6 ms·

That book isn't an example of a contract, unlike the crazy Disney tweet. The book terms form a license. Backed by the purchase price of the book. Disney's like

That book isn't an example of a contract, unlike the crazy Disney tweet. The book terms form a license. Backed by the purchase price of the book. Disney's likely argument is that only original purchasers of the book are covered by the license, that non-transferability was implied.

OrangeMango 7y ago
Yeah, so my thought when I bought it was to offer to sell it back to Disney for $25k or something. I could most likely get a pro-bono defense while Disney would pay a lot more than that in a lawsuit which I would most likely win. Most likely. I still haven't acted on it yet.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  I could fly to Moscow and defeat the Russia Mafia in unarmed combat. Or I could blackmail Disney in a lawsuit. The Russian Mafia think my chances better beating them than Disney.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- JackFr 7y ago
  You won’t win. The marginal cost to Disney of suing you is close enough to $0 that it’s not worth mentioning. Further the likelihood of a lawyer representing you pro bono in an unwinnable nuisance suit is much lower than you imagine.
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    Disney is a money printing machine. All they have to do is make another "Marvelous" movie or a "Space Fights" movie (yes that's XKCD) and that will add some more billions to their coffers. They got enough money to be dragging you to courts for another century. No pro-bono lasts that long.
- ddrdrck_ 7y ago
  Please do ! This would make an interesting case to study and you would certainly become famous. I would not be as confident as you that you'd be likely to win though ...
gumby 7y ago
Luckily US still has a first sale doctrine. Perhaps after you pass the book on you have to stop making puppets though.
qubex 7y ago
That’s interesting, though... does that mean that in your understanding of the scenario (IANAL, you might or may not be) the original buyer might have a shot at making that argument?
tzs 7y ago
So this license granted the purchaser permission to use Disney IP in exchange for the purchase price of the book...how is that different from a contract? The distinction between a contract and a license is a lot smaller than most people in software seem to think it is [1]. [1] https://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract https://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract
- ncmncm 7y ago
  A license is different from a contract because there is a separate body of law for licenses and another for contracts, with different requirements. A contract can involve a license, and a license can involve a contract, explicitly. But they are different things. You need a lawyer to explain precisely how they are different, and how they interact. (Many judges and many lawyers are not very clear on license law.) But one important difference is that there is no need for mutual agreement or exchange of value, in license law. If you don't agree, you don't have the license. You start out bound by its restrictions, under the Law of the Land, and they are only relaxed by its owner choosing to relax them.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Licenses are a type of contract, (like a square is a type of quadrilateral). Contract law applies to all licenses, but IP licensing law does not apply to all contracts.
    - skissane 7y ago
      Not all licenses are contracts. Some are deeds instead. ("Contracts" and "deeds" are different – contracts require consideration, deeds don't – a deed can be completely one-sided; deeds have far stricter formality requirements than contracts.) There may also be cases of licenses which are neither contracts nor deeds – such as the concept of a "license by estoppel".
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        What he said. The GPL, e.g., is not a contract. It says so right in it, for the benefit of those confused (including, as I noted, many lawyers and even judges). A contract that has not been affirmed by exchange of consideration and at least implied consent is void. Licenses, as I have been told, may be entirely one-sided, and need not depend on explicit actions by either party. They are different, neither a superset nor a subset of contracts. There is, however, a bunch of cracked case law around licenses created by jurists confused about the topic. I am no lawyer.

OrangeMango 7y ago

Yeah, so my thought when I bought it was to offer to sell it back to Disney for $25k or something. I could most likely get a pro-bono defense while Disney would pay a lot more than that in a lawsuit which I would most likely win. Most likely. I still haven't acted on it yet.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago
I could fly to Moscow and defeat the Russia Mafia in unarmed combat. Or I could blackmail Disney in a lawsuit. The Russian Mafia think my chances better beating them than Disney.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
JackFr 7y ago
You won’t win. The marginal cost to Disney of suing you is close enough to $0 that it’s not worth mentioning. Further the likelihood of a lawyer representing you pro bono in an unwinnable nuisance suit is much lower than you imagine.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Disney is a money printing machine. All they have to do is make another "Marvelous" movie or a "Space Fights" movie (yes that's XKCD) and that will add some more billions to their coffers. They got enough money to be dragging you to courts for another century. No pro-bono lasts that long.
ddrdrck_ 7y ago
Please do ! This would make an interesting case to study and you would certainly become famous. I would not be as confident as you that you'd be likely to win though ...

gumby 7y ago

Luckily US still has a first sale doctrine. Perhaps after you pass the book on you have to stop making puppets though.

qubex 7y ago

That’s interesting, though... does that mean that in your understanding of the scenario (IANAL, you might or may not be) the original buyer might have a shot at making that argument?

tzs 7y ago

So this license granted the purchaser permission to use Disney IP in exchange for the purchase price of the book...how is that different from a contract? The distinction between a contract and a license is a lot smaller than most people in software seem to think it is [1]. [1] https://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract https://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract

ncmncm 7y ago
A license is different from a contract because there is a separate body of law for licenses and another for contracts, with different requirements. A contract can involve a license, and a license can involve a contract, explicitly. But they are different things. You need a lawyer to explain precisely how they are different, and how they interact. (Many judges and many lawyers are not very clear on license law.) But one important difference is that there is no need for mutual agreement or exchange of value, in license law. If you don't agree, you don't have the license. You start out bound by its restrictions, under the Law of the Land, and they are only relaxed by its owner choosing to relax them.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Licenses are a type of contract, (like a square is a type of quadrilateral). Contract law applies to all licenses, but IP licensing law does not apply to all contracts.
  - skissane 7y ago
    Not all licenses are contracts. Some are deeds instead. ("Contracts" and "deeds" are different – contracts require consideration, deeds don't – a deed can be completely one-sided; deeds have far stricter formality requirements than contracts.) There may also be cases of licenses which are neither contracts nor deeds – such as the concept of a "license by estoppel".
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      What he said. The GPL, e.g., is not a contract. It says so right in it, for the benefit of those confused (including, as I noted, many lawyers and even judges). A contract that has not been affirmed by exchange of consideration and at least implied consent is void. Licenses, as I have been told, may be entirely one-sided, and need not depend on explicit actions by either party. They are different, neither a superset nor a subset of contracts. There is, however, a bunch of cracked case law around licenses created by jurists confused about the topic. I am no lawyer.