Watchdog To Represent eBay Seller In Autodesk Suit 80
New10k writes "Following up on a recent Slashdot discussion, nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen has agreed to provide an attorney to eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor, who is suing Autodesk in federal court over misuse of the DMCA to stifle competition. The advocacy group has identified elements of the Vernor case as some of its key litigation priorities for 2007. The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."
Sorry for OT (Score:3, Insightful)
"The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."
I don't know what to think of that. Does working for MS tell you that there's more money and better job security in the IT field in the legal department than in development?
Re: (Score:1)
It's not MS, it's the world telling you that. Consider a company going down. Let's say SCO. Don't you feel more secure in the legal department? You can litigate till retirement. If they don't pay you, you can sue. And you already have plenty of experience with that.
Re:Sorry for OT (Score:4, Insightful)
People change jobs and careers all the time and to paint everyone with the same brush because of 1 person's decision is lunacy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Autodesk? Suit? (Score:5, Interesting)
The bastards, I would say! It's like trying to prevent selling used music CDs or used books. How long will we have to cope with companies 'selling' us stuff when they mean 'lending'. Either they let us SIGN a contract BEFORE we buy explaining how they want to deliver their product (lend it, lease it), or if they don't do that, we can consider it BOUGHT and our property. You can not in retrospect claim someone didn't buy (gain ownership) to the product if you didn't make that completely clear beforehand. They ask enough money for the product to make it sure look like you have the right to own it and do what you want with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Customer to shop: "I'd like to buy a copy of AutoCAD" Shop to Customer: "Sure. There's your copy. That will be $799" Shop to Autodesk: "We'd like to buy another 20 copies of AutoCAD" Bet you Autodesk don't say "Well we can only sell you a license" at this point. It certainly doesn't clearly say "License to use AutoCAD" on the box.
Re:Autodesk? Suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally they have a subscription service [autodesk.com] with a different pricing scheme [autodesk.com]. Autocad there is about 400 dollar I guess, it doesn't mention on what timespan, a year probably.
All this data on their own website points in one direction: for 4000 dollars you buy the software package after which you own that copy of the software package, to do what you want with it. For a subscription price you can buy a subscription where you don't own the software but it makes sure that during your subscription they 'lend' you the most recent software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The licensing of software is not unusual for very expensive software, especially when external IP is involved. If Autodesk licenses certain IP from external sources, they are obligated to track it's use explicitly through their own licensing policies.
One might make
Re: (Score:2)
An individual stand-alone license entitles the purchaser to run an Autodesk® product on a single workstation. Its an ideal solution for individuals and small workgroups because it doesnt require centralized license management.
Your Autodesk product may be installed and activated on one additional workstation, such as a home or remote workstation, provided that the workstations are not used concurre
Re: (Score:2)
...are used exclusively by the same person...
So its per machine *and* per concurrent seat *and* named individual licensed? Reading that I would assume that if I buy one copy of AutoDesk and have two part time architects use it on the same machine (At different times of course) that I am violating the license.
I hope I am totally wrong, and I doubt that anyone will shy from pointing that out in the most direct fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
"Software Products and services
sold from this online store are only licensed for use within US and Canada. Training materials, books, manuals and e-courses are available for sale worldwide."
So wait, are they selling it or licensing it? The language is obviously ambiguous. They should be more up front about their policy, no matter what the standard is in the industry. If the court
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's an appeal to popularity. It's still wrong. If I lose my copy of Autocad in a fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.
Re: (Score:1)
> fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.
That's an interesting assertion you're making. What evidence do you have to back it up? I suspect you're just projecting your own sense of fairplay. Based on my dealings with Autodesk, I feel fairly certain that they would confirm your license and send you a fresh copy. I've not tested this theory, though.
> Irrelevant. Once could also argue that the high price warrants bett
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.
It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay. And if they use a credit card to pay for it they can dispute the charge, make a chargeback, on the CC. Though I
Re: (Score:1)
Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
Caveat emptor.
