Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fenrif]

So RPS has this article about the EU court of justice ruling that digital sellers can't prohibit you from reselling things. Which means that if you live in the EU and you buy games online (say from steam, origin, xbox live?) you are perfectly within your rights to sell that game on once you're done with it. I can only assume this also further strengthens consumer rights regarding reselling used physical copies of games, something the industry is generally trying to discourage or outlaw as best they can.

It also seems to say that schemes like the EA online pass, which requires pre-owned buyers to pay more money to EA to access the full game are illegal.

Publishers and developers have been steadily trying to erode their customers rights for years now, and it's honestly surprising to see someone pushing back for us.

[freeformschooler]

By "can't prohibit", does this mean if a service doesn't have functionality in place for reselling digital downloads (like Steam) then they have to implement it in the EU? If not then I don't see much changing.

But otherwise this is awesome. It's an irksome part of digital downloads that I was pretty much ready to live with.

[fenrif]

I don't actually know. I'd assume that at the very least steam would have to start letting you resell games you allready own if you buy a bundle?

They may not have to impliment a whole new peer to peer selling interface and infrastructure, but I imagine they'd have to do something like let you de-associate a CD key with your account and then let someone else use it? I guess a lot of it depends on how it's enforced, and I'm sure the games industry will try and appeal it or whatever the process is in this situation. But it's a definate step in the right direction at least.

[Dariush]

1) Start a company that buys used games for 50% of their cost and sells at 80%;
2) Profit.

[10ebbor10]

I fear this might result in more problems. Producers changing their EULA's to a subscription system for one, and such.

As it seems to me, it states nowhere that they should implement systems for resale, just that they can't prevent it.

[Dariush]

And what would prevent you from selling your subscription?

[Shadowlord]

“Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.”

But that's not what happens, the EULA says so :V
You only buy a license, you don't actually own the product which you are holding in your hands and/or have downloaded.

[nenjin]

I see this pitting EU courts against the global entertainment industry, spearheaded by 'MERICA!

[fenrif]

EULAs are kinda bullshit. Certain rights cannot be signed away, and EULAs are pretty hard to enforce since you have to buy the product and put the disc in before you can even read them. They're basically an attempt to change the way consumer laws work after the transaction.

And in a situation like this, where the EU court is saying one thing an the EULAs are saying another... Well I think the EU court has slightly more weight in the discussion than Activison or EA.

I'm fairly certain (though I'm eating my tea at the moment so CBA looking for any sources) that EULAs haven't really got a history of being upheld in court.

I see this pitting EU courts against the global entertainment industry, spearheaded by 'MERICA!

The global entertainment industry pretty much is America. Isn't the majority of the US exports like entertainment products? And I'm sure that those wikileaks from last year said that the mysterious global wave of anti-consumer pro-entertainment industry laws were pretty much directly from US pressure?

[freeformschooler]

“Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.”

But that's not what happens, the EULA says so :V
You only buy a license, you don't actually own the product which you are holding in your hands and/or have downloaded.

EULAs don't always hold up in court, especially when they're dumb. That said, it remains to be seen whether this is true for the new ruling.

[0x517A5D]

Well, when The Law collides with a EULA. the EULA loses.  That's why EULAs always have a section saying that if part of it is found invalid, the rest still stands.

But case law is not quite The Law until it's appealed and upheld by a higher court, or it's referenced by several other cases.  So who knows if this will stick.

Personally, I hope it does.

But... this is the EULA I generally agree to:

Short and sweet, isn't it?

[lordcooper]

Thoughts, in chronological order.

1. Sweet!
2. I can probably make like a grand by selling off games I no longer play.
3. This could spell the end of massive Steam sales in the EU.  Being able to buy a game at 25% the normal cost and then sell it at >50% would lead to people stockpiling insane amounts of copies.
4. This may actually be a really fucking bad thing for developers.  Second hand physical games generally have decreased value due to wear and tear.  This isn't an issue when it's digital.  A group of people could purchase one copy of a game between them and simply keep selling it to each other for a ridiculously low price whenever they want to play it.
5. This entire thing can be avoided by companies selling you a 100 year license for the game instead of transferring ownership.  In practice, this would be no different to how things are now.  Unless you want to play Shogun 2 in 2112, which is pretty unlikely.

[LeonL]

EULAs are kinda bullshit. Certain rights cannot be signed away, and EULAs are pretty hard to enforce since you have to buy the product and put the disc in before you can even read them. They're basically an attempt to change the way consumer laws work after the transaction.

Agreed, but software licensing has existed pretty much since the beginning of the industry. After all, you're not selling something physical, but instead are selling something that can exist in any format as long as there exists a target platform that can process the data. The disks that the data comes on isn't important for a license.

So, drawing out to the potential conclusion: does this mean holding a license is as much a form of ownership of a product as possession of a book, title to a vehicle, etc.?

The global entertainment industry pretty much is America. Isn't the majority of the US exports like entertainment products? And I'm sure that those wikileaks from last year said that the mysterious global wave of anti-consumer pro-entertainment industry laws were pretty much directly from US pressure?

No, but it probably wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the US is one of top, if not the largest, entertainment exporter. Without looking at the numbers, I'd say that entertainment is one of the larger export industries of the US. However, a quick search shows it's not even in the top 10 (numbers from 2008).

Overall, I congratulate the EU courts for making this ruling. The problem will be making the software companies (all kinds) follow through with this. I can certainly see Microsoft and Steam having two sets of rules for their customers: one for the EU and another for other markets.

[BigD145]

By "can't prohibit", does this mean if a service doesn't have functionality in place for reselling digital downloads (like Steam) then they have to implement it in the EU? If not then I don't see much changing.

But otherwise this is awesome. It's an irksome part of digital downloads that I was pretty much ready to live with.

Not having resell functionality built in WOULD be prohibitive. You would not have the option to resell.

[Meta]

“Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.”

But that's not what happens, the EULA says so :V
You only buy a license, you don't actually own the product which you are holding in your hands and/or have downloaded.

Actually the EU judgement is about license reselling! Hehe.

This ruling makes me happy. I'm sensing more fun in the future. Muahahahaha.