Path: cdrom.com!barrnet.net!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!charnel!xmission!xmission!not-for-mail From: jonm@xmission.com (Jonathon Montgomery) Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom Subject: Re: Selling CD-ROMs/Copyright Date: 17 Apr 1994 14:28:19 -0600 Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801-539-0900) Lines: 102 Message-ID: <2os653$qss@xmission.xmission.com> References: <1994Mar30.235652.1904@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: xmission X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] ROMI BOSE (rbose@kentlaw.edu) wrote: : In article albrecht@megatest.com (Dave Albrecht) writes: : >From: albrecht@megatest.com (Dave Albrecht) : >Subject: Re: Selling CD-ROMs/Copyright : >Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 21:42:59 GMT : >From article <1994Mar30.235652.1904@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, by glyle@marie.seas.ucla.edu (George Lyle (233789)): : >> In article <2nat4q$le7@search01.news.aol.com>, calks@aol.com (Calks) writes: : >> |> I recently posted on America Online to see if someone wanted to trade CD-ROMs : >> |> and the post was removed from the host who said that such sales were illegal. : >> |> Although I read the copyright on my game, which in deed said that sales were : >> |> illegal, it did not seem right to me. Judging by the number of posts in this : >> |> area offering CD-ROMs for sale, I would guess people agree with me. : >> |> : >> |> It seems to me that it would certainly be illegal to sell any program if you : >> |> kept a copy of it, but if you delete the program from your computer you should : >> |> be able to sell it as you would any durable product such as cars or books.. I : >> |> know that the record companies cannot prevent stores from selling used CDs and : >> |> I want to know how computer CD-ROMs are different. My guess is that the : >> |> companies selling CD-ROMs are blowing smoke and that the copyright that they : >> |> included is not legally binding. Does anyone know the correct legal answer to : >> |> this question? : >> : >> When you opened the package, you agreed to all that small print. Now what : >> you do in the real world is up to you. AOL, having deep pockets, doesn't : >> want to be sued for "aiding and abetting" you in your terrible crime, thus : >> they deleted your post and sent you a nastygram. : >> : >What has been said about this in many a previous post is this. First of all : >the stuff printed on the outside of a software envelope has absolutely : >nothing to do with copyrights. There is clear legal protection granted to : >copyrighted works and the rights and limits to that protection are clearly : >outlined in the copyright laws themselves. No vendor, as much as they may : >want to, can add to the protections afforded them by copyright law. Selling : >the entirety of an original software package and not keeping 'copies' for : >yourself is clearly not a violation of copyright. I have made no copies, : >I have simply resold the entirety of something that I originally bought. : >No vendor can control via copyright law reselling of an item you legally : >obtained anymore than they can for video tapes, records, CDs, books, magazines, : >or any other item covered under copyright law. Note how much flack : >Garth Brooks caught for his stance on used CD vending stores. The day : >that the law extends to implicitly prohibit the public from reselling : >an item which they legally aquired and paid money for you will find : >the outcry will be immense. Clearly an item I buy has value and I am : >just as entitled to resell that item to recover its value as the original : >vendor was to sell it in the first place. : >The little print on the outside of the envelope falls instead under the : >territory of a 'license'. Given that usually establishment of a license : >is a signatory affair, these licenses have yet to be proven to hold any : >legal weight, at least when they go beyond the protections already afforded : >to the vendor by copyright law. Until there is clear legal precedent : >establishing the validity of such licensing I would do what everyone else : >does, ignore them. For me, restricting a public forum for exchange in : >this fashion is an argument against AOL. The expose of AOL in this : >instance is minimal, it would be pretty difficult to show that this : >is more than any other classified ad, in any medium. Estabilishing : >any AOL culpability is extremely remote. Even aside from this, : >the likelihood of prosecution with regard to shrink wrap licenses : >is extremely remote (why waste money on a case against an individual : >which you will most likely lose, or at most win because the user : >can't afford the defense and thereby gain some piddly amount of : >money that will far from cover legal costs). If they do succeed in : >prosecuting an individual they will likely find themselves on the other : >end of a boycott. It is my opinion that the script on the outside of : >these envelopes is the legal equivalent to wanking, it gives them : >something to do when they aren't at the water cooler sucking down : >coffee or 'doing lunch'. : >David Albrecht : Absolutely correct! It uses the word license, and yet, "license" is : associated with a continuing payment of fees for useage. Software is more : of a sale situation - i.e. you pay once and use and keep as long as you : like, like a book. The prohibitions? As was said - no copying. : Kudos for setting it straight - it gets on my nerves to see orgs. like AOL : creating fears that are unfounded. NOT COMPLETELY CORRECT! When you purchase a CD-ROM, or any other software for that matter, you are at the mercy of the COPYRIGHT holder. Yes, in most cases, you may sale software provided you keep no copies, however, you NEVER owned a copy therefore you may only sale the Media, Books, and Lisence rights. As a developer I must look at my rights and the rights of the user, I have to protect my interest. As for the definition of a lisence I must say that someone has something to learn. By using a product you imply agreement to ALL terms. Some agreements DO require payments for extention of the lisence term, some limit the term, and some do not. All I can say is read the agreement carefully. If there is no transfer provision it is implied that you may treat it as a book (keep no copies and sale the whole thing). JonM@XMission.com