Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
IANAL but it strikes me that the only thing that creates any "property" in the first place is the license. If a court were to rule that the "non transferable" status of the license did not apply then we'd revert to the default case which is general copyright applies, which means that the potential inheritor has no more rights than fair use/fair dealing etc would confer. Which is the same as anyone else, so they wouldn't "inherit" anything specific.
This is distinct from inheriting a physical object which happens to contain the information for a copyrighted work and where one does not need to copy it in order to use it. We can debate that last point when it comes to DVDs and CDs but it's fairly well established that the implied license to use the content is transferred with the object.
That would seem to me to be the logical out working of copyright law as I understand it but again IANAL.
|
Yes, that's precisely the problem with digital goods - they are intangible.
One specific example: I'm a keen photographer, and the program I use to manage my photographs is, like most serious photographers, Adobe Lightroom. If I'd bought Lightroom on DVD, I could resell it, but I didn't buy a DVD, I bought a download. This is a completely intangible thing. I can't resell it, and I can't transfer it to another person.