Court limits right to sell used software

Rob Knop

The goal of the copyright industries is to make sure that digital goods have all of the restrictions of physical goods (i.e. can’t be copied freely), but none of the legal advantages of physical goods.

It’s a rather sad one-way street that we seem to be on.

imag

Indeed. This is software piracy on a whole new scale.

Blue Tyson

Use the Frank Penhalluriack method.

Buy this used book for $30, get free software with it.

kmoser

That’s similar to the method that was popular with vendors selling OEM copies of Windows back in the 1990s: since they were required to bundle it with hardware, they’d sell you some cheapo hardware (a RAM chip?) that just happened to come bundled with the copy of Windows that you really wanted. I’m sure that still goes on today.
- Endo
  
  Now it’s just labeled “OEM” and you get the disc in a paper slip case.
  
  With Autodesk’s thing though some animators on other sites who use AD’s software say the purchasing experience is vastly different than a typical software purchase. Companies have already tried implementing similar schema (Ubisoft’s recent DRM debacle comes to mind) but when the market goes from niche (with AD) to mass (Ubi) the idea of licensing quickly falls apart. Other physical media (CD’s, books, software sold as software) shouldn’t be affected because the costs of implementing a “licensing” scheme far outweigh the potential benefit. “Phoning home” to make sure your $6K piece of software is real is relatively simple and can be seamless, doing that for a book is rather challenging (and would do little more than create an illicit underground market for books).
  - Anonymous
    
    Just wanted to note that while putting in a technical system to phone home might be expensive or impossible, that doesn’t affect the copyright holder’s ability to claim that the transfer was not a transfer of ownership and thus not a sale.
    
    Just by having the EULA declare that the transfer wasn’t a sale, the copyright holder can just sue someone when they see their book on sale on eBay.

KeithIrwin

I still don’t understand why most of these EULAs are enforceable. US Copyright law is very clear: if you have a legal copy of software, you have the right to run it (unless patent law overrides this as it can in some, but not most, cases). So the EULA doesn’t grant the consumer any rights or property which they don’t already possess. That’s the textbook case of a contract which is unenforceable because of being one-sided.

Anonymous

@KeithIrwin: They get around the protections of the first sale doctrine by claiming that the person who bought the thing doesn’t actually “own” it; the EULA says somewhere”BTW, you haven’t bought this copy, you have just “licensed” it. So by the terms of the EULA, no ownership, so they get to go sue-happy any time you try to resell it, give it as a gift, etc.

imag

And in a single stroke, value was stolen from all of us. We are not owners, even when we buy things. Property is by new means consolidated in the hands of the few.

I guess that’s what an “ownership society” means: you’re owned.

bbbaldie

I realize that Autodesk is a highly specialized product, and that FOSS alternatives are pretty far behind, but it’s amazing how little stuff like this matters to me since I made the Linux jump four years ago.

andurin

So, does this lead to a situation where publishers start shrink-wrapping books and including license agreements on them?

Anonymous

There’s a bit of a difference with books. With software I can put it on my computer and in many cases don’t need the disks anymore. So I sell them. you buy them and crack the serial number and now you have it for cheaper than retail.

But with a book, in theory, I can’t keep the book and sell it to you. At least that’s how the other side is looking at it. They forget that I can always scan it before I sell it.

slamorte

Is not music on a CD “licensed” to the end user? As well as movies?

Seriously, what does this mean for my local used CD and DVD store?

davenewman

In the UK, court cases have been progressively restricting the validity of EULAs. When something is sold as a boxed product, it counts as a sale, not a licence to use, and the Sale of Goods Act applies – so you can return it for a cash refund if it is broken or not of satisfactory quality.

Anonymous

Just wait for the Supreme Court to get ahold of this.

Anonymous

Used to be I could feel a little smug that Canada had such reasonable interpretations of such ridiculous EULA, but those days are fast approaching.

For now we can still make as many copies as we want of our media for personal use, but once it is illegal to circumvent anti-copying tech, the point is moot.

For now, first-sale doctrine holds in Canada, regardless of whatever stupid words I have to click through (or tear open.) For how long can we reject pressure from American media idiots?

