Piracy - Ilicenses

[EagleKeeper]

Mainly with respect to software.

A company/vendor provides a program/application etc to you at a set price with the EULA accordingly.

Assumption that the EULA states one system and/or one family use.

After using it; do you have the right to resell it and/or give it away to another person.

Second; if it comes with a license for multiple installations and you use 2 of 4; do you have the right to distribute those extra 2 that you did not use?

Third: Tied to #2 -when another person, has used all their legit/valid installations, should the unused installs be able to be transferred to them.


My point of view is that if a company has allowed only # licenses per distribution; those licenses have been paid for and are free to be reused. the expected fee has been paid for, for that installation.

If a company allows multiple installs/uses per the EULA; the extras are valid for distribution as long as the total used does not exceed the EULA.

 

[Evadman]

I think it's generally licenced for 1 person, or one family, or one piece of hardware.

For example, if licensed to 1 person, that person may install extras on separate machines so that each install doesn't have to be uninstalled before installing on another machine for ease of use.

If licensed to 1 computer (usually per CPU, such as server software) anyone can use the software on that computer.

In either case I believe it to be the right thing to do wherein once done with it, you can transfer the license to someone else via selling it. In some cases the EULA says you may not, but that is so very much a money grab, and I'm guessing probably not legally binding anyway, though IANAL.

Most software licensing is a PITA to work with. I really wish it was straight forward, easy, and fair for an end user.

 

[Craig234]

It depends on the details in the EULA.

In principle, I'll say though, that I think software is designed to be used by the buyer, and that there should not be any resell.

With books, the physical nature prevents any limitation on it; Three people want to read a book. Person one buys it, and sells it used to person 2, who sells it to person 3. The author and publisher lose out on the sales revenue they 'deserve' from two of the three would-be buyers.

Now, it's more compicated than that; there are tradeoffs, there are people who only sort of want to read the book who will buy it for a discounted used price but not new, who aren't actually lost sales. There's an economy for poorer buyers that gives them more access to the market as a benefit.

But something little noticed also is that if more people buy software the price can come down. Buyers of new have to pay more to subsidize the used buyers.

I view it more like a movie ticket - you are buying to experience and/or use the product. Buy a game? Great, buy it, play it, that's it. No resell.

I think that's 'fair' to the author and publisher - though also prices should come down accordingly.

To speculate, that's a reason we see the big discounts on Steam - you can't resell software you get on Steam, so they can sell it cheaper. (The fact we also see titles sell at normal list price seems like it's basic 'greed', that if people will pay that much, take their money).

As a societal issue, it sort of comes down to which tradeoffs you like. Better serving the needs of used buyers for that market efficiency? Or 'fair' rewards for the developers that further incent the development of more products which also benefits society but leaves more people without?

 

[Evadman]

The author and publisher lose out on the sales revenue they 'deserve' from two of the three would-be buyers.

Why do they deserve it? If I buy a car and resell it after 4 years, does Ford deserve a cut when I resell it? I hear that argument all the time, and I disagree with it completely. It makes no sense when looking at history.

The only minor difference is that a digital thing that is resold is still in perfect condition. When I resel a car, it may have different tires, or maybe a dent or 2, but it will still perform that which it was made for, transportation. What is lost when reselling a digital item, the 2nd buyer loses time. They are probably dealing with an older version of the item (when it comes to software) for example, MS Office 7 instead of the current version of 8. If the new versiojn is worth it, all users will buy the new version. If the old version will work for some folks, then I see no reason that the old version can not be resold to them.

It cost from moving from 1 user to 2 is approximately nothing, especially when offered only in digital format (no cd/dvd or media) so if software can not be transferred, it better get much cheaper and start approaching the cost to make it, as with all other industries. Bandwidth costs are about 2 cents per GB, which is the majority of the incremental cost for something distributed digitally. There's other things such as storage, but that is tiny on a per-download basis.

 

[Jodell88]

My take on it is simple. If it exist on a physical medium then it should be able to be resold.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How about multiple licenses that are not utilized.

4 installations allowed and only two used.

Can the other two be used outside?

 

[Evadman]

How about multiple licenses that are not utilized. 4 installations allowed and only two used.

Are you asking legally or morally? Legally, you have to follow the EULA of course.

But morally, my opinion is that if you buy software you should be able to use it however you wish. So if you buy say, Duke Nukem, you should be able to install it on any computer you own for your own use. You personally can not use 4 computers at exactly the same time, so my opinion is that you should be able to put it on all your computers so it is easy for you to use wherever you happen to be.

