EU court rules gamers are free to resell digital games

@49 Since you still don’t get that the dumb judges that made the ruling don’t know jack of digital distribution, you should understand that, since the dumb judges haven’t ruled the means by which to allow the resell of a license (they couldn’t do it anyway becase every publisher has its system), the publishers must find a way to allow the selling of licenses on their services, or face the fines by clever (read idiot) people that want to sell their digital games.

But please, DSB, do sell me a license for one of your Steam games.

@50 You buy a car, you own a car.

You buy a game (or any digital product), you don’t own its bits!
Bits are signals, electricity, you can’t own it or sell it.

What you get is the right to use the bits that put to reality the creativity and the imagination of its owner, and the owner can tell you, with the EULA, what you can and what you can’t do with his idea.
That is the contract you pay for.

Money can’t buy your imagination, yet.

@52 What about the data written to CD/DvD/Blue Ray which I *can* sell?

Why is the fact it’s downloaded directly to my HDD different to the fact it got burnt to other media?

Also if I bought a painting, the creative work of an artist, I could sell that as well.

We’re not talking about selling a person’s idea, as that would be copyright theft as per the recent tetris clone court ruling. We’re talking about selling a product which we own.

@51 No – the dumb and greedy peeps are not the judges – they`re enforcing the law, whcih was in place years and years before digital games or videogames for that matter.

The publishers knows this perfectly well, they`re consumers as well, but they`re being trying to plead the case that videogames are special and that the law was different for them. THEY are the ones who should have implemented this system in the first place

It`s ironic you think peeps that want to sell their games when they`re done with them, or didnt like em, got it as a gift, are idiots.

It`s basic capitalism, supply or demand and all that old peeps only stuff – how dare they dabble in matters they don`t understand, eh?

Ignorance is bliss eh?

@51 For a fine to be issued, a violation of law must have occurred. What is that violation? Would you please point it out to me?

For the fourth time: Where does it say that Steam and co. must provide an avenue for the reselling of game licenses?

“Cannot oppose the resale” does not mean “must accomodate the resale”.

It says “Steam aren’t allowed to stop me from selling my games”. It does not say “Steam must allow me to sell my games”. That’s entirely up to Steam.

Which means this: Steam are required to fulfill the conditions of the license as it was offered to the original owner, even if the original owner decides to pass it on to someone else.

That’s all it says, unless you can show me where it says they must allow for resales. Which is what I’ve asked for, four times now.

Has Steam denied you the right to use your license as it was originally offered to you? Have you transferred a license to a third party, and has that third party been threatened or limited in the use of that license?

No? Then it seems you don’t have a case.

There’s nothing naive about reading the law the way it was written. That’s the whole point of having laws in the first place.

You’re not allowed to make laws up out of thin air and write out fines for those.

And people wonder how on earth capcom came with the idea od lock on disc DLC, well they obviously see comments on videogame sites, they know they will get away with things, because some gamers in the end do not fight for their rights as costumers, really, i say good job capcom and the others that put Always connected single player on games, DRM, etc,etc we got what we really deserve.

One can be concern about the overall health of this business,thats a given, good for them and good for us in the end, but without given away or rights, we can have a win win escenario here, instead of a win/loss which is the mindset of most of this industry, saddly, in the end we need a robust legal enviroment for this business before going all digital, one that defend the end user for the provider, as well as the provider from the consumer.

@53 Why is the fact it’s downloaded directly to my HDD different to the fact it got burnt to other media?

It’s no different. You don’t own that data in any form whatsoever. People mistakenly believe that because one is delivered on a tangible, physical format such as a DVD it is somehow more theirs than the same data delivered through a cable. You don’t own it. The money you paid was NEVER for ownership of the data, merely access to it under very specific terms.

Most people ignore those terms and do as they please. They’ve been doing this for so long they are under the impression that their whim has become law. It hasn’t and it won’t.

Cars, paintings and houses are not software. Comparisons of wildly different commodities only muddy the waters further.