Bliss

What’s best is that in the copyright scare age, most if not all stores (I think it’s even law in the US, isn’t it?) wont accept returns of opened software due to the chance of piracy… and most EULAs are on the inside of the box or even worse in the software installers….

So, I buy…. so… I license a software from a store, I license the right to use it and have a physical copy, in exchange for a contract… I read the contract and decide I do not agree with it… and I can’t return the software… so I’m paying for the right of seeying if I want a service… and if I don’t want the service, I paid for it anyhow and can’t get my money back….

Cool.

Anonymous

Dangerous precedence being set here. This could potentially mean that used CD stores are in trouble as well.

Oh well; that’s why I stopped buying and started “renting”, if you know what I mean.

Blaine

Luckily for me, whenever I have to install software my 18 month nephew clicks through the EULA’s for me. Since he’s unable to legally enter into a contract… It’s just nice that he lets me borrow all that software I buy him.

All joking aside, this needs to be destroyed by the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

Anonymous

Which supreme court do you think will overturn this decision? Not the one we have now, and probably not another for several generations. If it profits big bisiness, it’s the (supreme) law of the land.
dragonbait1

Actually IN the US, your 18month old CAN enter into a contract, but has the right to void that contract. That right expires when your child reaches the age of majority. Also if you instructed the child to “click here” then the child was working as your agent and you are still on the hook.

RE: main post
Licencing is a contract. They are using Contract law to invalidate Copyright law. You CAN give up rights in a contract. It’s called consideration. You give up your right to resell the software, in exchange for the right to use it.

EULAs are a holdover from when software wasn’t covered by copyright, trademark or patent, and companies didn’t think giving away their IP was a good business decision. Now that EULA’s, TOS and “Wrapper contracts” are so common most people click thru without even glancing at the text. This is a windfall for IP companies. If they invalidate all of your rights (excepting those that they “offer”) it doesn’t matter what copyright law or Fair Use Doctrine says. You are bound by the terms of the agreement.

Don’t like it? Your legal recourse is to use only software/IP products that are licensed in a way that isn’t restrictive. I don’t like it, but they are following the law. You NEVER owned that software, you only licensed it. This case just codifies that principle.

RGB

Anonymous

I’m reminded of something from “The Dispossessed”:

“So,there’s none of them?”
“Who?”
“You know – the owners.”

Anonymous

And this will add even more hackers to insta-break and torrent any piece of software from a company that pulls this crap.

The only people suffering from this crap are the people that DON’T pirate software, the pirates just giggle.

Anonymous

They don;t give a monkey’s about pirates. This is so they make more money from corporations.

Adobe does the same thing. Once you’ve installed a piece of Adobe software on a machine; legally you can’t transfer that license to a new machine.

In all fairness it;s because you don;t own the software. There’s no need getting heated about it, that’s always been the way.

In the same way as when you buy a CD you own the CD, but you don’t own the music.

You’re buying licenses (hence …. license) to use it; and that license has terms of use.

To be honest the only problem I see is a lot of people misunderstanding what they’re actually buying.
Anonymous

The only people suffering from this crap are the people that DON’T pirate software, the pirates just giggle.

Quoted for truth.

I work at a small mom-and-pop computer store, and I’d say in the last 12mo, I’ve charged about ~50 people at least $40-$70 to fix their Windows Genuine Advantage problems. Out of those, ~49 had valid windows licenses. 1 had an XP license and was trying to his friend’s copy of vista.. We charged him $40 for diagnostics, and told him sorry we can’t legally help him pirate, then gave him a lecture about Vista.

On the other hand, all of the patched copies of windows I’ve used in the past, as well as any close friends who I know are using pirated copies, have never had any problems bypassing any new DRM measures the same day, or days before they are released.

The pirates never have DRM problems, they download versions with the DRM removed. Only the legitimate paying customers suffer from the vast multitudes of problems DRM introduces. Not the least of which is complete inability to use Windows, and therefore your computer, at all. I therefore crack all my legitimate software I personally purchase. I only ever open my software if I need an activation code to play online, or active some weird feature, otherwise I never touch the disc at all. If someday I’m raided for pirating software, I’m going to proudly point to my stack of unopened copies of all the registered software on my PC, and defend in court, for decades if need be, my right to be able to control what goes on my computer, and my ability to do whatever I want with software I own.

