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.
This article goes into more detail about that. Apparently his eBay account was restored (and good thing, I would be livid if I had a 10k+ feedback powerseller account taken from me)
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!
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 can surely attest to this. While in school for CS, I was a junior administrator in the MIS department, doing things like... well, everything that went wrong on the computer network. We dreaded when anything went wrong with Autocad. It was a bloody nightmare. Dongles would just stop working and their customer support would pretty much tell us that we were lying and trying to pirate the software. And it was like talking to a brick wall. No amount of sales receipts or serial numbers mattered. They didn't even care. Their solution every single time was to "Buy a new copy".
On top of that, upgrading almost never worked. It got to the point where an upgrade to Autocad meant loading up a new system image, then installing it first before anything else.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
That act is specifically prohibited by the Copyright act. (At your discretion of course).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Skirting this by saying the key allows you to create an account and that the account is non-transferable is bogus as long as the key can only be used to create only one account.
I did buy a "like new" copy of WoW on ebay a couple years ago. I was a bit put out when the key was rejected due to having already been used. After reading the EULA thoroughly (not that I agree to a unilateral after-purchase change of conditions), I argued with Blizzard about my non-working key. After talking with a lawyer friend, and him sending them a letter, they sent me a new key.
One of they key points in their EULA was the paragraph:
You may permanently transfer all of your rights and obligations under the License Agreement to another by physically transferring the original media (e.g., the CD-ROM or DVD you purchased), all original packaging, and all Manuals or other documentation distributed with the Game; provided, however, that you permanently delete all copies and installations of the Game in your possession or control
The key is part of the "other documentation" and must be transferred to the new owner. Preventing someone from using it just because they are not the original owner of it is contrary to the first-sale doctrine.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the EULA indicating any possibility that the key cannot be used by its rightful owner. The only place that is mentioned is the Terms of Use which are displayed when you go to use the key. Prohibiting subsequent owners from using the key completely destroys the intended use of the software, so should not be allowed as long as first-sale doctrine principals apply.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
This blog entry by William Patry adds quite a bit of background.
Patry is Senior Copyright Counsel for Google.
With all due respect, I will have to agree with Cinnamon-Roll guy (my family, too, was involved with independant video rental business in the late 80s through the 00s).
Where I believe you are somewhat incorrect is that, in the catalog you saw, you saw prices higher on items not released for "general sell-thru". Recall back in pre-DVD days, many videos were available for rental only first (for a few months). This was because of the artificially high markup (around $100 a tape, circa 1998). Consumers simply wouldn't pay it. When the need for rental stores to buy 10 or 15 copies died down, it went to sell-thru. This was how the movie companies countered the rental market at the time. Interestingly, this was primarily brought about by the stores selling their used copied once the need to have a lot of copies of something died down. To the rental houses, the studios argued they had to make their money somehow, and it wasn't fair to sell a movie out for initial rental for just a few bucks and have it sold for nearly that much used.
Exceptions were made (think Disney or something that was thought to be a major-selling video, like "Titanic") - and for those that the consumer paid $19.95 for, the video stores paid about $15.
Agree: it did make for some fun explanations why that new release that baked in the hot (Michigan, in my case) sun in their car was $125 to replace, when they were used to spending $20 for a tape. It's all about the timing.
The germane point here is that they weren't paying a special licensing fee or anything to the studios (though, in later years, Blockbuster and Hollywood entered into "revenue sharing" agreements that allowed them to get a jillion copies of a movie) - they were simply paying an inflated price set by what was essentially a monopoly for a particular title: the studio.