The music industry is in deep dog-doo.  They just haven’t figured out which breed the dog is.  Or where it went!

Register now to win a Canon EOS 500D

The courts pointed to a number of important components in the agreement between Autodesk and any purchaser of their product.

Despite the shrink-wrap license claiming that the software was licensed to the purchaser, the following was observed:

1. All references to the transaction referred to ‘purchase.’

2. The entire payment was made up-front – surely a license would involve continued payments.

3. Autodesk’s own website referred to a variety of “purchase options” and alluded to “buying on-line.”

4. Even more damning, a reseller’s website offered a choice between “buying” and “leasing” the software, where leasing clearly suggested regular payments.

The ruling of the judge was that there exists a genuine sale occurring between Autodesk and the purchaser.  Any reference to the transaction being a license was simply not borne out by either the facts of the transaction or the attitude of the vendor.  At least one commentator made the (very obvious) duck analogy.

This means that DCMA does not apply. 

Ouch! 

Further, if DCMA doesn’t apply, a purchaser is free to disassemble, reverse engineer, re-use as they see fit. 

Double ouch!!

For the various parts of the recording industry, this important, no, this is critical.