A guide to what you can (and can’t) patent (in The US at least.)
You’re out of luck if you want to patent a website – but you can copyright it.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/12/smbusiness/patent_website.fsb/index.htm

Here`s EU`s version:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/businesses/intellectual_property/index_en.htm

#57 “The money you paid was NEVER for ownership of the data, merely access to it under very specific terms”
i do agree but the thing is they cannot control who goes with the terms and who doesnt,i mean who vilotes them and who doesnt, but with digital they can control, thats the difference, thats why you can sell your physical media and not the digital, but the issue is that laws were done when this didnt exist, now they have to accomodate to this reality, the thing we need to disccuss is why with a finished real product, you have all the rights to do with it what you like, sell it, loan it, give it away, etc?, and why not do it with the same product in digital version?, such a differentiation should not exist, to the eyes of the law, because is the same product, lets take limbo for example, why the upcoming physical game can be sold with the allowance of the law, and why not do the same with the digital copy?, that ambiguity should not exist legally speaking, the same things that rule for one should rule to the other, because is the same product done under the same circustamces, just delivery in different forms.

Huge stuff. So this means that limiting the number of different computers a game license can be used on is illegal from now on? I guess that companies could force users to remove the game from a computer before they would be able to install it on another, but still. This’ll be interesting to follow.

@57 software is a product like any other product, it`s not special. Just because the delivery method is different from the one used for many years, that doesn`t change.

That`s just the usuall corporate BS.

You`re not paying for the code, you`re paying for the functioning product – it`s no different than buying a burger from McD, you`re not paying for the reciepe, you`re paying for the product (burger)

And apperently you didn´t get the part that The EULA dont mean shit.

Ok DSB, you’re right.

Now please sell me one of your Steam games.

@60

How did you jump to that conclusion? No, all this means is you can sell your 1 licence to somebody else, it even categorically states that you cannot sell licences that you purchased but were more than you required (i.e 1 licence of a multi-user licence, or by a similar interpretation buying with the intention to only sell) and that the software had to be deactived for use by the original buyer before the transfer can occur.

Also, for all the people dancing in the streets thinking how much they will make by selling their old Steam games, this ruling is NOT LEGALLY BINDING! It is merely the opinion of the ECJ and the final decision over who is right in the case will still be made by the German courts.

When dealing with matters of legal rulings it’s best to go to a trusted, useful source with record of understanding legalese, not Eurogamer…

EU court decision deals blow to Oracle – FT.com

@64 Pfft, research and facts? Stop right there! That sort of thing isn’t acceptable around these ‘ere parts!

#64 “Also, for all the people dancing in the streets thinking how much they will make by selling their old Steam games, this ruling is NOT LEGALLY BINDING!”
I do agree, but at least is a precedent, maybe something they can use in future cases, and in a future and needed (well done for all parts involve) digital law.

@DSB
I understand what you are saying, you are right it doesn’t say they must change their systems. However if the method of sale does not allow you to sell it on isn’t that effectively opposing the re-sale?

What this mainly means is that if a service has any sort of ability to transfer licenses to a different account, a consumer would be freely allowed to sell that game through any (legal) means they desire, and the provider would not be allowed to argue the consumers right to profit from it.

It *doesn’t* means that services like Steam and Origin will be forced to implement the direct ability to do so.

I have to wonder, does that mean that one could legally sell, say… their World of Warcraft account? Since the ability to transfer accounts already exists on Battle.Net

@67

Oh, I’m sure Usedsoft will win the case in question, even though it was originally ruled in Oracles favour by the German courts until it was referred to the ECJ when Usedsoft appealed.

It’s just hilarious to see all the websites reporting this as some kind of fully binding legal ruling and all the people who think they understand what this means even though they can’t be arsed to read more than the 3 lines from the report that are presented to them in the article.

@Ireland Michael

I would assume it would allow you to sell your entire account yes, but individual characters, probably not, as they are not what the licence covers.

@70 Well yeah, of course.

What the…

F-ing RIGHTS were granted to the consumers! Something that happens so rarely these days. And instead of people being happy, there’s pages and pages of bitching!
Are you really so damn desperate to get screwed?!
Why don’t you just cancel your internet access and donate the money you save to those in need? You know… Sony, EA, Microsoft…

@57 “It makes no difference, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whether the copy of the computer program was made available to the customer by the rightholder concerned by means of a download from the rightholder’s website or by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD.”

Straight from the horses mouth:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2601069

No 47.

Forgot “part” 55

“On this point, it must be stated, first, that it does not appear from Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 that the exhaustion of the right of distribution of copies of computer programs mentioned in that provision is limited to copies of programmes on a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD. On the contrary, that provision, by referring without further specification to the ‘sale … of a copy of a program’, makes no distinction according to the tangible or intangible form of the copy in question.”

