Escept that you are not paying for the software. Only the license to use
it.
Some courts would disagree with that:
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine
:
: Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a
: sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point
: where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The
: licensed and not sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th
: Circuits while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus
: leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit
: Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit
: Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v.
: BNETD (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have
: not been resolved by the Supreme Court.
:
: Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions
: applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in
: Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
: even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale. In the
: Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many
: programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems,
: Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court
: ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what
: the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA.
: Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as
: sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other
: words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have
: the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation
: when buying a CD or a book.
And just to be fair:
: In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights
: [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)][1], the US
: District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling
: which appears to contradict the position of the district courts in
: California and Texas. The first sale reasoning of the Softman court was
: challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only
: triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not
: forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing
: agreement." In addition, the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which
: prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants
: .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by
: clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe.
: The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a higher court.
