Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: ElPolloDiabl on September 14, 2010, 02:25:30 AM
-
Copyright doesn't seem to be based on fixed morals. Apparently you can give all rights to the owner and flip off the hapless consumer.
See this article:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09/13/autodesk_software_sale_restriction_ruling/ (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09/13/autodesk_software_sale_restriction_ruling/)
I like the old version of copyright where you can lend/sell to anyone (and backup copy) as long as it isn't in two places at once.
-
I find it odd that our resident Copyright experts have not joined this one...
-
The game publishers have been itching for a way to kill second hand sales. This probably gives it to them.
-
I'd be shocked if this doesn't get overturned.
If it doesn't, I'm sure some unscrupulous publisher will add a no resale clause into their EULAs, but it won't go over so well and they'll pay dearly for it.
-
I'd be shocked if this doesn't get overturned.
If it doesn't, I'm sure some unscrupulous publisher will add a no resale clause into their EULAs, but it won't go over so well and they'll pay dearly for it.
I have lost any sort of hope of anyone involved in the justice or governmental system having any sort of common sense when it comes to these things.
-
I'd be shocked if this doesn't get overturned.
Actually, after reading the article, it appears that the original decision was in favour of the reseller. It was this decision that was overturned at appeal in favour of the software company.
It is still possible to overturn even an appeal? I'm not sure how any of that works.
I've read the article and, to be honest, I can see AutoDesk's point but I can also see the reseller's point as well. Overall I think I personally would have to agree that once you purchase a piece of software, then your right to use that software is like an asset that you've purchased and should be able to be resold to someone else.
They can try and mask it by saying they only licence you to use the software, they don't actually sell the software to you, but that doesn't wash with me. It'd be like selling cars and saying to the new owners... yeah the thing is we only licence you to drive the car. You don't actually own the car. So I'm afraid you can't sell it second hand.
Bullcrap.
AH.
-
Copyright seems to be a bit of a hot topic all over the net right now, pulled this image off a debate going on in facebook just now and got thrown of an adult chat site last night on believe it or not a debate on copyright !!! :roflmao:
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af79/frankosamiga/60544_425066172955_583302955_4957543_7900605_n.jpg)
-
Copyright doesn't seem to be based on fixed morals. Apparently you can give all rights to the owner and flip off the hapless consumer.
I hate it when I got to a restaurant and pay for a meal, but when I try to leave with the plates, knifes and forks then they call the police. They didn't tell me before I paid that I wasn't allowed to take them.
-
I hate it when I got to a restaurant and pay for a meal, but when I try to leave with the plates, knifes and forks then they call the police. They didn't tell me before I paid that I wasn't allowed to take them.
Strawman.
Back on topic.
I too hope it gets appealed (again).
-
I think we'll just continue to do what we've always done bend the law.
-
I hate it when I got to a restaurant and pay for a meal, but when I try to leave with the plates, knifes and forks then they call the police. They didn't tell me before I paid that I wasn't allowed to take them.
That's an example of a moral issue, you are depriving the restaurant owner of the plates and cutlery. In software copyright you are being ask to trash something in the belief a buyer will pay full price for a newer product.
In olden times it would have been up to the Monarch to decide buying activities and prices. In capitalism we can take our money elsewhere.
I hope we get some lobbying that's pro consumer. Otherwise it's not job providing software business that is winning, it's just a bunch of software patent trolling, so that means the lawyers are winning.
-
What a shame!
-
I find the defense of licensee V owner of physical product interesting. If you are licensed to use the product then physical restrictions such as media would not apply. So in 20 years’ time when your media no longer works the vendor would have to supply you new media to ensure your use of license is not restricted? Or is there a limit on how long before the vendor no longer needs to supply. Is that the same limit that makes some vintage software no longer copyright ?
In Australia there is a simple consumer law that states “a new product must be fit for the purpose for which it is sold”; A broom must sweep, a car must drive, etc.
What if you buy a CAD software product for Win XP that no longer works on Windows 7. Are you bound to stay on XP. Or do you have the right to expect the licensed product maintain its usefulness beyond the limitations of OS releases.
Legal precedents often come back to haunt those that use them.
Maybe new licenses will have a 3 year limit. Before you have to re-purchase. Watch the sand slip through the fingers......
-
In the UK the record labels when faced with gertsy's point swapped and changed to suit themselves. Got a damaged disk? Tough you only bought a product. Want to play it in your shop? Sorry you'll have to pay extra as your current licence doesn't allow for that...
-
In Australia there is a simple consumer law that states “a new product must be fit for the purpose for which it is sold”; A broom must sweep, a car must drive, etc.
What if you buy a CAD software product for Win XP that no longer works on Windows 7. Are you bound to stay on XP. Or do you have the right to expect the licensed product maintain its usefulness beyond the limitations of OS releases.
Legal precedents often come back to haunt those that use them.
“a new product must be fit for the purpose for which it is sold”, that law also applies here in the UK. I have used it many times in the past against products that were clearly not so.
If you return something to a store and quote this law most times the store will give you a refund or exchange the product. Those that don't and try to fob you off with it's not their policy, simply ask to speak to the manager or whoever is in charge take down their name and in the UK a quick call to Trading Standards soon changes their mind.
In many cases you are also given a discount or some monetary compensation as they know they were in the wrong and don't wish to lose a customer or have Trading Standards on their backs.
-
So as a purchasher of Autodesk's software package, since I don't own the software and have only the use of it, do I own the CD-ROM, DVD, floppy disks, manuals, dongles, or packaging that any of the above came in?
If so, shouldn't I have the right to sell those items as I see fit.
Regards,
AmigaEd
-
So as a purchasher of Autodesk's software package, since I don't own the software and have only the use of it, do I own the CD-ROM, DVD, floppy disks, manuals, dongles, or packaging that any of the above came in?
If so, shouldn't I have the right to sell those items as I see fit.
Regards,
AmigaEd
Yes, as long as the purchaser does not use the software.
-
I hate it when I got to a restaurant and pay for a meal, but when I try to leave with the plates, knifes and forks then they call the police. They didn't tell me before I paid that I wasn't allowed to take them.
This is not nearly a correct analogy since purchasing a meal, you dont purchase the plates and silverware. More correct would be, you buy a meal at a restaurant (analogous to purchase of software) and you turn and sell, or give away that meal to the person next to you who eats it. Restaurant (software company) still got paid therefore lost nothing, still gained the price set for the product and you did not sell anything that wasnt yours to do with as you pleased.
Software companies are desperate to change your software purchase from that to a purchase of a "license" they then deem in a closed box agreement (you dont get to see the 'agreement' until you open the box and opening the box indicates your agreemet to the license you couldnt see until you opened it (oh, by the way, once you open software you pretty much cant return it either so you're likely stuck with whatever slip of paper they placed in the box limiting your use hip hip hooooray for more profit!)) that you have no right to sell or transfer. This way, like record companies in the past tried to do, they can try to destroy the used market and get all the money for themselves.
-
This is not nearly a correct analogy since purchasing a meal, you dont purchase the plates and silverware. More correct would be, you buy a meal at a restaurant (analogous to purchase of software) and you turn and sell, or give away that meal to the person next to you who eats it. Restaurant (software company) still got paid therefore lost nothing, still gained the price set for the product and you did not sell anything that wasnt yours to do with as you pleased.
While I get the point of your analogy, the one flaw with it would be the restaurant could stop you from doing so on the grounds that giving your meal to another potential paying customer is harming his sales and business and he would be legally within his rights to stop you and even remove you from his premisses. :(
-
While I get the point of your analogy, the one flaw with it would be the restaurant could stop you from doing so on the grounds that giving your meal to another potential paying customer is harming his sales and business and he would be legally within his rights to stop you and even remove you from his premisses. :(
Actually I believe games companies like Nintendo, Sega and more recently Sony have used pretty much the above justification for trying to stamp out the second hand markets in Japan.
-
Here's something interesting:
HDCP 'master key' supposedly released, unlocks HDTV copy protection permanently (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/)
Not that it's actually needed for anything, the bluray protection has been broken in other ways already.
But it's clearly another nail in the DRM's coffin.
-
Here's something interesting:
HDCP 'master key' supposedly released, unlocks HDTV copy protection permanently (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/)
Not that it's actually needed for anything, the bluray protection has been broken in other ways already.
But it's clearly another nail in the DRM's coffin.
"Master Key" sounds an urban myth to me..
-
"Master Key" sounds an urban myth to me..
In what way?
Niels Ferguson predicted this in 2001 already (http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html). It just took longer than a year (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/236).
-
Strawman.
Back on topic.
Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it a straw man.
The shrink wrapped license says that you can't resell it, you know that the shrink wrapped license on every piece of software says it.
If you didn't already know, then I'm telling you now. Every piece of commercial software, says you cannot re-sell it.
