ResellingCopywritten Works

Owen Wengerd's now misnamed ADSK vs ODA weblog has initial details of a $10 million lawsuit against Autodesk over its policy of preventing the resale of its software. (You have to apply to Autodesk for permission to transfer your software license to someone else; Autodesk might say yes, such as if your company is bought out by another, but usually says no.)

A fellow in Seattle resells stuff at his eBay store, including used software. Autodesk had his sales shut down, and now he's after Autodesk for disrupting his business. As well, he wants to make clear the right of individuals to resell copywritten works. Think of used book stores, used record stores, and used game stores; most software companies consider themselves exempt in order to force a larger number of original sales.

As Mr Wengerg notes, the law in the USA is such that neither side is right in all cases.

Here's irony for you: Autodesk sued the ODA in Seattle, and now someone in Seattle is suing Autodesk.

Comments

[Matt Lorono]

Software companies have been working on two false principles for a very long time:
1) They prentend that because they own the copyright to their software, the also own every installation of it. If that's the case, I should charge them rent for the space their program occupies on my hard drive. This has been a problem with the industry since before the 1998 M Digital Information "terrorism against freedom of speach" Act.
2) They think that a user license is somehow equal to being U.S. law (often with illegal clauses that declares itself above the law). A user license is a de facto contract between two parties. The licenser does not have to right to change that contract without the prior approver of the licensee. Just as with any other contract, all parties have to agree to a change in the contract before that change can be implimented.

[R.Paul Waddington.]

Following on from Matt Lorono's comments I think the whole issue of software licencing needs revisiting by ALL users.

For those that have been following what my struggle over licencing (www.miletter.blogspot.com) you will know I have nothing against the use of licences to protect copyright by defining how we can apply the software but I have HUGE objections to those same licences being used to define a licensors access to our premises and computing systems.

Whether we 'think' this is legal or not and or whether access will be exercised or not is irrelevant what we must do, as users, is engage ALL software developers directly to stop the inclusion and acceptance of these clauses. Failure to act directly as a collective before these clauses are used is an action we all may live to regret.

Just look at the implimentation of "customerinvolvementprogram" (turn it OFF, NOW). If anybody believes that program is solely to "assist" in the development of software you are living in '2nd Life' not real life. Autodesk's own statements indicate they are collecting information that may identify illegal activity - it is there in 'black and white' - so the data collected is not just the commands you use (usage data) it is something more?

In conversation I was once told by a developer, "there is no way we could possibly Audit our entire users base (millions) and my response was "that's rubbish it's easy". That was over two years ago. Now we have 'CIP' or 'usage data collection' in several applications and forms. If a developer can handle that amount of data an Audit is 'easy peasy' and the warning in some documentation would indicate that it maybe a form of an Audit already?

R.Paul Waddington.

[Stefan Boeykens]

Software Licenses are strange in many ways. They cost you a lot of money, they don't promise to be functional, they don't promise to be compatible, they don't promise to be suitable, they don't allow you to make a copy, they don't allow you to sell, rent or sublicense, they don't allow you to modify it.

Every comparison is flawed, yet I can't find any product that I can compare with that has such clauses.

But in the end, many of these products get their work done.

Maybe they should start adopting principles of Open Source: you don't pay for the software or source code, you pay for the service, the support, the experience from the people. Software as a business or consulting service, instead of as a product.

[Shaan]

Paul,

CIP is unidentifiable and even IP address's are hashed. The main and only goal is to get usage of command details and limited hardware to better make decisions for future releases and focus with more firm data points. CIP is NOT an anti-piracy tool period... There is NO personally identifiable data in CIP.

Shaan Hurley

[ralphg]

Except that anonymous CIP data can be changed to report full details at any time. Witness Microsoft secretly installing software on users's computers, even when users explicitly tell Microsoft to not do that.

[Shaan]

It cannot be changed at anytime as it would take a product update for one and you don't think that someone might notice that? I am not sure why you say that or assume somehow AutoCAD code can change and morph. We are bound by privacy laws and a policy and take this very seriously just like you do for your journalist credibility that i important to you. I guess one could be paranoid about everything and ignore what someone is honestly saying but then again these days it seems that negative, rumors, and speculation are how spome people feel they need to get readers unfortunately and that is like a supermarket tabloid mentality.

So there is the possibility that we could also share the CIP data by broadcasting it via some hidden and encrypted of course frequency ranges to far away space aliens on a hidden blue planet for usage in their evil plot to someday attack the planet earth and rule the galaxy. ;-)

-Shaan

[R.Paul Waddington.]

Shann said;
"CIP is unidentifiable and even IP address's are hashed......CIP is NOT an anti-piracy tool period... There is NO personally identifiable data in CIP."

Your comments do not tally with the information Autodesk have published!?

Give it to me in writing, on an Autodesk letter head and signed and you may have made your point.

PaulW

[Shaan]

Paul,

I would like to see the references by Autodesk officially stating that CIP is for anti piracy so I can get those corrected. Again CIP is for product research and enhancements and contains no identifiable data.

Why are you assuming we are doing this or Ralph assuming AutoCAD could magically affect a product to get data from customers? There is no reason in yelling fire until there is at least smoke or fire.

http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2007/04/we_try_hard.html

http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2007/03/augi_connection.html

http://www.autodesk.com/acip/CIP_Privacy_eng.html

"CIP is an anonymous system. It does not collect personal information like name, address, or phone number. Customers cannot be contacted from information stored in the CIP system."

If you do not like CIP and fear it, then simply do not opt in to help future product decisions be more accurate and understand all the ways our products are used.

Shaan