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Once Win8 is here and Win7 is withdrawn from sale...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.
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.
What does that have to do with it? This ruling is about people being allowed to sell software copies they own to other people, not forcing stores to buy those copies.
In Europe, or at least in Germany, this never was really the case. Simple reason: You can only read the license agreement AFTER you open the box, which makes everything in the EULA null and void. Common sense if you ask me.
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?
France has historically had different philosophical underpinning for their copyright law. While the British and American traditions are based on a pragmatic system intended to further creativity by loaning the author a portion of their freedom to encourage authorship, the French take a more author centric viewpoint, believing that the author has a natural right to the works they have authored.
The right in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
In the UK, consumers have a right to a refund if a product is defective. This right cannot be waived by contract, and it's a criminal offence for the seller to attempt to disclaim or exclude this provision.
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.
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.
Does it affect Android and iPhone apps?