Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: "First sale doctrine" out the window?

  1. #1

    Default "First sale doctrine" out the window?

    A federal appeals court said Friday that software makers can use shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses to forbid the transfer or resale of their wares, an apparent gutting of the so-called first-sale doctrine.

    The first-sale doctrine is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows legitimate owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. That defense, the court said, is “unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works.” (.pdf)

    The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, if it stands, means copyright owners may prohibit the resale of their wares by inserting clauses in their sales agreements.

    “The terms of the software license in the case are not very different from the terms of most software licensing. So I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t own their software,” said Greg Beck, the defense attorney in the case who represented an eBay seller sued by Autodesk. “The other ramification, there is no reason a similar license could not be put into the cover of a book. It wouldn’t be difficult for everybody to implement this.”

    Beck said he will ask the San Francisco-based appeals court to rehear the case with 11 judges.

    The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did. The Motion Picture Association of America also sided with Autodesk.

    The American Library Association and eBay argued against the outcome. The library association said it feared that the software industry’s licensing practices could be adopted by other copyright owners, including book publishers, record labels and movie studios.

    That assertion was not lost on the appeals court, saying Congress is free to modify copyright law “if it deems these or other policy considerations … require a different approach.”

    It was believed to be the first appellate ruling directly addressing whether a user agreement could forbid resales of software, though the appellate courts have previously backed companies that have imposed terms on how software may be used. The decision covers the nine western states, including California.

    The appeals court reversed a lower court judge that said the first-sale doctrine applied whenever the consumer is entitled to keep the copy of the work, entitling consumers to resell their purchased software at will.

    The case concerns Autodesk’s AutoCAD Release 14, which was for sale on eBay. Autodesk, invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, demanded eBay remove the item from the site, and it promptly did in 2007.

    Timothy Vernor, the seller, who purchased at least four copies of the software from a company that was required to dispose of the software under a licensing agreement, re-posted the sale and his eBay account was terminated after Autodesk complained. Litigation ensued.

    Autodesk, of San Rafael, California, imposed a significant number of transfer restrictions: it stated that the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere.

    The first-sale doctrine of 1909, in its current form, allows the “owner of a particular copy” of a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of his copy without the copyright owner’s authorization. “The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee,” the court ruled.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...sale-doctrine/

    I found out about this in another forum.

    The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did.


    My take on this is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not correctly differentiate between the definition of a "license" as the Supreme Court referred to, and the definition of "license" in this case, and therefore their ruling is invalid.

    In the first case (the Supreme Court ruling), a "license" is intended to mean "a general agreement between two specific parties", not an object that can be bought and sold.

    In the second case (the case the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled on), a license is granted per copy(s) -- it is an object that is bought and sold, making it an entity equivalent to that of a physical book copy, and therefore it falls under the same laws that a physical book copy falls under.
    Last edited by agamemnus; 09-14-2010 at 08:35 AM.

  2. #2
    Putting aside my general disagreement with the decision, I think it's disingenuous for the article to suggest that the handful of companies mentioned agree with/pursued this ruling. This association has tons of members, many of whom probably just joined to be part of an industry group and weren't aware/involved in SIIA work on this lawsuit.

    Just look at the memberlist, it's full of companies that don't even sell physical software (Amazon, Google, etc.) as well as a number of global stock exchanges.

  3. #3
    Another WTF post turned thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Just look at the memberlist, it's full of companies that don't even sell physical software (Amazon, Google, etc.) as well as a number of global stock exchanges.
    Thinking too short term again. The market is going towards digital products, something Amazon and Google either have or expect to have a hand in. Its easier to get a ruling on physical media EULAs and extend that over to digital EULAs instead of going whole cow at digital offerings. Chipping away at consumers rights, I'm sure I've heard that before.
    Ignoring that, if the big boys are shown to be connected to a group thats so anti consumer, maybe they'll ditch it, and thus said group may lose some clout influncing court decisions.

    Considering how many products contain software code, I wonder how long its going to take before companies start using the EULA to restrict the resale of physical (non-media) products.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 09-14-2010 at 02:20 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Considering how many products contain software code, I wonder how long it's going to take before companies start using the EULA to restrict the resale of physical (non-media) products.
    It's not going to happen. If there is any sanity in the world left, the Supreme Court will strike this decision down.

    Furthermore, if anyone is listening (lol), I would suggest some serious reworking of how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges are appointed. They are clearly legislating from the bench, which in our system of government is theoretically unconstitutional.

