow his brains out.
And today we have a strong and thriving AM radio industry, a towering zombie icon to political corruption and an eternal symbol for the power of money!
So as I said, their dead like AM radio
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Don't give me bullshit about how you didn't see the license until you bought the software, because you can still return the software if it's not been installed yet. It's the law.
Have you tried to return a disk when the packaging was already opened? I have and all I have ever been allowed to do was to exchange it for another one of the same thing.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Those reasons being exactly what the plaintiff is asserting.
Now, given that the judge has just said he won't decide summarily to drop the case and those reasons are because the plaintiff is right, what do you THINK the judge is going to say when it comes to undertaking the case? Do you think he'll recant and agree with AutoDesk?
YOU are clueless.
No worry of finishing last looking at your last paragraph.
but your company will probably go out of business if you keep human machinists on hand to do painstaking measurements instead of letting robots measure, cut and build the stuff directly from the 3-d models.
We are the 198 proof..
It's no skin off my back if you want to play stupid and can't find the MULTIPLE corrections by MULTIPLE people -- some even citing links to the laws. But play stupid. Pretend you're right. If it makes you feel better, march through the gates of Stupidia. I don't really care anymore. You're wrong. Have fun.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Release 14??? This is kind of like Microsoft battling it out over a Windows 3.1 license.
I have a big problem with considering an EULA to be a contract. In order to agree to a contract and have it valid, a user has to be old enough to enter into valid contracts. My 12 year old son is not old enough; but he is smart enough to click the button that lets him use the software without any assistance.
It would also appear that in order to enforce a contract, you have to know who both parties to the contract are. We know the software company; but the software company doesn't know whether I or my son clicked the button.
Even if you assume a valid contract is created by agreeing to the EULA, the next problem occurs when the person who agrees to the EULA walks away and someone else sits down to use the software. How is that person bound by the EULA ?
So software companies extend this pseudo-contract to someone who may not be competent to enter into contracts, makes no effort to determine who it entered into contract with, and doesn't require every user of the software to enter into the same contract.
This is an awesome precedent.
Now we need a class action lawsuit over the restrictions on installing Bioshock because it undermines resale.
Angus.
Is there really that much innovation in CAD tools that there needs to be a big R&D budget pushing the technology forward, rather than a common set of functionality that can be implemented and honed to a known 'best practices' tool? And are there so few programmers interested in writing one that's a real contender? Neither of those seem like sound assumptions.
If it is so easy to put you into a defensive posture where you expend energy being defensive, rather than learning how reality works ... Then perhaps I will do that just for the sheer enjoyment
Yea, it's more fun to "win" by being an ass than it is to win by winning a debate and changing what a person believes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First sale doesn't allow you to distribute copies, even if it's with the original work.
First Sale most definitely allows you to sell copies. What is illegal is selling illegal copies. If I wanted to I could buy 1,000 copies of Leopard from Apple and sell them to any one who will buy them. What would be illegal is if I took one copy of Leopard, copied it, then sold those copies without a license from Apple.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Consider CDs. Do you honestly think the RIAA would charge less if people couldn't buy used copies?
The RIAA is already making it difficult if not illegal to sell used CDs.
Should there be a Law?
I've seen firsthand evidence in the volume label titles. They say "(rental version)" [or maybe just rental... 16 character limit?]. Not all say it (can you expect consistency in something that only shows up in a computer and not a dvd player? No), but they do. This would certainly indicate that at the factory pressing level, there are 2 editions of these movies.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I know I am jumping in on this a bit late, so there is little chance that anyone will actually read this, but I felt I needed to ask.
If I want to sell a piece of "previously used" software, that has been "activated" or otherwise tied to my hardware, preventing it from fully functioning for the person I sell it to, how is this different from any "usable" item?
What I mean is, if I buy a tub of bondo to fix a dent in my car, and it works perfectly well for me, but for whatever reason, I would like to resell it, either 1) I need to completely remove it from the car, which renders it unusable in its intended purpose for the next person (as it has been "tied" to my vehicle), or 2) I could sell the person the entire car, which has the fully functioning bondo in place.
Yes, the person buying the software cant use it as intended, which should lower its "re-sale" value, but even so, this doesn't prevent them me selling it and doesn't (at least in my mind) break any rules.
Again, please explain if you know otherwise.