|
New ruling could eventually lead to blocking of used game sales
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 14 September, 2010
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.
|
|
lissenup2
Suspended permanently
|
14. September 2010 @ 18:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Dardandec
Junior Member
1 product review
|
14. September 2010 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
WELL IF WE CANT SELL, LETS SWAP EM INSTEAD
|
|
Mysttic
Senior Member
|
14. September 2010 @ 18:55 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
United States Court of Appeals
Key factor here, its has been fought for years. The only way past this is the Supreme Court, which I sure that action will be taken next; if not, it damn well should be.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
14. September 2010 @ 19:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
@lissenup2 - It's odd you'd use a term like "Stalinistic" to describe this action when it's very pro-Capitalist/Laissez Faire if you're going to argue it from an economic viewpoint. Arguing this from an authoritarian standpoint would be interesting, but
I'd think a "Stalinistic" answer to this issue would be to nationalize Autodesk, make everyone work there for peanuts, give away Autocad, and kill anyone who didn't use it.
This is a ridiculous judgement...I can't wait for it to go higher. I want Autodesk to get their ass handed to them. If it isn't in the end, then I would be very disappointed in our justices. This decision is very anti-free market and anti-consumer.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
14. September 2010 @ 20:05 |
Link to this message
|
In the ruling it says that he bought six copies from an "office sale" and re-sold them on eBay. The business he got them from had purchased them directly from Autodesk.
Basically Autodesk claims that when you buy their software you are a licensee and not an owner. Because of this "reselling" is, technically, illegal under the DMCA.
As for the reselling of video games, I've never seen a screen with a license agreement nor have I had to sign a paper stating that I accept a "license agreement" for the software before I open or used it. That, as far as I can tell, means that this shouldn't be applicable to video games.
"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. September 2010 @ 20:07
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. September 2010 @ 20:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well then the rest of the copyrighted material will follow. So the judge thinks you can't sell a licenses, why? I guess because that is the way he likes it.
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. September 2010 @ 20:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Whether it games,music,movie or a console the list goes on never have i seen a eula stating i own it,all i've done is purchased a licence the product itself belongs to whoever made it period, all i've got is permission to use it,question now is since i own that licence can they actually stop me on selling it i say not since i do own the licence & not them if i'm not mistaken unless there's somth'n in the fine print which who the hell reads anyway,the long shot why be suprised these days it's anything goes for a buck
|
Member
|
14. September 2010 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
If this stands, it could be adulterated to include many things we purchase. Why both to pay for it then, just steal it. I can just see websites like The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Baidu, etc., becoming very popular. Corporate America again screwing the consumer.
|
|
baxter00
Member
|
14. September 2010 @ 22:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think this may open the door to piracy becoming a major player. If it becomes illegal to resell a video game, people will be loading up the internet with free copies.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. September 2010 @ 23:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
It isn't just game piracy...many startups only exist because of the sale of last years autodesk, solidworks, etc. Without the used market or piracy, they cannot exist. History has shown us time and again that a hungry upstart will happily use pirated software if there is no other choice left to them.
Well, this is the end of me buying games...I might buy GT5 if it ever comes out, but that is it. If I don't own the game, I cannot sell the game, and I cannot modify the game, then what exactly did I spend $60 on? The rights to use some computer code on my own hardware for 12-24 hours per game?
These bastards are taking away our rights, and expecting to make a killing on it...the only way to combat them is with open-source alternatives or piracy. To pirate software might be illegal, but somehow it seems far more moral than giving money to those who are systematically destroying our freedoms.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
14. September 2010 @ 23:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
this is just what Corporations want.
if AutoCAD was smart they'd stop pushing. the only people they'll hurt is themselves. i say let it pass why stop them from impaling the entire software industry.
id be happy to see a *nix that can do everything windows can including games, I'd welcome the very thought of a blackmarket network on the net.
why just shoot the foot when you can blow off the entire leg.
