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."
I suppose that means that they can't be taxed as goods then?
Well, since Australia used to be a penal colony, that kind of makes some kind of twisted sense.
In Liberty, Rene
Software is information—a set of instructions and related data. If pure information is not considered a good in other contexts then it makes sense that software delivered without any physical medium would not be considered a good either. Software purchased "over the counter" is not pure information, however, since you're buying the physical packaging as well as the information content.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
If the companies are simply providing a service to write arbitrary bytes to a customers' hard drive, not selling a market good, then they shouldn't get copyright protection on those bytes being written either. After all, those bytes aren't a sold good, but are merely a byproduct of the service provided.
Ryan Fenton
"Goods" include all chattels personal other than things in action and money. The term includes emblements and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.
Acquired from the definitions page of the Sales of Goods Act 1923.
Jhyrryl
Yeah, that is what happens when you start putting corporations on the same level as a person.
RTFA. They were both corporations in this lawsuit. Oh well, that's what you get when you put people on the same level as Slashdot posters.
It's not a good, it's a service. Like a song played over the radio isn't a good, it's a service, while a song bought on a CD is a good. The judge recognized that his ruling could lead to injustice, and called on parliament to change the law to reflect the changes in the definition of 'goods' that the digital revolution has brought about.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What is their deal? Their motto seems to be "The consumer is always a criminal". It's weird.
Well, since Australia used to be a penal colony, that kind of makes some kind of twisted sense.
I can't remember the comedian who said this, but:
I'd rather live in a country founded by criminals, than one founded by puritans
Having lived in both places I totally agree with him
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot 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
Read The Fucking Article.
The judge recognised in the case that what had been ruled could lead to an injustice, especially with the way technology had changed since the Sale of Goods Act was made law. "The judge said that if there was any injustice, it was up to parliament to change the law and not for the court," Gunning said.
He knows that. He's said it's wrong. That's just not the way the law was written. The article even says that there is draft legislation to address this.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Australia wasn't founded by criminals. It was founded by wardens.
Having lived in both places I totally agree with him
Eh - only the New England area of the US was puritans. Most of the South was just greedy plantation owners, and Georgia was originally a penal colony just like Australia.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Well, other than the fact that a PS3 isn't completely blank out of the box, that's precisely how a PS3 works. You bought the hardware. You license the software, and SCE can (and will) change it any time they want--because it's still their software. The recent "Other OS" debacle is the logical extreme of the "software as service" approach, as well as the typical disclaimers of warranty you've seen in EULAs (not that those would fare so well in court, IMHO... the serviceability and suitability for purposes of use of the hardware being completely dependent on the software, after all.)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The reasons you don't pay taxes with Valve is the same reason you don't pay taxes with Amazon. Sales tax is a state level tax, and large national and international companies don't want to have to deal with the ever changing tax laws covering your region. The expectation is that since you aren't paying at time of sale that you will pay when you file your state income tax at the end of the year. I realize that most people don't add the sales tax for Amazon purchases when they do their taxes, but legally you are suppose to.
I fully agree with that. Most songs played over the radio are no good at all.
They can also say people in red shirts have to pay double. That doesn't make it enforcible or even correct.
That rule is only there because there's a much smaller window of opportunity to get money from a red shirt, before they are called to the bridge or on an away mission and their spending days are over!
An interesting tax principle. The Australian GST is a federal value added tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia)#Economic_and_social_effects_of_the_GST that was used to replace all state sales taxes and thus provide a simplified and uniform across the board taxation basis across all states and that even online sales within Australia now have to in affect pay sales tax. A substantive portion of GST tax income is the redistributed back to each state. This would certainly resolve a lot of internal internet sales problems within the US as well as simplifying cross state border transactions and smuggling.
Online game distribution are really unsafe, for example with Steam if you have a dispute over the payment for one game, they will lock you out of all your games regardless of the value difference (say the game in dispute is worth $10 and you have $1000 worth of games tied to them, tough that's just why extortion can work so well, the loss of being ripped off is far less than the penalty for not paying). This is of course what ultimately will always limit online game sales, corporations and their ass hat executives will simply not be able to resist tilting legal interpretations wildly in their favour (until class action law suits are filed).
So real goods that are not remote controlled by corporate executives do provide a lot more legal protection for the consumer.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen