Copyright continued...

[ElPolloDiabl]

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/


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.

[motrucker]

I find it odd that our resident Copyright experts have not joined this one...

[runequester]

The game publishers have been itching for a way to kill second hand sales. This probably gives it to them.

[kedawa]

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.

[runequester]

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.

[guest7146]

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.

[Franko]

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:

[psxphill]

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.

[the_leander]

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).

[loedown]

I think we'll just continue to do what we've always done bend the law.

[ElPolloDiabl]

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.

[Xanxi]

What a shame!

[gertsy]

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......

[the_leander]

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...

[Franko]

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.