Used Software Can Be Sold, Says EU Court of Justice 385
Sique writes "An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licenses allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a license is exhausted on its first sale. This was decided [Tuesday] (PDF) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case of Used Soft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp.."
Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Interesting)
What can the U.S. government do against the whole of the E.U.? I suppose this decision means I can sell my Microsoft Office 2010 license on ebay. Yay! I never use the software anyway. (I wonder if I can sell ebooks too? Or maybe just the whole amazon account; ebooks and all.)
I wonder what happens with volume licenses? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. buy laptop with a forced copy of windows
2. extract windows key
3. rplace windows with Linux
4. sell windows on ebay
5. ????
6. profit!
Interestingly, if you could get more than $3 from selling windows which you most probably could, it would beat begging the oem to refund you the windows price.
Re:I wonder what happens with volume licenses? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is with point #4. Ebay will not allow sales of software that violate the Terms of Use from the author. They are a private company, and have the right to do so.
But, if you live in the EU, you could sell the copy of Windows to your neighbor, or to some chick you met in a bar, and it would be totally legal. I know that's not quite as exciting, but ... uh... chick in a bar!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is with point #4. Ebay will not allow sales of software that violate the Terms of Use from the author. They are a private company, and have the right to do so.
But, if you live in the EU, you could sell the copy of Windows to your neighbor, or to some chick you met in a bar, and it would be totally legal. I know that's not quite as exciting, but ... uh... chick in a bar!
Ebay is not a private company. It is privately owned, but by many separate shareholders who were enticed by the promise that the board of directors would attempt to maximize profits. Consequently the board of directors has a fiduciary duty to every shareholder to doing everything reasonable to maximize profits.
Since Ebay has no commercial interest in clinging to a policy which is not longer rational. Then if the sale of used software is clearly legal, and there is no public relations purpose for continuing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your cunning reply is flawed because also an OEM license is exhausted due to the First Sale doctrin as stated by the Court. There are only two preconditions for the software copy to become your property and trigger the First Sale doctrin: 1. You got the copy legally. 2. With the copy, you got a permanent license to use it. This fits for every OEM license that comes with your computer.
So yes, you can sell OEM licenses legally and unrestricted in the E.U. according to the Court's ruling.
Re: (Score:3)
I've come to the full realization how different the libertarianism is of our revolutionary leaders and our current leaders. They are practically two different things. The founding father-era libertarians would NEVER advocate rights of *any* institution to equal that of a human (albeit a land-owning white human, which we've expanded upon).
If they advocate corporate rights they are corporatist and not libertarians.
Re: (Score:3)
It's concerning how unpopular this idea is and yet it still remains policy. Is it political suicide to speak out against corporate personhood, or would a law limiting personhood to individual citizens be unconstitutional?
It should be noted that this was not the result of political (i.e., congressional, etc.) action but a Supreme Court decision in the mid-late 1800s (1870-something?) - I'm too lazy to look up the date. So reversing it at this time would require the Supreme Court reversing itself on a decision that has been in place for 140 years or so, thereby completely disrupting a vast body of law that is based on it and underpins the entire economic, political and legal system of the US, or a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
The single payer ("centralized" in your terms) is cheaper for all because the insurance model has pressure to increase prices as high as possible. With a single payer, there is pressure to reduce costs. That translates to better care for all, as evidenced by the better aver
Re: (Score:2)
What can the U.S. government do against the whole of the E.U.?
What CAN'T it do? According to libertarians around here, the US government is an evil regime that takes the worst parts of fascism and socialism, and it is totally out of control. When you're that evil, there's no limit on what you can't do to promote your evil agenda.
Who needs to be a libertarian? The US government is an 800-lb. gorilla. And when I say "800 lbs.", it's because the USA doesn't want to hear about any of your wimpy European metric crap.
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if this has any implications for game developers?
I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.
Similarly, I wonder if it has any implications for Valve, with whom you're forced to activate some games with to prevent resale?
I know a lot of people here will defend Valve etc., but really, computer software is about the only product I know of whereby you're artificially prevented from selling on in the same working manner you can consume it in second hand. Toasters, clothes, cars, music CDs, DVDs, books, plants, furniture, washing machines - just what other products are there other than games that have these artificially restrictions in place to prevent resale? Should they really be allowed to get away with it by simply claiming they're anti-piracy measures when we all know the pirates nearly always get their copies earlier precisely because they don't contain these measures?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.
Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.
Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself.
Except that owners of the game are locked to the developer/publisher servers, making the ability to connect to them compulsory to using the product to its fullest.
If these publishers gave game purchasers the option to set up and connect to private servers, you might have a legit argument there.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason I keep thinking you're talking console games...
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Interesting)
"Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself."
Does it? XBox Live costs me £40 a year and multiplayer on every single game I've played bar Battlefield 3 is peer to peer. I don't disagree with you if we're talking about something like WoW where there is significant server overhead, I don't even disagree with something like BF3, though ironically with BF3 not only have they introduced a subscription service, they've actually stopped providing 99.99% of their servers and instead charge people to run their own. I guess I can't fault them as it works, but certainly on consoles there's negligible expenditure on multiplayer costs - the bulk of it is paid for by Microsoft by way of the Live infrastructure rather than the games companies themselves.
It's frustrating too, because me and my girlfriend both enjoyed Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit, we both have an XBox, and we both have a Live subscription, yet because of the activation code she can't play multiplayer whilst I'm playing a different game on my console without paying yet another £10 despite the fact we already paid for the game first hand.
Effectively we've reached a point now where you have to actually buy a copy of many games for every person in the house that wants to play multiplayer, rather than where you'd just need a copy per household previously. We're quick to criticise the music industry because they've been trying to make us rebuy content we've already paid for for years now, but we seem to have sleepwalked into allowing games companies to get away with exactly this.
Re: (Score:3)
Advertised features of the game (multiplayer) require those servers to function, and in many cases the servers are not an ongoing subscription therefore the service is part of the original software...
What should happen is...
1, games are given away free but the online service is subscription based (eg think eve online)... a single player mode, if one exists, is effectively a demo.
2, the game is sold but also comes with the server software, so people can run their own servers.
I utterly detest the idea of buyi
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, it may occur that Steam gets more subscribers
What exactly is a steam subscriber? Steam sells games on its service. The number of people who use the service is secondary to the number to games they sell. they don't make money from people having steam accounts, they make money from selling games. And, somewhat importantly, most developers have no desire to see their games sold used, that's why we all fled gamestop brick and mortar stores to steam in the first place.
as games are gifted to people who aren't currently subscribed. Licenses held
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, its about profit, piracy is just the scapegoat...
The publishers realise that most pirates either cannot buy, or would rather do without than buy.
On the other hand, non pirates have already proven their willingness to hand over money so they seek to get as much out of them as possible.
And of course, people only have finite budgets, so rather than having to make 4 separate games, they would much rather force some poor sucker to buy 4 copies of the same game... Same expenditure for the user, but mu
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but here in the English-speaking world we're able to verbify nouns and nounify verbs. These actions are a valid extension of our language "rules". (More of a guideline, really.)
Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Game developers already have a solution. Make the game require internet access with a single use code. You can sell the game but it is worthless without a new code.
Similarly you can be the next version of RandomApp Pro 2013 will require online activation tied to your email address and with no way to change or update it.
Re: (Score:3)
"...cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licenses..."
I see the basis for a lawsuit contending single use code is an obstruction to the consumer's right to resale.
Re: (Score:2)
Playstation Network already has something similar to this. You buya game new and it comes with downloadable content (DLC). If you sell the disc the buyer can play the game but he doesnt get the DLC because it is tied to your account.
One way around this and the RandomApp Pro problem and selling steam games is to make a throwaway steam/psn/email account and give that away with whatever it is you're selling.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that is specifically an author of software opposing the resale of his 'used' licenses allowing the use of his programs...
Re: (Score:3)
from TFA:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy â" tangible or intangible â" and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
so you can resell your game, and if that does not work then you can sue them for preventing the transaction. Remember the court said the initial sale "exhausts his exclusive distribution right", so they cannot prevent it all from being resold - a single-user code tagged on can be transferred along with the game code (or sold separately of course) and will continue to work, or is in violation of the law.
You could think of the single-user code as the product being transferred when sold rather than th
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was moved from consumers to the companies and developers. I am sure that software developers can come up with some creative solutions if they want to. The sad thing is that most likely they will try not to comply with this new ruling, and will fight it until the bitter end, instead of just accepting it and solving the problems that they face now.