*steps off box*
- PARLIAMENT
  
  I hope you never torrent those pirate downloads, or you’re liable for distributing them to people who don’t own licenses.

Anonymous

Lost password…
So what does this mean for selling a second hand computer?
Just another reason I use open-source everything-I-can

bhtooefr

There is a way you can get around it, and IIRC only the mainframe software companies have wised up to this one.

Form a company, whose sole purpose is to provide computing services to you.

Pay that company to buy one computer and software for it.

If you want additional computers, form additional companies.

Then, when you want to sell the computer, don’t sell the computer. Sell ownership of the company, which remains the same legal entity, and remains in possession of all of its assets (the computer and its software) after being sold.
- Anonymous
  
  This scheme of creating then selling holding comapnies has many other useful applications beyond software. In California you can completely bypass paying market rate property taxes with this scheme.

Anonymous

EULA’s that attempt to pre-empt federal statutes (like right of first-sale) are not enforceable. There’s already precedent that supports this (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology)

In addition, EULAs that are click-wrap licenses that a buyer cannot review before he/she purchases the product (read: nearly 99% of the) have been ruled unenforceable. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement) It sounds like whoever lost this case had a bad lawyer, considering it took me 5 minutes to look up those articles that link to the judge’s decisions… and I already had a rough memory of those decisions to begin with. The legal system *has* been pretty reasonable here – there is plenty of precedent for un-negotiable license agreements being thrown out the window.

Anonymous

Actually in the US, if you provide a copy of the EULA in some form that is readable before purchase or allow ‘buyers’ to return the product if they don’t agree with the EULA terms you are fine.

greggman

Well, I’m sure I’ll get an ear full for taking the other side in this particular case but I think I’m at least slightly sympathetic to Autodesk.

They make software that has a relatively small market, is massively complicated and requires lots of engineers and support people to keep it useful.

Several companies making this kind of software have gone out of business because no one can figure out a way to pay for the engineering effort required and still make enough to keep them employed. Autodesk is the last one standing right now and no, Blender is not a reasonable substitute.

Shazbot

As a software developer myself I am sympathetic to their need to recoup the massive costs of developing such a complex application. But this is like trying to cook a steak by burning down every house in the neighborhood.
ScribblingSquid

The problem with boycotting Autodesk is that they have been buying out almost all of the major competition and gaining a near monopoly. If Lightwave goes down then thatâ€™s pretty much it. Iâ€™m guessing that Autodesk is already working on buying them out.

Autodesk has also been forcing quite a few other awful things on artists. The agreements that they force users to ok are truly unacceptable. On top of that, some now require that the program be allowed constant access to internet so they can send, well, who knows what ?
This creates an unacceptable security hole.

In addition, their efforts to combine all of the assorted packages have intentionally rendered the years of work creating 3ds libraries nearly inaccessible. They went out of their way to remove the filter to import 3ds files. Attempts to import other formats almost always tend to crash the program when you try do deal with materials.

Many of the other artists that I know are all really starting to dislike Autodesk.

Isnâ€™t there some way that the government can prevent them from gaining a monopoly ?
Anonymous

Oh, sure, they certainly need to recoup their cost, and I can understand them wanting to control secondary markets a bit. But the thing is, there’s perfectly good systems like contract to handle that sort of thing, meaning you sue the person who breached an the terms of something that the two of you negotiated. In this case, Vernor didn’t enter into any contracts with Autodesk, and in any case, was sued under *copyright* law.

Copyright is being used in this case for purposes it was never meant for. But it’s such a powerful tool (don’t have to show actual damages, and you still get anywhere between $750 to $30,000, and up to $150,000 in a lot of circumstances), that it’s really tempting for someone to abuse it just to close down the used market.
classic01

I don’t think so. There are plenty of 3d software companies out there, and new companies are flourishing every day. Luxology, Pixologic and E-onsoftware are good examples.

The software license is an asset of the company. And an asset that the company should be able to sell at any time. Autodesk’s softwares cost 3-10k! Since only a singe licensee will be using their software at any given moment, making the user rights nontransferable is pure greed.

