It would suggest that if you buy software that comes on a DVD it is yours to sell on......but if you download software then you are deemed to be renting it...and can't sell it on.
It would suggest that if you buy software that comes on a DVD it is yours to sell on......but if you download software then you are deemed to be renting it...and can't sell it on.
Not directly related but just to say something similar.
I purchased a PC download game for my son recently via Paypal which then wouldn't run, Paypal refused to refund me because there was no physical disc, if there had been a disc to return they would have made the refund.
Paypal deemed this software not to really exist and so therefore they had no reason to refund, even though the games manufacturer failed to provide a game that would work properly.
This has nothing to do with Canon so I expect it will be moved.
If you download Adobe Photoshop or their other software, then you can sell it. I have done it with Adobes approval and register it in the new name. Adobe change the owner for me.
This might effect Canon users that also use software (most I suspect) and as the ruling is generic therefore it can be utilized by any company that generates a product that is sold as downloadable data. This is the first time a court has made such a ruling so it is hard to know what Adobe might do in the future in this new legal environment.
Had I been a Nikon user I would have posted it on there.
To the OP, your making a very generalized statement about something which is not correct. Whether you purchase a DVD or download a program or any digital work the right to use and resell is dictated by the end user license agreement. That specific license agreement covers your rights and obviously in this specific instance Apple's download license is single authorization to use the artistic work between the original purchaser and the owner.
It's about digital music tracks originally bought from Apple Inc’s iTunes website. And you can't apply that ruling on all software. It's not at all the same thing
anthonygh wrote:
This might effect Canon users that also use software (most I suspect) and as the ruling is generic therefore it can be utilized by any company that generates a product that is sold as downloadable data. This is the first time a court has made such a ruling so it is hard to know what Adobe might do in the future in this new legal environment.
Had I been a Nikon user I would have posted it on there.
I don't agree And even if you where right. The ruling does not apply for software in your or mine country. Or 99% of the countries...........
anthonygh wrote:
This might effect Canon users that also use software (most I suspect) and as the ruling is generic therefore it can be utilized by any company that generates a product that is sold as downloadable data. This is the first time a court has made such a ruling so it is hard to know what Adobe might do in the future in this new legal environment.
Had I been a Nikon user I would have posted it on there.
By that logic, posting a toilet paper review is within reason, as it may affect canon users who make bowel movements.
Sarsfield wrote:
I've been looking for one that doesn't pill when wiping. Anyone have any recommendations?
Is this the beginning of the Canon vs Nikon toilet paper debate? Much like the camera discussions, will this one be focused on which can pull up more details from the low end?
The ruling linked makes sense because there is no current way to transfer a license from an iTunes song, at least that I know of. You would have to copy it and then sell a copy. Who knows if you still have a copy of the original. At least with physical media, or a license key, if transferred, the original is either gone, or becomes inactive.
I do know that people in the video game industry are extremely worried about this because the used game market is big $$$, and if everything is done via download, then you really cannot take that download to the exchange and sell it. At $60 a copy for games, plus any expansions people buy, that is a big deal to the bottom line of many game makers.
It's up to the facilitator to allow (or not allow) users to transfer their 'digital assets'. There's no duty or law that says they have to allow it, not right now at least. Someone pointed out that Adobe allows it, I doubt Apple, Amazon, etc. currently allows you to transfer your songs/e-books/etc. from one user to another.
Many decades ago, book publishers tried the same trick. They used to print in the books a notice that the book could not be resold, lent, given away, put in a new cover, etc. They lost big in court and you never see those notices.
It would suggest that if you buy software that comes on a DVD it is yours to sell on......but if you download software then you are deemed to be renting it...and can't sell it on.
That's a foolish argument, especially coming from a photographer. Software, music, AND PHOTOS typically aren't purchased, those products are licensed, which means the creator specifies how their product can be used. Method of delivery means nothing. That would be like saying if I delivered a photo to a publisher by DVD they are free to resell it any way they want regardless of the license behind that sale.
Photographers had better brush up on intellectual propery law or they run the real risk of contributing to the demise of the very industry they are in.
Monito wrote:
Many decades ago, book publishers tried the same trick. They used to print in the books a notice that the book could not be resold, lent, given away, put in a new cover, etc. They lost big in court and you never see those notices.
it isn't quite the same trick. With a book you have a physical copy. if you loan it to me, you cannot loan it at the same time to Joe, your neighbor. Likewise, if you sell the book to Joe, your neighbor, you cannot sell it to me. This is different than a digital copy where you don't have a product key/license because you may have just duplicated the book and sold or loaned it to both of us.
Monito, honestly the only way that could have worked is if they had gotten people to sign an agreement during the purchasing of a book. Because it is naturally quite easy for an item to be passed from one person to another, nothing could really stop that.
With a digital copy the the access control or use is provided by a facilitator so it is always up to them whether to allow the 'asset' to be transfered from one person to another. It is not their prerogative or duty to allow this, and if a third party tries to do this, they can get into trouble any number of ways legally (because they are just copying the 'asset', not actually transferring it).
This is one of the things that keeps the value of digital assets down, people expect it to be 'cheap' and don't want to pay full price purely for the convenience. This is why, for instance, iTunes doesn't sell full albums, only $1. songs, and so on. Really one could make the argument that it is the best interest of the facilitator to allow these transfers if they want to charge full price for digital assets, but it really depends on their business model, etc.
