Court rules it is illegal to buy/sell used software

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

The article pretty much speaks for itself. First, content industry tried to rape fair use up and down, and now, they do the same with first sale doctrine. Will the madness ever end?

 

[John B.]

You've gotta be pullin my leg here frien.

 

[Arr0nax]

And the masquerade keeps going on...
Now, in Society 2.0, we sell physical goods to you, but that you can't freely dispose of, even if no fucking contract was signed when you bought it.

We hereby telepathically engage you to NEVER resell this CD, because by buying it, you are really just LICENSING it.
Yes, that's written in the EULA. And you don't know what it says when buying the CD. But we don't care.
We fuck you big time.

Sincerely yours,
Autodesk, the Judges

 

[Verd1234]

I know we can't talk about Piracy on NMA....

But now is it true that we also cannot even talk about Used Games?

 

[UniversalWolf]

Have no fear. This ruling was made by the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decisions of that court are overturned on appeal more than any other in the U.S. Because they're usually insane.

 

[John B.]

It seams perfectly logical to me.

 

[TheWesDude]

if there is a physical copy, you own that copy, not license it unless it is a pay-as-you-own such as subscriptions

if there is a physical copy and a one time purchase price, it is owned not licensed

if there is not a physical copy, then it would be licensed.

that is my opinion on how this should go down.

 

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

if there is a physical copy, you own that copy, not license it unless it is a pay-as-you-own such as subscriptions

if there is a physical copy and a one time purchase price, it is owned not licensed

if there is not a physical copy, then it would be licensed.

that is my opinion on how this should go down.

I believe it reflects first-sale doctrine more eloquently than I could ever say. But just like fair use, first-sale doctrine is getting more and more eroded these days. Furthermore, such erosion does not aim to protect producer's interest in fair way, but it enables the producers to gain as much profit as possible while screwing the consumers by doing so. Aka, corporate welfare.

Also, there is still the concern of spamigation. Granted the ruling doesn't mean content producers can retroactively enforce new EULA to products already in the market, but spamigation is notorious for ignoring the law (ie, consumers win if they can afford the cost of fighting back). How long until content industry start spamigate ebay sellers who sell used games, used audio CDs, used movies, etc?

When the law stopped being about making clear agreements between parties and became hiding the consequences about what was being decided in favour of the more powerful party, regular people became doomed.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well at least in Germany you are still allowed to sell a bought software to who ever you like.

*Though fact is that with or without such a law the consumer will be fucked. Thats how it sadly is ... they do already start to kill the market for second hand games by "registration" and "accounts" and what ever else is out there which they use for "DRM" or how they explain protection. But I do not believe that eve na second. I have no doubts that companies loose profit cause of piracy but if you ask me the REAL reason behind all those accounts and registration was not the piracy but to kill second hand games which are probably a much higher loos on profit then piracy could ever be ~ I have no source, its just what I believe.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This may be only a USA ruling, but if it holds, it will eventully expand like a virus worldwide. I really hope to god it does not hold. It is those ***** who are attempting to change the whole concept from 'own the copy, own right to use' to 'right to play only for limited time/on one machine'. If they were to slash their prices because of people re-buying software every 2-4 years (the typical PC replacement level), I wouldn't be so ****** off. But you know they won't.

Did anybody bother to read who are members of the group who took this to court - suprsingly no Microsoft, but a very large roll of software makers. But I can see the film, music and gaming industry rubbing their hands if this holds, because it is so easy to stretch this law to cover them too.

'They' say it's about piracy, but they know the effect on piracy will be neglible. Those who think it will kill piracy forever are either stupid or just gullible. History has taught us that every weapon almost immediatly a counter-measure is invented.

The second-hand trade is neglible (in value terms) - most people who buy software second-hand are the kind of people who can't/won't pay the £££ for them new, or they are after obsolete software for relics. It will just piss off legit customers more, some who will get so annoyed with it that they will just start using cracked copies.

My experiance tells me that the majority of illigal software is produced outside of Western Europe/North America/Japan. In 2008 it was guestimated that 95% of PC's in Nigeria were running pirate Windows, and that over 75% of players of a MMOG in China were using pirate versions a few years back. These people are where the real loss is - on paper at least. Just don't mention the fact that most of the users of the pirate Windows can't afford the legit version because it's so expensive.

I'm not saying that piracy is good. I firmly believe that software needs to be paid for, just so it is continued to be made. I even chip in with the opensorce stuff I use. It just the industry needs to accept that a) not all leakage can be stopped b) the loss of goodwill in getting every dodgy copy is not worth it and c) they need to be more flexible when pricing in poorer markets. Their charge reminds me of the music industry c. 2001.

 

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

This may be only a USA ruling, but if it holds, it will eventully expand like a virus worldwide.

Yep, especially when those fuckers start strongarming ebay sellers with spamigation.

Did anybody bother to read who are members of the group who took this to court - suprsingly no Microsoft, but a very large roll of software makers. But I can see the film, music and gaming industry rubbing their hands if this holds, because it is so easy to stretch this law to cover them too.

Agree, this court ruling can be used as precedent in future cases.

'They' say it's about piracy, but they know the effect on piracy will be neglible.

Piracy is a bullshit excuse. Re-selling used software is no the same with illegally copying them. I believe this whole thing is about preventing inter-products competition (old version vs new version), and thus, anti competitive practice. The court ruling is nothing but corporate welfare IMO.

 

[TheWesDude]

well, this is a threat to console game services that let you "rent" console games.

fair use and the owner laws are why console renting places continued to operate.

without fair use and if it is upheld as being licensed and not owned, then no more going to blockbuster and renting the new halo reach.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I believe it reflects first-sale doctrine more eloquently than I could ever say. But just like fair use, first-sale doctrine is getting more and more eroded these days.

To me, this "first-sale doctrine" adds monetary value to the product in question. If it doesn't apply to a product like software, the software is not worth as much money to me and needs to be reduced in price accordingly. You pay more to buy something than you do to lease it or rent it.

Like I said before though, the 9th Circuit is a national joke in the U.S. because of their consistently nutty rulings (thanks California ).