Totally agree that you should never stop fighting for your rights!
that's not a right. (Score:3)
Game developers already have a solution. Make the game require internet access with a single use code. You can sell the game but it is worthless without a new code.
In that case the following logical step would be to sue companies who disallow transferring the code/account to another user. Never stop fighting for your rights.
Who told you that's your right? That code is like a ticket. You get one ticket to see one movie. Can give the ticket (or in this code) away, but you can't use it and re-use it, or attempt to use it for more than one person.
The right that you have is not to partake in that scheme of things if you don't like how it is conducted.
Now, if purchasing that game was compulsory, if you didn't have an option, but to buy it, then you have a case to demand greater flexibility on the code. But that is not the case,
Re: (Score:3)
No, this ruling says something completely else.
If two preconditions are met:
a) you got a copy of the software,
b) you got a permanent use license for that software,
this is considered a transfer of ownership for exactly that copy of software, and thus you are entitled to sell that copy as you see fit.
Or in the words of the Court:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence
agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of
that copy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed, but also delighted. It shows that Big Business can still lose a case against Common Sense.
Just in time... (Score:2)
Re:Just in time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Upgrades are a special case. When you upgrade "most" products, you don't get another license... the old one is extinguished the moment you activate the new one.
Also, did the court rule that consumers have the *right* to buy & sell used licenses, or merely that it doesn't constitute infringement? Big difference -- in case 1, the licensor must cooperate. In case 2, they can't sue you, but can use DRM to render the used license worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just in time... (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends on how it was worded. There are many rights that can not be given up or overwritten by contract. If that were the case non transferable would not be legal and MS would be compelled to allow it. I doubt this ruling went that far.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't true for Germany (and the rest of the EU AFAIK).
Courts over here have ruled years ago that taking OEM software licenses out of a bundle and selling them separately is legal.
Microsoft was not amused, but have (kind of) learnt to live with it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm understanding this ruling correctly, it sounds like any "non-transferrable" restriction on an otherwise permanent licence might just have become unenforceable, whether the software maker likes it or not.
That said, the ruling is about software bought separately, either as a physical package or downloaded. It doesn't mention the issue of bundled software explicitly, so we'll have to try and interpret the ruling as it might apply in the OEM case. The ruling itself seems to be written very broadly (and d
Re:Just in time... (Score:5, Interesting)
The core ruling can be found at the end of Page 1:
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
Re:Just in time... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
Seems fairly obvious the direction this will take then. Expiry periods built into software licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
i am sure somebody will make a key gen & spoof tool and gently break the "call home to the mothership" feature and/or third party windows update so microsoft never even sees the second-hand licensed winders OSs & office
Re: (Score:2)
Why buy a used copy if you have to crack it?
Might as well just get a pre cracked pirate copy...
Re: (Score:2)
You'd likely have to buy a full Win 8 though. Otherwise Microsoft has nothing stopping them from saying "Well, this is an addition to Win 7. You no longer own Win 7, so this addition license is no longer valid. You can just buy a new Win 7 license for this to work with."
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Win7 is far better than Vista. It's quite comparable to XP SP3/XP x64, both of which were rather stable and neither of which were infected by a virus while under the watch of Microsoft's own security suite which actually is capable of staying out of your way when you need it to.
Diablo 3 refunds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Diablo 3 refunds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope so... I know it won't happen in the US.... Which actually says a lot. As Americans we are used to getting what we paid for. If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
No refunds in the US, but you can still sell it. I've made a separate Bliz account for each of their recent products and sold the account when I'm done with it. For their two most recent games, "done" came two days after purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
I've made a separate Bliz account for each of their recent products and sold the account when I'm done with it.
Clever :)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why this would affect refunds of licenses? It's seems to deal more with the transfer of licenses to another party. What I'd like to know is how this affects digital distribution like app stores, steam, xbox live and so on. That is, IF it affects them. I have a huge collection of games on steam and XBLA that I don't play much these days.. I'd love to be able to ebay them.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
Exactly.
This applies to DVDs and CDs too. I refuse to buy either if I can't later return them for refund or store credit, when the content sucks.
Re:Diablo 3 refunds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? You can secretly love the movie, but pretend it "sucks" (what defines sucks, btw?) and take it back. Free rental isn't a good business model for anyone.
