Slashdot Mirror
Used Software Can Be Sold, Says EU Court of Justice
Sique writes "An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licenses allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a license is exhausted on its first sale. This was decided [Tuesday] (PDF) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case of Used Soft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp.."
This has enormous implications. I just wonder how many threats to 'take their ball and go home' will ensue, followed by threads of 'I'm getting my dad (the US government)'.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Once Win8 is here and Win7 is withdrawn from sale... there'll be a good supply of pre-loved Win7 licenses!
I hope so... I know it won't happen in the US.... Which actually says a lot. As Americans we are used to getting what we paid for. If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
Why not? I can re-sell my car, books, records, and cassettes. Software should be no different.
No good deed goes unpunished.
All the stores without exception say you can not get your money back if you have opened the shink wrap.
I wonder if this ruling affect that.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I won't even ask why these enlightened decisions always come from the EU.
Where the fuck is the US ?
So the enlightenment is back in Europe while the dark ages are in full throttle in the US.
Interesting century we're living in.
Since this is copyright, I wonder what impact (if any) it will have on that French rule whereby every time a painting is sold the original painter gets a cut of the sale? It seems to be the same principle - copyright.
so basically DRM has to be transferable to new parties now...
awesome sauce. =)
this means i can sell all my old Steam/Impulse/Origin games now right?
(please don't let me be dreaming)
Suppose I buy an Oracle product, (not that I ever would), does this mean I own it? So other things I own I can give away for free. Can I do that with my Oracle software? Suppose since I own it I say, I don't care if you make copies of it and give those away too...
Bad news for autodesk who are vehemently opposed to used copies of autocad being sold on places like fleabay. Between versions of autocad which autodesk releases new versions annually there isn't a massive difference in features but if you want it it will cost you one price only - full rrp or close thereof. That is because as soon as the new version comes out the old stock is recalled so the shops cannot discount the older version and second hand sellers are quickly shut down.
Autodesk will also only upgrade from versions that are not that old, so people cannot 'catch up' if they left it a while .
They have fought tooth and nail to keep their "software as a revocable license" model so that they can continue to extort huge sums of money from the industries they service. I expect them to throw their resources at legislative change to "fix" this European problem.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
How can developers now know which user is a legitimate user and which just got the activation key from some internet forum?
After all, installing the game is no longer enough: you need a valid account.
Account shut down? No game is retained.
DRMd copy protections mean that you give back the disk and no longer have the game.
But not even they believe it works.
1. buy laptop with a forced copy of windows
2. extract windows key
3. rplace windows with Linux
4. sell windows on ebay
5. ????
6. profit!
Interestingly, if you could get more than $3 from selling windows which you most probably could, it would beat begging the oem to refund you the windows price.
...it will be interesting to see how software companies respond. I guarantee you that the ability to resell software will need to be accounted for by companies needing to make a profit in some way.
I get the feeling that this might eventually create more companies going with limited licensing - i.e. updates for one year from the date of purchase, things like that. Anti-virus companies will be all set, since they already do that. Games like World of Warcraft? They charge you monthly anyway, so they're not going to have to adapt.
Given how much software is sold now with unlimited license, something is going to have to give. Either prices for that license will go up, companies will go the route of, say, EA and just focus their efforts on producing new things they can sell rather than supporting their existing software, or there will be more limited term licenses.
All in all, as much as it sounds like on the surface, I don't think this is a positive thing for consumers in the long run.
years. Problem solved.
Deos this mean EULAs are now illegal in the EU?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
That is the 1970s model. Will disco be next?
It talks about "downloaded apps", but what about, say, a one year licence to use a webapp?
In that case the server resides on a server and the user only "downloads" HTML pages / some AJAX client.
Does the licence automatically becomes transferable too?
I like one of the related possible implications here: if a company like Autodesk, Microsoft or Adobe is using phone-home DRM on a software product, and I own (based on this case) a legitimate copy of that product, and they break the DRM by for example denying product activation so I can't use it anyway, then it seems clear that they can no longer rely on any kind of argument based on being the copyright holder to defend their actions. I'm allowed to make copies necessary for the normal use of a legitimate copy of the product, and the ruling here affirms that the copy I paid for really is mine whatever the copyright holder might like to think.
I look forward to seeing criminal charges (e.g., under the Computer Misuse Act and related law in the UK) being brought against the individuals (not the employers -- their staff, personally) who cause damage to legitimate customers by getting their DRM-related records wrong so the software doesn't work.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
First of all, I thouht software licensing was CYA defense against product liability and fitness-for-purpose laws. You got no sale, you got no problems with warrantees.
Second, wonderful. Now software companies will abandon support for old versions even faster. Just what we need -- cheapskates buying old copies driving industry.
