Kahle v. AshcroftMicrosoft Windows 3.1 -> 98 SE
originally submitted by Geoffrey Marshall:
Over the years I have bought numerous copies of Windows. I stopped with win98 and will buy no more as I am fed up with situation explained below.
Stifled uses
Geoffrey Marshall:
I have three kids with PCs. Over the years I have bought various games and applications which we would still use except for the fact that the original Windows media have become corrupt over time and are no longer usable. Since Microsoft declines to sell me another copy and demands I buy XP, I am in the position of having working hardware and software I can no longer use. The hardware isn't good enough for XP and many of the games and applications will not run under XP. Thus I have been denied the use and enjoyment of legally purchased property because Microsoft declines to sell copies of its older software. I know that in my position many people use pirated copies. Unfortunately I am an idealist and will not do that. However, that same idealism tells me that if Microsoft declines to sell me an old product (that meets my needs) and insists I buy a new product (that does not meet my needs and will not work) that the copyright should become void. Copyright should not be able to be used to prevent access to something. If a copyright holder declares something obsolete it should automatically become free of copyright.
Kolja Sulimma:
I read that in germany a court decided about a situation where a company using obsolete software wnated to increase the number of their employees.
It was ruled that as the copyright holder refused to sell them more licenses of the software the company was allowed to create their own copies.
IIRC there was no law allowing this, the judges just weighted the conflict in interest and came to the conclusion that the software was more important to the company than not copying it was to the copyright holder.
The article was in c't from Heise, the Author was probably attorny Stefan König.