View Single Post
Old 07-05-2011, 12:28 PM   #7
taustin
Wizard
taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg View Post
At the time of the original transaction, was it specified to be a lease, or a sale?

In US law, Overdive and the publishers are stuck in the concrete of that wording.
That isn't necessarily true. Adobe argued in Softman v. Adobe that software bundled with a new computer was licensed, not bought, and the terms backed them up. But under California law, a one time payment for indefinite use makes it a sale of goods, regardless of what the contract says, and copyrights are governed by copyright law, not contract law. And copyright law explicitly protects rights for both sides of the deal. Once it's a sale of goods, the first sale doctrine comes in to play.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.
taustin is offline   Reply With Quote