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."
Vernor absolutely has the right to resell his CD, due to a well-known section of copyright law known as first-sale doctrine. If you legally possess a copyrighted work, you can resell it, as long as a new copy is not created. I don't think this case will last very long.
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.)
I am not a laywer.
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
What I found most refreshing about this, is that from reading TFA, the guy's (Vernor's) lawyer actually has a good grasp on this issue and was explaining it, at least to the press, using good analogies that a common person could understand.
Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I think he has a very good shot at winning this.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
According to this article Vernor won the case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
The fact that there is no used market is one of the reasons I left PC gaming behind several years ago. I can usually buy a used copy of a console game for a fraction of the new price, and it's saved me a fortune over the years. With PC games, there basically is no buying games used. The PC software industry has been bullying sites like ebay for years. Game publishers would no doubt like to kill the used market on console games too (that's why they're salivating so much over the prospect of going to download-only games and expansions), but so far have been stymied by technological limitations and a traditionally strong used game market for consoles. Just look in any Gamestop and you'll see a huge console section (with mostly used games) and an almost non-existent PC game section.
Why should PC games be regarded as so different? There is no reason game publishers couldn't require their software be used on one computer at a time the same as a console disc. Why should they be able to use that lame "We're not selling it, we're just licensing it" argument to stop resale of the physical software discs when movie studios and console game developers can't get away with it?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In my experience, Autodesk has an activation scheme that makes Microsoft and Adobe look downright passive. I had a client once buy a copy of AutoCAD 2008 (the full, ~$4,000 suite), and next year when he retired the original machine and we built a new one, we called Autodesk to activate it and they were like "you need a subscription", and I was like "uhm...he paid $4,000 for your software, and that's not enough, even though, had he kept his old machine, he could still use it, and the fact that he was never told about any subscription BS when he paid for it?" and they were like, "Well subscribing comes with (stupid list of benefits of no use to him)" and I was like "I don't care, I just want an activation code" and after a little more BSing back and forth, I weasled a "one time courtesy" out of them, after which I promptly imaged the machine with Acronis.
Autodesk can't lose. If they win the case, the guy can't resell, end of story. If they lose the case, then they just make a new company policy that once the software is registered (required for activation), the user must provide that same information again in order for the phone rep to provide the activation key. Even if the guy wins the case and can sell the discs (and even the license), unless the judge makes it expressly illegal for Autodesk to withhold an activation key from the second owner, they'll likely take that route to ensure the same end result.
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.
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
A friend who sells books on eBay often sells used copies of the Jane's books (Jane's All the World's Aircraft, Jane's Fighting Ships, etc.), the annual editions of which sell new for $900+. He's listed many of these over the years, but recently out of nowhere he gets an inquisitory e-mail from Jane's, demanding that he inform them of the source from which he obtained the books, and strongly suggesting that he not list them anymore because the reduced prices he gets for resale are "diminishing the perceived value of our products." He was tempted to tell them what to stick where, but as he put it, "the next step may be legal, and right or wrong, I don't want to get into a transatlantic pissing match over this."
(So now, he sends any Jane's books he finds to me, I list them, and we split the profits. And no nastygrams from across the pond yet. Yay for me.)
A good example, though, of how even a legally misguided implied threat can intimidate someone. If my friend sold nothing but Jane's books, he'd be more inclined to fight, but he does a decent business without them, and just figures he'll avoid getting into something that he has neither the time or money to deal with.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Autodesk's site has a tab to PURCHASE the product but not one for licensing. hmmm thats odd !!
Ebay is legally required to take it down if they are served with a DMCA notice. However, if you file a counter-notice, they are correspondingly legally required to put it back up unless the Copyright owner files suit against you.
Service providers operating under the DMCA safe harbor are required to hold a subscriber's counter-notice for at least two weeks before putting the disputed information back up, so that the complaining party has an opportunity to get a court order against the subscriber. Auction listings expire before then.
Because I am having a problem wrapping my mind around the US law.
The DMCA protects copyrighted works. Of course, the Autodesk software is copyrighted, but it is also licensed. Autodesk alleges that the software cannot be resold, due to licensing restrictions.
Copyright has not come into play yet.
Which I get. This may be disputed, but will falls under contract law.
Now, Autodesk enjoins EBay to remove the software, alleging a DMCA violation. Where the fuck did THAT come from? Copyright was never infringed (as far as I can see). Of course, EBay removes the software, but Autodesk must have known that this was not a Copyright infraction! Of course they hold the Copyright, but first-sale doctrine would apply.
DMCA shouldn't apply. But, hey, colour me confused. Now I understand that it would be illegal to have illegal licensing terms, but the only terms that could possibly apply (in a recent license) would be (1) The DMCA covers the Copyrighted portions (which is the case anyway, so why bother mentioning it), or (2) We allow the additional dropping of DMCA terms. In any case, any additional restrictions would be license restrictions, and not DMCA restrictions. Specifically, the removal of the first-sale doctrine would be a licensing term, and would not follow Copyright.
Which would appear to make a DMCA takedown inapplicable.
But what the fuck do I know? US law confuses me...
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
...and if he didn't "buy" them, then he's not "selling" them, either, just getting money in exchange for them [sic], same as Autodesk did.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
they still don't have the power to suck $$$ from your wallet, or jail you, or draft you to die in Arghanistan.
Corporations have sucked plenty of money from people's wallets, in many cases without any hope of recourse (thanks to mandatory-binding-arbitration clauses in non-negotiable contracts; read Consumerist sometime). They cannot directly jail you, because we've done away with debtor's prison, but they have pet governments to do that job for them. To date no one in the US has been drafted to die in Afghanistan, because the people won't stand for it; but funny you bring up the wars, given the overwhelming involvement of private industry in the American way of war these days... not the very war itself, but a substantial part of the way it's being carried out, are greatly to the benefit of corporations like Bechtel and KBR. Corporations do all of those things, thanks to the undue power money grants over the government. (And lest you say that it's still government doing those things, let me preemptively point out that the corps would be quite happy to do them as well, only the government stands in the way of private armies and police forces. Read up on the East India Company's rule of India if you wonder what corporations are capable of without government restraint.)
For the rest, when was the last time you got to vote for a corporation's leadership? Yeah, I thought so. Therefore the corporation is the greater evil: it cannot even in principle be restrained by the popular will.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
we are comfortable sheep because we are comfortable. our system, for all it's flaws, makes sure that most people have quite a bit of what they want and all of what they need. people don't go out and risk life and limb due to some theoretical injustice against them, even if it is very severe and real. for example look at the relatively low frequency of slave revolts prior to the civil war, despite millions of people being kept as chattel slaves with no rights whatsoever. the trigger for revolution is not going to come from overbearing government intrusion or even squalid living conditions, but rather from a large scale sudden, severe, and perceived to be permanent change in both directions. people are easy to scare into trivial action, but it takes a whole lot all at once for people to decide to give up "ok" living in favor of killing the bastards who screwed up their previously "good" lifestyle.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.