this is huge if generates enough awareness due to the precedent that was created; it could be that the end of stupid DRM is near, as any owner of any piece of software, including games, would be entitled to make his own back-up copy and install it on multiple systems.
I hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, but I only hope that an avalance of such lawsuits, or even a few class-action suits will follow; the most important thing is to raise awareness about this and tell anyone you know and has been burned by DRM issues...
I don't think that spending $100 or so on something that cost millions to produce makes us owners of that something, but I would say that we should be owners of one copy of that something or 3 in a family pack or whatever . We should not be able to reproduce and sell our copy, but we should be able to sell our one, or however many copies without keeping another for ourselves.
Exactly. They are just saying that you own the software. You own the disk and however many USERlicenses you purchased. You can install it that many time OR you can resell it with the same amount of licenses. No one is saying you can copy software a million times. The liceses only means you are licenses to use it for whatever number of users you purchased.
I'm not sure I like the tone of this article, especially the "ridiculous gobs of money". Software costs "ridiculous gobs of money" to develop and support. I'm not even too happy about the "transfer of license" ruling; unlike most second-hand items, used software is just as functional as new software. There would be little to no incentive for a user to buy a new copy of used software was available. Autodesk should be entitled to a percentage at minimum.
"ok, people own software, everyone thank Autodesk for bringing this to our attention"
Microsoft,apple and every other software company then stares down Autodesk and beat him when he walks out.
i will be happy when i can install windows and office as many times as i want.
.ummmm I guess you don't own your PC, Cell Phone, or your car. All of those items cost millions and in some cases BILLIONS of dollars to create. When you buy your Dell laptop, you own it. You Toyota, you own it. When you buy Windows 7, you own that COPY of Windows 7. If you sell THAT copy, then Microsoft looses nothing.
Corporations create products and unless they are renting or leasing that product as a service, when you pay for it you own it.
Ummm.. I believe this means, if you own a software, and decides that you don't need it anymore, you can sell it (permitting that you are not going to use it anymore) - hence, the transfer of ownership.
This does not mean that you can just install on many PCs at once. (The ownership has been transferred, so you cannot use it legally)
One copy, once license, yours to do as you wish. Period. No illegal copying and distributing. You own ONE copy. If you have TEN "legit" copies of a program, lets say... boxes and all, then you still have TEN legit copies to sell as you wish.
Why would they be entitled to anything? They are not out of anything. They still have the money they received when the original owner purchased the software. If he resells it and doesn't keep it, they are not out of anything. Even though it works "like" new, the new owner is not entitled to upgrades or new versions, UNLESS he purchased it new, registered it new.
Again, that is like Honda saying you cannot sell your car. They are out of more money than AutoCad cost.
[citation][nom]smithereen[/nom]I'm not sure I like the tone of this article, especially the "ridiculous gobs of money". Software costs "ridiculous gobs of money" to develop and support. I'm not even too happy about the "transfer of license" ruling; unlike most second-hand items, used software is just as functional as new software. There would be little to no incentive for a user to buy a new copy of used software was available. Autodesk should be entitled to a percentage at minimum.[/citation]
when you sell your house or your car, they are still functional and I don't see you giving money back to Chrysler or whatever company you bought it from; according to your theory, you should give back that percentage, regardless of the quality of the product, if you are able to make money off of it.
Incentive for buying new software: registration, which entitles you to customer support, and which is "dedicated" to that license; a good quality CD/ DVD, and so on...
You all hear that??? that faint plopping sound accompanied by a groan... it's the sound of every software CEO collectively crapping their pants.
In all seriousness though, there is no way this ruling will stand for long, and not to the extent we all wish it would. Sure some smartass end user might take it to mind to install his single copy of Windows 7 on all three of his computers, and try to throw it on his brother's and girlfriends computers to boot, and he will be denied. And when he finds a daring enough (or bored enough) lawyer to take the case and attempt to start a class action lawsuit again M$, guess who can afford bigger guns...
It's a nice idea, but let's not all go getting bonerrific at the idea that WGA and other DRMs are going to be disabled anytime in the next 5 years.