3 ms·

Looking the arguments here I can see things going either way Way #1 first sale doctrine. You sold me a box + dvd + code. I can sell the box, dvd, and code sepa

Looking the arguments here I can see things going either way Way #1 first sale doctrine. You sold me a box + dvd + code. I can sell the box, dvd, and code separately. I can use the box for other things. I can build art from the DVDs. I can sell the code Way #2 license doctrine. You sold me a license to me specifically. That license is non transferable. The first thing that came to mind for me is plane tickets. Some company's websites even say if the name you register doesn't match your ID you have to buy a new ticket, no exceptions. No idea if that's legal or not, just repeating what the site (Expedia) said when I bought tickets last week. I'm sure there are better examples. Paying for gym membership. You could argue I pay $XX a month for ~720hrs of access. I should be able to re-sell every hour of access. How do you decide which it is? It seems like First Sale doctrine comes down to selling physical things? IIRC you can't resell iOS apps, Steam apps, etc... I guess the difference is you register for iOS, plane tickets, Steam.

rtpg 9y ago
Well most of the time the license is about permission to use software. It doesn't matter if you have the Windows 98 disk, if you don't have a license you're committing copyright infringement to use it. So you could sell the paper code, but the recipient doesn't have the right to use it. I'm actually unsure of what legal mechanism is used for enforcing software licenses though... is it an implicit contract when buying the DVD for example?
- nitrogen 9y ago
  Well most of the time the license is about permission to use software. It doesn't matter if you have the Windows 98 disk, if you don't have a license you're committing copyright infringement to use it. I don't think this is entirely decided yet. IIRC GPLv2 did not include a specific license to use the software, since the right to use a legally obtained copy was believed to be implied. Some downloads of drivers and applications don't include any EULA; it would be absurd to think that those downloads are unusable even when the owner of the copyright is the one distributing the software. As for specific applications that do include an EULA, as I understand it some countries don't recognize any agreement that was not available for reading at the time of purchase.
- rasz 9y ago
  Not in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft#ECJ_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft#ECJ_ruling
posterboy 9y ago
It seems arbitrary is what it is. Sure, you can try to shoehorn laws and rulings post-facto and try to imagine that the spirit of the law always would have intended this or that interpretation. But it's all really just a huge tug of war about who's the bigger stick, so to speak. There's always objection, i.e.: if it's not physical, what is it - imaginary?

rtpg 9y ago

Well most of the time the license is about permission to use software. It doesn't matter if you have the Windows 98 disk, if you don't have a license you're committing copyright infringement to use it. So you could sell the paper code, but the recipient doesn't have the right to use it. I'm actually unsure of what legal mechanism is used for enforcing software licenses though... is it an implicit contract when buying the DVD for example?

nitrogen 9y ago
Well most of the time the license is about permission to use software. It doesn't matter if you have the Windows 98 disk, if you don't have a license you're committing copyright infringement to use it. I don't think this is entirely decided yet. IIRC GPLv2 did not include a specific license to use the software, since the right to use a legally obtained copy was believed to be implied. Some downloads of drivers and applications don't include any EULA; it would be absurd to think that those downloads are unusable even when the owner of the copyright is the one distributing the software. As for specific applications that do include an EULA, as I understand it some countries don't recognize any agreement that was not available for reading at the time of purchase.
rasz 9y ago
Not in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft#ECJ_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft#ECJ_ruling

posterboy 9y ago

It seems arbitrary is what it is. Sure, you can try to shoehorn laws and rulings post-facto and try to imagine that the spirit of the law always would have intended this or that interpretation. But it's all really just a huge tug of war about who's the bigger stick, so to speak. There's always objection, i.e.: if it's not physical, what is it - imaginary?