I am very surprised.

[chk071]

IMHO they don't show respect by going around stablished regulations with their bogus EULA's. It's insulting in a democracy.

What i find more insulting is writing a software, and then having to give it away on terms which are not your own. As mutools wrote about, there are a lot of things to consider from the dev's side. The major thing i think is the inability to be able to monitor whether after reselling the software is still present on the sellers computer. Only solvable with some mechanism as a USB licenser i guess, and that's not what we want, is it? Also the support thing makes perfect sense to me. Really interesting to hear those points from the "other side", the dev side. Some stuff i haven't really thought about yet, but seem totally valid to me.

[rod_zero]

It's not a law, no matter how many ttoz's insist that it is. It was a judgement, which still has to be tested in court before it can be applied as a legal regulation.

Judges can't come up with decisions out of thin air, Laws are the bassis for their sentences.

So you can go to the full sentence and see alll the following law's that were tha basis for the ruling:

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).

2 The reference has been made in proceedings between UsedSoft GmbH ('UsedSoft') and Oracle International Corp. ('Oracle') concerning the marketing by UsedSoft of used licences for Oracle computer programs.

Legal context

International law

3 The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) adopted the WIPO Copyright Treaty ('the Copyright Treaty') in Geneva on 20 December 1996. That treaty was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 16 March 2000 (OJ 2000 L 89, p. 6).

4 Article 4 of the Copyright Treaty, 'Computer programs', reads as follows:

'Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.'

5 Article 6 of the Copyright Treaty, 'Right of distribution', provides:

'1. Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

2. Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph 1 applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorisation of the author.'

6 Article 8 of the Copyright Treaty provides:

'… authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them'.

7 In the agreed statements concerning Articles 6 and 7 of the Copyright Treaty, it is declared that:

'As used in these Articles, the expressions "copies" and "original and copies" being subject to the right of distribution and the right of rental under the said Articles, refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects.'

European Union law

Directive 2001/29

8 Recitals 28 and 29 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) state:

'(28) Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article. The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community. This right should not be exhausted in respect of the original or of copies thereof sold by the rightholder or with his consent outside the Community. Rental and lending rights for authors have been established in Directive 92/100/EEC. The distribution right provided for in this Directive is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the rental and lending rights contained in Chapter I of that Directive.

(29) The question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services and on-line services in particular. This also applies with regard to a material copy of a work or other subject-matter made by a user of such a service with the consent of the rightholder. Therefore, the same applies to rental and lending of the original and copies of works or other subject-matter which are services by nature. Unlike CD-ROM or CD-I, where the intellectual property is incorporated in a material medium, namely an item of goods, every on-line service is in fact an act which should be subject to authorisation where the copyright or related right so provides.'

9 In accordance with Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29, the directive 'shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing Community provisions relating to … the legal protection of computer programs'.

10 Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 provides:

'1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

…

3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be exhausted by any act of communication to the public or making available to the public as set out in this Article.'

11 Article 4 of Directive 2001/29, 'Distribution right', provides:

'1. Member States shall provide for authors, in respect of the original of their works or of copies thereof, the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise.

2. The distribution right shall not be exhausted within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work, except where the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the Community of that object is made by the rightholder or with his consent.'

Directive 2009/24

12 According to recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 2009/24, that directive codifies Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42).

13 According to recital 7 in that preamble, '[f]or the purpose of this Directive, the term "computer program" shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware.'

14 According to recital 13 in that preamble, 'the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of a copy of a program which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by contract'.

15 Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/24 provides that 'Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works'.

16 Under Article 1(2) of that directive, '[p]rotection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the expression in any form of a computer program'.

17 Article 4 of the directive, 'Restricted acts', provides:

'1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6, the exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2 shall include the right to do or to authorise:

(a) the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole; in so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder;

(b) the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof, without prejudice to the rights of the person who alters the program;

(c) any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof.

2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.'

18 Article 5 of the directive, 'Exceptions to the restricted acts', provides in paragraph 1:

'In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.'

German law

19 Paragraphs 69c and 69d of the Law on copyright and related rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)) of 9 September 1965, as amended ('the UrhG'), transpose Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2009/24 into national law.

[ferez21]

Companies can always charge a trasfer fee instead of banning license transfer completely. I'm letting myself to assume that the amount of customers that want to transfer licenses is not that significant in relation to the overall number of customers of a specific company. If the product is good, i see no reason for an individual to sell it, unless he have permanent technical issues. It's not fair of companies to "lock" their customers, and i can't see why products that are hardware are ok to sell, while products that are software aren't.

As for IL, i really like FL Studio and currently have no intention to sell it, but i have to admit that i do i have a lot of constant technical problems with the software (bugs\crushes) which couldn't be fixed with their technical support and it might get on my nerves one day and i will want to sell it, and it's unethical of IL to ban me from selling in this situation.