You can't watch a movie, then go back to the ticket counter for a refund because you didn't like it. You CAN, however, if the sound cut out half way through, or the audience unduly interfered with your ability to watch the movie. You can't get your money back for a football game that sucked. Entertainment follows completely different rules when it comes to consume r ights. Was the game played in its entirety, without undue distraction or delays? Then what's the problem? Oh, your team didn't win (you didn't like the book, you hated the movie, you don't like the singers voice)? That's a shame. You still got the product that was promised as part of the contract between you and the content provider when you purchased the "ticket".
Re: (Score:3)
Why? You can secretly love the movie, but pretend it "sucks" (what defines sucks, btw?) and take it back. Free rental isn't a good business model for anyone.
You can't watch a movie, then go back to the ticket counter for a refund because you didn't like it. You CAN, however, if the sound cut out half way through, or the audience unduly interfered with your ability to watch the movie. You can't get your money back for a football game that sucked. Entertainment follows completely different rules when it comes to consume r ights. Was the game played in its entirety, without undue distraction or delays? Then what's the problem? Oh, your team didn't win (you didn't like the book, you hated the movie, you don't like the singers voice)? That's a shame. You still got the product that was promised as part of the contract between you and the content provider when you purchased the "ticket".
Strawman: One-time event tickets != durable goods.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Why? You can secretly love the movie, but pretend it "sucks" (what defines sucks, btw?) and take it back
Why not?
I can do it with candy. "If this product is not satisfactory, return the unused portion for a refund." - If I can return a sucky piece of chocolate, I see no reason why I can't return the sucky Transformers 2 DVD for store credit. You mean to tell me that Hershey and Mars Candy has more integrity & better customer service than MGM or Sony DVD? Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and I forgot to mention that most stores have a 3-strike policy. No more than 3 returns per year. That policy would prevent the kind of "I liked the movie but I'm returning it anyway" abuse you describe.
Re: (Score:3)
>>> If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
Exactly. This applies to DVDs and CDs too. I refuse to buy either if I can't later return them for refund or store credit, when the content sucks.
I disagree. If something is defective, the consumer should have the right to exchange it for a non-defective product. If the product functions properly (and the seller was not using deceptive trade practices), but the purchaser just doesn't really like it, it would be unethical to return the product in many cases. Many vendors allow the return of products for any reason or no reason, as a customer courtesy, and many jurisdictions have laws governing this, but claiming that this behavior is a "right" is a l
Well of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
well... because software is not a physical object like cars, books and records... you can not "own" it in the sense of ownership you do to physical object... but wait... all the stupid *intellectual property* laws enforced in the last few decades... claimed IP can be owned like physical property... hmm... someone is struggling with basic logic in the capitalism and mass theft department...
Re: (Score:2)
It's typical whiney super-corporations wanting it both ways. They don't care if they have hypocritical reasoning as long as they get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if books came wrapped in an EULA that said you own a license to the story and cannot resell it. That would never be stood for, unless it is an eBook.
Re: (Score:2)
the sw is installed on a machine. how about a car company saying you can't resell the engines chip sw?
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a replacement chip and remove the OEM one, what exactly stops you from selling it?
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, their logic goes like this: (1) If it's mine, it's mine. (2) If it's yours, it's really mine. (3) If I want it, there's some excuse as to why it's really mine.
In other words, major corporations have exactly the same set of morals as your average 2-year-old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
That argument is bullshit and always has been. It's nice to see a court (albeit European) finally recognize it for once!
Re:Well of Course (Score:4, Informative)
You missunderstand what the court here "recognizes". As most EU court articels posted on /. are missleading anyway.
A software copy can and always could eb resold. However: the law was ambigous regarding software that was bought via a download. So Oracle claimed that software that was bought and downlaoded from their website would not be allowed to be resold.
The EU court clarified: it does not matter whether the software was bought on CD/DVD or via the internet.
Hence: no surprising ruling, as the basic matter is defined by law anyway.
In US, licensing is only _usually_ bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
It hasn't always been complete bullshit. Software business deals actually happen in several different ways.
