Posted on 09/11/2010 7:43:51 AM PDT by Zakeet
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court has sided with the computer software industry in its effort to squelch sales of second-hand programs covered by widely used licensing agreements.
Friday's ruling by the 9th Circuit of Appeals raised worries that it will embolden music labels, movie studios and book publishers to circumvent the so-called "first-sale" doctrine in an attempt to boost their sagging sales.
The doctrine refers to a 102-year-old decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that determined copyright holders can't prevent a buyer from reselling or renting a product after an initial sale, as long as additional copies aren't made.
It's a legal principle that allows used book and music stores to operate, as well as DVD subscription services such as Netflix Inc.
But a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit concluded the first-sale doctrine didn't apply to used software programs that online merchant Timothy Vernor peddled in his store on eBay. Vernor had bought the unopened software, made by Autodesk Inc., at garage and office sales, without ever agreeing to the licensing agreement imposed on the original buyer.
That contract made it clear the rights to install Autodesk Inc.'s software were being licensed rather than sold, according to the 9th Circuit's interpretation.
Without a definitive sale, the first-sale doctrine is moot, the appeals court reasoned in its decision overturning a lower federal court in Washington state.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
More insanity from that "court". Left coast nonsense has a price.
key words: “9th Circuit”.
This will never stand.
Where this should ultimately go is this:
If vendors want to retain control of the future use of their produce they will have to lease it, and the fact that they are only offering a lease will have to be made clear upfront.
Good luck retaining any market share when you are only offering a lease, and others are selling their competing products.
Truth in advertising laws are a bitch, when you are a crook.
Many software packages used that EULA — we [software company] own it, you [purchaser] are only using it.
Fricking retards....if there was no difinitive sale how did the software end up at a GARAGE sale?
Gah....I could get better rulings from a coin toss...
they may actually have a point:
“That contract made it clear the rights to install Autodesk Inc.’s software were being licensed rather than sold”
So if I buy a used computer with software installed I can’t use it? This is insane, but if the software is only “licensed” to the original buyer that’s what I would have to conclude. Good grief, if this stands I can see all kinds of problems.
If you purchased AutoCad still in a wrapped package, never installed, from whatever source the license should still be valid as a new install.
How can they find otherwise?
I understand that sales of software to other than the original purchaser is not allowed.
If this stands the pirates will return in force and dominate.
legend has it that many a sale was made because you cannot up grade ‘hot’ software.
Did the sales outlets say the product was “For Lease”?
Or did it say it was “For Sale”?
Just what did they say in the market place?
Selling and leasing are two different things, and in the market place you don't get to claim you are selling - if you only offer a lease.
The leftist crap of changing the definitions of words is not going to fly here.
There will be no squirreling out of this one.
The 9th Circuit has had more rulings overturned than any other in the U.S.
OK, now I am confused.
If it's “unopened”, then how is it “used”.
And isn't the usual End License Agreement a part of the installation procedure when you actually put the application on your computer - so how do you agree to it when you buy the product?
They are saying that the seller did not agree to the license when he sold it, therefore he broke the law. ??
The report reflects the weak writing of the typical journalism school educated news reporter.
Used means already installed and installing on another machine would be illegal under the EULA. But a sealed package purchase should still be a valid license. Does not make sense to me at all. But I am not a lawyer.
It sucks no doubt but technically before installing you have to agree to the terms (that no one reads)
3 cheers for the black market...
How can they find you in violation of the license agreement when you “sell”, not install, a sealed software package?
That is what the article says happened.
Previously installed, is another matter.
I have been a Linux user for over 10 years. I have Windoz machines and have extensive software experience on both platforms as well as AS400 IBM. That said, I hate the computer overhead use and annoyance associated with license tracking. It is part of the problem with poor performance on Windows machines.
If I never had to run another Windows computer again it would make me happy. I have spent a great deal of time recovering other’s computers from spyware, viruses and trojans. Most of those problems were because of user ignorance and the many many problems with Direct-X and other Microsoft innovations.
How many stores are there, especially in Calif, that sell used records- older classics that some people are very happy to own & listen to???
At the rate laws are being passed, there will be FBI agents on the site of Antique Roadshow every week- looking to arrest someone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.