Publishers cannot oppose resale of digital products, says EU court

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2012   #46
Quote: It can be very well a fee to transfer the license giving then same support to the former owner. When a person sells a car there is also administrative costs that are part of process.


modo already does this

some of you use cars as an example, what about the whole deal with video games and gamestop. the arguments against the EU ruling sound similar to game publishers who are upset that they don't get jack from used game sales.
__________________
Heights of great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they while their companions slept were toiling upwards in the night.

Last edited by DuttyFoot : 07 July 2012 at 06:36 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #47
The next question would be - what about the Autodesk "territory" policy?
If i can sell or buy now legally autodesk products in the EU, does that mean i have now also the right to decide where to sell it to, so to say have my own territory policy override theirs? here in the EU the prices are higher anyway, but what law applies where now?
can i buy autodesk products legally from an US citizen? or only sell them from within the EU?
i know this is all far from happening, but its about time something changes here..

Last edited by damjan : 07 July 2012 at 07:51 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #48
Quote: I think it would be fair to all if the manufacturer is allowed to bill a transfer charge for each license that is related to the amount of work this creates (not the value of the software).


Then you would be creating another unfair practice which restricts free market. Someone is interested in mixing copy ownership with post-sale support in this thread but I won't fall for that trap. They are different issues. If an user, apart from a software license, buys a support contract, he/she should be able to sold that contract to a new user till it is extinguished per its original terms. Software companies should be able to charge only for administrative tasks about changing license ownership. There is not such a thing as unlimited post-sale support and guarantees in viable businesses. You not are selling post sale support to a person but to a license seat and for a limited amount of time. For instance, you will likely incur into more costs in the first sale as well if your original client hires a new guy to use the licensed seat. You should take into account these possibilities when designing and pricing your post-sale support services. But again this thread is about copy ownership.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses

Last edited by Samo : 07 July 2012 at 08:23 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #49
Originally Posted by tuna: Software is perishable. Especially so the less free (as in freedom) it is, for instance closed source, DRM encrusted, cloud based software survives entirely with the company that owns and controls it, not you. If they go out of business/get hacked/decide you violated some part of the EULA/etc. It's gone. Unless they keep updating it, it degrades: It becomes less compatible with software and less useful compared to other products.


Their paranoid controlling desire to over charge so they (the bigger companies) can have more leasure has crafted a method of control that cost more resources to implement, then you come along and use that as the self staining justification for this nonsense...

You are deeply deluded sir.

"Unless they keep updating it it degrades" I wish I could do a 5k point "LOL" to that one.
When I buy a car it degrades, it is not compatible with my newest ipod or doesn't meet new safety standards or have the latest comfort.

Calling stability degradation by comparing it to not being growth is some kind of Orwellian double speak. You are a weird fellow sir.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #50
Originally Posted by Samo: Then you would be creating another unfair practice which restricts free market.

What is unfair about beeing paid for work you do? For Per and other individual developers the costs to do such transfers are way to high to just cover them by themself

Originally Posted by Samo: Someone is interested in mixing copy ownership with post-sale support in this thread but I won't fall for that trap. They are different issues. If an user, apart from a software license, buys a support contract, he/she should be able to sold that contract to a new user till it is extinguished per its original terms. Software companies should be able to charge only for administrative tasks about changing license ownership. There is not such a thing as unlimited post-sale support and guarantees in viable businesses. You not are selling post sale support to a person but to a license seat and for a limited amount of time. For instance, you will likely incur into more costs in the first sale as well if your original client hires a new guy to use the licensed seat. You should take into account these possibilities when designing and pricing your post-sale support services. But again this thread is about copy ownership.

I'm not sure what posting you are refering to here, it does not look to me as if you refer to mine. Maybe you have very specific circumstances in mind? I know that some software companies lock their licenses to certain hardware, costs for stuff like that need to be included in the original price, but thats not what i was talking about. I was talking about services that are not covered by the inital payment of the customer.
You can't realy discuss resales of software without taking the implications into account.
Cheers
Björn
__________________
- www.bonkers.de -
The views expressed on this post are my personal opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #51
Originally Posted by Per-Anders: So now who's the "fat cat"?


The fat cats are Autodesk and Adobe. People in this forum many times side with them because they can not possibly see how things could work in a different way.

BTW I don't think Autodesk and Adobe like the cloud model too much because it is a much more competitive model and with a much higher cost.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses
 
Old 07 July 2012   #52
Quote: I was talking about services that are not covered by the inital payment of the customer.


what services are you talking about? the licensed copy is the same, it is only a new guy using it. As I said in the other post, this could happen within the first sale terms if a company hires a new guy in need of support services to use the software they bought.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses
 
Old 07 July 2012   #53
Originally Posted by BlackFiSH: Their paranoid controlling desire to over charge so they (the bigger companies) can have more leasure has crafted a method of control that cost more resources to implement, then you come along and use that as the self staining justification for this nonsense...

You are deeply deluded sir.

"Unless they keep updating it it degrades" I wish I could do a 5k point "LOL" to that one.
When I buy a car it degrades, it is not compatible with my newest ipod or doesn't meet new safety standards or have the latest comfort.

Calling stability degradation by comparing it to not being growth is some kind of Orwellian double speak. You are a weird fellow sir.



You do realize there is such a thing as software archeology, right? It is a very real thing that software can become incompatible with current, working computers or software and require maintenance in order to keep it working. Assuming it's illegal to modify someone's code if they don't let you, and if t even still exists on your HDD, in a decade do you really think it's going to work on your latest X generation of hardware/OS without maintenance? The likely answer is "no", and this is the software perishing. Perhaps through an old VM you can get it working, but that's virtualized or emulated, and as such the software is perhaps slower or buggier, it is perishing.

