EU Court Legalizes Selling "Used" Digital Games

[newdarkcloud]

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

This difference is that in this case, your legally obligated to deactivate your own copy.

But it's still a matter of passing off a copy of copyright-protected software to another person.

Not to mention that trying to apply the physical "used" label onto digitally distributed/replicated data is absurd.

I don't see why. You buy a license to play a game. Then, you decide later to sell that license to somebody else. Now they can play it and you cannot. In order to play the game, you have to go over to his house and play (assuming he will let you) or go out a buy a license again. Since we can assume that this license is, for all intent and purposes, property, we can subject it to the same barter laws all other property is subject to.

 

[Sushewakka]

It is good to see that, regardless of whatever idiocy publishers come with, property remains property. At least in the UE. I'm thankful I am an european citizen.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

When you sell a physical copy of a game/film/music CD it's based on good faith that while you could keep a copy for yourself you won't this is just the same thing.

There you go again, using 'logic' and 'reason' to counter a perfectly invalid argument.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh yay, Finally. Some sense.

 

[JediMB]

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

When you sell a physical copy of a game/film/music CD it's based on good faith that while you could keep a copy for yourself you won't this is just the same thing.

But in the case of an all-digital product, a copy is indistinguishable from an "original".

...However, now you've got me wondering if there's a market for used MP3 files.

 

[kitsuta]

Wow. So what company paid you to come post here? Either that or I really hope that's some major hyperbole going on there, because.... wow.

Hyperbole meant to highlight that the very concept of "used" data is ludicrous.

Not to mention that unless resale of digital games is handled directly by the digital distributor, you're technically committing copyright infringement when you pass the software on to someone else.

Although I kept legal language out of the OP, the ruling specifically deals with copyright law - it states that the copyright holder exhausts their exclusive distribution right upon first sale (provided that, as mentioned in the OP, they grant unlimited uses of the software and provide a copy to the customer), meaning that re-distributing the copy you bought does not infringe upon the original copyright. The ruling specifically states that the new license holder can download the software from the original copyright holder because those were the details of the case between Oracle and UsedSoft, but I do not believe this excludes obtaining the copy from the license seller directly.

 

[NightHawk21]

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

Surely there'd be a way of making sure any one game can only be used on one console / computer at a time? The only differency would be that the designated 'owner' would be able to change.

Of course this is all just conjecture, any I have a horrible feeling that as yet unknown DRM horrors maybe be lurking behind the corner, but at least in theory, this looks like an overwhelmingly positive step.

What I imagine would happen would be that every game comes with a key (even digital games over steam now), and should you choose to sell a game, you're key is simply deactivated and a new one is generated for the buyer, or the same key, and yours is deactivated on their installation.

Also I'm curious how that unlimited use part will act out with respect to purely online games that have company supported servers.

 

[JediMB]

Wow. So what company paid you to come post here? Either that or I really hope that's some major hyperbole going on there, because.... wow.

Hyperbole meant to highlight that the very concept of "used" data is ludicrous.

Not to mention that unless resale of digital games is handled directly by the digital distributor, you're technically committing copyright infringement when you pass the software on to someone else.

Although I kept legal language out of the OP, the ruling specifically deals with copyright law - it states that the copyright holder exhausts their exclusive distribution right upon first sale (provided that, as mentioned in the OP, they grant unlimited uses of the software and provide a copy to the customer), meaning that re-distributing the copy you bought does not infringe upon the original copyright. The ruling specifically states that the new license holder can download the software from the original copyright holder because those were the details of the case between Oracle and UsedSoft, but I do not believe this excludes obtaining the copy from the license seller directly.

Alright. Thanks for that extra piece of information.

Still, without some sort of license management system (meaning DRM), it would be practically indistinguishable from piracy.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Dear god, the laws in EU are pro-consumer and not pro-corporation? man i almost don't want to live here anymore.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

Great news! Its a big win for customers/gamers in Europe and as its usually wiht high court rulings it will probably carry over in the future to other countries. Since when this same issue arises for instance in the States they will look at the EU case and use it as example.

And really if i pay so much money for my games and down own them they what the fuck. . . . ?

