To be fair, the Autodesk case was a little more complicated than the Slashdot summary makes it sound. A company bought Autodesk's software, then they later bought an upgrade at a discount and sold the original software to a reseller.
In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.
I must admit I haven't read any deeper, so you may be right. I think, however, that if you combine the rulings over time, you will notice that the spirit of the law, as it is interpreted by the courts is in favor of the copyright owner. And the copyright owners are not in the business of being reasonable.
As Larry Lessig points out, common sense is a rare idea in the practice of law.
This is one of those HN submissions where the OP is a restatement of the exact same arguments we've seen for the past 5-10 years on a given issue, peppered with various examples we've all seen individually posted and discussed on HN, and the article is submitted to HN as a social cue for "let's all discuss this issue over again".
"The retailer will still wipe an e-book if a court or regulatory body orders it"
To be fair, a court could probably also order the police to come to your house and confiscate your paper books. In that sense, you really don't own anything - ownership is a product of governments. (Or rather, a product of guns).
You have a point, but it is more accurate to say that government is established by people to enforce their concept of ownership amongst themselves. Government isn't source of the concept of ownership, it is the enforcer of that society's concept of ownership.
Having said that, I advocate that there is a overarching source of ownership rights, whether they are called moral rights or natural rights or whatever. For example, I think a person owns his own body and regardless of what the law says, the government can't visit your house and take one of your kidneys because someone else wants yours. Other people think that they should be able to, for the "good" of society.
People usually try to skirt this issue. The proponents of copyright laws stubbornly call anyone who would infringe a thief while those on the other side of the argument aptly point out the fallacy of such analogies.
The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. To copy a book requires either theft from a publisher or pouring through it, page by page, and manually recreating it. The same is true of old VHS tapes. Some apparatus, not widely available, was required to make copies that could be redistributed. Since real effort was required to produce copies, copyright law could rightfully condemn those who would make copies.
The ubiquity of digital technology has fundamentally changed this. Copying anything is trivial yet copyright law has been left unchanged. These laws are simply inadequate for our modern reality.
An overhaul of the whole system by some smart, competent, and knowledgeable people is necessary. Unfortunately, big media has such stake in the antiquated laws, and such influence in the legislature (in the US, but very likely abroad as well), that such a change probably won't happen for a number of years. So, until then, we are stuck in this lawless landscape where everyone on every side of the argument is wrong.
The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work.
I think you have it upside-down. Before the printing press, there were no copyrights. It was an honor for the author if someone took the time to copy his book.
Nowadays, when you buy a book or a CD, you're paying for content, not for the medium. In that context, maybe "stealing" is not an appropriate word, but "free-loading" definitely is.
Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental.
Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else.
"Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else."
As stated by many of the people defending piracy on HN, software isn't a tangible item. So why should it be treated like a pack of floppies or a paperback book?
You aren't buying software outright. If you were, it would cost $100,000 rather than $100. You are purchasing a license to use it, which means you can use it once (and sell it if you want to one person). However, you aren't allowed to copy it to your friends.
"Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental."
Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you download? Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid them a one-time fee?
This sounds like a semantic quibble. It sounds like you purchased a "license." It's not a software rental, it is a license. Rental implies temporary use.(look it up) Versus, when you purchase a software license you can generally use the software forever. What you can or can't do is spelled out in the license agreement. If you don't agree, don't purchase (the license.) Also, Rentals don't necessarily include the licensor including "fixing all the problems" one may encounter. For example commercial real estate rental have practically none of the hand-holding that residential rentals have. "I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else." Perhaps this "right" is a moral right in your philosophy of the world but it is definitely not a legal right. If one doesn't like a law then one should work to get it changed.
Question, when you go on vacation, do you rent a hotel room or do you buy a condo for that trip? If you rent a hotel room, do you take the towels, bed, and anything else that is not nailed down because you paid a night's rent so that means you own it all forever? How long should you be able to order room service, use the spa, and hang out at the pool after you have left the hotel and stopped paying for room?
