View Single Post
Old 10-26-2012, 02:51 AM   #9
Prestidigitweeze
Fledgling Demagogue
Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Prestidigitweeze's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,261
Karma: 24940597
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Aura HD; Nexus 7; PRS-350, 950; Kindle K; OnePlus One; Galaxy S4; MBP.
It's always good to know the exact names of the enemies of ownership. Apple is one of them, but historically, it isn't alone.

Notice the links in this article and the links within the linked texts.

Story about the original ruling that led to this development

The Opinion itself:

Vernor v. Autodesk

Looks as though Autodesk, the SIIA and the MPAA were the main perps (and the opposition included the American Library Association and eBay):

Quote:
Timothy Vernor purchased several used copies of Autodesk, Inc.’s AutoCAD Release 14 software (“Release 14”) from one of Autodesk’s direct customers, and he resold
the Release 14 copies on eBay. Vernor brought this [unsuccessful] declaratory judgment action against Autodesk to establish that these resales did not infringe Autodesk’s copyright. . . . Autodesk, the Software & Information Industry Association (“SIIA”), and the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) have presented policy arguments that favor our result. For instance, Autodesk argues in favor of judicial enforcement of software license agreements that restrict transfers of copies of the work. Autodesk contends that this (1) allows for tiered pricing for different software markets, such as reduced pricing for students or educational institutions; (2) increases software companies’ sales; (3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers; and (4) reduces the incidence of piracy by allowing copyright owners to bring infringement actions against unauthorized resellers. SIIA argues that a license can exist even where a customer (1) receives his copy of the work after making a single payment and (2) can indefinitely possess a software copy, because it is the software code and associated rights that are valuable rather than the inexpensive discs on which the code may be stored. Also, the MPAA argues that a customer’s ability to possess a copyrighted work indefinitely should not compel a finding of a first sale, because there is often no practically feasible way for a consumer to return a copy to the copyright owner. Vernor, eBay, and the American Library Association (“ALA”) have presented policy arguments against our decision.
I had a hunch the MPAA might be involved because of the non-exemption that would prohibit DVD ripping even for the owner's personal use.

Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 10-26-2012 at 03:24 AM.
Prestidigitweeze is offline   Reply With Quote