Chuck

Can I still sell my ’97 Honda Civic? (There may be a little software in it.)

As someone who does some occasional work for a cash-strapped business that uses software 2 or 3 versions old, this seems potentially troublesome.

Anonymous

Yes, because you own that Honda Civic.

The software on your computer you simply bought a license for.

Is this really that hard to understand?
- Rob
  
  One of the primary pieces (in importance, not size) in modern cars is a computer. So if the computer is embedded in something, then you own the software on it? Is that what you’re trying to say?
  
  If so, why can’t I sell my computer as a paperweight that just happens to have software embedded. Same difference.

Thebes

Our courts are so messed up. If I can’t sell it I don’t own it.

I suppose that Microsoft will make its new Craptista OS non-transferable so people buying a used laptop will need to buy a copy of Craptista 8?

F it, it isn’t piracy unless it involves a parrot and a peg leg, thats what I say.

DirkSJ

Hahaha…ok I see the missing verb now later in the sentence…

Apparently my brain filled it in for them…

My mistake. (<–also no verb)

Anonymous

Lets think about this for a moment. I bought a software license 3 years ago. I am now no longer using that software or the computer it is on. So I will “Rent” you the computer with the software to use for “X” years at $$$/year paid in COD in full. You are just required to leave the Company information as is.

There you go, world’s biggest loophole.

Anonymous

“1 had an XP license and was trying to his friend’s copy of vista.”

This sentence no verb.

DirkSJ

“1 had an XP license and was trying to his friend’s copy of vista.”

This sentence no verb.

Yes it does: “had”. Similarly consider:
“I saw 5 people. One had a bicycle.” The only thing missing in both cases is an explicit predicate. “One” is implying “one person”. But that is perfectly acceptable english and it most certainly has a verb. If you are going to grammar flame, please be accurate.

On topic: I guess I’m the only person on this site that doesn’t have a problem with this ruling. You don’t buy software you license it. They are not interested (nor should they be) in selling you actual binaries. If you own the binary then you have rights to reverse engineer it and all manner of things that could potentially destroy their business.

I’m all for the resale video game industry getting killed. It’s part of why games cost so much. The businesses can’t count on many sales because people will just buy used…lower sales = higher prices as they try to recoup costs on the few people that buy new.
- SB-129
  
  i once sccidentally my XP license, so i was very grateful to my friend, who his copy of Vista for me.
Anonymous

If we’re going to be pedantic, it has one verb and is missing another.

Anonymous

It’s funny how these extraordinarily restrictive copyright licenses are largely confined to the software world. That’s likely due to a historical accident–in the early days of software, people weren’t entirely sure that software was copyrightable (and given the legal understanding of computers at the time, they had good reason to be concerned). So they crafted these really elaborate, legalistic-looking “licenses” about the usage, hoping to be able to recover from people who were copying their stuff without authorization by suing under contract law or other means.

Once it was established that code was in fact mostly copyrightable, these licenses stayed on sort of vestigially. And then those vestigial licenses mutated to gain a new purpose in expanding the scope of how copyright might be applied.

Look closely at a few EULAs for proprietary software you have. Many will say that you’re only licensing the software. But what does that mean? Obviously, I’m only licensing the copyrighted work. I haven’t been given the power to make copies totally at will. But many will differ on whether or not I’m only licensing the particular *copy* of the work. Some will specify that, like Autodesk (and Blizzard), other will be silent on the topic. Those EULAs likely have yet to mutate.

In any case, WTH does it mean to “license” a physical object anyway? I can get a license to use a copyrighted work a certain way; I can get a license to use a piece of land a certain way. but if I’m getting ahold of a DVD or a car and being told I don’t own it, I’d call that “renting” or “leasing,” not “licensing.” Calling a restrictive transfer of a physical object “licensing” is just a good way (deliberately or not) to confuse the issue.

Anonymous

Actually you do own the DVD; you just don’t own the software on it.

In EXACTLY the same way as when you buy a CD you own the CD; but are simply licensing the music on it.

If you weren’t purchasing a license, but instead the software, then you could install it on however many machines you wanted and lend it to everyone you know. In fact Autodesk could make 1 copy of 3D S Max, sell it to you, and you could supply it to the whole world; because you’d own it.