Another property of something being perishable is "it has perished" as in, it no longer is there, it has been destroyed. This happens a lot too, through corruption, lost storage media, and an absolute lack of maintenance or a company going out of business and perhaps destroying their software.

I'm not sure why you reacted to me so strongly or quite so arrogant though. I'm not disagreeing with anything else you're saying (I agree with it all), just your usage of the term "non-perishable" for software. If anything it's better described as "non-tangible" as you keep comparing it to tangible products, like cars.

Car analogies don't work here (against the non-perishable thing) because if you buy a car now, it's not like they are re-designing roads at the same rate we are re-designing computers. In a two decades, roads will be the same (or at least they will be here in LA, heh). In two decades, software written now will simply not work on available computers without either re-creating it, or maintaining it. That's perishing in my definition. (also.. being a tangible thing, cars perish as a part of due course of them requiring maintenance and being driven by imperfect humans)
__________________
www.puppetstring.com

Last edited by tuna : 07 July 2012 at 09:32 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #54
Originally Posted by eworc: tuna, this is my understanding of how it works.

The OEM, say General Motors...sells the cars to dealerships. That's the OEMs sale.
You buy the car from the dealership. There is a direct line between the two transactions.

However, a used car is just between a buyer and the used car dealership. The OEM, General Motors, doesn't get another sale. They don't build a new car and sell it to the used car dealership and receive money.


So, yes, if you sell your new car a year later to another person, that OEM, General Motors, lost a sale.



I don't disagree with that, but that's a different matter.


Only if you presume the buyer must ultimately purchase a car. Given the absence of an affordable used item, the buyer may purchase nothing at all. Never mind the fact that the seller of the used car may need that revenue to buy another new car; in that case the buyer of the used car is essentially subsidizing the purchase of the new car.

(e.g. person selling their license to Maya, then buying Cinema 4D - or vice versa)

This is the same fallacy that causes the RIAA/MPAA to assume that 1,000,000 pirated albums/movies equals 1,000,000 lost purchases.

Last edited by moogaloonie : 07 July 2012 at 09:42 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #55
Originally Posted by Samo: what services are you talking about? the licensed copy is the same, it is only a new guy using it. As I said in the other post, this could happen within the first sale terms if a company hires a new guy in need of support services to use the software they bought.

Again i think you are talking about a very specific scenario where a licensing mechanism of a manufacturer will prevent the easy switch of seats between users.
For example the software that we produce is not crippled in this regard. If a company buys a license they are free to install it on whatever system they want and to let whomever of their employees work with it without having to get support for this in any way from us.
Cheers
Björn
__________________
- www.bonkers.de -
The views expressed on this post are my personal opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #56
Quote: The software company doesn't sell you ownership of the software, they only sell you a license to use it. I'm not saying that Mercedes should collect money from every owner of a specific car, etc. I am only saying that they lost a sale to every buyer of the subsequent transactions involving that car.


They can use every spelling trick.
What if they "lost" a sale? They don't have a right to a sale.
If someone uses Blender they "lost" a sale too...
The reason many bought the car for that price is because they could re-sell it.

Quote: I'm not even sure where to begin. Why are you talking about cars? More importantly just who do you think that adminitrative fee goes to when a second hand car is sold/purchased? I'll give you a clue : it's not going to be Chrysler.


And? It is not to Chrysler because the expenses of changing ownership are not upon Chrysler. They don't have to spend any resources doing anything, they don't even have or need any knowledge of the ownership change.
Now if the software maker needs to be involved it is fair that the resources they spend are paid.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #57
Quote: Assuming it's illegal to modify someone's code if they don't let you


That's another... there are many owners that change their cars. Put another engine etc etc...

Yes it looks like people and multinationals that create software in XXI century are much more culturally uptight and want a less free world than most car industrialists and multinationals from start of XX century.

And to not even start with whole patent overreaching so present in the industry. Let's patent the windshield will be comparable.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #58
Originally Posted by damjan: The next question would be - what about the Autodesk "territory" policy?
If i can sell or buy now legally autodesk products in the EU, does that mean i have now also the right to decide where to sell it to, so to say have my own territory policy override theirs? here in the EU the prices are higher anyway, but what law applies where now?
can i buy autodesk products legally from an US citizen? or only sell them from within the EU?
i know this is all far from happening, but its about time something changes here..


As far as I understand it, Autodesk's "territory" policy goes much further than that, by making it "illegal" for even yourself to use your own license outside of the territory you purchased it in without paying an additional hefty fee. I'm certain this would not hold up under actual legal EU/German scrutiny either, since it's kinda like buying a car in Germany and not being allowed to drive it in Canada if you want to move there, unless you pay some insane additional fee to get permission from the manufacturer.

Anyways, not that I plan to sell any of my licenses, but I personally welcome the ruling in favor of 2nd hand software sales.

Cheers!
__________________
"Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do."-Bruce Lee



Last edited by TheRazorsEdge : 07 July 2012 at 11:29 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #59
Last time I checked the specific situation of EU citizens was covered in the AD EULA under the definitions:
Quote: "Territory" means the country in which You acquire the Software, unless (i) You acquire the Software in a member country of the European Union or the European Free Trade Association, in which the case "Territory" means all the countries of the European Union and the European Free Trade Association; or (ii) otherwise specified in the User Documentation.
(This is from an older EULA, though... I don't think anything will have changed in this respect though)
 
Old 07 July 2012   #60
Double post, sorry

Last edited by CHRiTTeR : 07 July 2012 at 04:12 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.