 

[kitsuta]

Alright. Thanks for that extra piece of information.

Still, without some sort of license management system (meaning DRM), it would be practically indistinguishable from piracy.

I would definitely agree, and I actually think that Valve (or, possibly more likely, GOG) will jump all over this for that reason. Since they're distributors and not purely publishers, they stand a lot more to gain from implementing a "used" game re-distribution system. And if gamers put up with GameStop's tradeback system they can probably handle whatever Valve can come up with - Steam is already generally regarded as gamer-friendly despite the fact that, when it comes down to it, it's basically a giant piece of DRM.

 

[Karadalis]

Oh well all they have done is make Californian lawyers richer. As it stands normal EULA terms in the EU ignore the German courts by saying all sales in the EU take place under UK law. They will just say all EULA sales take place under US laws. Net result London law firms get less work and US law firms get more.

Kay... so im allowed to sell guns in germany because i claim i sell them under US law and not german law?

Sorry doesnt work that way... they can write what they want into their EULAs but as soon as they sell a product in germany they are bound to german law.

You see thats the funny thing.. they can try and write whatever legal BS they want into their Eulas but if it conflicts with german consumer laws you bet that a german court is not going to say "whoops.. sorry cant help you.. thought you bought this thing in germany it clearly says that we are not responsible for it even thought we are in germany and the company has no business to tell us we arent responsible for this case in the first place"

So yeah.. EA and CO. just write this into their EULAs to scare people away from suing them... same with origin telling you that if you accept their EULA youre putting down your right to sue em. That shit doesnt fly in germany as far as i know.

You see the example you brought up is company vs. company... this here is company vs. consumer and is a whole different beast.

 

[Steve Lovell]

This does make me wonder though, if i "traded in" a steam game which i have installed on my laptop which is rarely connected to the internet, so the games are not updated regularly, would i be able to continue to play my "traded in" game?

 

[Metalrocks]

sounds good. hope this will happen everywhere. i have few games i dont want anymore and was always disappointed that i cant get rid of them.

 

[soultrain117]

really no one has seen it yet the nuclear option the publishers have reread the second to last sentence.
"the Court explained that if a copyright holder both distributes a copy of the product and grants the customer unlimited uses of the product, the transaction "involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy." "
Anyone else see the harbinger of doom in that sentence.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh well all they have done is make Californian lawyers richer. As it stands normal EULA terms in the EU ignore the German courts by saying all sales in the EU take place under UK law. They will just say all EULA sales take place under US laws. Net result London law firms get less work and US law firms get more.

Doesnt matter. If the person buys it in EU, EU laws apply (the company has a right not to sell to the region, but thats about it).
EULA was never a legal document in EU. it only works in US. And this is simply a confirmation of this. EULA has no legal power whatsoever and only US courts ever take it into account (which is stupid too). EULA Is not a contract.

This does make me wonder though, if i "traded in" a steam game which i have installed on my laptop which is rarely connected to the internet, so the games are not updated regularly, would i be able to continue to play my "traded in" game?

In order to trade it in you will have to be connected with the new type of DRM that checks whether you actually own the game or not. Sort of like a login to a website, if you dont have the password anymore you cant go in.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

Digital property may now actually be considered property? Well butter my ass and call me a Lhama, never thought that'd happen. Not like it changes my opinion on digital distribution (other than GoG.com's original business plan) in the fucking slightest, I still think it blows and I'll still stand against it.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Honestly, not to come off as a dick, but if people can't see how this is a terrible idea then it's pretty likely they aren't very tech savvy or they have way too much faith in their fellow man to do the legal thing.

The only way I could see this working would be with a service like Onlive.

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

This difference is that in this case, your legally obligated to deactivate your own copy.

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

The difference is that when you've copied a game to someone else as part of a resale, you are obliged to destroy your own copy.

Because legal obligation has done leaps an bounds to stop piracy as is...

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

When you sell a physical copy of a game/film/music CD it's based on good faith that while you could keep a copy for yourself you won't this is just the same thing.

Except people do this all the time, which is why PC gaming has never had much of a used or rental market (they HAVE existed, but never in the light or on the level as consoles).