However, I don't think you should be able to buy software that comes with 4 licenses for your own use, use 2, and sell the other 2 to someone else. Basically, I think in general software is made for 1 person to use, and you should be able to resell it when you are done as a complete set. You got 4 because software licensing checkers need some way to stop the key from being used a thousand times, and 4 probably covers 99.9% of people since most users only have 1 (or maybe a desktop and laptop) computer.

The exception to this would be OS software, which should be on 1 piece of hardware at a time. It's a bit different between an application and an operating system. The OS is the interface between hardware and the user, so that is kind of tied to hardware, whereas application software, even software that costs tens of thousands of dollars, is not tied to bare metal, even though it may need a dongle or such for piracy protection.

 

[Craig234]

Why do they deserve it? If I buy a car and resell it after 4 years, does Ford deserve a cut when I resell it? I hear that argument all the time, and I disagree with it completely. It makes no sense when looking at history.

The only minor difference is that a digital thing that is resold is still in perfect condition. When I resel a car, it may have different tires, or maybe a dent or 2, but it will still perform that which it was made for, transportation. What is lost when reselling a digital item, the 2nd buyer loses time. They are probably dealing with an older version of the item (when it comes to software) for example, MS Office 7 instead of the current version of 8.

I think the car analogy is a false analogy. The car has (diminishing) value for many years - you can enjoy it all or sell the remaining value.

It's more like a movie theatre ticket - you buy one ticket, you watch the movie once, you don't then go and sell the 'used' ticket and cost the theatre a sale to the next guy.

A software package makes sense to sell to one person. The only value to 'reselling' it is to rob the publisher of the next guy buying it.

 

[Craig234]

My take on it is simple. If it exist on a physical medium then it should be able to be resold.

Well, then, they put a one-use key on the package required to use the software - so sell the physical media all you want, usable as blank media. OK?

 

[Jodell88]

I think the car analogy is a false analogy. The car has (diminishing) value for many years - you can enjoy it all or sell the remaining value.

It's more like a movie theatre ticket - you buy one ticket, you watch the movie once, you don't then go and sell the 'used' ticket and cost the theatre a sale to the next guy.

A software package makes sense to sell to one person. The only value to 'reselling' it is to rob the publisher of the next guy buying it.

You can't sell a used ticket in the first place, so your analogy is not a good one.

 

[Jodell88]

Well, then, they put a one-use key on the package required to use the software - so sell the physical media all you want, usable as blank media. OK?

What happens if I reinstall my OS? That wouldn't work out well at all.

EDIT: I'm asking that question with the assumption that you haven't resold the software as yet.

 

[Evadman]

I think the car analogy is a false analogy. The car has (diminishing) value for many years - you can enjoy it all or sell the remaining value.

Same with software. If I use a game for 2 years, it is now 'old'. No way I can sell it for the original $50 I paid for it. It depreciates starting the instant I buy it, just like most physical items.

The only value to 'reselling' it is to rob the publisher of the next guy buying it.

Why do you assume the guy who bought it used for $5 would have paid $50 for the new one? Excel 2000 will still do 99.9% of what Office 2012 can do, why is that last 0.01% worth the price premium?

You can't sell a used ticket in the first place, so your analogy is not a good one.

The movie theater ticket is also bad analogy because you are paying for more than the movie. You are paying to see it on a giant screen, with a better sound system, and using floor space of a movie theater. You are buying rental, setup, use, and a (hopefully) crack team of sound experts for 2 hours.

 

[Craig234]

What happens if I reinstall my OS? That wouldn't work out well at all.

EDIT: I'm asking that question with the assumption that you haven't resold the software as yet.

There are absoutely problems with what I said, albeit fixable problems (limited number of installs, restoring a credit when you uninstall, call for more installs).

My point was more to just counter the 'I'll resell it and too bad' tone I thought I was hearing - they can do things to counter that, but we should talk about what's right.

 

[Craig234]

Same with software. If I use a game for 2 years, it is now 'old'. No way I can sell it for the original $50 I paid for it. It depreciates starting the instant I buy it, just like most physical items.

That's a very fair point, but it's a somewhat different type of depreciation. A car has a finite durability - variable, but finite. It can be viewed as having that as a value.

