Selling used software may be illegal...

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-10, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by flame

I understand licensing. It just that if you apply it to anything else it doesnt seem right, apply this to your car, what if the EULA says you cant sell it. I understand its someones intellectual property, but so are books, movies and music. I cant sell my steam account. Where does the line get drawn.

I agree that it's not right, but I think that trying to legislate it away will cause trouble. It's something that could easily be solved if people simply refused to buy software that had lisence agreements like that. Of course, I realize that it's not always possible to find or use an alternative software.

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-10, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Arreo

I don't think it is that, I think they didn't have much of a legal choice in the matter... If you voluntarily enter into a binding legal contract with someone it will be upheld by the courts, no matter how insane it is.

However, the judges in the ruling acknowledged that the implications of this ruling are crazy, and that they hope Congress decides to take action on it.

Right. That's what a judge should be doing - right guys? Nobody wants legislation from the bench.

**Red_Lizard2** · 09-12-10, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Imisnew2

I agree completely. I was just playing devils advocate.
If you are selling your copy to someone else, and not creating a duplicate to sell, that should be O.K. in my opinion.

agree, but the companies don't want that, because then people don't have to go out and buy a new copy (which makes the company money). Of course, most of those companies are probably the same ones that think "if we make a really annoying DRM that everyone hate, it will stop piracy!"

**Alundil** · 09-13-10, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I agree that it's not right, but I think that trying to legislate it away will cause trouble. It's something that could easily be solved if people simply refused to buy software that had lisence agreements like that. Of course, I realize that it's not always possible to find or use an alternative software.

Agreed

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Right. That's what a judge should be doing - right guys? Nobody wants legislation from the bench.

agreed

The issue/problem with the EULA and the "agreement not to sell" stems, IMO entirely, from the fact that there is very little chance that a consumer is able to read the entire EULA prior to purchasing the software. By then it is too late. You don't see the EULA until you begin installing the software. In order to install the software you have had to open the box. Most brick and mortar businesses will not accept returns on opened software without a hassle for the consumer. This means that most of the time, consumers will likely avoid the hassle and are therefore stuck with software that they cannot return to the seller and do not want to use due to the EULA agreement mandatory for usage. Catch 22.

**Alundil** · 09-13-10, 10:59 AM

IMO though, there should be some legislated changes to software and ownership thereof. I agree that the single-user perpetual license is a sham used almost explicitly to increase sales, meaning therefore that it is a cudgel that software companies (and others) use against their own customers.