Sometimes you buy it and then you (or someone you give it to) later open the box and possibly spot a license. Surprise! The Blizzard judge says that box's contents cause some kind of mystical time travel, where the title to the box and its contents retroactively transfer or didn't transfer, with your knowledge so that there wasn't fraud, at the earlier point of "sale" depending on the eigenstate of the box's contents.
But sometimes you actually have a sales contract between the informed and knowing customer and the developer, where no software is delivered nor is any payment made, until after the contract is agreed upon. I made paychecks for 18 years in a business like that, and sometimes there were even actual negotiations and changes to the contracts (it wasn't a contract of adhesion), because the customer had the balls to insist on what they wanted (if only we could all be like that), and we still wanted their money. Shrinkwrap EULA software sellers like to pretend they're running that sort of business, despite all obvious differences in what you see actually happening if you observe the transaction.
It looks like this is similar to what Oracle was doing, except for the negotiating and sometimes changing the contracts part; Oracle's contracts were "Agree or else we would rather no sale happen." But adhesion or not, an actual license, rather than software, is what was sold. The court even uses that wording in this decision -- they write about selling a license. This is a very different kind of transaction than what you normally do when buying software retail or mail order, where anyone who hasn't been bribed by Blizzard can plainly see you are really buying a physical item.
And yet, this EU court is treating it much like a retail transaction for goods. They're treating the license not as terms and conditions for the sale, but just a proxy for the item itself. There's a big dose of common sense and fairness there, but how they justify it legally isn't clear to me. Whether that's because it's a contract of adhesion, or if they would do this regarding all contracts (and if so, why just software?), would be interesting to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Say, a $60 game with 120 hours playtime, or an OS charged at 10c/hour of usage
Old, new (Score:2)
That is the 1970s model. Will disco be next?
Re: (Score:2)
Then it is not "property."
When property is sold right of first sale applies. It's not "property," you better make up a new term.
Re: (Score:2)
English evolves, man. You can't stop it. You can rarely make up a new term and purposely have people use it. More likely you'll just have to accept that people will use the same word for two slightly different things.
Re: (Score:3)
English evolves, man.
What was that sound? It was the sound of English evolving such that copyright infringement is now also known as rape! 'Pirates' are now rapists, too!
Re: (Score:3)
Your position just got blown out of the water anywhere in the EU. The ruling here considers the licensed-not-sold argument in detail, and comes down heavily on the side that if you're taking money in return for a permanent right to use the copy, that counts as a sale. They addressed various possible attempts to weasel out of this conclusion based on things like support/updates after the sale, too.
So what about the stores? (Score:2)
All the stores without exception say you can not get your money back if you have opened the shink wrap.
I wonder if this ruling affect that.
Re:So what about the stores? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does that have to do with it? This ruling is about people being allowed to sell software copies they own to other people, not forcing stores to buy those copies.
Re:So what about the stores? (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe, or at least in Germany, this never was really the case. Simple reason: You can only read the license agreement AFTER you open the box, which makes everything in the EULA null and void. Common sense if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea if it was enough.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK, consumers have a right to a refund if a product is defective. This right cannot be waived by contract, and it's a criminal offence for the seller to attempt to disclaim or exclude this provision.
Not really surprising really.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't even ask why these enlightened decisions always come from the EU.
Where the fuck is the US ?
So the enlightenment is back in Europe while the dark ages are in full throttle in the US.
Interesting century we're living in.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU's currency is a mess and is breaking up. Many EU countries are implementing currency controls. Economically the EU is dead.
The EU gets some things right but a lot of things wrong. Like the new law put in effect that you have to display an annoying message if you use cookies. If you don't want cookies, disable them in your browser. An option that has existed since cookies were invented.
Re: (Score:3)
And then lots of websites won't work. I'm happy with cookies required for site function. I'm happy with third-party cookies that allow things like Verified by Visa to work. I'm not happy with third-party tracking cookies and would like the option to not be tracked. As the free market refuses to offer this, I'm happy that the EU has stepped in.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the U.S., whose Congress is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't this pretty much been the case always?
Well, there was that whole "Nazi" era in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being?
That Europe hasn't always been so enlightened. And that even when it has, the potential for very un-enlightened movements is always there. Germany was, in fact, one of the leaders in modern academia just prior to the rise of the Nazis (with probably the best University system in the world at the time). So I guess education doesn't help either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's not American, and probably not clueless but rather actively malicious. Anyone who decries the ousting of Berlusconi (a man more ruthlessly corrupt than anyone in the Bush administration ever was) in the name of democracy is so far beyond reasonable discourse that it's not funny. And remember, Britain does not have the Euro, and a major reason the current UK government was voted into power is their constant fear-mongering over the currency.