Now you have no excuse.
The major reason why shrink wrapped licenses were not considered valid is because people claimed ignorance. Even going so far as to get a dog to open the package.
If you don't want to buy the software that says you can't re-sell it then don't buy it.
If you want to take the plates away with you, go to somewhere they give you paper plates.
-
“a new product must be fit for the purpose for which it is sold”, that law also applies here in the UK. I have used it many times in the past against products that were clearly not so.
If software says it works on windows xp, then you can get a refund if it doesn't. If you buy it because you want to run it on windows 7, or upgrade from XP to 7 later then you don't have a legal standing. It was fit for the purpose that the seller sold it, whether it was fit for the purpose that the buyer bought it.
However most shops will allow you to return things, just because they don't want bad publicity. Especially if they are selling stuff that doesn't work & you go in when they are really busy and talk very loudly.
Eventually everything will be delivered digitally, you can't even make sure you get to keep that.
You have a choice of what you buy, but everything has a cost & someone has to pay.
-
This is not nearly a correct analogy since purchasing a meal, you dont purchase the plates and silverware. More correct would be, you buy a meal at a restaurant (analogous to purchase of software)
You didn't purchase the software, you just thought you did. That isn't anyones fault but your own. It said it inside the box, like all the other software.
I thought I bought the plates because they put them in front of me and I paid them money. If I were in a plate shop and that happened then I would own them, in a restaraunt I don't.
I only know that because of education. Knowing that shrink wrapped licenses say you can't re-sell the software is another piece of education.
Anyone that has read my post can no longer claim that they don't agree with shrink wrapped licenses, because I've told you all about them. Education is great.
-
Here's something interesting:
HDCP 'master key' supposedly released, unlocks HDTV copy protection permanently (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/)
Not that it's actually needed for anything, the bluray protection has been broken in other ways already.
But it's clearly another nail in the DRM's coffin.
Good news for people who copy and sell pirated movies.
I like having a legal disc though, after I'm sick of it I can donate it to the library. With a pirated disc it has to go in the trash.
-
While I get the point of your analogy, the one flaw with it would be the restaurant could stop you from doing so on the grounds that giving your meal to another potential paying customer is harming his sales and business and he would be legally within his rights to stop you and even remove you from his premisses. :(
No flaw, when you take guests into a restaurant you are giving your meals to other people, if a starving person entered the restaurant and begged for food, it would take a real bastard to refuse them, and it's not something that would happen every day so the owner will not be bankrupted by this action.
Licensing software is a scam.
-
If software says it works on windows xp, then you can get a refund if it doesn't. If you buy it because you want to run it on windows 7, or upgrade from XP to 7 later then you don't have a legal standing. It was fit for the purpose that the seller sold it, whether it was fit for the purpose that the buyer bought it.
However most shops will allow you to return things, just because they don't want bad publicity. Especially if they are selling stuff that doesn't work & you go in when they are really busy and talk very loudly.
Eventually everything will be delivered digitally, you can't even make sure you get to keep that.
You have a choice of what you buy, but everything has a cost & someone has to pay.
@Piru
I've seen you use the term Strawman quite often, could you please explain what it means, it's not something we use this side of the pond... ta :)
@psxphill
Still can't see the points your trying to make, someone would have to be very dumb indeed if they bought software that clearly states it's for XP only and then tried to return it because the went up to windows 7 or whatever.
Also what this 'shrink wrapped license' you keep mentioning, I can honestly say I've never came across such a thing, care to enlighten me... :)
How on earth are they going to deliver my cornflakes digitally, or are Star Trek replicators available now, and if so where do I buy one or do I need a licence. :)
-
@Piru
I've seen you use the term Strawman quite often, could you please explain what it means, it's not something we use this side of the pond... ta :)
Hmm I do? I don't recall. However, here goes: Fallacy Files: Straw man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)
-
Hmm I do? I don't recall. However, here goes: Fallacy Files: Straw man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)
Cheers Piru... that's cleared that one up... :)
-
I don't quite grasp what the fuzz is about in that case. The software in question was not software bought in a store by a private person, but software licensed to a company from the software manufactorer. This is quite normal, companies typically buy licenses for software and not the software itself, and the content of the license is typically negotiatable - for example in the company I work for, we have software with licenses that allow us to install the software on our private machines and machines owned by our family members, not just company machines - these features in the license were negotiated. Naturally it does not mean any of our family members can then sell the said software on ebay as they see fit.
