Slashdot Mirror
Company Uses DMCA To Take Down Second-Hand Software
dreemteem writes "A judge Tuesday heard arguments in a dispute over software sales that could potentially have repercussions on the secondhand sale of virtually any copyrighted material. The suit was filed by Timothy Vernor, a seller on eBay, after Autodesk, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asked eBay to remove some of its software products that Vernor had listed for sale there, and later to ban him from the site. Vernor had not illegally copied the software but was selling legitimate CDs of the products secondhand. For that reason, he argued, he was not infringing Autodesk's copyright. Autodesk countered that because it licenses the software, rather than selling it outright, a licensee does not have the right to resell its products."
Yeah, unfortunately eBay will pretty much always follow through on a requested auction takedown from a content producer. They just don't want to be involved in their lawsuit.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Now, the DMCA would allow Autodesk to, say, validate a CD key online once only and then deny future installs on other hardware, since any attempt to get past that would be a circumvention attempt prohibited by the DMCA. But it's not Vernor's fault that Autodesk didn't do that. (Of course, just maybe they know that if they did, customers would be more reluctant to buy their software since most people don't like DRM.)
Unfortunately, I don't believe most consumers really appreciate the dangers of DRM yet. I'm looking forward to the day that a court case comes up where someone tries to sell on a second-hand product (software, e-book, whatever), gets told they can't because DMCA/EUCD/whatever anti-circumvention provisions are artificially blocking the sale, and then goes after the original supplier for fraud. Remember, in many jurisdictions, there is a fundamental requirement for honesty/understanding in any contract, and often there are laws specifically for one-sided cases such as where one party (the software/e-book/whatever business) had expensive lawyers write some huge long contract and a typical other party (a consumer making a purchase) could not reasonably be expected to understand all the subtle implications of the legal fine print.
Perhaps it's about time we had a balancing law that anyone selling[1] software with artificial, external barriers to use[2] must lodge a version of their software with no such barriers with some central organisation or forfeit their anti-circumvention protections entirely. The central organisation would then be free to release the unrestricted software on expiry of the copyright or in the event that a user was unable to make fair use[3] of the software and those who accepted the money/hold the rights failed to make reasonable allowance for this on request.
[1] No, you don't get to weasel out of this by claiming it's licensed, not sold. If you take money for it, consumers think it's either a sale (by default) or a rental (if there is a clear, fixed timespan attached).
[2] By "artificial, external barriers to use" I mean things like product activation and DRM schemes.
[3] Or whatever your jurisdiction calls its equivalent concept.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Anonymous shithead wrote:
good.
Otherwise the place would be 99% full of copied, stolen software.You would think that software developers here would see what a bad thing that would be for the entire industry.
Either you limit resale, or you limit copying.
Or you all get jobs as bricklayers.
Choose.
I'm sorry. What??? How is it acceptable that I was not able to sell my used DVD of "Hunt for Red October" due to takedowns? Sorry Mr. Anonymous but there is simply NO way you can justify that act. I have the inalienable *right* to sell my old unwanted CDs, DVD, or disks.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
On the day when an American is no longer able to buy a book, read it, and then resell it to somebody else, I'm moving to Russia where freedom still lives. (How delightfully ironic.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Only if you believe authority comes from Congress.
I don't. I think authority comes from the People first, the State Constitution second, the State Legislatures third, the U.S. Constitution fourth, and the United States/Congress dead last. Authority flows from the People downward. That said - as the final holder of authority, we the people still retain the right of resale.
i.e. If I convert my wealth from gold, silver, or dollars to a DVD, TV, or computer, I also have an inalienable right to convert that material wealth back to dollars via the open market. Congress was NEVER granted the authority to stop sales of used products. See the constitution- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Also see amendment 10.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall