Talk:First-sale doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. | |
Davidson & Associates (d/b/a Blizzard Entertainment) v. Internet Gateway Inc (bnetd) (2004) and Softman v. Adobe are two different cases. The former is about Internet Gateway who reverse engineer Blizzard game network so their program bnetd can interoperate. Whereas the later is about transferability of purchased licensed software.
A correction needs to be made for this statement: "This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a superior court. ..."
It doesn't really run counter to the Softman v. Adobe case. Transferability of license software is the right of the purchase. Once an individual purchase a license, it is the individual who can resell the software.
Accordingly, section 117 states that "Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." This is where reverse engineer comes in. This area of the law is still murky.
As for the resell of purchased license, the court side with consumer by allowing the consumer to resell the license he/she purchased provided the consumer gives up his/her right to the license at the point of sale. This has vast implication, if a student purchase a software that said "for student use only", the student can in turn sell the software to the open market. That's legal. Another case, is if a consumer receive a software or product for free that says "not for resale", he/she can turn around and sell the software or product that's state "not for resale". It is not the right of the copyright owner or the right of the manufacturer to dictate after first sale of the said item or license.
[edit] Confusing xample?
Is it just me or does this example not really help to clarify this article:
It is the principle that causes people to find the following example absurd:
- "If you purchase a Ford car, you may not drive it near a Chevy dealer, or trade it for a Chevy, because it was Ford's car."
It just seems an absurd example in my opinion and only causes to confuse the article with its dual negativety.
--
i agree and am removing it. Aaronbrick 03:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is a sale required?
The first-sale doctrine is an exception to copyright codified in the US Copyright Act, section 109. The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular, legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been obtained.
The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement.
(The second paragraph was a quote from a court case.) Brianjd 10:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
-- I am amused by this twist of words. This whole issue was decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1900's. The MO judge is essentially trying to overule prior Supreme Court decesions on the matter and may or may not stand up if apealed (Depends on the COA and Supreme court). Also note that in Softman they did not install the bundled software and did not agree to the EULA- thus it is not conflicted.
Also 117 does not say what is listed here. That phrase is actually from Adobe v Softman, furthermore Vault v Quiad contradicts this. Of course it depends on which district you are in as Blizzard v BnetD directly conflicts Vault v Quiad. Then again Blizzard v BnetD relies on injuctions that were overturned in the Lexmark case , Ignores CONTU intent and precedent of prior cases such as Quiad, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964), ola Elec. Co. v. Jefferson Elec. Co., 317 U.S. 173, 176, 63 S.Ct. 172, 173, 87 L.Ed. 165 (1942), Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964), Mitchell v. Penton/Indus. Publishing Co., 486 F.Supp. 22 (N.D. Ohio 1979), Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Sports Eye, Inc., 415 F.Supp. 682, 686-87 (E.D.Penn.1976), ect ... ect... WHich means that if taken apealed it could very well be overturned.
But hey its MO, which has churned out a lot of weird opinion such as the MGM v 321 Studio rulling in which they also outlaw circumvention of DRM on Public Domain materials (No copyright expire date through DRM) and the portion of the BnetD ruling where they claim that if software has the same function as another piece of software it is copyright infringement(Patent-like copyright protection).
[edit] New information (case law)
From AECNews.com
- The US District Court in Seattle on Wednesday ruled in favor of eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor, denying Autodesk’s request for “summary judgment” against Vernor. In doing so the court ruled that Vernor had the right to appeal for relief from Autodesk actions based on the “first sale” doctrine of copyright law. In finding for Vernor, Judge Richard Jones’ ruling dismissed most of Autodesk’s wide-ranging legal arguments as without standing.
- If allowed to stand, the ruling effectively pulls the heart out of the license agreements that accompany most retail software products on the market today. You can be sure that not only Autodesk, but most software companies, will take action of some sort in response. It is unimaginable that Autodesk will not appeal this decision.
- The case is not over; the court has ordered both sides to sit down and discuss whether the case should continue and settle Vernor’s claim that Autodesk engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state law in either California (Autodesk’s home) or Washington state (Vernor’s home). Their report to the court is due June 27.
I'll leave it to others to decide how to integrate it with the article, but this is a substantial decision dealing with this doctrine. 66.20.48.108 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
