U.S. Court: Software is Owned, Not Licensed

So, let me get this straight. I own a piece of software, therefore, I can copy it as many times as I like and sell it?

Sounds good to me! Thanks, U.S. Court!

if that becomes the case, companies will not be able sell software because they will only sell one copy.

Licensing? Do these software companies take us for fools? I paid the money for the pretty Windows box and the software inside, I walk out of the store with the package in my hands. That's ownership.

^
No. How I interpreted it, is they were saying that if you buy a piece of software/license and you sell that software, the license transfers to the new owner.

my comment was directed at precariousgray. I was just slow hitting submit, I guess =)

this is huge if generates enough awareness due to the precedent that was created; it could be that the end of stupid DRM is near, as any owner of any piece of software, including games, would be entitled to make his own back-up copy and install it on multiple systems.
I hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, but I only hope that an avalance of such lawsuits, or even a few class-action suits will follow; the most important thing is to raise awareness about this and tell anyone you know and has been burned by DRM issues...

I don't think that spending $100 or so on something that cost millions to produce makes us owners of that something, but I would say that we should be owners of one copy of that something or 3 in a family pack or whatever . We should not be able to reproduce and sell our copy, but we should be able to sell our one, or however many copies without keeping another for ourselves.

I'm not sure I like the tone of this article, especially the "ridiculous gobs of money". Software costs "ridiculous gobs of money" to develop and support. I'm not even too happy about the "transfer of license" ruling; unlike most second-hand items, used software is just as functional as new software. There would be little to no incentive for a user to buy a new copy of used software was available. Autodesk should be entitled to a percentage at minimum.

"ok, people own software, everyone thank Autodesk for bringing this to our attention"
Microsoft,apple and every other software company then stares down Autodesk and beat him when he walks out.
i will be happy when i can install windows and office as many times as i want.

Ummm.. I believe this means, if you own a software, and decides that you don't need it anymore, you can sell it (permitting that you are not going to use it anymore) - hence, the transfer of ownership.

This does not mean that you can just install on many PCs at once. (The ownership has been transferred, so you cannot use it legally)

One copy, once license, yours to do as you wish. Period. No illegal copying and distributing. You own ONE copy. If you have TEN "legit" copies of a program, lets say... boxes and all, then you still have TEN legit copies to sell as you wish.

So I can choose to SELL my copy old of Windows XP after I upgrade to Windows 7?

You all hear that??? that faint plopping sound accompanied by a groan... it's the sound of every software CEO collectively crapping their pants.

In all seriousness though, there is no way this ruling will stand for long, and not to the extent we all wish it would. Sure some smartass end user might take it to mind to install his single copy of Windows 7 on all three of his computers, and try to throw it on his brother's and girlfriends computers to boot, and he will be denied. And when he finds a daring enough (or bored enough) lawyer to take the case and attempt to start a class action lawsuit again M$, guess who can afford bigger guns...

It's a nice idea, but let's not all go getting bonerrific at the idea that WGA and other DRMs are going to be disabled anytime in the next 5 years.

...and it should work without a hitch on the new owner's PC, correct?

Well, it's good to know that "ownership" implies ACTUAL ownership, not some fantasy legal interpretation thereof, and that, therefore, given the article states "Software is Owned," that means I should be able to do as I please with the software in question -- such as copying it a million times for distribution. If I am unable to do this, then the software is not actually owned, and therefore, it seems Toms Hardware editors' horrible writing skills strike again.

I look forward to many thumbs down for my rational interpretation of factual information.

I Agree. If the software is truely owned, then it can be modified, cracked, copied, and resold in any shape or form from the "owner"

I think it's fair that they can limit the amount of machines you put the software on. You don't buy a car, then duplicate it so everyone in the family can have one. and really, the only distinction between doing this and just putting it up on a torrent is that you're "only giving it to your other computers... and your family... and your really good friend..."

which really isn't a distinction at all.

also, I don't think the article was saying you can't license software, what they were saying is that if you sell a license to someone, they OWN that license, just like they would own any other product sold. this gives them the right to sell THEIR license to another person, which - just like any other product - means you no longer own the license, the person you sold it to does. however, I don't think they were having a go at the other terms of a license - including install limits - basically what autodesk was trying to do was give out a "license to use a license", which the court naturally found was stupid.

wow, the software companies arn't gonna let this decesion stay. And, with XP... I bought it and have installed it over 20 times WITHOUT any crack. The secret? When your 5 licenses expires, don't auto-connect to the internet. Instead call microsofts automated phone service. It works every time! I've only been asked once or twice if I had used the key before and I just say no and they give me the activation key.

A car cost billions to design and a lot to buy. It's not licensed to me. The same with the hardware. It really doesn't matter how much it cost to develope the CPU, once I buy it as a consumer it's mine. To claim that software is any different is idiotic. They provided a product I said, sure, bought it and now it's mine. It's their job to make up what they spent to research it by selling enough of them. Software companies however seems to be of the idea that they're only licensing their product to us, we don't own them but they don't take any responsibility of them if they cause our hardware to malefunction, other then patching it. They can't have it both way.

Naturally that means that if I buy a copy I only have the rights to use it on one machine, but it doesn't matter if I copy it in return in order to have a backup. Some people abuse it and sell their copies to others, some people abuse it and tries to install it on other systems. It's up to the manufacturer to decide whether or not they should create some kind of 'block' to stop a user from doing that. Other then that It's my copy and it remains that until I throw it away or sell it.

well this is good news for psystar in their case against apple. it mean they were right and apple was wrong.

All I can think is that this is a good thing because this might prevent more Spore-like and Mass Effect-like DRM from being created since we have the right to say they are limiting the use of something we own.

Not to say there probably isn't a way around it taking into consideration that large corporations probably can get out of a lot of stuff if they try hard enough and throw enough money at it but at least this might be a strong deterrent.

Also whats with all the negativity no matter what this is good for the consumer and unless you have some kind of financial ties to the software companies this doesn't affect you much and even if you are it doesn't affect you much since it was never illegal to sell software that you owned. All this really changes is that the software companies can't get on our backs about selling the software we bought.

ability not right* correction in first paragraph