I always knew that. When you sell your system you're suppose to destroy all of your software.

From the article...

"So, to recap: EULAs are binding, they can control just about everything you might dream up, and only Congress can change the situation."

So what about EULA's that can't be read until after opening the software package?  Are the courts prepared to over turn store policies prohibiting refund for anything short of product fail? 

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

So how is the user gonna know they are buying a license rather than purchasing a copy unless there is mandatory labeling?  And what considerations have the courts made to ensure that a copyright owner doesn't revoke the license to require further payment?  Would we really be buying a license to use the product indefinitely? Or would we be paying for a leased license with future terms for renewal?  Oy.  I don't think I like the direction of this.

Caveat emptor.

Insist on reading the EULA before purchasing. WhiteElk asks some very astute questions that aren't really all that clear in the court decision.

Guess you have to be a lawyer to do or understand just about anything nowadays.

Still, thanks, Zu.

WhiteElk the customer who buys any product or service still is repsonsible to know and understand what they are entering into with the purchase.  If it's not clear to you then you need to ask questions before hand, in this day and age that would mean doing some research of the product or service online.  Yes it is time consuming.

No. It is Illegit. Simply because you shouldn't need an internet connection to buy software.

All this could be solved by putting the EULA on the box but, guess what? That would make sales drop.

Yep, it seems that the climate has changed such that reading the EULA prior to purchase may have dramatically increased in importance.  If the EULA is unclear, or is unavailable prior to purchase... well it may be best to just bag it.  The game Civ5 was a purchase I was assured to make.  Upon learning that a third party client was required, I researched into that company including the reading of their EULA.  The EULA was ambiguous and choke full of exploit.  But I gathered that this third party client has the unchecked ability to revoke my access to the software license I purchased.  They can do this despite not holding the copyright, and regardless of the vendor used.  I wasn't willing to grant them this power.  Upon research into alternate ESD methods I came to know about Stardock.   I'm gonna vote with my wallet on this issue.  Outfits like Stardock get my business. 

Simple solution is, stop Buying and then maybe things will change.  Would only take a few months if people did that.

Nothing has changed. It has always been a case of buying a license to use software and not buying the software. The disc is just media, it's not that you are buying.

That reality comes as shock to some people because they would rather believe their own opinion than fact.

The sad thing is under most EULA, the end user pretty much has no rights.

The EULAs are written so the average user can't understand them and as WhiteElk points out, some have a catch 22 to even read them.

I've read in some EULAs that the company can't be held libel for any damage that the software causes. In that case a PC manufacturer could legally install software onto a machine that could fry the hardware after a few years causing a need for a new PC purchase. While it sounds far fetched, it's bound to happen. Think of built in overclocking utilities that cause CPU burnout after the warranty expires. Most users would be oblivious to the cause and would blindly go out and by another PC...some from the same manufacturer.

CarGuy1 quickly puts his tinfoil hat back on

A great way to be a pain in the arse is to say you do not accept the terms of the EULA and demand a refund.   The part of the install where it says, "I agree"--just don't.    And then you go to the store where they say "sorry, we don't issue refunds", and you just say, "the hell you don't".    Like Best Buy will say, "we only issue refunds for unopened software".   But you have to open the software before they ask you to agree to their license.   They'll refer you to Microsoft (or whoever the manufacturer is) to get your refund.   And no--you didn't buy it from Microsoft.  You bought it from Best Buy.  Best Buy owes you the refund.  Use your cell phone camera to record the initial conversation.   Then you go to the state regulatory bodies.    Be a big enough terd, you will get your refund.   And if enough people did it, maybe software companies would start to get the message.

I've gone to the state before--not with software, but for things ranging between $500-$4000.   Let's just say it is highly effective.  Biggest motivator is that I hate to see consumers ripped off.  If it was just me it would be hardly worth the trouble--and that is exactly what they are counting on.   But the $4000 thing, that was my wedding.   I went to the Attorney General to bust up an antitrust ring.   I also went to the Zoning board since they were holding a commercial venue in a residential district.  I got all my money back from the venue and that venue is not in business anymore.

 Hey! Are you picking on poor old Vista again?

The ability to enforce has changed.  It is of no surprise to me that the law becomes more specific as DRM schemes evolve.  Services such as steamworks can outright prevent a user from accessing the software they've licensed.   All it takes is a few keystrokes from a remote terminal.   It is no longer a matter of a "boots on the ground" policing.  It becomes more pratical to enforce license restrictions.   Therefore, these restrictions are of an increased importance.  It is a notable change.

I agree, it sounds like something that needs challenged.  That or we just stop buying games. 

I really doubt this will change anything. People are still gonna sell second-hand software regardless of the license agreement. If not on eBay, then at at the very least to their friends. And no one can enforce that.

Unfortunately, the article itself uses hostile wording to skew the intent of the ruling. It also makes huge leaps from X to 1. *shrugs* As if all things, as Fuzzy pointed out, the devil is in the details of the case. It also implies a lot of false facts as if they were new and shocking.

So while a a valid news item, hardly as controversial and groundbreaking as the website would have you believe. It does as much to incite a moral panic as inform.