This limitation on resale-ability poses legal questions regarding the rights of buyer-owners to resell their games. In the US, there is such a thing as the "first-sale doctrine," which basically gives the initial purchaser wide-ranging rights to the use of the product they've bought, including the right to sell it to a new owner. While we don't have the same doctrine in the Philippines, we nevertheless adhere to the bundle of rights theory inherent to property ownership, including, among others, jus disponendi (right to dispose). Therefore, at first glance, such limitation appears to contravene prevailing rules.
Intellectual Property and Ownership Rights
A recent case in the tech world is Vernon v. Autodesk. Promulgated by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 10, 2010, the ruling disabuses the notion that “if you bought it, you own it.”
To simplify the issue: X bought a used copy of software from a garage sale and subsequently sold it through eBay. X claims that he owns it and thus has the right to sell it. The copyright owner, however, claims that it merely sold the license and thus the ‘garage seller’ had no right to sell it to begin with since it violated the former’s copyright. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the copyright holder. I’ve yet to fully understand the legal niceties of the decision but it seems to point towards the limited rights that software owners have. Unlike a book that can be bought and resold by the buyer, software, being a licensed creature of the law, seems to operate on hallowed ground. With this decision, the dictum is qualified, viz.:“if you bought it, you own it... but you certainly can’t sell it.”
---
Intellectual Property and Human Rights
Previously, all an authoritarian regime had to do to censor dissenting organizations was to send in the troops, raid their offices, and wait for ‘accidental deaths’ to hit the headlines. Today, we’re shown a more creative mode of quashing dissenters. What if the government employed a corporate software giant in censoring free speech under the guise of enforcing intellectual property rights?
I’m referring of course to the Microsoft and Russia fiasco that’s recently surfaced through the New York Times. In sum, Microsoft appears to be Russia’s partner in shutting down organizations under the subtle but potent guise of ‘curbing piracy.’ The move reads like a classic page from our own dictator’s erstwhile playbook. Where Marcos used the judiciary to legitimize his more sinister acts against the country, Russia appears to be employing the shadow of the law to censor those who would stand against government policies. The Kremlin seems to think that intellectual property rights trump human rights on any day of the week. That, by itself, isn’t surprising; the fact that Microsoft favors the argument is.
