"The end of software ownership--and why to smile"

[Sporkman]

Consumer advocates are up in arms over a recent ruling by a federal court of appeals in Seattle. The decision, Vernor v. Autodesk (PDF), held that the terms of an end-user licensing agreement, or EULA, can change the sale of commercial software into a mere license, in this case a license that prohibits users from reselling their copy of the software.

...

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief supporting Vernor, decried the ruling as "a major blow to user rights."

...

Despite the ruling's potentially long reach, however, I don't share the doomsday view of those who believe that it will dramatically reconfigure the software industry or other information businesses.

That's largely because the reconfiguration has already happened. And the process had very little to do with law...


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20016864-92.html

[lloyd_b]

In other words: "The major software companies are already on their way to making all software rented, rather than sold, so let's not worry about a court decision that says they can negate the rights covered by the first-sale doctrine by including the words 'licensed, not sold' in their EULA".

This decision is *bad* law. It basically says that when someone goes into a store, and buys a physical package (the software box), they have no rights whatsoever to resell that package if the ultimate seller has included those magic words in the EULA (which you aren't allowed to see until *after* you have given the guy at the counter your money).

This decision only makes sense in cases where the EULA is in fact a contract - that is, if the buyer is fully aware of the conditions before agreeing to purchase it, or if it was actually possible to return the software if you didn't like the terms (ever tried to return software once the shrink wrap has been opened?).

Hopefully this will be appealed again, and overturned. Software companies are already too control-happy for my taste. I would rather retain what few rights we purchasers still have.

Lloyd B.

[pricetech]

This decision only makes sense in cases where the EULA is in fact a contract - that is, if the buyer is fully aware of the conditions before agreeing to purchase it.

This.

Full disclosure in every aspect of business.

[Bachstelze]

It works both ways. If a license can't forbid users to resell software, why could it forbid users to redistribute it without the source code?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)

[kaldor]

Stupid law. Does this apply to games as well? Even if so, I'm still selling my old copies. It's stupid not to be allowed.

[fatality_uk]

Before people start throwing themselves off bridges, this ISN'T a law. It is a ruling/interpretation to the legality of an EULA and the bulk re-selling of software products.

Without seeing the original EULA between the original owners and Autodesk, I can't make a judgment as to the validity of their case.

However, the fact is most EULA's forbid re-selling. Usually along the lines of:


You shall not...

...Sell, rent, lease, distribute or other transfer this program or any copies thereof without the express permission of [INSERT SOFTWARE CO HERE]

[Dustin2128]

meh, nothing's changed, has anyone else ever read EULAs? They've always had the right to do this. Just continue to use free software ad you'll be fine. As for games, those without resale value or with limited installs tend to fail. Anyone remember spore?

[Dr. C]

meh, nothing's changed, has anyone else ever read EULAs? They've always had the right to do this. Just continue to use free software ad you'll be fine. As for games, those without resale value or with limited installs tend to fail. Anyone remember spore?

What I remember about spore is that it had a particularly vile form of DRM and it made the most top 100 most downloaded torrents on TPB. The latter is very rare for a video game. The proper response to this ruling is of course to use FLOSS.

[Sporkman]

The proper response to this ruling is of course to use FLOSS.

Just make sure to give back to the upstream in the form of code check-ins, lest you suffer the same fate as Canonical. :D

[lloyd_b]

It works both ways. If a license can't forbid users to resell software, why could it forbid users to redistribute it without the source code?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)
With the GPL, you do NOT have to accept the license. But by refusing to do so, your rights for that work are limited to only those rights you'd have to any other copyrighted work - no redistribution allowed. By accepting the license (and its restrictions), you gain additional privileges. Refuse the license, no privileges.

Here's a scenario to consider: You go out and buy a software package from the store. Upon installing it, you find out that the EULA contains some terms you cannot live with (including the no resale restriction). What are your options?

A. Return it to the store where you purchased it. Good luck with that one - most stores will not give you a refund if the shrink-wrap is opened. Even if they do have a decent refund policy, I doubt the "license is unacceptable" reason will be accepted by them.

B. Try to get a refund from the software vendor. This can be done in theory, but it will require a lot of effort on your part, and it's very unlikely that you will get the entire purchase price back.

C. Sell the package to someone who doesn't care about the license.

This court decision closes option C entirely. It will allow software companies to prevent resale, even if you have never accepted the license that prohibits said resale.

This decision doesn't affect what limits can be placed by a license. Instead, it allows limits placed by a license to be applied to someone who has never agreed to the license. Hence, bad law.

Lloyd B.