Ummm...thanks, government?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Game developers already have a solution. Make the game require internet access with a single use code. You can sell the game but it is worthless without a new code.
In that case the following logical step would be to sue companies who disallow transferring the code/account to another user. Never stop fighting for your rights.
Who told you that's your right? That code is like a ticket. You get one ticket to see one movie. Can give the ticket (or in this code) away, but you can't use it and re-use it, or attempt to use it for more than one person.
The right that you have is not to partake in that scheme of things if you don't like how it is conducted.
Now, if purchasing that game was compulsory, if you didn't have an option, but to buy it, then you have a case to demand greater flexibility on the code. But that is not the case, so this conversation is moot.
No one forces you to buy that game, and it is not your right to demand a private company to sell you access to his stuff in your terms. Your rights come along your responsibilities in your own decision-making process.
Feelings of entitlement =/= rights.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is an interesting ruling (after all, in general, I should be able to re-sell the things I own). But to call what you are describing as a "right", that's just uninformed is/ought wishful thinking.
Scientist have just discovered the existence of intelligent life on planet Earth. More to come!
And Steam doesn't do anything other than require an agreement to a binding ToS *in addition to* all other agreements you have to make.
Remember: you still need to use the Steam client and log in to use their games, even if you host your own server.
Also remember that even though Half Life 2 was supported under Win98, Steam isn't any more and you cannot run HL2 under Win98 at all. The code, if you crack it to not require Steam, will run, but this now makes you a criminal.
So wonderful, Valve. So very, very wonderful.
As long as you use "Bloody terrible" as your yardstick...
For US readers, Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK version of the Tea Party. His party has been described as the "British National Party for people who shop at Marks and Spencer". Avoiding libel, I hope, I will merely observe that he is not, as far as I know, regulated by the FSA to offer financial advice, and that before you short the Euro you should be aware that the value of investments can go down as well as up.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Amazing ruling but there's no way it's jumping over to US and it probably won't stick in the EU for long.
There's just too much money to lose. Take a big soft company like PTC/ProE or MathWorks/Matlab, they're selling multiK licenses for software that never really goes out of style, but they withhold the right to revoke licenses, forcing you down their upgrade path. They would have to completely restructure their business, that's not going to happen.
I would think it would have to expire prior to the copyright expiring otherwise it is effectivily a non-expiring license.
I am an Oracle DBA. Anyone who buys from an Oracle resller is nuts because you can't get support. Oracle does not provide patches unless you have a support contract. Oracle does quarterly security and bug patches. Oracle software runs on a vast number of operating systems and people do a vast number of things with it. It has bugs. You need to be able to patch when new operating systems and features come out. The database stores your core business data. If you don't have support you are at high risk of losing data.
Also the software is complex. I have used Oracle for 12 years and I have to open support tickets when I get a complex requirement. Since you can do so many different things with it, you can run into very narrow bugs. There is a good chance, there is a patch for it, but you can't get it. If you buy from a reseller, odds are Oracle will cancel their support contract with the reseller and/or not renew it. They will not sell you a support contract unless you buy a license from them. This is not like buying a computer game or pirating Microsoft Office. You could have a system where 5 different languages connect doing a variety of things, you could be running oracle on 3-4 different operating systems. One operating system issues a patch to fix something, oracle will need a patch to function with it. You can't get that patch.
. Oracle does NOT provide bug fixes to the general public. Anyone can download their base software from their website. It is all there. you need to be an a support contract(which is VERY expensive) and it is for your software and for a period of time. The Oracle database manages yours data. People do alot of different things with it. It has bugs. I have had to download patches from the support site. Oracle will most certainly cancel/not renew support contracts of resellers. This means that people who buy from resellers, will have NO WAY TO PATCH software or get help with complex issues. People who implement oracle often do very complex things on a variety of operating systems. You are a total sucker for buying oracle licenses from a reseller. If you can't afford Oracle, get a cheaper/free product.
As an Oracle DBA, I am telling you, you absolutely have to have support. Oracle does quarterly security patches/bug fixes that you can only get through the support site. Oracle will not sell a support contract to you unless you have a license with them. The Oracle database stores data, it is designed to be up 24x7, this is not like buying a game.
If you cannot afford Oracle(and it is ridiculously expensive), then you should go with a cheaper/free alternative. If I worked somewhere that did not have an Oracle support contract I would get the hell out of there. If data is lost, managers look to blame the DBAs, if you can't go to support your screwed.
