Slashdot Mirror
In AU, Court Rules Downloaded Software Is Not "Goods"
bennyboy64 writes "A court decision ruling that the supply of software through a digital download mechanism is not a supply of 'goods' has been upheld in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Australia, setting a precedent that software downloaded via the Internet is not protected by the Sale of Goods Act, reports ZDNet. It's a court decision that lawyer Patrick Gunning said attorneys had been waiting to have clarified for some time. What this meant was that 'people who purchase software will have more legal rights if they buy over the counter rather than downloading,' Gunning said."
Or counted as theft.
Does it extend to other purely-digital creations? WHAT ABOUT E-BOOKS? What about logo designs? What about digital photographs? Even if sold, are they no longer considered "goods" as well?
I believe downloads do not meet the legal definition of 'goods' under AU law and therefore, would be considered a service. The judge felt compelled by the letter of the law to render the decision he did, even saying it would lead to injustice, and calling on parliament to change the law to reflect the changing definition of 'goods.'
It's amazing what one can learn by actually reading the articles. It is not, despite what most Slashdotters seem to think, a complete waste of time that only serves to keep one from achieving a first post.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Australia wasn't founded by criminals. It was founded by wardens.
My, my, so angry.
You have your opinion. The judge has his opinion. Guess whose opinion is actually law?
Just because it's clear and obvious to you, doesn't make it so in the real world.
IANAL. You neither, I'm sure.
Your intuitive sense that intangible goods are still goods will probably win the day, but right now law hasn't caught up to that perspective. And this is not about right or wrong, this is about law. The judge himself indicated that he agrees with you, intuitively, but he only interprets law, not creates it. That's why he calls for the legislature to change it.
As it stands, it appears that "intangible goods" seems to be intimately tied up with and generally conflated with "services". Google hasn't helped me find any concrete examples to the contrary. (This is where not being a lawyer is unfortunate, since Google is not that good of a legal research department.) If you can cite any valid example of where the law recognizes software as a good rather than a service, please, point it out. That might redeem the reputation you're building for yourself as a ad-hominem flame-mongering idealist with impulse control issues and no idea how law actually works.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.