So, in my view, the ones who should be in court here is the company that sold this guy the software in the first place, or the individuals in the company that did it - they broke the license agreements, they are the ones that should cover the cost here.
-
You didn't purchase the software, you just thought you did. That isn't anyones fault but your own. It said it inside the box, like all the other software.
I thought I bought the plates because they put them in front of me and I paid them money. If I were in a plate shop and that happened then I would own them, in a restaraunt I don't.
I only know that because of education. Knowing that shrink wrapped licenses say you can't re-sell the software is another piece of education.
Anyone that has read my post can no longer claim that they don't agree with shrink wrapped licenses, because I've told you all about them. Education is great.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken shrink wrap licenses have been thrown out pretty much everywhere they've been contested since you can not be forced to agree to something ex post facto.
When I'm in Best Buy I take a box off a shelf, walk to a cash register and pay, then walk form the store with what I purchased in my hand which I now own and law says the company can not further restrict how I dispose of it after that initial sale. Sit down restaurant, I buy my food sitting at the table and am served by a waiter that food which I ordered from the menu. Now, take out food, is more analogous to my software purchase. There, lo and behold, I get my plates and utensils in the bag in my hand to take from the store and again the take out food establishment cant chase me in the street and stop me from selling it to someone on the corner if I wnat to.
They dont lose a sale. now, book publishers and record copanies tried to limit used sales with the idea that you bought the book or record and had use of it then were able to 'steal' a sale from them by selling it used to someone who might have bought it new. They didnt succeed. I can venture software companies will not succeed either though they are trying the same things, few learn from the past.
Now, in the case of business purchased licenses, there is a different animal, and likely what this court was deciding on. There, no one walked from a store with a box of software, CD and license to use as a physical item, with an expectation of ownership of what they purchased and the right to dispose of it when done with it how they see fit.
-
Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it a straw man.
The shrink wrapped license says that you can't resell it, you know that the shrink wrapped license on every piece of software says it.
If you didn't already know, then I'm telling you now. Every piece of commercial software, says you cannot re-sell it.
Now you have no excuse.
The major reason why shrink wrapped licenses were not considered valid is because people claimed ignorance. Even going so far as to get a dog to open the package.
If you don't want to buy the software that says you can't re-sell it then don't buy it.
If you want to take the plates away with you, go to somewhere they give you paper plates.
They can put anything they want into licenses, even stuff they know they can't legally enforce. Even stuff that has legally struck down.
This entire dinner and diner analogy is backwards and irrelavent to this discussion.
A more appropriate one would be a publisher getting paid for every single person who read a particular book, or for every time said book was sold. Sorry you can't look at my book because we would have to pay the publisher an extra amount.
That obviously is nonsense. But publishers, both book and software want to get every penny they conceivably can from their product.
publishers have every right to compensation for their product and that happens at the original sale. they provide a product and support for the product and are fairly compensated.
put it another way. I'm the third owner of my ranger pickup. ford got money only on the original sale. It is the same pickup, they are still the OEM, the same effort both in design and production went into making my truck; but they don't get any more money.
Why because "We the people" said that is fair and that has been the practice for about a century. Software publishers want this all to be different becuase they can track who owns thier software and can charge for more.
-
Most of you seem to not have read the case at hand and are just rambling, why do you bother?
-
Cheers Piru... that's cleared that one up... :)
If by "pond" you mean Atlantic, Piru is on the same geographic side as us. If you meant North Sea, then he's certainly on the other side and then some (tucked away behind Norway, Sweden and even more sea)...
-
KThunder makes a very valid point and software vendors are already making it harder to do used sales of software. Services like Xbox Live, PSN and Steam are all about making a sale to you - give you convience (download) to obtain but also make it where you can't ever "sale" the product used. All the software I buy via Steam is licensed to me and I can easily install it to my PC, but I can't decide to sell game I've beaten and then transfer the license to someone else. This way there is no used outlet for my game purchases.
New console games are coming with one-time use only Online codes to stop used copies getting used for multiplayer and online content usage. Top selling games on Xbox and PS3 all have large online following and this practice for the most part will make used copies scare and unresaleble.
Software is just following the same path the music and movie industry has been down a while now.
In regards to business purchase - licenses (especially volume buys) are always negotiated upfront and the companies have to comply with what they agree to.
-
...
In regards to business purchase - licenses (especially volume buys) are always negotiated upfront and the companies have to comply with what they agree to.