Everyone wants
ethics (Score:2)
Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
True, sellers and eBay should be ethical and held accountable. That's true in all walks of life. As for eBay's practices, I don't k
Re: (Score:1)
Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Verno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In "the good old days" (I've worked with AutoCAD since about '86) you bought the product, and had support for it; when a new release came out you could upgrade for the difference in price- for example if Rel.9 was $1400, and Rel.10 was $1550, your upgrade cost was $150. If you skipped a couple releases no problem, you paid the total difference. If you wanted to transfer your license to someone else, you'd inform AutoDesk and i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Autodesk does nothing more evil here than Trolltech.
Furthermore, it is quite common knowledge
Re:Autodesk? Suit? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If the issue is copyright (read copy right) and no copy was made, how can someone claim that their right to copy has been violated?
Re: (Score:2)
Numpty or troll? (Score:2)
Distribution of the copy you own is completely different to making & selling multiple copies. What you said here could apply to a book, video, etc. Do you not own the books you have?
Are you a complete numpty or merely a sad troll? I'm guessing troll, with a dash of clueless fuckwit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what ownership means.
No, that's what being the copyright holder means. Owning a box, manual and CD/DVD means that I can sell that on to anyone I choose and no-one can stop me.
Or would you equally argue that the shops that carry software don't own it? Somehow I don't think you would get very far using that as a defence if you tried walking out with it without
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And for some reason you seem to believe that you can't sell some property that comes with a license.
What happens if the shop that bought AutoCAD burns down? What do they claim from their insurance: 1 copy of AutoCAD? Or do they tell Autodesk: "Hey, your CD-Box which we happened to license from you just burnt down, please do your own claim!"
Re: (Score:2)
Look at domain names. You never own one. When you grt right down to it you're licensing them. And you sure can resell them.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not as if you can go to most companies these days and buy an old version of software to install on older equipment. It's the newest version or no version. That also means buying a new computer when you don't necessa
Re: (Score:2)
They might as well sell computers than only run Autocad etc.. the licensing terms are equivalent to OEM software. Oops, you want to SELL the computer? Sorry, can't do that!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hint #2: There is such a thing as legal second-hand Autodesk software, because their draconian license agreement is bunk, as this lawsuit aims to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
disclaimer IANAL
The license may not extend beyond the first purchaser (that's a contractual agreement assuming everything is done correctly in the license) but the license very likely does not extend to the physical medium (box, CD, etc) on which it was shipped. Without knowing the exact terms of their license the buyer probably does own the CD and can resell it for whatever amount of money they desire. The license is probably not provided p
Re: (Score:1)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-record-shops-used-cds-ihre-papieren-bitte.html [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." - Darth Vader and, apparently, the Copyright Empire.
There is nothing you can't do if you have sufficient power and ruthlessness. Since money represents power - or, to be exact, resources - in a capitalist system, and since corporations are both rich and amoral, there is very little they can't do.
Re: (Score:2)
"You know it really isn't funny;
my software costs you money.
My software isn't free!
Read E.U.L.A. For Suckers
then pay up, you mothertruckers!
All your base are belong to me!!! "
eBay's the guilty party here (Score:3, Interesting)
They could have done a bit more to research this propperly, as the DMCA assumes, but the real problem here is that eBay just ignores any complaints about blatantly obvious (and provable) warez offered on their service without having to resort to legal measures.
Their own Vero service which is supposed to help in this department is a total sham; I've never even gotten response or noticed any actions being taken despite sending clear evidence that warez were being offered.
To me, the guilty party is eBay, for not taking any responsibiliy in upholding their own anti-warez policy. The only way to get eBay to stop being a warez middleman is by sending out DMCA's and with the sheer amount of warez on eBay, it was only a matter of time before this would happen.
I'm not saying Autodesk is innocent here; technically, they should have done the research. Just saying that none of this would have happened if eBay just did what their policy claims.
