Second hand software trading now legal in Europe
-
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
Just saw a post on CGtalk that basically describes what this means:
"1. You are allowed to transfer a software that you have legally bought, or a limited license to use a software that you have legally bought, to somebody else in exchange for money, just as you can resell a car, bicycle, fridge, TV, dinner table or other physical product that you have legally bought.
-
The fact that the software's manufacturer tells you "you cannot transfer this limited license to use our software to another party" in the EULA or elsewhere has no weight whatsoever. The software manufacturer MUST, per court order, allow you to transfer the software license to somebody else.
-
Whether the software came on a physical medium when you bought it (e.g. a DVD), or whether it was downloaded electronically from the manufacturer's website makes no difference whatsoever to your legally guaranteed right to sell the software or usage license on to someone else. (i.e. purely electronic/downloaded copies of a software can be sold to someone else just like a hardcopy that came on an install DVD or similar)
-
When you transfer your "software" or "software license" to somebody else in exchange for money (e.g. a copy on DVD or say a USB stick), you must stop using your original copy of the software, as you have now sold it to someone else. In other words, you cannot sell your software/license to someone else, and legally continue using it. The only copy that is legal to use is the one bought by the person you sold your copy to.
This is very good news for all software users.
The court has basically declared the most restrictive/annoying part of software EULAs ("you cannot sell your license to someone else") to be completely null and void."
I wonder what will be the response in the rest of the world.
-
-
-
@unknownuser said:
@speaker said:
This is very good news for all software users.
Indeed it is.
For how long? Where is the incentive for manufacturers to produce? How to police software (including operating systems, applications, games, operating systems, music tracks and videos) sold but still used by the seller?
And so on ...
-
@chrisglasier said:
How to police software (including operating systems, applications, games, operating systems, music tracks and videos) sold but still used by the seller?
In that case how to police piracy at all?
And yes, there are ways although any such "way" may always annoy the license holder to a certain degree. I.e. I have a rendering software that has to be activated using internet access (and a license server) on my computer (after that, until deactivation, I need no internet access to run it) but if I want to run it on another machine, I have to deactivate it on the first one and activate it on the other one.
True that this software can even be sold according to its EULA.
-
And for the third ?
-
@chrisglasier said:
For how long? Where is the incentive for manufacturers to produce?
That'll remain undiminished, I suspect, as EULA's aren't exactly stopping piracy right now.
@chrisglasier said:
How to police software (including operating systems, applications, games, operating systems, music tracks and videos) sold but still used by the seller?
Simple: you can't, really. What you can do, however, is respect your user base. An example. I sold my Modo license quite some time ago, as I never really used the app that often. Luxology handled the transfer of my license swiftly and efficiently. And I love 'em to bits for that -I gladly paid the $100 transfer fee. I much prefer a company that allows me to sell a tool that I don't use (anymore) over one that insists it can tell me what I can do with my stuff. If I ever need a new sub-d modeling app, I know who I am getting it from. It kinda feels good to be treated as a customer rather than a potential criminal, you know? Don't know about anyone else, but I am a sucker for decent customer support.
-
I think your example Gaieus is a good one. It has to be a practical not a legal solution. And it seems to me that is the only way to create a balanced digital market. It is pointless comparing laws related to selling a s/h car with selling s/h software. If the seller uses the car he sold the new owner would surely call the police - not so of course with software where the buyer is not even aware.
It seems more rational to me for software to be made available for use on line like googleDocs, streaming music and video and so on, the only owner being the manufacturer. Sketchup it seems is too complex for that. That is why I am following HTML5 canvas development with greater interest than before.
-
@chrisglasier said:
...for use on line... ...the only owner being the manufacturer
Which brings its own problems - what if the software developer goes of business, or has massive problems with their servers?; the end user, who may be a professional relied upon to get a job done, is left without the tools to do their job - possibly part way through a project. And if the software is unavailable permanently, one then has to waste time learning a completely new tool set (always assuming that there is a suitable alternative).
Also, once software is web only, there is no longer the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" option, as only the latest upgrade will be made available (our machine may be to old to run it, we may have a legacy OS, or simply dislike the new version). This gives the largest (and most profitable) software corporations much greater leverage to arbitrarily increase prices, knowing that the end user has no choice other than to use the latest version or risk changing to a possibly incompatible new platform.
I agree with Gaieus, consumer choice and the policing of rights violations should remain two separate issues. Companies enter the software marketplace with their eyes open, and the risks are spelled out clearly in many places. If they don't wish to risk their investment in an industry with security problems, then no-one is forcing them to - penalising law-abiding users only increases the perception that they are their own worst enemies. -
@trogluddite said:
@chrisglasier said:
...for use on line... ...the only owner being the manufacturer
Which brings its own problems - ...
Sorry I did not make the point clearly.
It is the structure of the digital market I am concerned about. Rather than consider the distribution of software with products it seems beneficial to consider it as provision of services like public utilities - extension of the web sites on tap experiment (W3C protocols and development languages being the utility).
All the arguments about competitiveness and so on apply to both ways, but the big plus for utilities is the avoidance of currently unresolvable ownership issues.
Advertisement