Same as how if you ‘owned’ the music you bought you could arrange public performances, copy it and sell it, and play it in a bar for your patrons to dance to.

You guys seem to be having a real hard time grasping the concept of a license, what it represents and why it exists.

Again, is this really that hard to understand?
- Anonymous
  
  >Again, is this really that hard to understand?
  
  Apparantly, the difference between a license and copyright is the hardest thing to understand. A license is a contract. Did you agree to any contract when you bought that DVD? No you didn’t. It is copyright that prevents you from installing on multiple machines, copying etc. You do own a copy of the software/movie/music. Don’t confuse being the owner of a copy with being the copyright holder. Just because you aren’t the copyright holder does not mean it must have been licensed to you. Licensing is a completely separate concept that may or may not be involved when dealing with copyrighted works.
bwcbwc

Obviously you haven’t read the terms on recent DVDs you’ve bought.

The Raven

“software that has a relatively small market”

Nonsense. AutoCAD is used globally in the building industry and there are probably millions of copies in circulation.

Anonymous

I’m going to build houses and put licenses on them. Now when you buy it you can’t resell it, I’ll be rebuilding houses in the same spot forever! Mooo hahahaha!

foxtails

My mini-rant on EULAs:

If a EULA is based on a well-known, named license, with all deviations conveniently listed separately, then I will honor it.

But if a software publisher expects me to read multiple pages of Yet Another Unique License, then I feel no moral obligation to read or honor it, and I’ll do whatever I want with it, short of giving away copies. I don’t have the time to examine proprietary licenses, and expecting anyone to do do this is ridiculous.

Spikeles

Imagine you have an awesome pool on your property. I decide you want to use it and go to see you. We reach an agreement whereby I can use the pool as much as I want for $20.

Then I get my own pool, deciding I no longer need to use your pool i think I can sell/give my agreement to my friend.

So i do. The next day, instead of me showing up, some guy you’ve never met, nor had any business with shows up to use your pool.

Do you welcome them and allow them to use your pool?

Anonymous

Of course, but you charge them a “lifeguard fee.” Used copies can be wonderful for getting your software to a wider secondary audience.

Users who cannot afford the software have a choice to pirate it, but piracy customers won’t buy support, training, etc.

It’s similar to the mp3 argument. Let those who can’t afford it share the songs, and they’ll eventually go to a show and buy a t-shirt.
KeithIrwin

Except that that’s not what happened. What happened is that they designed an awesome pool and then I said, “Hey, I’d like to buy a copy of that pool” and they said “Sure.” And I gave them money and they made a copy of their pool except this one is in my backyard. But then when I went to swim in the pool, there was a sign on it which said “You don’t really own this pool, you’re just licensing it from us”. And then when I decide to move house and try to sell the pool, they claim that they never really sold me a copy, but just licensed it to me (whatever that means). And then the courts agreed and won’t let me sell the pool to someone else.

Just to be clear what has happened here is that the courts have ruled that the actual fucking CD-ROM with the copy of AutoCAD on it is not the possession of the person who paid money and was given it in return because at some point after that exchange, there was a license agreement that someone may have clicked on.

Oddly enough, one consequence of this decision could be the legalization of piracy, since the court has basically ruled that no sale took place in the first place. If the copy changing hands wasn’t what let the user use the software, then what was? Obviously, it would have to be the EULA. Well, unless the EULA specifies something about how money had to have changed hands, then just clicking “yes” on it would be the act that licenses the software. So as long as you do that, whether or not your copy was legal to begin with, you should be able to argue that you are thereafter licensed.
classic01

This analogy isn’t directly related. You are dealing with the personal relation you have with the poll owner.

The only personal relation you have with a Software company is the money you initially gave them. There is no “inconvenience” for the Software company when you relinquish your user rights on behalf of someone else. There is a huge inconvenience for you to not be able to sell your license. Since it is something that you’ve bought (just like a book, a CD and a computer)

Corporations want to be able to license everything, and make every license nontransferable. This would most certainly increase their profits exponentially. Corporations would rather see you throw away everything you don’t need anymore, instead of selling it or giving it away.
Anonymous

Your example is wrong. Try this one:

Imagine you buy an awesome pool at K-Mart and install it ON YOUR property. I decide I want to use it and go to see you. We reach an agreement whereby I can use the pool as much as I want for $20.

