Now, you may not be moved by this particular example. Mr. Tague bought a high-end network device used for $4000 instead of new for $60,000; he’d still be getting a good deal if he paid the extra $15,000.
But what is there to stop other companies from extending this same concept to other products, effectively eliminating secondhand sales of anything containing electronics?
Automobiles - Every modern car has a computer inside that controls the engine mixture, automatic transmission, etc. The computer runs proprietary software copyrighted by the auto manufacturer. Couldn’t Ford or GM demand license fees from people who buy used cars containing their copyrighted software?
Consumer Electronics - VCRs, DVD players, televisions, microwaves, wristwatches, cameras… these days, anything you can think of has a microprocessor in it, and just like engine control units, they run copyrighted software. If you can’t legally use the software, you can’t legally use that TV or camera from eBay without buying an expensive license from the manufacturer.
CDs, Movies, and Other Media - Surely you’ve heard that you aren’t really buying the music when you buy a CD, you’re just buying a license to listen to it. The first sale doctrine says that generally, a copyright holder can’t control the sale of a copy once it leaves their hands, but if NetApp can squeeze around it, so can Warner, Sony, and BMG. The industry has already toyed with the idea of charging royalties for used CD sales.
So, on to the debate.
Should consumers worry about having to pay “relicense” fees for used cars, electronics, music/movies, and other equipment, or will this remain limited to the business sector?
Should manufacturers be able to exert this kind of copyright-fueled perpetual control over the products they sell, or should the “first sale” doctrine be clarified to prevent this? (Or perhaps it already prevents it: is NetApp bluffing?)
'Course, you don’t have to limit yourself to electronics in this debate, if the assertion I’ve read here that publishers wanting to outlaw used bookstores and charge royalties to libraries (to profit from copyright) is true…
Tracking sales of CDs and books could be extremely difficult, unless it was sold in a store. Unless the device communicates in someway with the manufacturer, how could they be certain that the item has been relicensed? For example, if I sold my VCR to a friend, it would be an undetectable “crime” because, unless her house was searched, who would know?
There’s a distinction to be had here. In many of your examples, you are speculating about companies extracting additional fees simply on resale of the item. That is different from the NetApp case - they weren’t saying he didn’t have a right to buy the resold box. He was approaching them to purchase a service contract. Whether it is smart policy or not, NetApp is entitled to attach such stipulations to selling their services. “First Sale” does not apply. Possibly, he could service the unit himself, or have an independent contractor do it. I don’t know if non-NetApp maintenance is feasible for the unit in question, but the principle still stands. If it ISN’T feasible, and he was effectively buying something that he knew he would have to negotiate a contract with NetApp in order to use, he should have researched their terms first.
There could conceivably be an analogy with your automobile software if you seek to have the car serviced by a dealer. It would be unwise of auto manufacturers to institute such a policy. As it is, many of us will pointedly quit taking a car to a dealer for service once it’s off warranty / free service agreements.
True, for that example. But look at this one a little later in the article:
It doesn’t say whether “expecting” means Cisco has made legal threats, but it’s still a chilling thought. Cisco isn’t asking for him to pay relicensing fees as part of a service contract - they want him to pay just because he bought a used router.
Isn’t the issue not the software license fee but the need to have a maintenance contract?
The Cisco rep was making sure that because the “used” nature of the unit it was up to spec. If you want to continue to use the used router without a maintenance agreement, then do so. There isn’t any law against it. Just don’t call Cisco to fix it. When I worked in a large Cisco shop, I would have bought used, because I did almost all of my own maintenance, down to board swaps problem maintenance and software upgrades. Did I need a maintenance agreement? Just to get replacement boards and IOS updates. But we did, just in case.
Car makers tried something similar to this a number of years ago. They were hoping to push a law through Congress which said that for any car younger than 7 years, you had to buy parts from the dealership. The various parts stores got together and successfully lobbied Congress to keep that from happening. If manufacturers continue to try to squeeze money out of folks who buy things second hand, you can bet eBay and others who make their living off of selling second hand goods will unite in opposition to it.