[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:45 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-09-20, David Kastrup <> wrote:
>>>     They should have gotten a visit from the BSA and the guy on Ebay should
>>> have been left alone.
>> Uh, they _were_ defendants here.  The "guy on Ebay" however can't well
>> be left alone to sell the infringing copy of the original full version
>> pretending that the buyer can still run it with a license from Autodesk.
>> If he sells them as interior decoration items, Autodesk would have a
>> problem hassling him for it.
>     Only one person should be on the hook for this shenanignan.
>     The reseller can't control the actions of the original owner. He
> should not be held responsible for the illegal actions of a 3rd
> party. This goes equally for the guy the guy on Ebay as it does for
> Blockbuster or anyone else that rents or resells software.

Sorry, but bartering stolen or not legally usable goods is not something
that is magically possible.  I have once bought a used laptop (via ad),
skimmed it for old data (some people do not know the value of a low
level format), contacted an obvious previous owner by Email and asked
him about the history of the computer.  It took a while for him to
respond since his desktop computer had also been stolen.  So the laptop
was confiscated: whether or not I had been innocently buying it from the
person who might have knowingly got it from the burglar does not matter.
Of course, I had the right in return to demand my money back from the
peddler since he pretended to sell a laptop that was his own.

In this particular case, the insurance had reimbursed the original owner
already, and it made me a quite good deal for buying the laptop from
them (it just took a whole lot of time and effort to get it back from
the police).  So after the peddler had paid me back some monthly rates
before disappearing from the landscape altogether, I had made a better
deal than the original one.  But I could have gotten off much worse.

>      It doesn't even matter if the architect was bragging about being
> a pirate.

> The architect alone should be the only one on the hook here. Otherwise
> the resulting precedent is nasty and has even more nasty implications
> for the future.

Wittingly reselling software that has no longer a valid license
agreement under the false pretense that it does, is fraud.  In any way,
it is not available to be sold in this manner, and consequently should
be withdrawn from the market before even more people get drawn into
transactions under wrong pretenses.  Having it withdrawn is done by
court order, and obviously by taking it from the person that currently
has it in possession.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]