  5. #5
    Spin it let's begin it. Angel_Mapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Suzette
    Posts
    338
    The game publishers going after Gamestop for used game sales must be creaming their pants about now.
    Angel Mapper - Prometheus

    To have said goodbye to things!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Putting aside my general disagreement with the decision, I think it's disingenuous for the article to suggest that the handful of companies mentioned agree with/pursued this ruling. This association has tons of members, many of whom probably just joined to be part of an industry group and weren't aware/involved in SIIA work on this lawsuit.

    Just look at the memberlist, it's full of companies that don't even sell physical software (Amazon, Google, etc.) as well as a number of global stock exchanges.
    Good point, but just more reason for companies not to join random associations; they might make them look bad. Maybe before this Google was oblivious to them having a "lawsuit arm", but now they aren't, and they should leave this association if they claim to "do no evil".

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Another WTF post turned thread



    Thinking too short term again. The market is going towards digital products, something Amazon and Google either have or expect to have a hand in. Its easier to get a ruling on physical media EULAs and extend that over to digital EULAs instead of going whole cow at digital offerings. Chipping away at consumers rights, I'm sure I've heard that before.
    Ignoring that, if the big boys are shown to be connected to a group thats so anti consumer, maybe they'll ditch it, and thus said group may lose some clout influncing court decisions.

    Considering how many products contain software code, I wonder how long its going to take before companies start using the EULA to restrict the resale of physical (non-media) products.
    Maybe this is a failure of imagination, bow in the heck could someone resell their SAAS licenses to something like Google Apps or Amazon Web Services?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Maybe this is a failure of imagination, bow in the heck could someone resell their SAAS licenses to something like Google Apps or Amazon Web Services?
    I'm referring more towards digital downloads, an obvious market for Amazon, and pay downloads via youtube for google, or even the android market.

  9. #9
    But how does this ruling change the legality of re-selling something like that? It's usually already not legal.

  10. #10
    only because of how the EULA plays off the DMCA. If, or when, its ruled that the EULA can't stop physical transfers, the next step will be treating the digital products the same way.
    For now they've got physical products being treated the same as digital, which is what the publishers want, even if they don't have a physical product. Its setting precedent. You can take a look at the last set of exceptions to the DMCA to see which ones are meant to protect the 1st sale doctrine; such as overriding DRM for the current owner if said DRM is limiting the products function.


    This issue will expand in scope as more college students are forced to pay full price for digital textbooks, as computer and console games go digital only, and movies transfer over to a digital license rental business plan.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 09-15-2010 at 03:28 AM.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    So Ominous, it seems like us gamers just got royally screwed.
    I enjoy blank walls.

  12. #12
    It seems so, I was hoping a case like this wouldn't come up for a more years, allowing people see how royally they get raped with digital EULAs I'm afraid now the issue will end up paving the way for all sorts of gaming restrictions, from video games to consoles if the ruling isn't corrected. Once that hits we'll either enter an obvious OnLive rental type service, or its going to be another generation before some law or court decides to give the power back to the consumer

    You won't see me crying tears for the death of GameStop, but if this decision goes the other way, I could see it leading one day to a secondhand Steam market, which would be amazing.

  13. #13
    We.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But how does this ruling change the legality of re-selling something like that? It's usually already not legal.
    Huh? How is it already not legal? Perhaps the various digital download companies were using a legally dubious and Supreme-Court-untested license restriction, as opposed to it being illegal?...

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    only because of how the EULA plays off the DMCA. If, or when, its ruled that the EULA can't stop physical transfers, the next step will be treating the digital products the same way.
    For now they've got physical products being treated the same as digital, which is what the publishers want, even if they don't have a physical product. Its setting precedent. You can take a look at the last set of exceptions to the DMCA to see which ones are meant to protect the 1st sale doctrine; such as overriding DRM for the current owner if said DRM is limiting the products function.


    This issue will expand in scope as more college students are forced to pay full price for digital textbooks, as computer and console games go digital only, and movies transfer over to a digital license rental business plan.
    I understand the concern about textbooks and such. But cloud-based software developed by Google or hosted by Amazon still seems impossible to re-sell or transfer in any circumstance.

  15. #15
    Maybe thats why I wasn't referring to cloud based products Those truely are licensed products, and hopefully will always be niche products under their current business model. I'm actually surprised you got hung up on those over Amazon's kindle, music, and PC software downloads.

  16. #16
    I'm not hung up on that, I'm more hung up on the OP highlighting Google. But also mentioning Amazon because they run plenty of cloud-based services.

  17. #17
    but this has nothing to do with cloud based services. Services being the keyword. You mentioned Amazon, while for the wrong reasons, they are still a player in digital distribution. Which means this decision could very well come into play with their future business plan.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •