Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules For Software Ownership Over Licensing
valderost writes "Out-law.com reports on a finding of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, in favor of an individual reselling Autodesk's AutoCAD software in 'his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.' The decision hinges on some technicalities in the Autodesk license and conflicting precedents involving a Vanessa Redgrave film, but it's good news for the idea that a software purchase is just that. 'The Court said that it had to follow [the film] case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy. "The court's decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."'"
So the court, by mentioning the dictates of precedent in the first place, is implying that it thinks licensing is the preferred policy?
The Court was almost certainly responding to arguments put by both parties that were policy based. It was politely pointing out the reason why it just ignored all those arguments from both sides and focused purely on what the precedents say. Because that's the Court's job. In particular to the losing party it amounts to "and if you don't like it, go and bother your mom^WCongress instead".
Would have to read the full decision and/or the filingd by the parties to be sure though.
huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.
I was referring to reselling the license, not the download itself. Actually, I was referring to giving the license away for monetary compensation or no compensation, depending on personal preference (just like a physical disc).
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
The various cases on this matter make it clear that there are three different things involved. Read Title 17 Section 117.
You may own copyright in the software. This gives you the right to control what copies are made, with one exception. This, copyright ownership, is what people usually mean when they talk about owning the software. It is the same as a publisher owning copyright to a book. He may print and sell as many copies as he wants.
You may also own a retail copy. This is what Vernor finds, and what Softman found before that. It has been repeatedly argued by software suppliers that you do not own the copy, that you only own a license to use. It has now been found for the second time that you own it, and the criterion used is whether the supplier has any right to repossess. If not, the copy is yours.
We next come to copies made in way of use. If the software is not supplied 'live', ie running off the installation media, it must be installed. Installation constitutes copying. It would be illegal under copyright law without some explicit permission. In fact the sort of copying which also occurs during use when the software is read into memory was found illegal in the well known MAI case, until Title 17 S 1117 was revised as a result of this case.
The revisions provided that copies and modifications made or authorized by the owner which were essential to use with a machine (notice the article, "a" machine) are permitted. But 117 also provides that if you resell the copy you own, you may only sell with it the copies you have made in way of being essential to use, with the consent of the copyright holder.
So, to summarize the situation, when you buy a retail copy of software, you own that copy. You do not become the copyright holder, your right to make copies is limited by Title 17. You may make copies (or modifications) that are essential to use with "a" machine - by implication, the machine of your choice, not of the copyright holder's choice. But your rights over resale of those copies is limited.
Two things are sometimes argued about this.
(1) It is sometimes argued that you may only use a machine which is essential. For instance, you may not install OSX on a Dell, because a Dell is not an essential machine, you could equally well use a Mac. Wrong. The machine does not have to be essential, and the article is indefinite, "a" machine. What has to be essential is the copying.
(2) It is also sometimes argued that because you have no rights of resale of the copies made in way of being essential to use, the copyright holder owns them, and you do not. There is no ground for this view. The test of repossession does not suggest this. The copyright holder has no right of repossession of those copies, and you have a right to them in perpetuity with no further payments. The situation is, you own them but you have restricted rights of resale.
So where does this leave Psystar and OSX? In a very simple situation. If they installed without having transferred the ownership of the retail copy of OSX to the customer, they were in violation of copyright. If they were made when ownership of machine and copy had been transferred, they were permitted by 117 as having been authorized by the owner, and were not then resold, so no permission for transfer was required, as they were never transferred.
This means that there need not have been any violation of copyright, but there was of course a breach of the Apple EULA. Whether the term of that EULA which obliges you to buy your hardware from Apple is enforceable is a quite different matter. But as far as copyright goes, you are the owner of any retail copy of OSX, or MS Office, that you have lawfully acquired. There is nothing in copyright law to stop you installing it wherever you want, as long as you do not make more than one copy. It says "a" machine, remember.