tanker27 wrote:BAH, Really. Please cite the LAW in its fullest.
And this Just in case you THINK you know the law.
Thanks for the very informative post.
TurtlePerson2 wrote:By the way, were you the one who started the anti-Steam troll thread a few months back? I want to make sure that I'm actually participating in a discussion and not just feeding a troll.
I.S.T. wrote:l33t-g4m3r wrote:Steam blatantly price gouges
I'm sorry, what?
l33t-g4m3r wrote:Also, retail boxes that sell games with steam are illegal. That violates the first-sale doctrine
thegleek wrote:Firestarter wrote:Get something like Keepass
Been using that for years. Best password management utility. ever.Firestarter wrote:store your password database on Dropbox and change all your passwords for great justice!
Now, THAT doesn't sound good to me at all. I would -never- trust anything I have to be stored with dropbox, or any public storage cloud. Even if the db file is encrypted.
Glorious wrote:It is not the inherent and natural right of man to be physically able to resell a work.
Most people couldnt even begin to articulate what they mean.
tanker27 wrote:Someone fails to understand first-sale doctrine does not apply to software. And fails to recognize the courts that back it up.
Some software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related Supreme Court cases.
Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (a box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruled that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.