Germany Says You Can't Resell Software

from the how-does-that-work? dept

Fri, Aug 4th 2006 4:37pm — Mike Masnick

Strong defenders of current copyright law always like to say that it's necessary to make digital content behave much more like tangible goods. If that's true, then it makes you wonder why they work so hard to give copyright holders extra rights giving them much more control over content than creators have over tangible goods. For example, in Germany, a court has now ruled that there is no right of first sale for software licenses. In other words, if you've bought a software license, you can never resell it. If it were a tangible good, like a chair, once you bought it, you would then have every right to resell it to whoever you wanted (at whatever price you could command). It's hard to see how this can be justified by the "it just makes it like tangible goods" explanation, when this is a clear case where it's entirely different.

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SoSolid-US, 4 Aug 2006 @ 6:22pm

Ridiculous
The software scene seems to be getting more retarded every day.

Copyright this, copyright that... its all becoming fcuking moronic.

But hey, all in the name of the all mighty dollar....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2006 @ 6:46pm

it's no wonder
and these greed driven companies wonder why piracy is so commonplace...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
phil, 4 Aug 2006 @ 6:46pm

It is only fair that authors of software or digital content
be protected by copyright laws. However, those that have paid for its use should have a limited right to treat them like tangible goods with respect to subsequent sale only if the software is already contained in the system which is being sold. e.g. selling a used computer full of software or selling an I-pod loaded with a thousand songs. This means that you are not selling the content itself but the hardware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
phil, 4 Aug 2006 @ 6:47pm

It is only fair that authors of software or digital content
be protected by copyright laws. However, those that have paid for its use should have a limited right to treat them like tangible goods with respect to subsequent sale only if the software is already contained in the system which is being sold. e.g. selling a used computer full of software or selling an I-pod loaded with a thousand songs. This means that you are not selling the content itself but the hardware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric, 4 Aug 2006 @ 6:59pm

It's simple
The greedier the software and record indutry get the more piracy there will be and the idiots are too stupid to realize that. There is no shortage of corporate stupidity!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
howard, 4 Aug 2006 @ 7:11pm

Software Copyrights are Necessary
Copyright this, copyright that... its all becoming [...] moronic.
Actually, without copyright GPL would cease to exist and all software would become public domain. I could then rip off your GPL licensed code (after all, you can't copyright it) and include it in my commerical code that I sell with a combination of CD key, hardware dongles, biometrics, and online activation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devil's Bitch, 4 Aug 2006 @ 7:24pm

Greed is a two-way street
I hate to defend big-business but they aren't the only ones with greed issues. While I agree that big-business would be going after the pirating consumer even if there were only 5 people on the planet downloading/uploading pirated media...it is also clear that a majority of people downloading/uploading media do it to avoid paying for it. There are very few innocents here. It really just turns into one giant pissing contest and he who has the bigger bank roll...pisses longer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2006 @ 7:46pm

maybe, but if these companies offered their products at a reasonable price and didn't pull this type of BS, i think people would be more willing to pay for legitimate products.

i go to great lengths to pay for any cd of a band that i like that is marketing their own music but go to the same lengths to NEVER pay for a cd that is marketed/promoted/owned by Sony, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devil's Bitch, 4 Aug 2006 @ 11:36pm

Re:
Well said and that is as it should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2006 @ 5:19am

Re: Software Copyrights are Necessary
"I could then rip off your GPL licensed code"

The GPL does not restrict resale for profit. You already CAN do what you are proposing. You just have to make the code (just the part under the gpl) available, along with any modifications you have made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bongoman, 5 Aug 2006 @ 7:08am

You bought it, it's yours
At least that's the way I look at it. After you pay for something you can do what you want with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tashi, 5 Aug 2006 @ 8:15am

Re: Greed is a two-way street
So do you spend resources to go after the big Mafia bosses, or do you go after the street thugs? Priority dicates going after the street thug because the government and Mafia are in bed together.

It's like this: two crime families (government and corporations) are having a huge crap game. A few chips fall from the table and some street urchin picks the chip up and runs off with it. So the mob sends enforcers to get the chips back. Meanwhile the illegal crap game continues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyshaun, 5 Aug 2006 @ 9:22am

Catch 22
Basically, we can all stand up and say that the actions of the industry to restrict reselling software will cause more piracy, but it's just as easy for an industry person to say that their actions are a direct result of lowering sales numbers because of piracy.

So, what's the solution, rather than calling the software companies dumb. We can continue to say that piracy is justified because the price of software is too high but eventually piracy will make it unprofitable for software companies to develop new products (so basically the software pirates shoot themselves in the foot in the long run). On the other hand, it is a bit ridiculous to have to pay several hundred dollars for stuff that should really be on your computer when you get it (like word processors). so what is the middle ground here people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shableep, 5 Aug 2006 @ 2:48pm

Re: Catch 22
It's easy to blame loss of sales on piracy. But, this idea is directly based on blunt research and assumptions.

I can point the finger of my own demise to many people and make it sound feasible. Chances are, it's just me. There's only a few things we know about the nature of piracy. It just wont go away. However, there's plenty that we think we know.

Maybe they should invest in making more appealing packages. Maybe they should invest in understanding their customer base. Instead they invest in forcing their customer base to buy software at a price only 20% of that customer base can afford.

Why people keep trying to hammer a nail with their forehead is beyond me.

For example, I would buy Adobe Photoshop if it came in a very feature stripped package. If it had the Airbrush tool, Section tool and Layers, I'd be happy. They could sell this for $75 and I would buy it.

Granted, there are pirates that would pirate if the program cost was $5. But there is still a good percentage of honest people that just don't have the money.

The middle ground? Maybe putting as much effort into anti-piracy as they would into market research.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2006 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Catch 22
I like the point you are trying to make but you need a better example. Adobe already has a stripped down version of Photoshop. It's called Photoshop Elements and I believe it only costs $90. So Adobe has done their research to find that not everone can pay $649 for editing images.

Microsoft Office would be a slightly better example. It costs $300 for Word alone. The only discount offered now is to students and teachers which is $150 for Word, Excel, PPT, and Outlook. Even that is going to change because Microsoft will give the discount for personal use for Office 2007.

Anyone have an even better example? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xcetron, 5 Aug 2006 @ 7:30pm

I think they should just make 2 versions of everything, a much stripped down version for personal use and a fancy bundled version for a price. The bundled would have extra things and such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
willy nilly, 5 Aug 2006 @ 9:46pm

we used to sell weblogic, websphere and oracle software with sun hardware to companies who developed subcorps soley to buy software and equipment. then when it came time to go out of business, or the development piece was done, they could "resell the software and or hardware without actually 'selling' it. whining about it, they sold off the entire subcorp so it was all legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
howard, 8 Aug 2006 @ 5:41am

Re: Re: Software Copyrights are Necessary
The GPL does not restrict resale for profit. ... You just have to make the code (just the part under the gpl) available

And without the copyright to enforce the GPL license, I don't have to provide you the source code to the software that I included your GPL code in.

Copyright is ultimately the enforcement arm of GPL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]