UsedSoft’s business model hinges completely on reselling used packages or legally obtained license keys for them.
This whole thing hangs on the part in the quote I’ve highlighted, this ruling only counts for software with a license key, AKA serial number, it doesn’t count for software your “leasing” from a company. So while you could resell DS and any plugins you might have bought, it stops you from selling any content you’ve bought as without a license key you don’t actually own it, DAZ/Rendo etc and the vender’s are the owners, you just have an indefinite lease allowing you to use it.
The whole point of the EC judgement is you can sell the lease, license keys are just another form of lease/contract.
I agree with DWG. We do not lease 3D models (as an example) from DAZ. It’s clearly a sale (of a licence). As Charles Russell say, the ruling applies “where that software is made available to a customer for an unlimited period for a single up front licensee fee”.
Ways to avoid such a “sale” would be to “make licences time limited or only available in return for regular smaller payments” or by “making software available as a cloud service (i.e. not a licence)”.
Poser 7 when I bought it had a license like a book, you can pass it on to another but it can only installed on one computer at any given time.
Daz studio and other Daz software allows multiple installs whithin the same household.
for me the content is all on the one external drive with zips and installers scattered throughout various dongles and drives and if I wish to use my laptop instead of my desktop on VERY rare occasions, I simply use that drive.
Obviously I CAN pass my copy of Poser 7 to another if I completely unistall it according to the license but content is certainly a very grey area and if DS4 ceases to be free to buy whether or not one can sell the program is questionable under the EULA.
Some of my content came on magazine discs, I have wondered if I pass those discs to another and cease to use that content which does not appear in my order history if it is legal, indeed I actually rebought some of it when on sale and in the case of some figures, free in the hope that if my brother ever showed an interest in 3D, he could have those discs and an included copy of DS3 with its own serial, sofar though a moot point as not in the least interested!
Also with the book “figures, Characters and Avatars, have wondered if I unistall and cease to use the content and programs on the disc, it can be passed on, again sofar not likely but I did too grab a bit of the content on that seperately on sale (and I mean very cheap in a prev platinium sale, namely V4 &M4; complete) mostly so I could have it in my order history but in theory enabling me to pass the book to my brother if I uninstall any other content from it, ie the pad and other stuff.
The ruling may hold true for software purchased and sold within the EU but neither DAZ nor SMS are based in the EU.
Where the claim that it can be sold in the EU fails is the fact that the original purchase is made in the US.
As for DAZ content, just because it has an installer doesn’t make it software. It is not an independent program. It cannot do anything without either DS or Poser.
As far as selling software and content, in order to make it marketable, the seller would have to undercut the original owners.
Not to mention, how would anyone know if someone selling DAZ content sell it once or a dozen times?
Where is this any different from the torrent and other sites that offer content?
The ruling may hold true for software purchased and sold within the EU but neither DAZ nor SMS are based in the EU.
Where the claim that it can be sold in the EU fails is the fact that the original purchase is made in the US.
As for DAZ content, just because it has an installer doesn’t make it software. It is not an independent program. It cannot do anything without either DS or Poser.
As far as selling software and content, in order to make it marketable, the seller would have to undercut the original owners.
Not to mention, how would anyone know if someone selling DAZ content sell it once or a dozen times?
Where is this any different from the torrent and other sites that offer content?
How can anyone know if you exceed the speed limit or dodge your taxes? It’s illegal, and so is selling the same software license twice, or not uninstalling sold content from your own computer. Read the link posted earlier.
According to UK solicitors Goodwin Proctor:
“For Directive 2009/24 to apply, the first sale must occur within the European Union and the exhaustion right only applies within the European Union” (my emphasis). I don’t think a purchase from DAZ counts as a sale occurring within the EU (for customers from the EU it is an import—we do not pay VAT on it, for one thing).
But Oracle, whose software the trial was about, is a US company? I suppose that means that it’s about where the software is bought or downloaded (European Oracle reseller or division presumably), and not who produces it.
Well…. regardless of what laws are changed in various places….everyone who purchases content here makes an agreement to not redistribute… that should be enough, imho.
To be honest as a seller I don’t see it would make much difference to me. I trust my customers wouldn’t be dishonest and if they wanted to assign their rights to someone else I’d happily allow that.
Though as a consumer I’m be more concerned over the point Richard makes. Switches to the subscription model. I don’t like that.
Being forced to buy every month or getting content thats no use to me.
How is the opposite true? Truth = everyone agrees to not redistribute
Sorry, what I meant was that you can agree to an EULA, but if an item of the EULA is against the law in your country you must not follow it (at least if you are a private person, not a company).
I think it’s unethical to “sell” your purchased digital content because it’s far too easy to sell it to 2 people, or ten, or a thousand. All it would take is a few a-holes doing such a thing to force content creators to lock their files down so that it was either too complicated or too expensive for most of us to continue.
How is the opposite true? Truth = everyone agrees to not redistribute
Sorry, what I meant was that you can agree to an EULA, but if an item of the EULA is against the law in your country you must not follow it (at least if you are a private person, not a company).
The EULA is a contract between you and the company you purchase from.
If you violate the contract then you are liable.
It is that simple.
I think it’s unethical to “sell” your purchased digital content because it’s far too easy to sell it to 2 people, or ten, or a thousand. All it would take is a few a-holes doing such a thing to force content creators to lock their files down so that it was either too complicated or too expensive for most of us to continue.
This is where it being illegal to do so. If I wanted to I could sell what I have purchased and no one would be any the wiser, but it would be illegal, so I am not going to do that.
If I had the right to sell the items one time and then was required to delete the items, then that is what I would do.
The point I am making is there are people who are going to sell things illegally anyway, so what difference does it make.
