I am very surprised.

[dalor]

Cars can't be duplicated. Software can. People want everything for free. This is the core problem.

your wisdom seems to be rather unrelated to the subject, doesn't it?
i can't recall anyone in this thread asking for FREE software...not even anyone asking for FREE transfers...
the core problem is that everybody feels urged to contribute to anything?!?

Transfer: The software is still functioning with its original owner plus the new license holder. 2 places. The new license holder decides to sell again. 3 places. So, the company got only paid once in full and the rest just for license transfers for full functioning software. You have no control if the previous owners will delete the software and just want to make a buck, sell it and still use it.

[rod_zero]

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

Agreed.

The definition of "owning" software is completely different than "owning" your car.

In software, you only "own" a license to use the software. You agreed to their terms and conditions ('license agreement') at the time of purchase and every time you install the software.

The whole point of this topic is that courts around the world are saying: NO, it's not different, Costumers can resell.

Developers need to understand this.

An EULA can't go beyond any law, in fact Nobody can resign to his own rights being them liberties or consumer rights or rights to social services. It's a basic and very important principle in democracies.

[chk071]

Cars can't be duplicated. Software can. People want everything for free. This is the core problem.

your wisdom seems to be rather unrelated to the subject, doesn't it?
i can't recall anyone in this thread asking for FREE software...not even anyone asking for FREE transfers...
the core problem is that everybody feels urged to contribute to anything?!?

Transfer: The software is still functioning with its original owner plus the new license holder. 2 places. The new license holder decides to sell again. 3 places. So, the company got only paid once in full and the rest just for license transfers for full functioning software. You have no control if the previous owners will delete the software and just want to make a buck, sell it and still use it.

Yep. And frankly the "generalized thief accusation" is real nonsense. With that kind of logic noone would have to lock their home doors, or lock their cars. It is not about the majority of people who doesn't steal, it's about the small minority which does...

[dalor]

It's not a law *yet* - just a recommendation.

[deleted]

DELETED

[deleted]

DELETED

[dalor]

Cars can't be duplicated. Software can. People want everything for free. This is the core problem.

your wisdom seems to be rather unrelated to the subject, doesn't it?
i can't recall anyone in this thread asking for FREE software...not even anyone asking for FREE transfers...
the core problem is that everybody feels urged to contribute to anything?!?

Transfer: The software is still functioning with its original owner plus the new license holder. 2 places. The new license holder decides to sell again. 3 places. So, the company got only paid once in full and the rest just for license transfers for full functioning software. You have no control if the previous owners will delete the software and just want to make a buck, sell it and still use it.

Yep. And frankly the "generalized thief accusation" is real nonsense.

If that was "nonsense", please explain to me the need to use Keyfile/Serial/C/R/iLok to run software.

[chk071]

If that was "nonsense", please explain to me the need to use Keyfile/Serial/C/R/iLok to run software.

So you're saying every copy protection is applied with the thought in mind that your customers are thieves generally?

I hope that's not the case because it is surely not what devs intend when they make such EULA's:

3) 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.

[rod_zero]

It's not a law *yet* - just a recommendation.

You don't understand this?

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.

No need for a new law, judges based their decission on existing laws.

[glokraw]

Cars can't be duplicated. Software can. People want everything for free. This is the core problem.

your wisdom seems to be rather unrelated to the subject, doesn't it?
i can't recall anyone in this thread asking for FREE software...not even anyone asking for FREE transfers...
the core problem is that everybody feels urged to contribute to anything?!?

Transfer: The software is still functioning with its original owner plus the new license holder. 2 places. The new license holder decides to sell again. 3 places. So, the company got only paid once in full and the rest just for license transfers for full functioning software. You have no control if the previous owners will delete the software and just want to make a buck, sell it and still use it.

Yep. And frankly the "generalized thief accusation" is real nonsense.

If that was "nonsense", please explain to me the need to use Keyfile/Serial/C/R/iLok to run software.

The same reason you lock your house, car, and pin ###s. Not everyone is a thief,
but enough are, that you secure the value.

[hibidy]

Just for a moment........a fleeting moment......

[pdxindy]

in dubio pro reo...

Please don't shoot the pianist. Illegal copying is part of the reality. I did not invent that.

People that use a few hours labor to pay for that which loads in
a few seconds, disrespect that which takes years to create.
Ownership whiners, most of whom would require
many years of expensive education,
and then many years of in-the-trenches experience, to make any
competing product (while maintaining a day job in the interim)
are merely spoiled brats.

i don't disrespect any dev's hard work BUT i WILL NEVER ACCEPT being called a thief a priori!!!

I assume then you do not buy software that needs a serial number or has other copy protection...

Also, if you had a small retail business, I am sure you would never lock the door at night because that would be calling all current and potential customers a thief!!

[cron]

It's not a law *yet* - just a recommendation.

You don't understand this?

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.

No need for a new law, judges based their decission on existing laws.

Indeed. The directives allowing sale of software have been there for quite some time. It's just taken a long time for an organisation to dare put it's hand in its wallet and test it in court.

Why are we talking about serial numbers/copy protection etc anyway? They're aimed at discouraging crackers while remaining as unobtrusive to the user as possible. They're not there to stop you, the user, copying the installation CD for a mate 1997 style.

Besides, the two discussions aren't even remotely comparable. One of these things is about trying to prevent cracking and subsequent mass distribution by making me spend 2 to 10 seconds out of one day of my life plugging in a USB key or writing in a 16 digit code, while the other is about denying somebody the basic legal rights they enjoy as a consumer in the EU lest they retain a copy 1997 style.

[hibidy]

and to think I got ragged (hard, really hard) by a certain person when mentioning a certain host, just trying to be helpful, that has the LEAST INTRUSIVE PROTECTION EVER and got a new one ripped. Now, who would that have been? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Pointless. And more to the point, another example of how "one" thing is perfectly acceptable" and another "isn't" even though they are pretty much the same.

Alrighhhhhhhhhhty then.

[samsam]

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

Agreed.

The definition of "owning" software is completely different than "owning" your car.

In software, you only "own" a license to use the software. You agreed to their terms and conditions ('license agreement') at the time of purchase and every time you install the software.

Unless you lose a ReFX dongle, then all of a sudden the value of the software suddenly appears to lie 100% in a physical dongle, which is IMO absolute nonsense and an example of _some_ software devs trying to have it both ways.

Anyway, no IL, reFX or Mux for me, aye.