[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Alexander Terekhov]

BTW, after Vernor v. Autodesk there was UMG vs. Augusto:

http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/


See also:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html


Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek <
pamela at chesteklegal.com>:

> On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes the act of running/using software
> unrestricted and 17 USC 109 also severely impedes ability to control
> distribution as far as copyright is concerned. So, you'll have to stick to
> contractual covenants and fight against
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach ... good luck with that :)
>
>
> In both cases, only if you are the owner of a copy. "Licensees are not
> entitled to the essential step defense." *Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.*, 621
> F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). It is a rare decision that holds that a
> party is an owner of a copy of software rather than a licensee.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190714/4c095f06/attachment.html>