Court Says First Sale Doctrine Doesn't Apply To Licensed Software

An anonymous reader wrote to tell us a federal appeals court ruled today that the first sale doctrine is "unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works." This reverses a 2008 decision from the Autodesk case, in which a man was selling used copies of AutoCAD that were not currently installed on any computers. Autodesk objected to the sales because their license agreement did not permit the transfer of ownership. Today's ruling (PDF) upholds Autodesk's claims: "We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying our holding to Autodesk’s [software license agreement], we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense. "

Comments

Re:Bad consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until publishers of physical books and magazines add a 'license agreement' to the first page.

They used to do exactly that, and that is exactly what the First Sale doctrine was created in response to.

This case is even more egregious than the summary suggests because the plaintiff Timothy Vernor never agreed to any license terms with Autodesk. He never opened the packages, never saw an agreement, never clicked through an agreement, and certainly never signed an agreement. Vernor owned these copies until this court said he didn't, and Autodesk's only recourse should have been a civil action against CTA for breaking its contract terms.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Grond]

You buy something (and you *are* buying it, because the "agreement" isn't presented before the sale.)
You try to install it, and disagree with the EULA, so press "I disagree", and the software doesn't get installed.
You then sell it to try to recoup some of your lost money.
But you can't, because the *agreement*, which you did not agree to says you can't.

Those weren't the facts of the case at all, nor is it the rule the court laid out. Read the opinion. The undisputed facts were that Autodesk busted a company (CTA) for unauthorized use of AutoCAD. It then licensed 10 copies of AutoCAD R14 to CTA. CTA accepted the terms of the license. Later, CTA upgraded to AutoCAD 2000, paying the upgrade price. It accepted the AutoCAD 2000 upgrade license, which required destruction of the copies of R14. Rather than destroy them, CTA sold the copies to Vernor along with the activation codes in violation of both the R14 and AutoCAD 2000 licenses. Vernor then tried to sell the copies on eBay.

So, the rule is that if you accept the terms of a license and that license (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions, then the first sale doctrine does not apply and you must abide by the terms of the license that you accepted.

I don't think there's anything terrible about this ruling at all. Software companies imposing restrictions on customers through licensing agreements helps them perform price discrimination, which often benefits customers. For example, a company might sell a student version on the cheap with a license that says it can't be transferred or at least not transferred to a non-student. If a student could sell the student version to a non-student, then the company could no longer price discriminate, and it would have to charge students a higher price.

Anyone Read It?

[Legal Penguin]

Okay, I hesitate to weigh in here, because this isn't going to be a popular question, but did anyone read the opinion? This is, factually, a rotten case for first sale. CTA bought the software and agreed to the EULA which specifically required that they destroy Release 14 in order to get upgrade pricing on Release 15. They paid $495 per license for R 15 instead of the normal $3,750 they would have paid specifically BECAUSE they were required to destroy R 14. Instead they decided to say screw it and they sold their old R 14 copies on the secondary market with the activation codes handwritten on the package. Vernor bought the copies, knowing about the EULA, and then resold them and claimed protection from the first sale doctrine.

Now I'm as gung ho as the next guy about appropriate limitations on copyright (maybe not the next guy here on /., but the average next guy); and in particular I think first sale, like fair use, is an incredibly important protection that's been getting the shaft in the courts lately. But in this particular context -- the upgrade context where the company that poured its dollars into writing better and stronger code is trying to cut its customers a break -- it's going to be a pretty hard sell. Vernor screwed himself here, and unfortunately I suspect he took a lot of other people with him.

Re:9th Circuit

[NeutronCowboy]

Complete crap statistics. If it were true, it would mean that the USOC took at least 50 appeals for decisions from the 9th circuit, and overturned at least 47 of them in one year. Considering that they only granted review for 80 cases in the last term, that's basically an impossibility. And it actually is. According to this, the 9th circuit was overturned 71% of the time, which is actually less often than the other two next busiest courts of appeal.

Did you make up these statistics on your own, or did you just regurgitate what you heard?

Re:Bad consequences

[TheoMurpse]

What all this ignores is that publishers' attempts to put restrictions on books was what CAUSED the creation of the "first sale doctrine" in the first place.

I don't know what it is with some of these court decisions lately, but it's almost like in the last few years the judges have turned into a bunch of morons who ignore precedent and have never picked up a history book.

To be fair, you're wrong that this case is exactly like Bobbs-Merill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the case that created the first-sale doctrine.

In that case, Bobbs-Merill sold books to wholesalers their copyrighted book including a "shrinkwrap" license saying retailers shall not sell the book below a certain price. Wholesalers sold the books to retailers. Retailers sold the books below the certain price to consumers. The Court held that the license was not binding upon the retailers because there was no privity of contract between the retailers and Bobbs-Merill. This is true: there was only privity of contract between Bobbs-Merill and the wholesalers. And as the license only purported to bind retailers, the wholesalers did not violate the terms of the license either.

However, the case at hand is distinguishable. Here, CTA initially installed the Autodesk software. However, as part of the installation process, CTA agreed not to resale the software. As the sale was from Autodesk to CTA initially, there was privity of contract. Thus, the license is enforceable against CTA.

CTA later resold the software in violation of this agreement. This revokes CTA's license, which means the copies Vernor sold on eBay were unlicensed, infringing copies from the moment he purchased them. When he sold them, he also infringed. This is textbook copyright law. Read the first few sections of 17 USC to verify. I'm honestly too lazy to pull up a citation for something extremely uncontroversial in an otherwise engaging discussion on /.

This case would only be analogous to Bobbs-Merill if the license in that case had forbidden the wholesalers from doing something, and the wholesalers had violated the license. Had the wholesalers violated the license, any copies sold to the defendants subsequent to the violation would have been infringing, and the first-sale doctrine would not have applied.

If you have any questions, please respond. At first glance, the Autodesk case appears to be a rehash of the Bobbs-Merill case. However, Bobbs-Merill turned on privity of contract, while the Autodesk case turns on sales of unlicensed software. Privity is merely tangential to the Autodesk case.

Seeing as how it is very difficult to explain things and make legal arguments on /. in this tiny <TEXTAREA>, I've undoubtedly not been clear enough in my explanation. Hopefully I have, but if I have not, I hope someone points it out so I have the chance to clarify.

It also appears to ignore the issue of "shrink wrap" licensing, which violates the very basic principles of contract law, and which has never been found to be binding by any major court to date.

Well, it ignores the shrinkwrap issue because it's wholly irrelevant to the case.

To explicate by way of analogy: If you buy an infringing CD (illegal copy made by Son May in Asia, for example) and sell it to someone else, you have committed copyright infringement even if you did not know the CD was infringing. Similarly, Vernor (the Autodesk defendant) bought an already infringing copy and resold it. He therefore did commit copyright infringement, regardless of his knowledge of infringement.

We can argue the merits of mens rea-less infringement on moral/ethical grounds, but the law is clear on that issue right now: you don't have to know you're infringing to infringe.