[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Sun vs first sale
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 02:08:05PM -0400, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> Eric Seppanen writes:
> > Interesting, but offtopic:
> >
> > http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml;?cid=82431
> >
> > Sun seems to think that they can shrinkwrap-license away first sale.
>
> More precisely, their legal theory is that no sale has taken place, so
> the first sale doctrine doesn't apply. As the actual license
> agreement, at
<snip>
> This theory is common to a *lot* of software licenses, BTW.
Sure, I'm aware of that. But few companies are so bold as to say "no
transfers", and this is the first time I've heard of "no transfers even if
you sell the machine it's installed on".
I agree with the reasoning that if it looks and smells like a sale, it's a
sale. Solaris isn't exactly sold at K-mart in a box, so they're a little
tougher to nail on this point.
My main beef is that this is, in my opinion, a total perversion of
copyright, which used to be defined as a set of "limited" rights. It
ruins the whole purpose if you can escape the "limited" part by printing a
bunch of legalese on the package. The courts found it ridiculous when it
was printed on paperback books, and they should find it ridiculous today.
The idea of publicly distributing something for money, and getting legal
protections under copyright law, should totally preclude the "seller"
tacking on a list of one-sided, arbitrary conditions. The day someone
takes shrink-wrap/click-wrap "licenses" to court for the purpose of
restoring consumer rights I'll be jumping for joy (and donating to their
legal fund).
Hm. Must've woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning :)
Eric