Re:eBay's the guilty party here (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in that case, Autodesk is in the wrong. The DMCA requires them to declare that they "a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials [...] is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." To have such a belief, I'd say they need to do more research than just bulk sending takedown notices without checking if there's anything to imply the belief. "Good faith" requires them to make reasonable efforts here.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
In one case someone hijacked a seller's account with positive feedback. The fraud ads were for expensive lab equipment in Georgia, but the account previously only sold hundreds of home accessories from Ohio. eBay did not even respond when I pointed this out.
In another case, someone just duplicated an ad for $20,000 piece
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically?!" Are you not aware that Autodesk's lawyer perjured himself by sending a fraudulent DMCA notice? That's a felony, you know! Unfortunately, the odds are next to nothing that he'd end up getting prosecuted for it, but still...
Not Relevant (Score:2)
About Time (Score:2)
I'm starting to get what they say about ebayers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't let one represent me nude. I have dress standards!
Re:I'm starting to get what they say about ebayers (Score:1)
Great choice of ads, slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are ads on Slashdot? [adblockplus.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway, didn't you know that using adblock is both morally wrong, ethically wrong, a copyright violation, stealing and terrorism (in some areas). So there.
(there may be some sarcasm in this post, if you cant find it try looking at the text after the 137th character)
ads (Score:2)
There are ads on Slashdot? [adblockplus.org]
Forget about using ad blocking software, instead use a Host file [wikipedia.org]. Here's a good article on using one for Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [mvps.org]. Google [google.com] has some links where you can download a Hosts file, all one is is a text file listing IP addies you want blocked.
Falcon
From career at MS to lawyer??? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't sell or forfeit it, he licensed it with a condition which allowed him to terminate the license at will, which he did to relicense it under similar but reworded license.
The precious anti-VERO fight (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/OurFight.shtml [tabberone.com]
It's a wealth of information for the self litigator.
~ f
Re: (Score:2)
This is the coolest thing I've read in a very long time. I thought I knew a little about copyright and trademark law but had no idea that stuff produced by slave or force labour invalidates copyright.
Nice to see the little guy take on a handful of huge companies and win fairly consistanly by simply pointing out that what these big companies do it flat out illegal.
Laws at Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
California has a law that if a company guilty of fraud and they are sued, they can be forced to transfer all profits from that fraudulent activity to the plaintiff. I believe last year that some of the teeth surrounding this law were removed partially because people were using the law to extort money from small business owners all around the state - but given the fact that AutoDesk has done the same thing to the same guy 7 times I would bet they are in a bit of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Well well now!!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
THANKS! (Score:1)
Why is eBay subject to DMCA takedown provisions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Under what theory does the DMCA apply to eBay sellers? Unlike YouTube, eBay hosts no copyrighted materials. (For simplicity's sake, let's leave aside trivial objections like when a seller's advertisement includes a photograph of a copyrighted work.) Is the claim based on some extension of the Grokster decision, arguing that eBay somehow constitutes a "contributory infringer" if it hosts an auction for copyrighted materials? That seems to run squarely up against the first-sale doctrine. If I buy a book, there's no reason why I can't resell it on eBay.
I realize that the Autodesk case is more complicated since it brings into play issues of licensing vs. ownership, the enforceability of EULAs and the like. The only way I could see eBay being charged with contributory infringement is if they knowingly encourage the sale of illicit copies of copyrighted works. Even then, I think it's a hard case to make. In Grokster, the Court's argument rested largely on the fact that Grokster explicitly encouraged infringement by distributing its software application and hosting advertising on its website. How does that apply to eBay?
This could be the end of "physical" software... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Downloaded, Burned, Sent via Morse Code and Signal Fire, I dont care. If they cant be bothered to confirm its a lisance and not an actual product, they can get lost.
Vero...my own personal Auction... (Score:1, Interesting)
**PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR LISTING(S)**
We would like to let you know that we removed your listing:
3627618857 Autodesk Discreet 3D Studio MAX R3.1 Bundle
because a Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program participant notified us, under penalty of perjury, that your item infringes their copyright, trademark, or other rights.
We have credited any associated fees to your account. We have also notified the bidders that the listing(s) was removed, and that they are n
Damn (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)