Software on the other hand is exactly the same, in principle forever - its depreciation is more just as the market changes and older software loses value.

Here's another way of trying to keep this analogy:

A one-use movie pass is priced accordingly and has no justification for resell.

On the other hand, if you buy a 10-pack of movie tickets, and use 5 of them, I'm ok with you reselling the other 5 you haven't used. It has a value - 10 tickets - fine, sell some.

If there are 100 people who want to use a piece of software, I'd think it should be priced to fit that market of 100 - not to have a minority of them buy it, and resell and resell.

I don't see the justification. If we did it with movie ticket, the ticket might cost $50 - slightly more than now - while it gets resold for $40, $30, whatever. Pointless reselling.

Really what software makers are trying to sell is 'you can use this software for your own use'.

Similarly, look beyond movie tickets - if you rent the movie, you pay less but only get it for the rental period. If you copied it, that's why that's stealing. If you buy a DVD, you get unlimited viewing - the 'permanent movie ticket' - generally paying more than a moview ticket, but there's a reason they all have a license agreement for personal, non-commercial viewing only. You can't buy a DVD and then charge admission to an audience to watch it - that cannibalizes their theatre sales.

It's really all about 'what's fair and makes sense for the producer and consumer'. And generally not reselling software seem to me to fit that best.

The movie theater ticket is also bad analogy because you are paying for more than the movie. You are paying to see it on a giant screen, with a better sound system, and using floor space of a movie theater. You are buying rental, setup, use, and a (hopefully) crack team of sound experts for 2 hours.

Absolutely - but that difference is not relevant to the analogy (see the rental example also). What is relevant is the idea of the one-use ticket as a product, whether it's on a really nice screen or not, it just so happens to be, but doesn't affect the issue I'm raising.

 

[DaveSimmons]

After using it; do you have the right to resell it and/or give it away to another person.

It depends - Steam sale prices would probably not go as low if the license could be transferred to someone else after you finish with the game.

I prefer to have the trade-off of lower prices with no right of resale instead of having some law that every software license must be transferable without limitation.

Second; if it comes with a license for multiple installations and you use 2 of 4; do you have the right to distribute those extra 2 that you did not use?

It depends - a "family pack" license of 4 installs will usually be priced lower than a small business license for 4 seats, for two reasons:

- It's a different market, with different expectations of use.
- The family license might be priced with the expectation that on average only (say) 2.3 installs will actually take place.

Even with a business license for 4 seats, the EULA probably prohibits you from setting up a timesharing operation where the licenses float and are used 100% - 24/7 by people at different companies.

In short, pricing on licenses, both singles and packs, reflects a combination of what the market will bear and the expected use of the license (Edit: which also affects which the market will bear - i.e. the value that users assign to the software).

In some cases users would benefit from an unrestricted license transfers, but I'd expect another result would be higher prices.

Edit: and for myself, there are many cases where I would prefer not to pay an extra $5-20 for a game or $100+ for a work product just to add the right to resell.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've always considered EULAs to be garbage, and I generally ignore them. As far as I'm concerned, if I buy any retail product -- including software -- it's mine to do with as I please ... except I cannot create unauthorized copies. I treat it just like a book, that I can sell or give away as I see fit as long as I do not keep a copy.

Maintaining that analogy, if it's something like an OS that runs all the time, I think I need to purchase one copy for each piece of hardware in use. (I do feel free to move an OS to a new system if I retire an older one.) If it's an application like a utility or a game, I feel entitled to install it in as many places as I want as long as I don't use more than one copy at a time. When it's something several people in the family may use simultaneously, e.g., a game, then I buy one copy per unique system + player.

If I buy software that is active simultaneously on multiple systems, e.g., anti-virus, and the vendor allows 'n' copies, I would honor that limit and treat it as applying only to systems I own. In other words, I would not give one copy to a friend, but I would install one on the PC I bought and maintain for my mother. I applaud those companies who offer reasonably-priced "family" licenses, and generally respect their restrictions.

Note that all of this is my opinion on what is right. I recognize it is often quite contrary to ridiculous EULA restrictions.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That's a very fair point, but it's a somewhat different type of depreciation. A car has a finite durability - variable, but finite. It can be viewed as having that as a value.

Software on the other hand is exactly the same, in principle forever - its depreciation is more just as the market changes and older software loses value.

