Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
So this case really has nothing to do with first sale doctrine. It's just plain old copyright infringement.
|
Well, sort of.
Vernor wants the court to say that the initial transaction between Autodesk and CTA was a
sale, not a license; and as such the software is subject to first-sale, that CTA did in fact transfer their copy to him. Hence it's not about duplication or infringement, the key is whether CTA bought or licensed the software in the first place.
The lower court believed that some precedents were in conflict on these issues, but the 9th Circuit says they are not, and that Autodesk has the legal right to treat it as a license -- with nearly unlimited control over its subsequent use. (In fact, the court states that the act of imposing controls on use essentially makes the transaction a license rather than a sale.)
The case only discusses software. However, the court states that merely by asserting control, Autodesk essentially
has control, so I'd assume this would apply to content as much as it would software.
On a side note, AFAIK everything related to the first sale doctrine was essentially created by the courts, not as a result of legislation. Hence the opinion points out that Congress could change this structure if it wanted.