Powered By
 |
|
Hopium
Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 00:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
used sales of anything reduce environmental waste
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 01:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Keep in mind the specifics of this case was regarding a license KEY for a piece of software...not really the software itself. Any software that doesn't require registering a serial/registration/activation/license/etc. # to enable the software may not be affected.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. September 2010 @ 01:21
|
|
VonPepper
Newbie
|
15. September 2010 @ 02:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think that if you really look at both sides of this argument, the bottom line is that there simply isn't any pancake mix
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. September 2010 @ 03:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Keep in mind the specifics of this case was regarding a license KEY for a piece of software...not really the software itself. Any software that doesn't require registering a serial/registration/activation/license/etc. # to enable the software may not be affected.
It is always a license; regardless of whether or not there is a key that the user must enter...one could almost argue that it is not illegal to distribute ISO files so long as they are not used, as the software itself is not what is sold; only the license. Well, it is not illegal so long as you do not agree to the license terms anyway...and why agree to the terms if you are not using the software?
On that note, I think I may have found a nice little loophole...
If a person were to get a disk for a given piece of software by legal means (like buying it), but that person did not agree to the license terms, then the license would effectively by voided, and so too would the terms of the license agreement...this is just a contract; and contracts are always voided if one party refuses to agree to the terms. The disk itself would no longer hold and value whatsoever, not even the cost that the maker would charge to replace a damaged disk, as it would not be legal to sell this disk. If said person were to modify the program code, it would not violate the agreement, but only if said agreement was agreed to, which it was not. Thus, the person is free to modify the code in whatever way they see fit so long as they did not sell, distribute, or use the code (there are also some DMCA exceptions; AnyDVD would not qualify as it is piracy software, which is illegal to give away, but which is not illegal to sell). Here comes the good part...the person could modify the program, so that "I accept" was not mandatory, and so that the program would install without issue when "I do not accept" is selected. Once this was done, any limitations on distribution of this code would be null and void, as no agreement was agreed to, and thus no one who uses the code is agreeing to only use it under license. As for distribution of non-modified code, this is (as mentioned before) not technically illegal under the current system where the software itself is not sold.
I'm starting to feel better about all the laws that these idiots pass. They believe that they will make slaves of us all, but all they do is to create so many loopholes that they cannot hope to control anything. Before long it will be illegal just to survive...and that is when the revolution comes.
|
|
greenacre
Newbie
|
15. September 2010 @ 04:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If a person were to get a disk for a given piece of software by legal means (like buying it), but that person did not agree to the license terms, then the license would effectively by voided, and so too would the terms of the license agreement...this is just a contract; and contracts are always voided if one party refuses to agree to the terms.
No offense sir, but I dont think that the license would be effectively voided. Since you chose not to agree to the terms, the license would wont be used at all. The fact that you can return the software if you dont agree to the terms, and this software can then be sold to someone else who may or may not agree to the terms attests to the license still being 'useful'.
With regards to all this, if the Autocad wins, it wont really effect the sales of used software. Its one thing for Autocad to file a suit for their $1000 product. Its another thing for a company like EA to sue a gamer selling a used game for $20 dollars. That will be bad PR for them. Gaming companies are already trying to kill the used games market covertly anyway, by limiting the number of reactivations.
Also, this wont really affect console games since i dont remember reading anything on the game preventing it from being used again by different users.
|
Junior Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 05:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
ya this is retarded good thing i run pirated autocad 2010, i could get in serious trouble buying it from somebody
Concordia res parvae crescent
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. September 2010 @ 05:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by thepohl:
ya this is retarded good thing i run pirated autocad 2010, i could get in serious trouble buying it from somebody
Great point...if it is illegal to resell software, then anyone who resells software (like bestbuy) should be brought to court.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. September 2010 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
It isn't just game piracy...many startups only exist because of the sale of last years autodesk, solidworks, etc. Without the used market or piracy, they cannot exist. History has shown us time and again that a hungry upstart will happily use pirated software if there is no other choice left to them.
