Thanks to a new judgement made by the United States Court of Appeals, used game and software sales may be a thing of the past.
The decision (linked below) rules that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner."
Originally, the suit was brought forward by Autodesk, the makers of the expensive AutoCAD software, who were angry a consumer purchased many copies of the software ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
Originally posted by xtago: It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.
i'm kinda sick, so maybe i misunderstood, but i you're talking about piracy which is not the case here. the consumer sold copies they bought, not copies of one paid-for copy.
Originally posted by xtago: Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?
again, Autocad got their money when the consumer paid for the copies so they aren't out any money. they would be giving support for paid copies, not pirated copies.
Well that's the point they are missing here. If my friend calls me up and says he just bought COD4 used. Might that not potentially lead to increased sales? Just a thought. I actually went on bought MOHAA because a friend had a pirated version and he wanted me to play too. It does happen. MOHAA was pretty much almost extinct at the time too. I got it for $9.99 new.
You think this country was built on Free market capitalism. But do you know how many cases where some rich bastards had their political friends pass laws that ousted on manufacturer in favor of another? What's so free about that? They use our legal system and courts to do more business than most any other way. Our patent and copyright laws are so messed up so as to be counterproductive to society.
Originally posted by lissenup2: Yeah.........there's a right way to doing things and a wrong way. This is definitively a wrong way. Consumers buy the software whether it be on a physical medium or a download therefore, IT BELONGS TO THE CONSUMER. We're not buying "rights to use it", we're buying a COPY of it and therefore we can sell it to whomever we want. I'd be willing to fight this one in court. Just need a judge with a reasonable mindset and not a Stalinistic one.
If this passes then every F'ing manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and "license" everything from furniture to pet food forbidding anyone to sell anything ever...............forcing people to buy another good.
This sucks and so does American Business. The very notion that video games are rendered useless or not worthy of use after playing/completing merits the right to re-sell. This is true of AutoCad. Obviously they don't refund or accept returns. What if a business closes down??????? Then re-selling is the only practical means.
Enough ranting........this is simply screwing the customer and solely benefiting the manufacturer.
You'd never own the software though.
ever gotten a plastic wrapped MS product?
Once you open the wrap you waiver all rights you have and give them over to MS.
As for your court case you'd lose as as copyright's trademarks and patents have already beaten you to the punch.
The problem with used software sales will be that a end user is acting like they made or and own the rights to all proftits of that game and in law that isn't the case.
Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?
It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.
And I guess I could just turn around and say you don't have any rights to any of the money I've made from your software so screw you.
Nope, I disagree! If I buy a car from GM, let's say, I didn't make or build that car but I still have the right to sell it because it is my car, I bought it. If I lease a car than I have to return that car at the end of its lease, but I could still sub lease it for the remaining time if I wanted too. Software is no different no matter what the a-hole manufactures want to claim. Again this is where our fair trade policies should kick in. Now with Clinton's millenium act software companies can get away with h~ll unfortunately. I say screw them and keep selling your software on Craigslist, eBay probably will prohibit sales though.
the person who buys the software, is now a licensee ie. they own the license, they therefore have the right to sell that license. also why do they care if this guy sells them on ebay, he still bought the bloody things so they got the money they deserve for them. if people are stupid enough to pay more for them on ebay, or the seller is stupid enough to charge less, then thats their stupidity/own fault. leave these idiots be for christs sake.
sorry. didnt have time to read every post so i dont know if this point has been made.
What if CRACK was licensed?? And some crackhead bought some crack from his local crack dealer. Then they turned around and sold it to their buddy. Could the original dealer sue for damages??... And what if the crackhead went to a lab and had the crack analyzed and got the formula then reproduced it. Could the dealer sue for copyright infringement??
