Can purchased content be resold?
natrix natrix
Posts: 0
Over the last 10 years I have purchased software and content for thousands of dollars both here at DAZ and at other stores. Now I have completely lost interest in rendering, and was wondering if I am allowed to sell all this stuff, for example on Ebay. Or easier still, can I simply sell my store accounts complete with saved downloads?
Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You would have to contact DAZ regarding the transfer of licenses for the software. Last time I asked about a transfer of license was back in the days of Curious Labs and they made it very plain that my bosses could transfer aka give me the license for P4 but they could not sell it to me.
As for content, no, I don't think so. I think that falls under the heading of redistribution and perhaps even copyright infringement. Most EULA's specify that you are purchasing the right to use the product. You don't actually own the product.
No. DAZ and other stores do not allow the resell of content or program liceneces
If you don't have any interest at the moment, why not just give yourself some time off?
I've never heard of anyone selling their account.
Thank you for your replies!
Just too bad, all that money wasted. With an "analog" hobby, I could at least have made some of it back :)
In Europe it has recently become legal to resell digital content regardless what the EULA says, so if you're located there it shouldn't be a problem.
In Europe it has recently become legal to resell digital content regardless what the EULA says, so if you're located there it shouldn't be a problem.
That is only true for a software licence. 3D content is not a computer program, it is a user file. The law in Europe refers only to computer software.
I actually do live in Europe. That's interesting! Does anyone have a link?
That is only true for a software licence. 3D content is not a computer program, it is a user file. The law in Europe refers only to computer software.
no no, it's for every digital file.
you can resell everything here if you have proof of owner ship and bills....
it's great of use :)
if you would stop your hobby... for something else.
i don't think ebay is the right place to sell this.
Take a look inside any Poser or Studio format file, that's clearly a computer programme. Poser and Studio are simply the interpreter through which they execute.
It's a ruling of the European Court: http://www.dw.de/oracle-loses-court-fight-over-software-resale-rules/a-16069323
Which means that we are likely to see increasing pressure to switch to subscription-based licenses. Definitely a Pyrrhic victory, assuming it holds up.
It may well require another case to establish whether the judgement applies to content as to applications but in the meantime, the DAZ position remains that content cannot be resold.
do you mean, monthly based subscribtion licenses to use 3d content?
no thx
that means the end for me.
The whole point of the EC judgement is you can sell the lease, license keys are just another form of lease/contract.
According to UK solicitors Goodwin Proctor:
"For Directive 2009/24 to apply, the first sale must occur within the European Union and the exhaustion right only applies within the European Union" (my emphasis). I don't think a purchase from DAZ counts as a sale occurring within the EU (for customers from the EU it is an import—we do not pay VAT on it, for one thing).
This ruling does specifically apply to computer programs. I think it's debatable as to whether the 3D assets such as those sold by DAZ are computer programs and I think this is something a court will have to decide, so I would not be attempting to sell 3D content (if, say, I had bought it in the EU) just yet.
Another UK law firm, Charles Russell, gives the opinion that "[t]he principles involved may well extend to other products which can be sold digitally, such as films, music and books" (my emphasis) so I think we will be looking at more court cases before the legality of re-selling downloaded content other than computer programs is established.
The whole point of the EC judgement is you can sell the lease, license keys are just another form of lease/contract.
I agree with DWG. We do not lease 3D models (as an example) from DAZ. It's clearly a sale (of a licence). As Charles Russell say, the ruling applies "where that software is made available to a customer for an unlimited period for a single up front licensee fee".
Ways to avoid such a "sale" would be to "make licences time limited or only available in return for regular smaller payments" or by "making software available as a cloud service (i.e. not a licence)".
Poser 7 when I bought it had a license like a book, you can pass it on to another but it can only installed on one computer at any given time.
Daz studio and other Daz software allows multiple installs whithin the same household.
for me the content is all on the one external drive with zips and installers scattered throughout various dongles and drives and if I wish to use my laptop instead of my desktop on VERY rare occasions, I simply use that drive.
Obviously I CAN pass my copy of Poser 7 to another if I completely unistall it according to the license but content is certainly a very grey area and if DS4 ceases to be free to buy whether or not one can sell the program is questionable under the EULA.
Some of my content came on magazine discs, I have wondered if I pass those discs to another and cease to use that content which does not appear in my order history if it is legal, indeed I actually rebought some of it when on sale and in the case of some figures, free in the hope that if my brother ever showed an interest in 3D, he could have those discs and an included copy of DS3 with its own serial, sofar though a moot point as not in the least interested!
Also with the book "figures, Characters and Avatars, have wondered if I unistall and cease to use the content and programs on the disc, it can be passed on, again sofar not likely but I did too grab a bit of the content on that seperately on sale (and I mean very cheap in a prev platinium sale, namely V4 &M4; complete) mostly so I could have it in my order history but in theory enabling me to pass the book to my brother if I uninstall any other content from it, ie the pad and other stuff.
again so far a moot point %-P
It's a ruling of the European Court: http://www.dw.de/oracle-loses-court-fight-over-software-resale-rules/a-16069323
Thanks for the link! I will research this some more.
The ruling may hold true for software purchased and sold within the EU but neither DAZ nor SMS are based in the EU.
Where the claim that it can be sold in the EU fails is the fact that the original purchase is made in the US.
As for DAZ content, just because it has an installer doesn't make it software. It is not an independent program. It cannot do anything without either DS or Poser.
As far as selling software and content, in order to make it marketable, the seller would have to undercut the original owners.
Not to mention, how would anyone know if someone selling DAZ content sell it once or a dozen times?
Where is this any different from the torrent and other sites that offer content?
How can anyone know if you exceed the speed limit or dodge your taxes? It's illegal, and so is selling the same software license twice, or not uninstalling sold content from your own computer. Read the link posted earlier.
But Oracle, whose software the trial was about, is a US company? I suppose that means that it's about where the software is bought or downloaded (European Oracle reseller or division presumably), and not who produces it.
Well.... regardless of what laws are changed in various places....everyone who purchases content here makes an agreement to not redistribute... that should be enough, imho.
The point is that the opposite is true.
The point is that the opposite is true.
How is the opposite true?
Truth = everyone agrees to not redistribute. (upon installation of any product from DAZ 3D, one is required to check a box agreeing to the TOU)
The opposite of that would be:
1. no one agrees to not redistribute
...or...
2. everyone agrees to redistribute
Neither of which are true.
"US court to rule on ReDigi's MP3 digital music resales"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851
To be honest as a seller I don't see it would make much difference to me. I trust my customers wouldn't be dishonest and if they wanted to assign their rights to someone else I'd happily allow that.
Though as a consumer I'm be more concerned over the point Richard makes. Switches to the subscription model. I don't like that.
Being forced to buy every month or getting content thats no use to me.
Sorry, what I meant was that you can agree to an EULA, but if an item of the EULA is against the law in your country you must not follow it (at least if you are a private person, not a company).
I think it's unethical to "sell" your purchased digital content because it's far too easy to sell it to 2 people, or ten, or a thousand. All it would take is a few a-holes doing such a thing to force content creators to lock their files down so that it was either too complicated or too expensive for most of us to continue.
Sorry, what I meant was that you can agree to an EULA, but if an item of the EULA is against the law in your country you must not follow it (at least if you are a private person, not a company).
The EULA is a contract between you and the company you purchase from.
If you violate the contract then you are liable.
It is that simple.
This is where it being illegal to do so. If I wanted to I could sell what I have purchased and no one would be any the wiser, but it would be illegal, so I am not going to do that.
If I had the right to sell the items one time and then was required to delete the items, then that is what I would do.
The point I am making is there are people who are going to sell things illegally anyway, so what difference does it make.
If that would be true no one would need to add the salvatorian clause to a contract.