We both go to jail because the pool IS NOT YOUR FRIEND’S, even as he paid for it.
It does not even belongs to K-Mart. Some pool company has the rights.

So now, facing all these legal problems and traumatized by being in jail, you tell you’re lawyer to sell the pool to help with your legal bills.
Only you cannot sell it, as per the legal agreement on the pool.

Now that’s an appropriate sample.

Anonymous

I’m not a fan of click-thu ELUA’s, DRM etc etc etc, which is a big reason why I use almost exclusively Ubuntu and open office. However, in this instance, the company owned a version of the software. They then purchased an upgrade (at a much lower cost than buying new) with the agreement to destroy the older version. However, instead of destroying it they resold it. It is those copies that the lawsuit is about.

Anonymous

If I have an AS400 I can sell it. However I have to disable the OS (OS400) installed. The licence can not be transferred. Silly really as this means the older ones can’t be given to schools or colleges etc. No surprise the AS400 is unknown amongst the youf market.

Penhalluriack’s, been there a million times, never seen the man. Does he exist?

redpola

eBay is the one who’ll lose out here. I’ll just sell my software locally instead.

PrettyBoyTim

When I worked at a post production house, there were similar limitations on much of the software we used – things like Renderman, which cost a couple of thousand pounds per license.

What the company did was set up small wholly owned companies that would purchase a block of licenses. The idea was that if they then at some point wanted to sell them they’d sell the little company thereby ensuring that it the licenses themselves didn’t change ownership.

It’ll be interesting to see if any games companies try the same trick with secondhand games, as console games in general aren’t licensed but sold. I’m sure there are a bunch of games companies out there who would try and argue that their games *are* licensed, but it’s difficult to see how that could be the case if no license is ever presented to the purchaser.

Anonymous

Thanks Autodesk for fighting to take away our freedoms in the USA because of some dork trying to make a few bucks on e-bay when your crappy software is pirated all over the world … ya greedy jerks!

philipb

“Autodesk is the last one standing right now”

VectorWorks will be disappointed to learn they have closed up shop.

delt664

Oh, I only licensed my software?

Then I guess the publisher only licensed my money.

Perhaps an ReasonableAgreement.org Anti-Eula style thingy is in order…..

Anonymous

Love it, you see, the first sale is to the retailer.

2k

how about giving it away?
…or reselling an unopened, unused disc?
When did the evocation of the license daemon transpire?

jphilby

“When did the evocation of the license daemon transpire?”

Helluva good question. Hmmm.

So I buy my grandma a computer (with pre-installed EULA software) for Christmas with one of these invisible BDSM thingies on it. Do I own the license (I bought the computer) or does Granny? So when I’m giving it her, is that an illicit transfer? Is the license still parked inside my own soul, or does it move to Granny’s soul because Granny-love is holey?

Clarence Darrow would have a fucking field-day with this kind of shit.

Cowicide

Autodesk = Scum

Good to know. I hope they get pirated out of existence for this. Idiots.

Anonymous

Isnâ€™t it the 9th circus court that has had most of its decisions reversed? Iâ€™m not too worried, once the Supreme Court gets their hands on this, itâ€™ll be another case reversed for the 9th.

bwcbwc

The bright side of all this, as PJ of Groklaw points out, is that it strengthens the terms of the GPL and other open licenses that require sharing. Or at least it prevents that whole legal quagmire from opening where the SCOs of the world say “I bought my Linux source code, now I can do whatever with it thanks to the doctrine of first sale.”

Silverer

Soon we’ll have to worry about going to the beach, and laying on the sand where we might listen to someone playing a song on the radio that we didn’t pay a license fee for or a sum of money allowing us to listen to it. Hurry up and act deaf, as these people who are overly restrictive with licensing agreements like this are acting dumb!

Anonymous

I not convinced that copyright is (or ever was) an appropriate way of protecting software. The already excessively long terms become absurd when applied to software. The fact that copying is inherrent in the use of the software raises legal issues. And copyright does NOT protect any method or means of operation, which software more closely resembles than a literary or expressive work. So under the merger doctrine, decompilation is authorized.

