4 ms·

Good, but the tip of the issue is licensing. Autodesk[1] has set precedence that all an organization must do to limit the resale of anything is institute a EUL

Good, but the tip of the issue is licensing. Autodesk[1] has set precedence that all an organization must do to limit the resale of anything is institute a EULA. Simply by asserting that an offer is for a license not the thing being licensed the seller can bypass common law, Lord Coke, and the first sale doctrine. P.S. This also means that expensive professional software like Autodesk's, or anything with such an EULA, cannot be considered an asset since it has no dollar value after purchase. 1: https://www.wired.com/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/

Shivetya 9y ago
well I am curious how it will play out in the long run because unlike printer cartridges you have no physical object with software since almost all is done via digital distribution. I do know our commercial software at work on about every platform is by license only. we don't own any of it. didn't microsoft do this with Office, give you a "low" monthly rate instead of selling out right? Perhaps the plan is, buy it for 299 or license it for 9.99 a month or 99 a year? so this would skirt the issues presented with physical items?
- joshuak 9y ago
  I do not believe that mechanism of delivery is a relevant feature of any of these laws. The copyright of a book is not contingent on its delivery via a binding of paper. One could argue a subscription is different than a purchase (of anything license or otherwise), but if you subscribe to a magazine you can legally resell any issues you receive. I see no reason you shouldn't be able to re-sell your Office 360 subscription. The law as decided in the Autodesk case seems to indicate that you can restrict the sale even of physical items if you assert that the items contains 'licensed' software, and state the terms of the license do not allow resale. The owner of the product could sell the physical item, but only if they could remove the 'licensed' software.
Omniusaspirer 9y ago
There seems to be a logic gap here if I'm understanding the possibilities correctly. What stops me from founding a company through which I get paid, leveraging that company to purchase 100% of my "assets", then instituting a EULA and selling (at no cost) a lifetime license to use anything I want to myself? As per your logic (as I understand it), I could then declare myself utterly destitute and owning $0 worth of assets. My company could also claim $0 worth of assets. At that point, could I not play any number of games to increase eligibility for government assistance programs or reduce tax burden? (This is a quick thought, so if there's any glaring flaws in this idea please do point them out.)
- joshuak 9y ago
  > My company could also claim $0 worth of assets. Why? If the company buys assets and sells or transfer's them to you, the fact they are not assets to you doesn't really change the facts for the company do they? However, if your company buys stuff with a EULA that prohibits resale then those purchases are an immediate 100% loss. If the company must liquidate the following day those purchases will not contribute to recovering any investment value. Look at visual effects and post production companies in M&E, a large part of Autodesk's addressable market. These companies are constantly going out of business, and the unrecoverable costs of very expensive software contributes to this volatility.
  - Omniusaspirer 9y ago
    If I'm licensing from my company, what legal mechanisms force that asset to still be owned by my company? Can I not license it to myself under some vague EULA terms in which the company gets it back upon my passing, but I'm forbidden from reselling (and thus it's not an asset for me either)? If the key to this is the "licensing" of a product forbidding resale, I'm not seeing how that isn't a financial black hole into which assets disappear.
- abtinf 9y ago
  The definition of "property" is an extraordinarily complex topic. Just a few of the absolute most basic questions: What does it mean to possess something? Is physical possession all that matters? Is it the right to use something? If you possess something, but someone prevents you from using it, have you lost property? And then if you start mixing in taxes... whoa boy. Take a look at http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1511&context=tlr http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... The net of all of it that the law, both formal and common, has evolved to deal with this topic. But there are constant new frontiers, like this SCOTUS decision.

Shivetya 9y ago

well I am curious how it will play out in the long run because unlike printer cartridges you have no physical object with software since almost all is done via digital distribution. I do know our commercial software at work on about every platform is by license only. we don't own any of it. didn't microsoft do this with Office, give you a "low" monthly rate instead of selling out right? Perhaps the plan is, buy it for 299 or license it for 9.99 a month or 99 a year? so this would skirt the issues presented with physical items?

joshuak 9y ago
I do not believe that mechanism of delivery is a relevant feature of any of these laws. The copyright of a book is not contingent on its delivery via a binding of paper. One could argue a subscription is different than a purchase (of anything license or otherwise), but if you subscribe to a magazine you can legally resell any issues you receive. I see no reason you shouldn't be able to re-sell your Office 360 subscription. The law as decided in the Autodesk case seems to indicate that you can restrict the sale even of physical items if you assert that the items contains 'licensed' software, and state the terms of the license do not allow resale. The owner of the product could sell the physical item, but only if they could remove the 'licensed' software.

Omniusaspirer 9y ago

There seems to be a logic gap here if I'm understanding the possibilities correctly. What stops me from founding a company through which I get paid, leveraging that company to purchase 100% of my "assets", then instituting a EULA and selling (at no cost) a lifetime license to use anything I want to myself? As per your logic (as I understand it), I could then declare myself utterly destitute and owning $0 worth of assets. My company could also claim $0 worth of assets. At that point, could I not play any number of games to increase eligibility for government assistance programs or reduce tax burden? (This is a quick thought, so if there's any glaring flaws in this idea please do point them out.)

joshuak 9y ago
> My company could also claim $0 worth of assets. Why? If the company buys assets and sells or transfer's them to you, the fact they are not assets to you doesn't really change the facts for the company do they? However, if your company buys stuff with a EULA that prohibits resale then those purchases are an immediate 100% loss. If the company must liquidate the following day those purchases will not contribute to recovering any investment value. Look at visual effects and post production companies in M&E, a large part of Autodesk's addressable market. These companies are constantly going out of business, and the unrecoverable costs of very expensive software contributes to this volatility.
- Omniusaspirer 9y ago
  If I'm licensing from my company, what legal mechanisms force that asset to still be owned by my company? Can I not license it to myself under some vague EULA terms in which the company gets it back upon my passing, but I'm forbidden from reselling (and thus it's not an asset for me either)? If the key to this is the "licensing" of a product forbidding resale, I'm not seeing how that isn't a financial black hole into which assets disappear.
abtinf 9y ago
The definition of "property" is an extraordinarily complex topic. Just a few of the absolute most basic questions: What does it mean to possess something? Is physical possession all that matters? Is it the right to use something? If you possess something, but someone prevents you from using it, have you lost property? And then if you start mixing in taxes... whoa boy. Take a look at http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1511&context=tlr http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... The net of all of it that the law, both formal and common, has evolved to deal with this topic. But there are constant new frontiers, like this SCOTUS decision.