People should comply with what they agree to, however if you study most EULAs you will find proviso's usually to the tune of "unless federal or state law conflicts"
in other words the software company can claim anything they want to and you can agree to it and try to stick to that license but if a federal or state law conflicts you don't necissarily have to. They can claim your firstborn and no second hand sales but laws might make those sections of the agreement void.
microsoft for years had "do not copy" warnings on their discs until they got nailed in court enough for it now the discs say "do not make illegal copies"
there is a big difference. just because you "opened the shrink wrap" or accepted the license DOES NOT mean you have no rights other than what is spelled out in the EULA. Many companies dont what you to know the rights that you do have.
thats were these court cases come in. spelling out the rights you have despite what the EULA states "unless state or federal laws conflict."
-
"Software producers who clearly impose restrictions on buyers and make it clear that buyers are only licensing material rather than buying it outright do have the right to restrict second hand sales of the material, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has said."
That's perfectly fine. Let's (someone) set up a website containing all such software so that the general public can boycott it. (And I think it's naive to think that this type of thing will spread to other spaces, such as video games and other relatively low-cost off-the-shelf items.)
-
Yes, as long as the purchaser does not use the software.
So just how exactley am I supposed to control what the purchaser does with the software? Or is that not really my concern?
Back to the "used car" analogy... If I sell my used car to some person, am I responsible to control how that person uses the car? (Remember I'm talking about the physical items here not the license to use something.)
-
That's perfectly fine. Let's (someone) set up a website containing all such software so that the general public can boycott it.
I'm guessing that after the first five users (from A.org users and the book burning club) show up, the traffic to the site will pretty much dry up.
-
Make the software download only, and sell it at a 1/10th of the previous cost, and I won't care what license restrictions it comes with.
-
Make the software download only, and sell it at a 1/10th of the previous cost, and I won't care what license restrictions it comes with.
Even if it leaves tracking software on your computer, sends information back to the publisher (which could easily be intercepted) or deletes itself from your computer because of some copyright issue the publisher has. (like a recent kindle book did) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml
There is all kinds of bad stuff that has happened and will continue to happen because software companies are getting so despotic with their copyrights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
These publishers and companies are not interested in their customers interests anymore. They are not interested in producing a quality product, only getting something out quickly and patching it later. Many will sell a game or software they know is poor quality.
What if the licensing states that if you plug a flash drive into your computer you will be considered in breach and the software will uninstall itself and send a report to the company? Restrictive? Yes but you could have been trying to copy it right? Would that be ok?
What if the software tracks your online activities to ensure that you arent visiting hacking sites that would allow you to break their drm? is that ok as long as it is in their EULA?
-
What if the software tracks your online activities to ensure that you arent visiting hacking sites that would allow you to break their drm? is that ok as long as it is in their EULA?
What if the software is monititoring your online or offline activities and taking actions based on your use of a competitors product or website?
Software and the business practices surrounding it, seems no different than any other type of business or product. There are good companies and bad companies, good products and bad products, good customers and bad customers.
Clearly there is some really good software out there. It's clean, effiecient, does exactley what you need and expect it to do. Clearly there is also some just plain crap out there too. It's always been that way and I doubt this will change miuch. Perhaps one thing that has changed is that we (more as software consumers and less as software creators) have become more willing to accept "good enough" vs. "the best" (or best effort).
As for the companies putting software out there, how can we even begin to think we know what lurks in the hearts of the men driving these enterprises of mass production. (maybe that should be "weapons of mass destruction"). As in any industry, there are compaies that will do right by some people and others that will throw you under the bus.
Copyrights, the law and all that goes along with it is by it's very nature a corrundrum (as are many things human). As humans, one minutes we can be Robin Hood and the next we're the Sherriff of Nottingham. Quite often the side that is "right" is defined by the side we happen to be on at the moment. Sure we can try to tack our own "tails" of personal morality or the moralities of our groups on to the copyright donkey's ass but the plain fact is the donkey doesn't want you sticking him in the ass with anything. SO, LEAVE HIM ALONE PLEASE!
-
If by "pond" you mean Atlantic, Piru is on the same geographic side as us. If you meant North Sea, then he's certainly on the other side and then some (tucked away behind Norway, Sweden and even more sea)...
No, I meant across the duck pond that I live in the middle of, I'm the the only one here and speak in a language that no one understands including me !!! :biglaugh:
Only joking... :) my medication hasn't kicked in yet... :crazy:
-
we're all quite mad