The end of buying used media?

[Deku Trii]

Guess What, You Don’t Own That Software You Bought | Threat Level | Wired.com

A federal appeals court said Friday that software makers can use shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses to forbid the transfer or resale of their wares, an apparent gutting of the so-called first-sale doctrine.

The first-sale doctrine is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows legitimate owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. That defense, the court said, is “unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works.” (.pdf)

The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, if it stands, means copyright owners may prohibit the resale of their wares by inserting clauses in their sales agreements.

“The terms of the software license in the case are not very different from the terms of most software licensing. So I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t own their software,” said Greg Beck, the defense attorney in the case who represented an eBay seller sued by Autodesk. “The other ramification, there is no reason a similar license could not be put into the cover of a book. It wouldn’t be difficult for everybody to implement this.”

Beck said he will ask the San Francisco-based appeals court to rehear the case with 11 judges.

The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did. The Motion Picture Association of America also sided with Autodesk.

The American Library Association and eBay argued against the outcome. The library association said it feared that the software industry’s licensing practices could be adopted by other copyright owners, including book publishers, record labels and movie studios.

That assertion was not lost on the appeals court, saying Congress is free to modify copyright law “if it deems these or other policy considerations … require a different approach.”

It was believed to be the first appellate ruling directly addressing whether a user agreement could forbid resales of software, though the appellate courts have previously backed companies that have imposed terms on how software may be used. The decision covers the nine western states, including California.

The appeals court reversed a lower court judge that said the first-sale doctrine applied whenever the consumer is entitled to keep the copy of the work, entitling consumers to resell their purchased software at will.

The case concerns Autodesk’s AutoCAD Release 14, which was for sale on eBay. Autodesk, invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, demanded eBay remove the item from the site, and it promptly did in 2007.

Timothy Vernor, the seller, who purchased at least four copies of the software from a company that was required to dispose of the software under a licensing agreement, re-posted the sale and his eBay account was terminated after Autodesk complained. Litigation ensued.

Autodesk, of San Rafael, California, imposed a significant number of transfer restrictions: it stated that the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere.

The first-sale doctrine of 1909, in its current form, allows the “owner of a particular copy” of a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of his copy without the copyright owner’s authorization. “The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee,” the court ruled.

Hopefully the decision is overturned or congress modifies copyright law, otherwise we may be done buying used copyrighted media.

[Rainbow Dash]

but what will happen to the yard sales when they start making clothes that only you can wear

[Cosmonautical]

This is one-dimensional bull ****. So you only own a copy of the license to play the game? You can resell that, dimwits.

This will lead to increased piracy. Besides, software shouldn't be disposable. If they don't want their goods to be resold, they need to make them indispensable. This isn't the buyer's problem, it's the seller's problem.

[Crazyswordsman]

Corporations....using the legal system to keep opportunity from advancing us forward since 1877. -CSM

[Ace Mercury]

If they're going to have them without the re-sell aspect, they should at least lower the price. Like, video games that cost sixty bucks? The sixty bucks includes the feature that I can sell it to other people. If I can't do that, the price should be lower.

Producers complain about the send-hand game market, but if you're taking away any features, your product is inherently less valuable.

[heh]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

Corporations....using the legal system to keep opportunity from advancing us forward since 1877. -CSM

more like stabbing themselves in the gut, piracy will skyrocket

[Ace Mercury]

Not if they install a police officer inside every copy of the internet. You can be hit with redonkulous fines. Reading up on it kind of makes me bummed out.

[CaptHayfever]

Books: Won't happen, even on e-books where it might actually be enforceable. Living authors rage HARD about stuff like this, & most significant dead authors are public domain by now anyway.

Music: A good portion of the actual talent won't support this, & such ones that are signed to the offending labels will opt out of their contracts at the first practical chance they get. The rest, though, we'll have to protest with our wallets.

Film: We're screwed. Writers, directors, & actors hate stuff like this, but (with the obvious exceptions of the megastars) they have no actual power in the studios.

Games: We're screwed. Period.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[heh]

even if this does somehow manage to go through, it won't matter in ten years anyway because basically all sales will be digital (which could be a problem in itself if steam ever stops being infinitely better then every other service)

also: as far as the near future is concerned this will only happen with pc games and only if they include a clause in EULA. i guess you can expect ubisoft to put this in all of their games forever

[Vgfian]

don't forget how the internet completely hunderd percent replaced libraries.
and how radio replaced books
and how tv replaced radio

[CaptHayfever]

Oh, and of course, when I say "we're screwed" on the games, that's because

Originally Posted by Me

VGF and its staff cannot & does not in any way endorse the usage of illegal emulation, and the staff is required to edit, lock, and/or delete any topic which provides details on how to obtain illegal ROMs.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one! Yarr!"

[Cosmonautical]

We can endorse the usage of legal emulation, though. If someone is forced to emulate a portion of a game to make it operable, that's still fair use.

Hence, SCUMMVM.

[Inferno Dragon]

that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. damnit EA, you just had to be so greedy that you make it illegal to resell videogames because that bull**** you used in madden 10 backfired on you. you greedy bastards! I'm looking at you too google, you already own half the internetz and this is just extra money YOU DON'T NEED!

[CuccoLady]

So what about once the games get discontinued? You can't buy them new anymore, and you're just supposed to hang onto it forever since you can't sell it to anyone? And then if a game you wanted is discontinued then you are absolutely incapable of buying it?

Also, wtf law is wtf

[Rainbow Dash]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

So what about once the games get discontinued? You can't buy them new anymore, and you're just supposed to hang onto it forever since you can't sell it to anyone? And then if a game you wanted is discontinued then you are absolutely incapable of buying it?

i think with the way it's going that soon all video games will be completely digital and that it won't be a problem to get a copy

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

So what about once the games get discontinued? You can't buy them new anymore, and you're just supposed to hang onto it forever since you can't sell it to anyone? And then if a game you wanted is discontinued then you are absolutely incapable of buying it?

Also, wtf law is wtf

Well, they're hiring lawyers to try to come up with stupid loopholes in resale or whatever else. As the court points out, it's a legal practice. It's 100% viable that it won't be in the future, however. Companies like this are frequently imbeciles in the sense that they try to jam this sort of thing down your throat, it's made illegal, and then suddenly they look like even bigger more evil jackasses than before.

[Ace Mercury]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

So what about once the games get discontinued? You can't buy them new anymore, and you're just supposed to hang onto it forever since you can't sell it to anyone? And then if a game you wanted is discontinued then you are absolutely incapable of buying it?

Also, wtf law is wtf

Your ability to sell your game is not lining their pockets with silver. Executives don't care about us; that's how they become executives, by being as much of a jerk as they can get away with.

There are a bunch of games by virtue of their nature untradable and eventually unplayable. Want to play some The Sims Online? You can't. The servers are shut down. What's going to happen to Starcraft II when Blizzard/Activision call it quits? The most you can hope for is for the server code to be leaked, and hackers set up a rogue Battle.net. There are concerns about losing cultural history since these games will crumble into dust.

[Cosmonautical]

Yeah, I'm not angsty over SC2 just for the hell of it. They've already stopped updating the first SC despite still selling brand-new copies of it. It doesn't read well, if you're casting out for hints of the future.

DRM has essentially been a way to cripple resales for a few years, now. Not cool.

[Rainbow Dash]

man i remember the sims online