Realistically software has finite durability as well. I could theoretically still use the copy of IBM DOS that I bought in 1984 with my very first computer, if I could find a working 5.25 disk drive, but just how much use am I really able to get out of it? It is a lot like that truck I bought the same year, if I had kept it I guess could store some of my stuff in it, or used it as a really big flower pot, but realistically it no longer has any value to me. They have both fully depreciated due to the end of their usefulness.

It's really all about 'what's fair and makes sense for the producer and consumer'. And generally not reselling software seem to me to fit that best.

But software is not like a movie, in a movie everyone gets generally the same value out of it. Some might like it more then others, but they each got ~120 minutes of entertainment. On the other hand I use MS Excel extensively, for me it is worth every penny of the MS Office package. Adobe Professional I hardly ever use, but I do have to have it on occasion. I don't need the newest and greatest version of Adobe, I can get away with a year or two old version, so this is a prime candidate for buying used.



The real problem is this attitude that we owe something to the developers of these products. You can't own information, and that is all software is, information. Long ago we made an agreement with creators that we would allow them some short period of exclusivity for their work in order to let them make a living off of it. We recognized then that the work did not belong to them, it belonged to the world, but we wanted to encourage them to make it. Now we seem to think that information belongs to people, and they have a right to make money off of it, even long after it has passed it's usefulness. This is insane. We are allowing people to own our culture, our heritage, our society.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The real problem is this attitude that we owe something to the developers of these products. You can't own information, and that is all software is, information. Long ago we made an agreement with creators that we would allow them some short period of exclusivity for their work in order to let them make a living off of it. We recognized then that the work did not belong to them, it belonged to the world, but we wanted to encourage them to make it. Now we seem to think that information belongs to people, and they have a right to make money off of it, even long after it has passed it's usefulness. This is insane. We are allowing people to own our culture, our heritage, our society.

We wanted to encourage them to create, but I disagree that we "recognized then that the work did not belong to them".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
---
Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted ...
---

And:

Word is not our culture or heritage, it is a product that Micorsoft has spent billions to create. Without ownership of this "information" it would not exist. The same with PhotoShop and most other non-trivial creations. A modern game can cost $5-15 million to create.

Society has an interest in protecting the work of companies like Intel, Microsoft, pharmaceutical companies, and Pixar. To me the valid argument is over how long that protection should last.

 

[Craig234]

Instead of beating the horse of software/movie/book, I'll respond to this:

The real problem is this attitude that we owe something to the developers of these products. You can't own information, and that is all software is, information. Long ago we made an agreement with creators that we would allow them some short period of exclusivity for their work in order to let them make a living off of it. We recognized then that the work did not belong to them, it belonged to the world, but we wanted to encourage them to make it. Now we seem to think that information belongs to people, and they have a right to make money off of it, even long after it has passed it's usefulness. This is insane. We are allowing people to own our culture, our heritage, our society.

It's a Goldilocks issue. Too little protection removes the incentive for them to create the things that contribute to our "culture, our heritage, our society". They just don't get made.

Too much protection prevents their use by others in society and deprives people for the sake of typically companies and estates, to continue hoarding profits.

This resell issue typically is not outside any reasonable period of protection - but 4 weeks after a game is released as someone plays it and then prevents another new purchase.

It's not on object, it's intellectual property.

In my opinion, the technology for digital duplication is the greatest threat to that 'culture', the creation of intellectual property, in the world.

For the first time, anything can be copied cheaply.

 

[SMOGZINN]

We wanted to encourage them to create, but I disagree that we "recognized then that the work did not belong to them".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

The Statute of Anne also provided that authors only had the right to those works for a limited time (28 years maximum.) After that they belonged to the public. Why limit the time that a work can be 'owned'? Because they understood that creative works belonged to the world, and needed to be set free.

Word is not our culture or heritage, it is a product that Micorsoft has spent billions to create. Without ownership of this "information" it would not exist. The same with PhotoShop and most other non-trivial creations. A modern game can cost $5-15 million to create.

MS Office is indeed a part of our heritage, just as the cotton gin is. And people would and do make software with out such incentives. Would MS Office exist with out copyright? I don't know, but people do create even when they have no financial incentive to do so.

Society has an interest in protecting the work of companies like Intel, Microsoft, pharmaceutical companies, and Pixar. To me the valid argument is over how long that protection should last.

Again and again history has shown that companies like Intel, Microsoft, pharmaceutical companies, and Pixar have little need of protection and instead it is we that need protecting from them. Disney did well with copyright protections only a fraction as protective as they are now.