Great point! I do some moonlighting. I learn and start out with used software. Often they come on the market when a business goes belly up and they liquidate the assets. If I make money the first goes to buying a new version of the software. These packages usually run about a grand so there would be know way I would put out that kind of money to learn.
|
Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 09:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
A very simple solution to this would be to have a statute of limitations of licensing, with new versions of software coming out all the time a 5 year limit with agreements that all "abandonware" will become public use and free to download.
I speak from personal experience as finding a "legit" license for older software is impossible to find and older large industrial machinery we use use command line OS's and windows 3.1 (not even 3.11 ffs). Those licenses are long dead, but under this type of system we couldn't sell a 25 year old measuring microscope.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 10:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Software companies can really put anything they want into the EULA (End User License Agreement). Most people click that "agree" checkbox without reading the 12 pages of legalese that you're supposed to read when you click that checkbox. Autocad is particularly eggregious in their licensing. It's more reasonable to boycott these companies and use their competition's product than punish every company. This decision is a bad decision in that it will embolden other software companies to make these inclusions into their EULAs because they want to sell more new copies. Many stores won't take back opened software, so you're unlikely to get your money back if you don't agree to the EULA.
Another company that's just as bad is Quicken with their Quickbooks product. I worked for a company that paid...I don't remember exactly...maybe $300 for Quickbooks from Fry's (major retailer). They installed it and went to license it and Quicken said it was already licensed. It was well beyond the 30 days since they'd purchased it. Quicken was ZERO help. I downloaded a crack and cracked it so that the company I worked for (a small startup that couldn't afford the cost of re-purchasing the expensive software they'd just bought) could use the product that they'd paid for. I refuse to buy any software from Intuit now for this reason (I use H&R Block Taxcut instead of Turbotax for this reason).
|
Senior Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
In the ruling it says that he bought six copies from an "office sale" and re-sold them on eBay. The business he got them from had purchased them directly from Autodesk.
Basically Autodesk claims that when you buy their software you are a licensee and not an owner. Because of this "reselling" is, technically, illegal under the DMCA.
As for the reselling of video games, I've never seen a screen with a license agreement nor have I had to sign a paper stating that I accept a "license agreement" for the software before I open or used it. That, as far as I can tell, means that this shouldn't be applicable to video games.
It still shouldn't matter I can sub lease in others areas like renting so there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to do this with the WAY TOO expensive Autodesk products.
There are somethings that we should be protected from no matter what fine print there is and this should be covered under the fair trade policies we have in place.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. September 2010 @ 13:11
|
|
deak91
Junior Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 18:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
if this is the case then the software company that makes the products should buy back the software & license (at a reduced price or 50% of retail cost 1st year then 25% of retail cost their after)when the person/client is done with the product(their words are:you are a licensee) in order to keep it off resell market then well see them sh@t and say thats not fair because it hits their wallet and then well see what software is left in the free resell market
i can see it now m$ sold 100 mil copies of win 95 but because of this they also bought back 95 mil copies of win 95 just to stop the resell of used software
well i can dream lol
|
|
deak91
Junior Member
|
15. September 2010 @ 19:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
i just thought of something i dont think it will go too far because it will effect every company they should stop this because when they go belly up and they have to liquidate everything they cant sell the software because of this ruling i would be worried about my company and my investment in it
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. September 2010 @ 23:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
It's more reasonable to boycott these companies and use their competition's product than punish every company.
In this particular case, the competition is also a "bad guy" in fact, dealing with Autodesk is a wonderful experience compared to dealing with Dassault...at lease Autodesk does not charge hundreds of dollars for bug fixes.
Originally posted by deak91:
i just thought of something i dont think it will go too far because it will effect every company they should stop this because when they go belly up and they have to liquidate everything they cant sell the software because of this ruling i would be worried about my company and my investment in it
Forethought has no place in modern business. Quick, knee-jerk reactions, with no thought of the consequences...that is the modern business creed.
|
