You Can Only Resell This Software If You Think It Doesn't Suck
from the first-sale,-anyone? dept
One of the fun things in looking through all the issues concerning "intellectual property" law as compared to traditional property law is that the folks who are big supporters of intellectual property law always talk about how it's just like traditional property... until something about that doesn't meet their liking. Take for example, the concept of "right of first sale," where you can resell a product once you've bought it. That works great when you buy a chair, but people who bought digital goods face problems. Of course, that's a bit silly, because the resale value of a product often boosts how much people are willing to pay for it. The EFF is now discussing the story of a woman who tried to resell an expensive piece of software on eBay where the company threatened her for breaking the end user license agreement. The story is a bit complex, but basically, the company president contacted her anonymously asking why she was selling it. Her answer was that the software "sucks." She found out that the software company will sometimes grant the right to resell the software and various modules in "special" circumstances, so she asked for permission. The company president denied the permission for her to resell the product, noting that he was the anonymous person who she told her opinion of the software to. As the EFF notes, nothing in the "right of first sale doctrine" says that you need to ask politely to have the right to resell something that you bought. Using the EULA to punish someone -- especially after they found your product to be lacking -- seems to go well beyond what the EULA and copyright law was intended to allow.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just ask for a refund?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not just ask for a refund?
If there is any clear example of the sorry state of popular copyright this, and the slipknot case against Burger King are CLEAR examples of what is wrong with the system. The Burger King Case at worst is a parody, which used to be allowed without issue, now you have to ask permission of the original "IP" holder. If he doesn't like your parody he can deny your right to parody.
Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULA rules
I saw a truck which reads on a sign on the back, "Stay back 100 feet. Truck is not responsible for flying rocks". Well forgive me for saying so, but I did not accept this agreement that a truck un-tarp-ed would be un-responsible for damage to my person or possessions. Even so, 100 feet is a bit far away for the size at which the sign was presented, (I had to be within 20 feet to read it). Further, does any pedestrian also agree to this? Does a flying rock come with the message attached?
In the same sense, Eula's do this, by attempting to blind a person by boring chatter only to give them an agreement they don't agree too. And even if they did read it, they could not possibly know to which extent and all of which situations apply. It's so bad that now, if you purchase the wrong software or movie or music, you are stuck with it because stores will not accept the package (even wrapped these days!).
It's utterly rediculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same thing happened to me...
My action was pulled, and I complained. I got the email address of their IP lawyers and blasted them. Their position was that the EULA prevented me from 'transfering the rights' to another party. That's even if I never agreed to the EULA (I never installed the software, never even opened the box...). I dropped the whole thing and threw the software out since it wasn't worth my time to fight them. However, if anyone asks me, I'll be happy to tell them to say the hell away from AutoCAD.
The net-net of it is that if someone wants to purchase a cheap old copy of AutoCAD, perhaps because they need to modify a single file or they were poor, they can't do it. And, so, the way people get cheap copies of AutoCAD is from alt.binaries.cad (or some such, plenty of places to get it), thus making it even less likely that they will ever pay money for a full legal copy of the software.
These sorts of policies that suppress secondary markets are shortsighted. However, perhaps this will encourage more people to use Open Source, eventually depriving all the companies with these stupid policies of any revenue.... ;-)
C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reselling sucky software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to talk to a lawyer
Not to be rude, but you really need to read a basic law book, and PLEASE read this post before jumping on me. It is standard for software and digital content to have a EULA, and this does give the IP holder the right to impose whatever regulations they would like applicable to the software/content.
As with your State's laws on violence, DWI, property transference or business regulations, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the case of someone being mad because they cannot resell the software, it is their responsibility to read the EULA. Any restrictions in the EULA by law are accepted by using the software.
In the case of the unopened software package mentioned in one of the comments, this should be allowed under the law of any state. Ebay is a little too gun-shy about things; you should hear some of the stories about physical goods that are banned because California does not allow them but every other state does.
Generally, you as a user must be given the ability to see the EULA before being bound by it. That does not mean that you must accept it to be bound by it (by clicking yes or agree). If you do not accept it, you are still bound by it – the result, you can’t use the software.
Personally, I believe that for any piece of software or digital content that the user should be given the opportunity to read the EULA prior to purchase. On some companies’ websites this is possible, but most do not allow it. One thing to note is that if you purchase a piece of software and have problems with it, even if the store/company will not take it back, you can almost always have your credit card company deny the charge – although, they will make you return the software (includes games) then.
One additional thing to note is that similar restrictions can be placed on any physical good also. I can sell you the chair with a contract that requires that you never change the color of it. It is often common practice for deeds to home to have neighborhood association restrictions about parking a car on the street or even the type of holiday decorations you can use. My uncle even bought a house years ago with a stipulation that he could not cut down or otherwise cause damage resulting in the death of a particular tree on the property.
People generally do not think about restrictions on physical goods because most physical goods do not have any restrictions on them, but they are possible and do exist. If you spent millions of dollars making a piece of software or even just spend your summer on a personal project, you have the right to decide how to sell it and with what restrictions. On the other hand, I, as the consumer, have the right to tell you to “stick it” and buy a competitor’s product. It is a balancing act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to talk to a lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to talk to a lawyer
If I am selling something that I or my company created, I have the right to put whatever restrictions on it that I want to. You also have the right to tell me or anyone else that puts to many restrictions on something to "go stick it". It is no different than the seller getting to decide the final price for a car, game, piece of software or baseball ticket. The buyer has the right to buy it at that price (just one of the possible conditions that can be set) or not. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.
However, as I mentioned, I do not believe that consumers (or business customers) get enough chance to view restrictions for software (e.g. EULAs) before they actually have to spend their money. While you have the right to dispute the charge with your credit card company (if that is how you pay for something), that is too much work, and consumers do deserve better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to talk to a lawyer
I assume there is no consensus as to whether those are enforceble restrictions.
What if the software was obtained from someone's estate.
The restriction locks in the original owner but not a subsequent owner then wouldn't principle of "first sale" apply.
Another example: this is true
I received a bill on my credit card from a company on the net. I do not remember the purchase so I inquired about it, they said I purchased a discount purchase plan. I ask why I never received the paperwork about the purchase and they said everything is on the net it is my responsibility to access the page that was shown when I clicked "yes". I asked why did I receive the bill 2 years later they said that is how they do it.
Is that legal?
I was trying to purchase an airline ticket through one of the discount airline travel companies. I paid for the airline tickets and received additional bills 2 years later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to talk to a lawyer
When I was in College I could not afford to eat and when Wolfram Research offered Mathematica I was extremely interested in obtaining a copy - by hook or by crook. There was a used copy offered for sale at Ebay but I heard stories about their two part activation procedure I decided against purchasing it because I did not have enough money to gamble with. I still like higher mathematics and am getting fat yet still do not have any money and haven't been able to try mathematica.
Officer Country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to talk to a lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]