It's a Goldilocks issue. Too little protection removes the incentive for them to create the things that contribute to our "culture, our heritage, our society". They just don't get made.

I don't agree that they don't get made, but I do agree that it is in our best interest to help creators make a living off of creating.

Too much protection prevents their use by others in society and deprives people for the sake of typically companies and estates, to continue hoarding profits.

I think we are well past that point.

This resell issue typically is not outside any reasonable period of protection - but 4 weeks after a game is released as someone plays it and then prevents another new purchase.

This is a part of first sell doctrine. Once I buy something, it is mine to do with as I wish, including reselling it. So, here is two contradicting ideals. In cases like this I think we have to side with the public. The goal of IP protection is to give the creators a chance to are able to continue to create, not to let them maximize profit.

It's not on object, it's intellectual property.

The two are increasingly coming together. It is getting hard to decide what is IP and what is an object. Companies that produce certainly try to argue which ever benefits them best at the moment, and that is part of the problem. We are getting the worst of both.

In my opinion, the technology for digital duplication is the greatest threat to that 'culture', the creation of intellectual property, in the world.

If the internet has shown us anything it is that when you can quickly and effortlessly copy anything culture only expands. People are creating more creative works now then ever in history.

For the first time, anything can be copied cheaply.

We have struggled with this since Gutenberg invented his press. The only real difference now is that we have a powerful group of people that care that things can be copied cheaply.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The real problem is this attitude that we owe something to the developers of these products. You can't own information, and that is all software is, information. Long ago we made an agreement with creators that we would allow them some short period of exclusivity for their work in order to let them make a living off of it. We recognized then that the work did not belong to them, it belonged to the world, but we wanted to encourage them to make it. Now we seem to think that information belongs to people, and they have a right to make money off of it, even long after it has passed it's usefulness. This is insane. We are allowing people to own our culture, our heritage, our society.

I think you're leading yourself astray both in saying that software is "only information" and that being "only information", that somehow means it doesn't represent hard work that should be protected.

Software is only generically "information" if you use that term in its broadest sense. But if you do, then you can also say that every book ever written, every recipe crafted, every photograph taken or trademark created or ad slogan devised -- they are all just "information" as well. But without protection for content creators, they don't create any of those works that we value, appreciate and benefit from.

It's worth pointing out that it is not possible to copyright something that truly is "just data". For example, if I have collected the high temperatures in New York City every day for the last ten years, that information may be valuable to some people, but it can't be copyrighted.

It is the expression of information that represents intellectual property. And that's what software really is. It's a manifestation of countless hours of research, design, development, testing and support. If people can just take that hard work for themselves and the people doing it get no compensation, well, they aren't going to do it.

If the internet has shown us anything it is that when you can quickly and effortlessly copy anything culture only expands. People are creating more creative works now then ever in history.

But intellectual property protections exist on the Internet. Creators get benefits from its wide adoption, but also struggle with thieves who take things without permission.

We have struggled with this since Gutenberg invented his press. The only real difference now is that we have a powerful group of people that care that things can be copied cheaply.

It wasn't really that cheap back then. it has been getting cheaper and now it is trivially simple and practically free. Thus the concerns and reaction and (sometimes) overreactions.

 

[Fern]

I've always considered EULAs to be garbage, and I generally ignore them. As far as I'm concerned, if I buy any retail product -- including software -- it's mine to do with as I please ... except I cannot create unauthorized copies. I treat it just like a book, that I can sell or give away as I see fit as long as I do not keep a copy.

Maintaining that analogy, if it's something like an OS that runs all the time, I think I need to purchase one copy for each piece of hardware in use. (I do feel free to move an OS to a new system if I retire an older one.) If it's an application like a utility or a game, I feel entitled to install it in as many places as I want as long as I don't use more than one copy at a time. When it's something several people in the family may use simultaneously, e.g., a game, then I buy one copy per unique system + player.

If I buy software that is active simultaneously on multiple systems, e.g., anti-virus, and the vendor allows 'n' copies, I would honor that limit and treat it as applying only to systems I own. In other words, I would not give one copy to a friend, but I would install one on the PC I bought and maintain for my mother. I applaud those companies who offer reasonably-priced "family" licenses, and generally respect their restrictions.

Note that all of this is my opinion on what is right. I recognize it is often quite contrary to ridiculous EULA restrictions.

Exactly my attitude.

Fern