Meh, the entire quote smacks of typical wannabe Old-Boy Imperial
Re: (Score:3)
Two of the EU states have already lost their democratic-elected leaders... replaced by banker puppets through EU dictate.
Nonsense.
The new leaders are elected like the previous ones
The problem with the EU is that there is simply "not the EU". Euro is only used in a subset of the EU. E.g. UK and Norway dont use Euro as currency.
The Euro problems also have not much to do with economy.
German and french economy e.g. is soring.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Euro does collapse, it's probably going to pull the global economy down with it for several more years, so I wouldn't be quite so smug if I were you.
There is certainly an issue of democratic deficit in various nations in the EU, and very obviously at EU level itself, right now. It is highly unlikely that this will last. Public sentiment is against the European political classes almost everywhere, and they are only clinging on to their power base because the populations of most countries have been den
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Says who? American media? I'm getting tired about this anti-EU / pro-USA behavior on /.
Oh look. Another person slagging off on the "dumb Americans" or "stupid USA" media. Europeans love to hate us Americans. Well here's a BRITISH man saying the exact same thing I just said, and not just any British man, but an esteemed member of the European Union's Parliament:
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_367_Nigel-Farage-Euro-Break-Up-Just-a-Question-of-How.html [ukipmeps.org]
Transcript:
"It's a great shame Mr Van Rompu
Re: (Score:2)
an esteemed member of the European Union's Parliament
Nigel Farage [wikipedia.org]
UKIP [wikipedia.org]
From taking office as a UKIP MEP in 1999, Farage has often voiced opposition to the "euro project".
May as well quote the Pope "abortion is bad m'kay".
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh... first you slag off on the "clueless Americans" and then the Brits. They may not use the Euro but they are part of the EU and the nearly 1 trillion in bailouts. Sooooo who's next to get the hate? I suppose if I post the videos from the EU MEPs of Denmark and Poland saying the same things (Euro is in trouble; possibly a breakup) you'll be hating-on on the Danes and Poles as well.
BTW this all started when you said "America is headed for a dark age". OUR states are still getting along and working wi
Bad new for autodesk (Score:3)
Bad news for autodesk who are vehemently opposed to used copies of autocad being sold on places like fleabay. Between versions of autocad which autodesk releases new versions annually there isn't a massive difference in features but if you want it it will cost you one price only - full rrp or close thereof. That is because as soon as the new version comes out the old stock is recalled so the shops cannot discount the older version and second hand sellers are quickly shut down.
Autodesk will also only upgrade from versions that are not that old, so people cannot 'catch up' if they left it a while .
AutoDesk will be pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
They have fought tooth and nail to keep their "software as a revocable license" model so that they can continue to extort huge sums of money from the industries they service. I expect them to throw their resources at legislative change to "fix" this European problem.
Re:AutoDesk will be pissed (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect them to throw their resources at legislative change to "fix" this European problem.
you're dead-on.
Oracle's press release [oracle.com] says:
We trust that this is not the end of the legal development, and that the EU Member States as well as the European Commission will be doing all they can to protect innovation and investment in Europe’s technology industry and to prevent business models which threaten both.
or - in short - WE HATE YOUR LAWS. CHANGE THEM.
While a nice ruling on the surface... (Score:2)
...it will be interesting to see how software companies respond. I guarantee you that the ability to resell software will need to be accounted for by companies needing to make a profit in some way.
I get the feeling that this might eventually create more companies going with limited licensing - i.e. updates for one year from the date of purchase, things like that. Anti-virus companies will be all set, since they already do that. Games like World of Warcraft? They charge you monthly anyway, so they're not
Another possibly important interpretation? (Score:2)
Deos this mean EULAs are now illegal in the EU?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, are you talking about the original painting, or just copies of it? I don't see why the original painter would get a cut of the sale of print copies of the original work.
Re: (Score:3)
The right in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way they stop (or dont stop) people installing onto multiple computers.
Developers have to contend with this issue already when people format their computers and need a new activation key.