@61 You`re not paying for the code, you`re paying for the functioning product

Wrong.

You’re paying for a software licence. At no time are you acquiring ownership of the data itself. You never have been. All arguments and posturing based on the belief that you own the data is fundamentally flawed and entirely incorrect.

You need to grasp the concept of what you are actually buying before you can act as though you have a right to one thing or another.

Its such a shame that people go to such exhaustive lengths to argue what they’re entitled to or not when they’ve overlooked such a significant detail. Probably because people argue for the thing that suits their personal interest best rather than what is actually the case.

ROFL @74

@74, Well isn’t that still covered by the “A author of software cannot oppose the resale of his used licences…”

So even though we’re only buying a licence to play the game, we could potentially sell said licence on right?

@74 “You’re paying for a software licence. At no time are you acquiring ownership of the data itself. You never have been. All arguments and posturing based on the belief that you own the data is fundamentally flawed and entirely incorrect.

You need to grasp the concept of what you are actually buying before you can act as though you have a right to one thing or another.

Its such a shame that people go to such exhaustive lengths to argue what they’re entitled to or not when they’ve overlooked such a significant detail. Probably because people argue for the thing that suits their personal interest best rather than what is actually the case.”

This is factually untrue. It’s an argument that has been made many times before, but the law as it currently stands fully dictates that the ownership of any product is entirely in the hands of the person who bought if, and they are completely free to do with it is they choose. Otherwise it can be deemed as fraud. A license requires a contract.

This fact is the sole reason why the jailbreaking of iDevices is now completely legal. You bought the device. You can do whatever the hell you want with it as long as you don’t break the law by stealing anything.

Good and services are not the same thing, and this is why, for instance, you can buy a copy of World of Warcraft but still be rightfully banned from playing the game for breaking the Terms of “Service”. You still own the physical game though, and nobody can legal take it away from you.

@75 Great counterpoint.

@76 You’re correct. And this news concerns the software licence. However, few licences ever grant the licence-holder the right to redistribute the data. (And why should they? – you never owned the data anyway).

In other words, if you sell on the licence and redistribute the data (when the licence forbids it) – you’re the one in the wrong.

People make HUGE assumptions about what they can do – typically in a manner that suits their self-interests. Software is not cars, paintings, houses or even Apple devices. Such comparisons are completely misleading and do not set any sort of precedent. They serve to suggest the opposite of what is true: that things that are uniquely different should be treated as though they are identical.

@Neosquall Why would I? Is it the law that I be allowed to sell my games to you? If so, what law might that be?

@Anders It says that to transfer the license you must also give up any access you have to it as part of the transaction. So if you keep a copy for yourself after the sale, that counts as copyright infringement.

@DrDamn That’s really the multi-million dollar question right there.

What does it mean for the services themselves? Ultimately there’s no way of telling unless someone sues a service like Steam to find out.

Are you allowed to keep games locked as part of a service, or do you have to supply people with the right to sell them. Does that count as an obstruction, or is it a perfectly legal business model? That’s not addressed by this ruling.

I think that would be the trial to end all trials when it comes to digital distribution.

@78 Again, you’re wrong. Digital media is something a physical thing. If it is in your possession, you are free to do with it as you wish, within the confines of the law.

This is why nobody gets sued for hacking the DRM out of a game, why you can mod your device, why companies like Blizzard are racing to design games in way they did they designed Diablo 3, why every single franchise nowadays is deemed to “require” multiplayer, and why everyone is trying to tout cloud gaming as the future, when all it does is fuck the consumer up the ass even more than they already are being right now.

Steam is a service. They can ban you for breaking their rules, but they can’t condemn you for freeing your games from their DRM restrictions, as long as you’re the sole owner. In the vast majority of popular cases where people were “banned” from Steam, their accounts were later restored with all their games intact, with the only punishment being the removal of access to whatever feature they were abusing, which only enforced the point.

The only thing you aren’t allowed to do with a physical possession is redistribute its intellectual property for your personal game. Selling something simply requires the loss of ownership of that item. Data on a HDD is not a “license”, no matter how much you want to claim it is. Its a completely tired assumption that has no grounding in actual law.

Ok… So let’s say I’ve downloaded a game. I could possible sell it on as long as I don’t sell a copy, or keep a copy for myself…

Also, wouldn’t a way around this be a simple clause in a pubs service agreement that you keep your copy for a minimum of 3-6 months?

