Justification for dongle change

think thes are the crucial lines. You say website access is indivisible from the license. But see the word 'if'. I think this only applies when website access is necessary to use the software. But when the seller provides the files, what do you need website access for? You already have anything you need. Updates? As far as I know these are available for everyone to download on Jiri's site. So as far as I can see, you don't need Jiri's cooperation to sell or buy second hand unencrypted sets.

I don't say it - this is the judgment of EU Court of Justice, the highest EU court. It is nothing to do with playing an organ, or what I as a purchaser need in order to do that, it is that the "copy" that is sold is to be legally interpreted as everything the original purchaser benefited from as part of the sale. I do realise this is not what most people expect!

Having regard to that indivisible link between the copy on the rightholder’s website, as subsequently corrected and updated, on the one hand, and the user licence relating to the copy, on the other, the resale of the user licence entails the resale of ‘that copy’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24,

Perhaps an analogy will help you. When I buy a secondhand car, Ford or Citroen cannot say "nothing to do with us - you have the car - drive it". They must make all the updates, service, warranty etc available to me since this was part of the original purchase. They have been fully paid for it. So they must deliver it to the first and any subsequent purchaser. If it breaks down within the warranty period, or the SatNav software expires, they must fix it for me and provide access to their website for me to download the new SatNav software. And they do. Reluctantly, perhaps - I am sure they would like to charge extra for it as they do in some other jurisdictions - but they respect and abide by the law.

Sample set vendors are not selling a "sample set'. They are selling access to a web site, samples, updates, support etc. And everything that is included in the original sale is also sold on. And if the original rightholders choose to use a website to do business they must make it available to all subsequent purchasers. It doesn't matter whether purchasers "need" it.

You may not like this line of reasoning but it is the law.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer either and even no legal expert of any kind.

I realise that, and nor will most readers of this thread be. I do understand that the law is often not what one expects or is confusing, which is why I am trying to clear the confusion and explain the issues as straightforwardly as I can on this site.

Hope this helps

- Adrian.

Adrian, thanks for your clear explanation, it's about time we had somebody on this forum who knows the law. I have tried (and failed miserably) to find anything resembling legal texts that would either prove me wrong or right. Aside from the "Jiri issue", how do you feel about these same laws being applied to MDA's decision to refuse ver 4 license transfers?