I legally purchased some software for teaching the spanish language. I’ve completed the course so I attempted to sell it on ebay. Today I get a notice from ebay telling me that my auction has been removed for violating the copyright. Don’t know what action if any I can take.
Update: I received a reply to my email asking to reinstate the auction. It is so ridiculous to spend $300 on this crap and you can’t even sell it when you are finished.
Here is the email:
Your auction on eBay was removed because you are not an authorized reseller of Fairfield Language Technologies products and you are in direct violation with our End User License Agreement that is included
in every product we sell. Unauthorized distribution is a copyright act violation. Rosetta Stone software is licensed, not sold. You purchased a license to install and use the program. The EULA (End User License
Agreement) is included on the application disc used to install the program.
There are two primary ways copyright may be violated. One is by making a counterfeit copy. The counterfeiter must destroy it to rectify violation of the copyright. This is not your situation. The other means of violation is by sale or distribution without authorization by the
owner of the copyright. The unauthorized distributor must cease sale or marketing of our software to avoid violating the copyright. This is your situation. Thank you for your compliance on this issue.
That is something have a hard time understanding. When you “buy” software you really don’t get anything but the permission to use the software and even then it is only as allowed by the EULA. You own nothing, you own a CD but not what is on the CD.
That is the interpretation of the law but the same can apply to books, cds and dvds, basically anything with a copyright.
I’ve learned my lesson, next time I’ll do a one day auction. Maybe that will be quick enough to sell before they can remove the auction. Also, I’ll be giving them a negative rating on Amazon. The company has also lost any hope of me buying one of their products again, which I probably would have still used before this incident.
your right, it can but people who sell books generally don’t publish them with an explicit EULA that says if you break the wrap on this book you agree to… There have been people who said that in theory you could buy a used car that was worthless because someone could write software for the car that was not transferable. It is crazy but with software there is little you can do since they all do it.
Yeah it kills me, and they wonder why people pirate software. I spend a lot of money on software, but from now on I’m probably going to choose a lot more carefully and spend a lot less.
Not sure how the software works, but there’s various reasons why they wouldn’t want you reselling the software:
-
You are able to do a complete install of the software on your computer, so you don’t need the disks anymore; or
-
You are able to make a copy of the disks to keep for yourself and keep using the software, then you resell the original disks.
Unless the disks are so well copy protected that you can’t make a backup copy, then anytime you buy software you could just copy it to you for yourself and then resell the originals. If everyone did that then they wouldn’t sell too many original copies. I don’t see it as too unreasonable, software is still quite a bit different to other more “tangible” products. I could see the same argument being made for DVD’s or music CD’s, but I think pirating issues have always been a huge problem with computer software so it’s a bigger issue (relatively) for software houses.
Even if you think the cost was expensive, just be happy you completed the course which means you probably got your money’s worth. I think you’ll find most people buy language courses with the best intentions but for many reasons they never end up even getting half-way through them.
Well, if I had known I would have just bought audio cds. The program wasn’t really that much better and cost much more. So no, I don’t think I got a good value. And it’s just as easy to copy a cd than this software, yet you see used cd stores all over.
And it’s not just that I couldn’t sell it that made me very angry. It’s the fact that the company just revoked my auction without even trying to contact me.
If they were smart, which they are not, they would have offered me some kind of upgrade at a discount for trading in the old software. That way they make more money and they don’t piss off the customers.
This is an interesting discussion…my wife put on three pairs of jeans from a high end label and they were retracted, without telling her, retracting all of her other auctions as well. Needless to say, this pissed both of us off and ebay will not talk to you, you have to email them and wait 2-3 days for a email reply. Apparently, the label looks at thier product on ebay and decides if someone is selling a fake, they then tell ebay to cancel the auctions for that seller, no questions asked. They did not bother to see the positive feedback on my wifes account nor to inquire about anything. I am not sure how this is going to pan out but it is a serious problem for ebay and might make me list somewhere else. my 2cents
Your mentality in this situation is part of the reason that prices are high. You wanted it, you bought it - dont bitch you cant sell it! Do you bitch that you cant sell your piss after you drink costly wine? Do you try to resell toilet paper? Why should you be ALLOWED to resell someones intellectual property?