IMHO copyright law has been bent into near unrecognizability in an attempt to protect software. Because without some sort of statutory protection there’s no real limitation on what you can do with a pirated edition when you have NO contract or agreement with the licensor.

AirPillo

If the average person actually read every EULA they’re asked to accept before agreeing to them, they’d be retired before they finished reading, or possibly just dead.

A court has to be really out of touch to expect people to study and commit to memory a new, unique contract every time they make a purchase.

Now, for something as expensive as AutoCAD I guess expecting a license agreement makes sense, but I have to agree to 2 or 3 just to use cheap games or free services.

At what point did the courts begin to think that every human being has a paralegal assistant on-call 24/7?

daneyul

In the 90′s, when we used to set up architectural firms with CAD systems, I had a boss who argued that AutoCAD benefited tremendously from piracy–it became THE standard because it was so easy to find a pirated version. He suspected lax protection as a kind of marketing strategy–it got the software known by millions of architectural students, and due to the volume of copies out there, was the one everyone had heard of.

When those kids got jobs, that’s what they wanted to use and firms were compelled to go that route instead of one of the more locked down, unfamiliar alternatives.

Anonymous

Let’s be clear here. When you buy a CD, you do NOT licenes the music. Instead, the limitations on what you can and cannot do with the intellectual property embodied therin are determined by copyright law rather than a contract. One of the things that an owner is EXPLICITLY permitted to do is to resell that item. However software licenses are intended to create a legal situation where you NEVER become the “owner” of a copy in the copyright sense, and therefore do not have the rights that an owner is granted under copyright law. Instead the intention is for the user’s rights to be constrained by the terms of the EULA.

ukcannonfodder

since we will soon be blocked from resale, i will soon choose piracy.

Anonymous

may everyone stop buying software all together and download it on torrents like normal people.

license is bullcrap on a physical product. all physical products by any measure of right and wrong be property of he who bought it and is free to sell it. whether it is covered in ketchup stains or ricky martin noises.

it isn’t just software. i have heard many people who sell (legitimate resell – whether it came from confiscated goods, out of business sale, your friends heroin fund,whatever) online from numerous companies that non software brands are doing this. false claims of fraud because they want to utterly destroy the right to resell anything and like someone else said license everything. if they had their way we would all be pack rats living in our own garbage and the world would run out of resources 10 times quicker. because hey I bought this car 40 years ago, cant sell it to a scrap yard because I really just bought the rights to use it and it is criminal for me to get $500 back and criminal for bearded charlie to turn it into a rust square too.

bastards. i hope the scurvy does them in. I’d much rather have a thieving free for all then having some pricks tell me I’m stuck with something I no longer need/want.

js7a

Yuck. I’m never buying another Autodesk product in my life, if I can help it. Please join me in similarly boycotting any software producer which enforces this precedent.

bwcbwc

Heck, any company whose license terms don’t allow some mechanism for transfer of license should be boycotted.
Quiet Noises

Boycotting Autodesk is a nice effort, but AutoCAD has been the standard in the manufactured world for most of the existence of computer involvement with making, well, anything. The same with the majority of the design world (outside of graphic design) that runs 3DS Max, Flame, Alias, Maya etc. It’s incredibly widespread.
- Anonymous
  
  AutoCAD is not a standard. I’m not sure it’s used except for very simple stuff. I haven’t even seen it in use for over 15 years of manufacturing. Parametric solid modeling kicked it to the curb long ago.
  
  On the other hand, FOSS parametric CAD is pitiful.

Richard

It’s all a silly game. They pretend to sell me the software, I pretend to use it. It’s all very convenient. Creating shell companies that own computers or software which can themselves can be sold without severing ownership is just more pretending.

Anonymous

I used to buy my new copy of Chessmaster(TM) every time it was released. The allowed the “owner” to install it to a computer, but the game had to be reinstalled every ninety days. About the tenth time I was re-installing the ninth version of the game, I discovered the free chess game that came with Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Now I can get my dilettante chess-playing ass kicked by my computer on the expert setting for free!

