U.S. Court: Software is Owned, Not Licensed

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]macsun1[/nom]so if i buy a car and ten years later there is a recall for saftey reasons the car seller is responsible. Why is Microsoft not responsible for win 95, 98, xp even if saftey is concerned.[/citation]And just how is there a personal/physical safety issue with Windows (or with most other software)?

 

[Guest]

imo, how much the difficulty to make copies of the product that's count, if we were able to make copies of our car instantly i think the car factory would use the same, car's to license not to own policy...

*now in this world of purchase, im gonna buy back memories to awaken some old qualities....*

 

[groveborn]

It is important to note that this ruling does not impact the license agreement. The software company still has the right to restrict the use of the software as it likes. This only means that the software owner can resell it. EULA still stands 🙁. The question is: Can the software company prevent you from installing your software on certain types of machines? Hmmm...

 

[Guest]

finally an other great Court ruling for capitalism, people that think software can be legally reproduced by just buying one copy are downright retards...if you buy a car (example: GMC Camaro) it is yours to keep...mod it, crash it, do whatever... IS LEGAL. BUT to make your own factory and start making YOUR OWN Camaros..is NOT LEGAL...your PC is a software making factory...but its illegal to use it without authorization from the patent holder(GMC)...you can RESELL the ONE LEGAL COPY(Camaro)you have...but you cannot reproduce your own...and sell it.

 

[Guest]

so can i install the same software in my notebook AND my desktop provided i only use it one at a time? or lets go to the extreme, if i have 20 computers, can i use only one copy for all those computers if i'm only going to use it one at a time?

 

[ravewulf]

Now if only Microsoft would stop locking Windows to one motherboard.
I do get the point that they only want it on one machine at a time, but I want to take that copy of Windows I bought on to my next computer and/or motherboard upgrade.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]veryconfuse[/nom]so can i install the same software in my notebook AND my desktop provided i only use it one at a time? or lets go to the extreme, if i have 20 computers, can i use only one copy for all those computers if i'm only going to use it one at a time?[/citation]I'm not a legal expert, but I have read the US Copyright law and many court rulings on it, and I have not read anything that would preclude doing that, at least not with software that is purchased separately from hardware. In fact, many corporations have used that approach to reduce the number of copies they have to purchase (although they typically use some mechanism to prevent more than x copies being used concurrently or track the maximum in use at one time and buy at least that many copies).

Software that is tied to specific hardware (e.g. OEM editions), "bundled" software, etc. might be more restricted because it's purchased at reduced prices under specific terms.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]Now if only Microsoft would stop locking Windows to one motherboard. I do get the point that they only want it on one machine at a time, but I want to take that copy of Windows I bought on to my next computer and/or motherboard upgrade.[/citation]If you purchase the retail versions of Windows, Office, etc., you can do that. MPA/WPA/WGA/OPA may make you reactivate on the new hardware, but it is allowed with the full retail versions.

 

[pug_s]

Software is owned? Tell microsoft that 'Software Assurance' is just a big hoax. They don't make money off from us peons from $30 Windows 7 or from the oems selling windows 7.

 

[matt87_50]

[citation][nom]groveborn[/nom]It is important to note that this ruling does not impact the license agreement. The software company still has the right to restrict the use of the software as it likes. This only means that the software owner can resell it. EULA still stands . The question is: Can the software company prevent you from installing your software on certain types of machines? Hmmm...[/citation]


A little company called Apple seems to be getting away with it. it's in the EULA or whatever, don't know if its been challenged.

so they don't let you install their software on any hardware. and with the jailbreak issue, they clearly don't want you installing any software on their hardware either, be interesting to see how that one turns out.

 

[kutark]

What people in this thread who think that this means they can copy "their" software as much as they want can't seem to get through their head is the idea of "Intellectual Property" vs owning a COPY of software.

Yes, according to this ruling, if you buy Windows 7, and later down the road you decide to sell it to your homeslice Giancarlo because you're l33tsauce and moved over the some obscure linux distro, then you are ok to do so, at least according to the precedence this case sets.

You do not, on the other hand, own the actual code on the disk. You own the copy of the code and use of that copy of the code. All this means is that they can't put restrictions on the software like MS does with say OEM versions of the OS vs Retail. Where they say "you can only install this on one computer, and if you ever replace that computer, you have to buy another "license" of the software."

Companies are still perfectly within their rights to put registrations codes and cdkeys, etc, that limit and ensure you're only using the software once.

 

[jeffkro]

[citation][nom]babixg[/nom]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)[/citation]

Yes, but microshaft locks the copy of windows you bought to one machine. You can't get it to work on another computer without calling microshaft and begging them to reset your license key.

 

[Ciuy]

sounds normal wtf, i pay i do whatever the hell i want with it .

 

[anamaniac]

Awesome.

I own multiple computers, and I'm not going to shell out extra for a family pack if I use all of them...
Transferal of license when you sell software sounds about right to me. Though I'd never buy software secondhand (somehow it just doesn't sit right with me, but I still believe you have the full right to sell something you have bought).

 

[digiex]

This is good for us in the developing countries, lets say you upgrade to a newer version, then you can sell us your old version at cheaper price, and you also got a "discount" for your new version since you sold your older version instead gaining nothing from it. Hoorah! to the ruling.

 

[Guest]

It should be noted however that upon selling your CD/DVD software together with its license to others, the software should be uninstalled in your machine. Thus the transfer of license/ownership will seem legal. The problem that software companies try to avoid is that some will install the software on their machines AND THEN sell the CD/DVD to others.

 

[danish_2828]

I look at as if you are getting a title to the car. When you sell the car you transfer the title. Same thing here. When you sell the software you transfer the license.

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]^No. How I interpreted it, is they were saying that if you buy a piece of software/license and you sell that software, the license transfers to the new owner.[/citation]

Thank you for reading. I am SURE you will be in the minority as I read the comments thus far...

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]I'm not a legal expert, but I have read the US Copyright law and many court rulings on it, and I have not read anything that would preclude doing that, at least not with software that is purchased separately from hardware. In fact, many corporations have used that approach to reduce the number of copies they have to purchase (although they typically use some mechanism to prevent more than x copies being used concurrently or track the maximum in use at one time and buy at least that many copies).Software that is tied to specific hardware (e.g. OEM editions), "bundled" software, etc. might be more restricted because it's purchased at reduced prices under specific terms.[/citation]

Just to clarify, unless your EULA specifically bans this (think server software) you are FREE to install it on as many other systems so long as only one is in use at any given time and only YOU (the licensee) are the user.

HOWEVER, there are several companies that have limitations on the amount of systems, or even the nature or the systems. AutoCAD allows one install on a desk top, one install on a lap top and thats it. And the above still applies as far as only one user it applies to and only one copy in use at any time.

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]groveborn[/nom]It is important to note that this ruling does not impact the license agreement. The software company still has the right to restrict the use of the software as it likes. This only means that the software owner can resell it. EULA still stands . The question is: Can the software company prevent you from installing your software on certain types of machines? Hmmm...[/citation]

Yes.