@81 Basically. You would have ti give up all ownership of the product on your original account.

It’s no different than trading something second hand for money. You only paid for one item. Selling something you don’t own while still retaining possession is piracy and fraud.

@81 Unlikely as is the case with EULA`s they`re not worth much as a consumer in The EU or at least many of EU country`s.

Publishers can write what they want in a EULA.

What counts is the national laws and EU`s laws.

unless you`re in another part of the world

Well then.

You’re really all still talking about this? I think I’ll just leave you to it.

As it is, it’s an interesting footnote that might set a precedent for future legal proceedings, but as of right now it doesn’t actually do a lot. And law is often decided by the lawyers with the most money.

This isn’t going to change anything soon.

In fact, it might not for a long time. Like I said, it might just set an interesting precedent for something that may happen decades down the line. But that’s it.

It hasn’t broken anything, ruined anything, or opened up any new possibilities. In today’s world, ‘interesting times’ are too much to hope for. Systems like this are fairly locked down.

But who knows, in a few decades this could get interesting.

But not right now. Not at a point where people will buy a terrible game with always DRM and be happily willing to die for its defence. Because people are like that. Not all, but most.

The problem is is that it’s the human condition itself that would stop this ever becoming anything. The majority of our species actually enjoys being a bitch to someone, it’s fulfilling. Don’t believe it? Look at Blizzard’s treatment of people with Diablo III. Do you think any of those people are going to not buy the next Blizzard game? Hahaha. Good joke. They’re going to buy every game Blizzard puts out, no matter how much they protest.

That’s the problem. The human condition results in millions of people whose primary function is to be someone’s bitch. As such, we don’t particularly care about our rights. And the opinion of the ECJ isn’t going to change that.

No one’s going to sue Valve for the right to resell their games.

And the world goes on.

— EDIT —

The funny thing is is that indie developers would likely have no problem with people reselling their stuff. But they aren’t in a position of power, so bitching to them just isn’t sensible or fulfilling. No, it’s publishers with power who’re the ones that people bitch themselves to.

And the large likelihood is is that you’re a publisher’s bitch.

Again, human nature. You can’t avoid it.

We actually have people in this thread who think that being able to resell is a bad idea. I understand the arguments regarding digital goods and why it isn’t that way, but rarely do people touch upon why it shouldn’t be another way. Why was it that way in the first place? How did we let this happen?

We let this happen because this is how we are.

And that’s never going to change.

So you can stop panicking, now. The world isn’t going to fall apart. Too many bitches holding up the foundations for that to happen, and we all know it.

How come you guys can’t see the evil in this?

Ok new biz model….free game client, “codes” to unlock content. Notice I didn’t say DLC, I said codes. You can have the game for free(no value there) but if you pay to get a code you play the next stage/world/whatever. of course your not buying content, your unlocking it. The new owner will also have to pay to unlock it.

Who are you going to sell your games to? Each other? I don’t have online digital payment recieving options, do you? I do have paypal. But then again, does everyone? What if your buyer/seller doesn’t? This will cause new bizz to rise in order to recycle digital games. in other words more middle men. Think GameStop and Ebay merging. They will buy your three games for 3usd each, and resell them for 15usd each. For your troubles you will get 9usd(prolly credit) to use towards one of their avalible used game vouchers. But again, because even older games(like the ones you sold) cost 15usd, your still going to be short. What happens? In the end, a middle man intercepts payment that a would be dev/pub could have recieved and the industry bleeds profit.

And for what?

It will devalue the digital games market.

I can think of so many bad angles here. And not one single solitary good aspect. Not one. Oh, unless you really wanna get 3usd for an old game.

This could easily lead to higher game prices(they can’t sell5 copies, just one that gets recycled five times), so the game costs more(lots more). Less games are being made, who can afford to invest in a game that becomes worthless overnite? Greatly reduces PC growth. Stifles Indie growth. People lose jobs. The game market dwindles and melts away into one big mess of moble and casual games. Trip A games are either 200usd each or dead.

But maybe the sky is just falling again. Hard to tell with all of the fireworks tonight.

pst 4th of July in states.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173538/What_a_new_digital_game_trading_law_in_Europe_could_mean_for_you.php

I agree with this article in that nothing will change.