Anonymous

Get this: Now many OBJECTS, like cars, and refrigerators, excercise equipment and TV’s have software EMBEDDED inside the product…

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Silverer

Yep. Ship your refrigerator, car, or other worn out useless item with the software in it to the software creator’s residence, with a note thanking him for reminding you about your obligation under the license agreement…

Anonymous

Who gives a shit about courts????)))

Anonymous

Before too long, music will only be sold via lists printed on mimeographed sheets that you will queue up to look at in GUM-style stores. No photo of the cover will be available, because the image is copyrighted. No listening to the music beforehand to decide if you enjoy it, because the sound is copyrighted. You won’t hear it on the radio for the same reason. You won’t be able to listen to it with your friends unless they’ve purchased licenses to hear it. Sounds like a perfect way to keep the big music companies that initiated this shit (that is now spreading to software and everything else) rolling in dough….or maybe not.

Anonymous

Hence the rise of digital music and independent music labels. The huge record giants who think one pirated CD is equal to the death of a baby and will take you to court for a ridiculous sum of money are being replaced by small labels and bands who think that the CD is just to pull you in, to get you to like them, to come to their show, buy their deluxe bundle of merch, etc.

Anonymous

Were the copies legitimate though?

“Finally, if you upgraded to a new version, the old version had to be destroyed.

The copies Vernor picked up at the architect’s sale were old copies that had not been destroyed as required. ”

Should you really be able to resell software that you already traded-in to get a reduce price upgrade?

Anonymous

“legitimate copies of Autodesk”

Copies of Autodesk what? That’s like saying “legitimate copies of Adobe”.

We talking about 3D S Max here?

CheshireKitty

Hmm, how do we work this, then? “The Exchange Table”?

At one end, you place your used software/item. At the other end, another person places their money/trade item.

Then you switch places. And express delight and wonder.

“Oh, look! Some lovely money/item!” “Oh, look! A lovely item!”

Then you go your separate ways.

Anonymous

Unfortunately, that can be defeated by changing the word “sell” to “sell, rent, trade, or otherwise transfer”, which 99% of all media companies already do.

Yeah, it’d be nice to say “oh, I lost my copy of autocad, joe found it. Joe lost fifty bucks, and I found it.” except, as a licensee, you are obligated to destroy your software if you are no longer in possession of it. You can’t own autocad, ever, so you can’t transfer your ownership, or appoint another licensee. If you cease owning you must physically destroy it. That’s what you’ve been coerced into agreeing to, and apparently that’s legal.

That said, when I first started up my laptop, it presented me with an EULA, which I used task manager to kill without accepting… I wonder then, if I’m free to sell off my OEM copy of windows it came with. Hmm.
- Anonymous
  
  By using the software you automatically agree to its terms of conditions … however that’s an interesting theory :)

teufelsdroch

Ummmm…..

Nobody here has put much thought into the changes that will come as computing moves from PCs to the cloud, have they?

I’d recommend Nick Carr’s book The Big Switch.

In cloud models you can run any software in the world, but you never own it (or download it). SAAS received a lot of ridicule five or so years ago, but Apple’s trying it–that seems pretty legit.

Essentially, companies want cloud models because people exchange convenience for control. If you think about it, the iphone is a perfect example of this. If you think about it further (i.e. the continued Moore’s law of communication speed at the same time as transistors stop shrinking) it seems inevitable that SAAS will take over.

CS5 updates so often, and licenses so restrictively, that frankly I think it’s halfway to SAAS already.

yesno

@DirkSJ

“You don’t buy software you license it.”

That doesn’t make sense. You buy physical goods like CDs and DVDs, you license IP rights.

It is possible to license rights around software, but you can’t license a physical copy. A copy of software is not intellectual property; it’s physical property. First sale applies to physical copies.

What’s more, you don’t need a “license” to operate software when you own the physical copy.

The architecture firm violated a contract with AutoDesk and it should be liable. The good faith buyers of those physical copies are not bound by any contract negotiated between two other parties.

Your analysis of the effects of secondary markets is not correct. Secondary markets serve consumers that the IP owner will not, and are thus more economically efficient. Absent perfect price discrimination, secondary markets lead to more people getting copies. Even if prices in the primary market were lower, fewer people would be served.

Court limits right to sell used software

More at Boing Boing