Court Once Again Confirms Right Of First Sale For Software: You Own It, Not License It
from the good-news dept
Excellent news. In the ongoing case involving Autodesk and a guy, Timothy Vernor, who was trying to sell legally acquired used versions of AutoCAD on eBay, the district court judge has ruled that Autodesk has no right to restrict the sales of its used software. This wasn't a huge surprise, as the court indicated as much last year, when it refused to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the case. But this is an important ruling for a variety of reasons. Beyond just reiterating the well-established right of first sale on software, it also helps clarify that when you by a piece of software, you own it, rather than just license it. As the judge noted:"The transfer of AutoCAD copies via the license is a transfer of ownership."The judge also mocked Autodesk's claim that allowing such sales to go forward promoted piracy:
"Vernor's sale of AutoCAD packages promote piracy no more so than Autodesk's sales of the same packages."Autodesk, of course, will likely appeal the ruling, so this isn't done yet. But, so far, this is definitely good news.
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
Filed Under: copyright, license, ownership, software, timothy vernor
Companies: autodesk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I assume
I would wonder if/how a ruling like this affects a consume/business user's ability to transfer ownership of licenses like those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
s/w licensing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't own software, but the licence
AutoDesk cannot prevent the owner of the licence to transfer it to someone else.
Is that what you mean by "owning the software"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't get too hung up on the word "licence"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't own software, but the licence
A blanket ban can’t be put on the transfer. There can only be limited restrictions set out in statute or established in common law. With software, you’re expected to pass on the physical medium and anything else that came with it that you still possess, like box, printed manual, etc. It’s one of the reasons the software industry wants to move away from perpetual licences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never though I would say this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called Software as a Service
The way you sell software and prevent the resale is under the Software as a Service business model. My contracts all state that the Software is Licensed, AND requires an ongoing Service, Support and Hosting fee. It also states that without the Service and Support they must stop using the software.
In my specific case even if they sold my CD's the software would be useless because the data is hosted on my servers. Its a package deal, no service/support contract no database to access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, not at all. With what my company is doing at least, we've got standardized PCs at various levels that we install on the customer network, along w/any SPLA licensing for software they want, and then we couple it with our managed service and just charge a monthly fee. We don't break even on the hardware for months, but the terms are for three years.
For the customer, they don't have to worry about depreciating assets, hardware/software refreshes costing huge capital sums, or the upfront costs of a rollout.
It's niche, and only makes sense for the SMB market, but it's getting bigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hackintosh next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you, without restriction, own the software with all rights and privileges as owner?
or
Are you, not being the owner, only able to transfer (and collect a fee for) the conditional/restrictive permissions within the license (EULA/rental agreement) to another and not have to pay the owner for another licensing fee (rent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vista EULA Section 8
Does this nullify section 8 of the Vista EULA?
8. SCOPE OF LICENSE.The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software;
or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.
Link[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vista EULA Section 8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Sale Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Sale Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"it also helps clarify that when you by a piece of software, you own it, rather than just license it."
Is ambiguous at best. The judge makes the effort to clarify:
"The court makes this observation because the parties and their witnesses too often suggest that their dispute is about whether Autodesk 'sold' rather than 'licensed' its software. That dispute is not determinative, because the use of software copies can be licensed while the copies themselves are sold."
So you can't say that "software is sold, not licensed" because that's not strictly true. A particular copy of software is sold, but the use of the software is licensed. So when you say "a piece of software" if you mean the physical copy of it, that's one thing, but the use of the software on that physical copy is separate.
The more complicated question is: can you sell a copy of software to someone with a license so restrictive that it practically prevents first-sale from being meaningful: i.e., can I sell you an AutoCAD CD, where the software is licensed in such a way that you have no way to use it except to put it on a shelf and admire it?
The judge basically seems to rule that the Wise precedent indicates that it depends on how the copy got transferred in the first place. If it looks like a licensing arrangement, then it can get treated as a licensing arrangement. However, if it looks too much like a sale, then it may get treated as a sale, regardless of what the license says. So if AutoCAD had, instead of providing copies for a one-time payment of $3500 each (which looks like a sale), provided the CD and then charged $199 a month to use the software on it (which looks more like a license), they may have been able to restrict other users. The judge calls a license without an accompanying sale a "mere license" to distinguish it.
The court finds that later cases, called the MAI Trio conflict with Wise directly. However, the rule is that the oldest precedent stands regardless of what the judge thinks is the best policy, and since Wise is older, it wins. The judge notes that cases in other districts also seem contradictory, and that this will likely be concerning to people interested in this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) Material property can be sold or lent.
2) A copyright holder can provide transferable or non-transferable licenses to people permitting them to make copies in certain conditions.
That's all there is to it.
You buy a material copy, you can use it to prop up a table, burn it, or sell it. Copyright doesn't impact any of that.
All copyright does is prohibit anyone apart from the copyright holder (or their licensees) from making copies.
Copyright does not grant the copyright holder with any power, e.g. to prohibit anything "You may not use this copy as a paperweight". Copyright prohibits copying. The copyright holder simply gets to permit copying. A license is about giving permission - not taking anything away from a recipient or binding the poor mug to surrender their first born.
When I buy an AutoCAD CD I buy a piece of plastic representing an authorised copy. I NEVER need to sign any contract to use this copy that is now my property, nor can some spectral force reach out and bind me to terms of its choosing. The only thing I can't do (legally) is make copies of it. A license may be provided, that permits certain copies on certain conditions, but I can always ignore that license, especially if I never want to make any copies. Even if I do make copies, I can still ignore the license and possibly infringe copyright as a consequence. Simply making a copy doesn't trigger the spectre to leap out of the license claiming that the copy signifies my agreement where none was given. I know what I agree to or don't agree to.
Copyright may be incredibly complex, but that's no reason to start getting superstitious about it.
It still sounds like the judge has drunk some of the koolaid. Right of first sale was never about selling the license to a book you purchased (given books rarely came with licenses), but about selling the book: paper, ink and words. The same applies to software: acetate, pits, and machine code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]