Hate to say it, but this is a really awful analogy. When you "rent a hotel room", you are doing just that--RENTING a hotel room. When you walk into Best Buy or use an online store somewhere to "buy software X", you are justifiably upset when later told that you were actually RENTING software X. You never call your local Marriott and ask how much it would cost to BUY a room for a night in town. You know you are renting. But software, like books, music, movies, houses, and cars is SOLD.
Come to think of it, houses and cars are much better for analogy. Nobody ever confuses renting a home with purchasing a home. Completely different expectations and end results. Same goes for cars. Now, you are within your rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are told years later by the builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you cannot sell your home or your car to another party because they have not given express permission for you to transfer ownership.
Well licensing and renting are not, legally speaking, the same thing, so the analogy does not hold.
But I do not see anything wrong in a vendor requiring the hardware to be in a specific way to use a hosted service such as App Store, Kindle downloads or Xbox Live.
[+] [-] jcl|15 years ago|reply
In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.
[+] [-] omergertel|15 years ago|reply
As Larry Lessig points out, common sense is a rare idea in the practice of law.
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|15 years ago|reply
To be fair, a court could probably also order the police to come to your house and confiscate your paper books. In that sense, you really don't own anything - ownership is a product of governments. (Or rather, a product of guns).
[+] [-] mbyrne|15 years ago|reply
Having said that, I advocate that there is a overarching source of ownership rights, whether they are called moral rights or natural rights or whatever. For example, I think a person owns his own body and regardless of what the law says, the government can't visit your house and take one of your kidneys because someone else wants yours. Other people think that they should be able to, for the "good" of society.
[+] [-] nocipher|15 years ago|reply
The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. To copy a book requires either theft from a publisher or pouring through it, page by page, and manually recreating it. The same is true of old VHS tapes. Some apparatus, not widely available, was required to make copies that could be redistributed. Since real effort was required to produce copies, copyright law could rightfully condemn those who would make copies.
The ubiquity of digital technology has fundamentally changed this. Copying anything is trivial yet copyright law has been left unchanged. These laws are simply inadequate for our modern reality.
An overhaul of the whole system by some smart, competent, and knowledgeable people is necessary. Unfortunately, big media has such stake in the antiquated laws, and such influence in the legislature (in the US, but very likely abroad as well), that such a change probably won't happen for a number of years. So, until then, we are stuck in this lawless landscape where everyone on every side of the argument is wrong.
[+] [-] ced|15 years ago|reply
I think you have it upside-down. Before the printing press, there were no copyrights. It was an honor for the author if someone took the time to copy his book.
Nowadays, when you buy a book or a CD, you're paying for content, not for the medium. In that context, maybe "stealing" is not an appropriate word, but "free-loading" definitely is.
[+] [-] bobwaycott|15 years ago|reply
Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else.
[+] [-] rick888|15 years ago|reply
As stated by many of the people defending piracy on HN, software isn't a tangible item. So why should it be treated like a pack of floppies or a paperback book?
You aren't buying software outright. If you were, it would cost $100,000 rather than $100. You are purchasing a license to use it, which means you can use it once (and sell it if you want to one person). However, you aren't allowed to copy it to your friends.
"Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental."
Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you download? Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid them a one-time fee?
[+] [-] mbyrne|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BonsaiDen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbyrne|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pornel|15 years ago|reply
Honest question. I can only think of adding such user-friendly provisions in a EULA, but wouldn't that still be licensing?
[+] [-] stonemetal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrkel|15 years ago|reply
http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_quot_...
[+] [-] njharman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mbyrne|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobwaycott|15 years ago|reply
Come to think of it, houses and cars are much better for analogy. Nobody ever confuses renting a home with purchasing a home. Completely different expectations and end results. Same goes for cars. Now, you are within your rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are told years later by the builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you cannot sell your home or your car to another party because they have not given express permission for you to transfer ownership.
[+] [-] zppx|15 years ago|reply
But I do not see anything wrong in a vendor requiring the hardware to be in a specific way to use a hosted service such as App Store, Kindle downloads or Xbox Live.