The problem is intellelectual property is not limited to software. As the previous poster found out it applies to anything copyrighted, even jeans. Just about every product sold, not only software, has some type of intellectual property.
Suppose you spent $5000 on a bike but you decide a few months later you don’t like it. You try to sell it on ebay and the manufacturer pulls your auction because they don’t want their product sold by anyone except an authorized dealer. Would you be happy?
As an IP lawyer, this is a very interesting issue to me. I was not aware of eBay’s policy (I have never sold anything on eBay), and it does seem to be very inconvenient to persons making legitimate sales.
In most cirsumstances, neither copyright law nor trademark law should prevent a person from reselling an item the purchased legitimately from the copyright/trademark owner or licensee. This is due to a legal principle called the first sale doctrine. Basically, this means that the copyright/trademark owner loses the ability to restrict what happens to an item once they make a sale. For example, the jeans in the previous post. The owner purchased them from a legitimate licensee of the trademark owner. The TM owner cannot now restrict the owner from reselling these jeans, because its TM rights are exhausted after the sale to the current owner. Therefore, so long as the jeans are legit, the current owner can’t be restricted from selling them.
Software is different, because it is typically licensed, not sold. When you purchase Adobe Photoshop, the idea is that you purchase a license to use the software; you do NOT purchase the software itself. Because it’s supposed to be a license, you are bound by the terms of the license agreement, which typically prohibits any transfer of the license to another person without authorization by the copyright owner. The law is not completely settled on whether these shrink wrap licenses are valid, although the current trend is to find that they ARE. So, despite the fact that it sucks, you don’t necessarily have the right to resell software you purchase (or should I say license?).
The jeans, on the other hand, should be able to be resold. Unfortunately, eBay doesn’t ask questions. They just pull a disputed item and make the parties work it out. If the company doesn’t want to permit the aution, then you’re out of luck unless you want to sue them.
That’s interesting. One thing I noticed on the software I purchased is that the license agreement is only available when you install the software. It is nowhere to be found on the packaging or documentation. When installing, you have the choice of whether you aggree with the license agreement or not. If you choose no and did not install, are you bound by the license agreement and would this prevent you from reselling the product even though you never agreed with their terms?
Now THAT’s an interesting question. I’m not sure of the answer to that, and I’d need to look at the packaging. VERY good question. I think I might see a law review article in this subject.
Thanks for the info. As a non-IP lawyer, I vaguely remembered the first sale doctrine from law school, but the fact that a software sale is actually only a license does make a big difference. It seems, though, that the purchase from a retailer is not actually the purchase of a license, but only the purchase of the right to obtain a license, should the purchaser agree to the terms of the agreement. If the purchaser does not agree to the terms of the license, then the purchaser is left with nothing and, therefore, nothing to resell. The only remedy it seems would be to seek return of the purchase price from the retailer.
“The program wasn’t really that much better and cost much more. So no, I don’t think I got a good value.”
Did you buy the software direct from Rosetta Stone?, if so, you may get a refund.—
from the website:
http://www.rosettastone.com/home/support/returns_faq
Our guarantee is virtually unheard of in the software market. If you are not completely satisfied with our product, simply contact our sales department for a full refund. The product must be returned and received by us within 6 months of your purchase for a refund to be granted.
 **Does the guarantee apply if I purchased the product through a vendor other than the Rosetta Stone?**
Unfortunately, products purchased from other vendors are not covered by our guarantee. You will need to contact the vendor yo
Just a thought. Do you have the manuals to the software? Maybe you can sell the manuals on ebay, and if you happen to mention that the install CD might still be in them…
Thanks for posting that Steve. Another non-IP lawyer here who appreciates your post.
Please let me know if you find a law review article.