[ferez21]

Some people depend on this software for a living, what kind of music industry would we have without computers and software now? Selling software is also a business, why shouldn't it be subject to oversight?

What is the difference between selling software, and selling hardware?
I'm referring to the big companies here, and not to the individual developers.

Say i want to open a small company (even a one man company) to build custom midi controllers, can i ban people from reselling my hardware which i produce to finance myself and my family? No.
If i'll try to ban it, or even charge a transfer fee, people will unanimously stop buying from me, and it will seem legit to everyone.

[chk071]

valid as an opinion, but we live in democracies, everyone must respect the law. If you don't like the way any bussines is regulated then simply dont engage in such bussiness.

What makes you think the EULA's are in conflict with any laws? As stated above, it is not (yet) a law that a software can always be resold. I would be very surprised, to go with the thread title, if companies would write stuff in their EULA which literally breaks every law that exist for business.

[Dunbar]

As for IL, i really like FL Studio and currently have no intention to sell it, but i have to admit that i do i have a lot of constant technical problems with the software (bugs\crushes) which couldn't be fixed with their technical support...

That's unlucky, FL is one of the most stable programs out there. The extensive, year long, user based beta testing irons out most problems before a "full" release is made.

Apart from Gol being a dick in the forums (which is his prerogative), IL run a very tight ship, no complaints here.

[rod_zero]

What makes you think the EULA's are in conflict with any laws? As stated above, it is not (yet) a law that a software can always be resold. I would be very surprised, to go with the thread title, if companies would write stuff in their EULA which literally breaks every law that exist for business.

Understand this: Judges base the sentence on existing laws. I already quoted that part of the sentence.

Developers are already subject to them in the EU even if they ignore it, and if some costumer challenges the EULA on court the developer will discover that there are some laws already regulating the stuff, as Oracle in this case.

[ferez21]

As for IL, i really like FL Studio and currently have no intention to sell it, but i have to admit that i do i have a lot of constant technical problems with the software (bugs\crushes) which couldn't be fixed with their technical support...

That's unlucky, FL is one of the most stable programs out there. The extensive, year long, user based beta testing irons out most problems before a "full" release is made.

Apart from Gol being a dick in the forums (which is his prerogative), IL run a very tight ship, no complaints here.

I have no complaints, and maybe it's not their fault, but the facts are that i'm struggling with bugs & crashes for more than 6 months now - would it be unethical of me to sell this software if i can't get along with it? I don't think so, and i think i should have the right to sell something i own, whether it's hardware or software.Tthey can charge a 40$ fee and i would still be ok with it, but total banning from resell?

[deleted]

DELETED

[mutools]

Why I don't understand is why developers want to go around LAWS. IMHO they don't show respect by going around stablished regulations with their bogus EULA's. It's insulting in a democracy.

Hey i don't want to start a legal discussion here (we're musicians not lawyers right?!) but just want to tell you that even if that european ruling would be a real law, then i'm sure it's quite easy to bypass that, which is perfectly legal. So lets please focus on the essence.

I understand the user point of view. I hope you also understand this devs' point of view, cfr my earlier post. I think it should simply be the freedom of the dev. Of course it should be made clear somewhere on the product specs whether things are transferrable or not. That's user protection.

[mutools]

Trust.

So are you saying that you are not buying any software that is copy-protected?

[mutools]

It is impossible to verify that if a user transfers his user key that he/she effectively erases all copies of this MuLab / MUX user key and that he/she does not use it again. I don't want to be negative, and i'm confident that there are many honest people, but at the other hand one has to be realistic too...

that's assuming that EVERBODY is a thief a priori ...
as you insinuate that i'm a thief i wont even try MuLab 5 - so you don't have to worry about my evil intentions!

Please reread my post.

[deleted]

DELETED

[rod_zero]

Hey i don't want to start a legal discussion here (we're musicians not lawyers right?!) but just want to tell you that even if that european ruling would be a real law, then i'm sure it's quite easy to bypass that, which is perfectly legal. So lets please focus on the essence.

I understand the user point of view. I hope you also understand this devs' point of view, cfr my earlier post. I think it should simply be the freedom of the dev. Of course it should be made clear somewhere on the product specs whether things are transferrable or not. That's user protection.

Easy to bypass a law? Yes, you can go ahead and enforce your EULA, until some customer challenges you on court, then you will see if it is "easy" to bypass it.

For good or bad we don't live in world where an EULA has precedence over national or international laws, sorry it's just the ways work in a democracy and you have to comply with those rules.

Just imagine how abusive it will be if all companies made ad hoc EULA for any products, imagine it in pharmaceuticals or professional equipment. In fact don't imagine just look around and see what banks do with mortgages and how many of those contracts content have been declared ilegal.

Yes I am taking the argument too far, and I don't believe developers are evil. Because of that I trust them and happily buy their products when their EULA doesn't go against the law, I hope the same in exchange.

[Dunbar]

i think i should have the right to sell something i own...

Agreed.