This ruling is particularly nasty due to Oracle's sales model. Oracle sells perpetual licenses. So if you bought Oracle 25 years ago, you do not have to pay more to upgrade. That being said, you do need to pay for support every year to patch the upgrades. They will only release relatively early versions publicly. Oracle also does NOT have a fixed price. People don't realize this. Their official price is $40,000/CPU. NO ONE PAYS THAT MUCH. People generally get it for a fraction of the cost. I was on a government project and we had a bundle with a ton of different Oracle software for $70,000 with 40 CPU licenses. Oracle tends to radically discount for small businesses as well. They need to to make the sale. They want to sell you the product, then get you to buy the support contract, then hope your company grows so you need to go back and buy more licenses. So a small company can negotiate a VERY low price for an Oracle license, then resell it at a much higher price to someone who can't negotiate a price that low.
That being said, even if you do that, the way Oracle handles support and the nature of their projects, your management has to be totally incompetent to buy from resellers. They are going to get scammed. We will pr
It hasn't always been complete bullshit. Software business deals actually happen in several different ways.
Sometimes you buy it and then you (or someone you give it to) later open the box and possibly spot a license. Surprise! The Blizzard judge says that box's contents cause some kind of mystical time travel, where the title to the box and its contents retroactively transfer or didn't transfer, with your knowledge so that there wasn't fraud, at the earlier point of "sale" depending on the eigenstate of the box's contents.
But sometimes you actually have a sales contract between the informed and knowing customer and the developer, where no software is delivered nor is any payment made, until after the contract is agreed upon. I made paychecks for 18 years in a business like that, and sometimes there were even actual negotiations and changes to the contracts (it wasn't a contract of adhesion), because the customer had the balls to insist on what they wanted (if only we could all be like that), and we still wanted their money. Shrinkwrap EULA software sellers like to pretend they're running that sort of business, despite all obvious differences in what you see actually happening if you observe the transaction.
It looks like this is similar to what Oracle was doing, except for the negotiating and sometimes changing the contracts part; Oracle's contracts were "Agree or else we would rather no sale happen." But adhesion or not, an actual license, rather than software, is what was sold. The court even uses that wording in this decision -- they write about selling a license. This is a very different kind of transaction than what you normally do when buying software retail or mail order, where anyone who hasn't been bribed by Blizzard can plainly see you are really buying a physical item.
And yet, this EU court is treating it much like a retail transaction for goods. They're treating the license not as terms and conditions for the sale, but just a proxy for the item itself. There's a big dose of common sense and fairness there, but how they justify it legally isn't clear to me. Whether that's because it's a contract of adhesion, or if they would do this regarding all contracts (and if so, why just software?), would be interesting to know.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Oracle is one of the few companies which does not use license manager of any kind. There is no license thread connecting to license server, no Oracle genuine advantage software of any kind. With this ruling, it would force Oracle and similar company to revision their license management and that means more headache for genuine customers who follow the spirit of their agreement that once paid for the software, it can't be resold. For the sake of small minority of users, who wants to exploit generosity of Oracle's relaxed attitude towards license management, large majority will have to suffer.
Let see this in the US please.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And the people who like it would either keep it or buy a copy of their own. Console games have worked that way for decades. Buy a game, play it all the way through, sell it for cheap, buy another. If Valve used their own Steam service to allow gifting, trading, or even reselling games at a slight fee or service subscription, more people would play their older titles and end up signing up for new games when they see what the newly installed Steam market is offering.
Please provide a link to the actual court ruling. The press release leaves much to be desired in terms of assessing the implications of the ruling. For instance, to what degree would a second owner be bound by terms of the original license? How would the second owner even know what the terms are? How is the copyright holder to know of the subsequent sale, in order to provide quality support and surveillance?
Guessing this could force Oracle to raise licensing fees, in the EU at least.
I'm surprised any ruling was even necessary. At least in Finland (and I know of at least a few other EU countries), it was always possible to resell "used" software. Even and especially on the Finnish version of eBay.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
It's still a complex issue, apparently...
So supposedly the next xbox and or PS will try to put an end to used game sales. It sounds like that's against our rights.
You've never heard of the doctrine of first sale?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. With the copy, you got a permanent license to use it.
Could software publishers work around it by claiming that the license is not permanent? It might be structured as a lease that ends when the motherboard breaks or when the operating system leaves extended support.
Almost all non-digital games for home enjoyment you pay one price for multiple people to enjoy it. Monopoly, card games, Dominoes, Chutes & Ladders, the list is nearly endless.
The exception being Navia Dratp, a cross between Chess and a collectible miniatures game, which failed for at least two reasons: 1. two players needed two (fairly expensive) sets, and 2. nobody could figure out how to pronounce "Dratp".
You think you should be able to play the game on multiple consoles at once, but only pay for one copy of the game?
Yes. Remember spawn installation? It's been around as recently as the Nintendo DS. That and for genres other than FPS and RTS, I think I should be able to have multiple people play on one console or one computer using two gamepads and one big monitor.
What's wrong with Steam? Just that it's basically a rental instead of a purchase?
Yes, and that some games use this rental-style DRM even on their retail versions.
They will just licence software on an hourly basis
They tried that. Arcades died in North America.
Used Software Can Be Sold, Says EU Court of Justice
Is that anything like used underwear?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Possibly a third item - the physical medium
As I understand copyright law, "the copy" is the physical medium in which a work is fixed.
Unlike rights to physical objects, IP rights have a predetermined expiration date.
Since when is this date predetermined? I thought all concept of this date being predetermined went out the window in the 1990s (EU Copyright Duration Directive and US Copyright Term Extension Act).
a lease that ends [...] when the operating system leaves extended support
I'm pretty sure that the relevant law would require an explicit revocation date
And lawyers have figured out plenty of ways to work around the rule against perpetuities. I have observed that a major version of Windows leaves mainstream support five years after it is published or two years after the next major version is published, whichever is later. It leaves extended support five years after that. This means a single major version of Windows will be supported for about ten to twelve years, as seen on Windows lifecycle fact sheet. So the license for a computer program could be written to expire twelve years after the program's publication.
EU likely has laws about renting things as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they have laws requiring unused months be prorated back to the customer when a rental period is ended early. Renting also is not marketing friendly. Why rent from company A when I can buy from company B.
Currently, the usual licenses are permanent. End of support does not equal end of license. You can run a legal copy Windows 3.1 as long as you want, without running afoul of any law or infringe on any license.
Yeah, I just wonder the courts would respond if the major publishers of mass-market proprietary software were to change from their existing business model, which involves the sale of a copy, to twelve-year leases.
Dont get too excited. While they can't stop you from selling your rights they are also under no obligation to support the buyer. Thus they can still make it such a pain that the used copy becomes essentially worthless.
...is smirking in schadenfreude at Ellison's loss.
SaaS is the new model, and it's immune to this approach - sure customers can resell their licenses, but what does that give you? Monthly per-user pricing keeps it real for the customer as well as the vendor.
This is one software's natural business models (other main model is tying to hardware a la Apple/IBM) - open source companies like Redhat sell support and maintenance contracts, as well as professional services, just like the proprietary companies, and all of this is preserved in the SaaS, cloud model.
I always felt Bill Gates' vision of software licensing that he laid out in the 70s is an increasingly outdated business model - yes very large enterprises will still buy on-premise software, but for most small companies and individuals, SaaS provides benefits that far outweigh the costs of installing/updating local software.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
12 years? Just go with the 99 year standard used because 100 would be too long. If it's good enough for Hong Kong, it's good enough for Windows.
Learn to love Alaska
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm a dealer in refurbished secondhand computer systems. As a matter of course, I retrieve license information from the installed system, then replace the hard drive and install software using those licenses. Microsoft, via their lapdogs at the BSA, would have kittens and try to extort money from me (they've tried - truth of the matter is, I used to deal secondhand machines) for new OEM licenses but at about 75% the price of retail on top of "costs". This judgement (linked in the press release) tells me that Microsoft/BSA *cannot* do this, which has been my argument all along because the rights of Microsoft to further revenues from the sale of that particular license are exhausted *on the first sale*. This is Common Law, people!
Further points to make in argument:
- The thing that bothers Microsoft is the license key. You can buy copies of Windows 7 OEM for a fiver, which is reasonable, or download an image which is even better (costs next to nothing). Do Microsoft care that you can do this? No. Why? Because...
- They make the money selling *licenses*. Not CDs. This is the classic "get 'em hooked" lock-in, same as schoolyard drug dealers use. Give the stupid user a thirty day grace (the "free samples"), then fuck him over for a full retail license - having taken no money beforehand. IF Microsoft were so bothered about people being able to download their software, they'd not wait for the DoJ to step in, they've got more money than God. They can *buy* their own army and storm Sweden.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I think software will reside in the cloud, or somehow become a service of some sort instead of traditional software.
The 99ys. standard equals a permanent license, because after 70 years in the E.U., copyright runs out, and you are further allowed to use the copy anyway.
There might be another twist if software publishers really switch to time limited licenses. It might be that this then would considered a rent with full payment upfront. The danger to software publishers is that if they really just "rent out" the software copies, then the copy stays their property, and they are required to keep the rented out property functional during the whole lease time. Basicly this means free support for the whole contract time.
Does it affect Android and iPhone apps?
That being said, the new model does have some advantages, too. While I still have some old Playstation One CDs floating around, I'm not sure the media would even still be playable even if I managed to dig up an old PS1. Same thing goes for my PS2 library. I think in general the Steam model will extend the life of your library for single player games, and extend the time publishers can bring in money for games they publish. At the same time, model makes it less likely that I'll buy a copy of the game new for $60. Knowing I don't have that first-sale doctrine option of selling it, I'm not inclined to spend that on the item.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
i'm selling my ea origin account ... as from ... now
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?