EU court rules gamers are free to resell digital games

So when can i trade in my digital stuff from steam/psn/xbl that I don’t want any more?

Nice…

…People do know that because of this, publishers will have to remove the ability to download something you’ve brought more than once, right?

EDIT: Actually, i missed the part were it said its only good for one sale. Never mind then.

There’s nothing stopping Steam closing your account though, and if you have a fair few games on there you wouldn’t take the risk.

This was the type of laws that i was talking about in the previous post fo ea going all digital, this is a first step into the right direction, although we need more laws that protect the costumers over the TOS and EULEAS, at least some laws the put some restrictions or rules over the provider of the service, in order to let the control of the account to the end user, or at least implement some guides that control the provide also, something that will benefit 50/50 the user and the provider, nice this news, really nice

GreenManGaming will be happy. That’s their entire USP.

Not sure why the Steam logo is being used, given that you can’t resell Steam games. Can you?

Sooooo….

What’s to stop me from buying a copy of SC2:HOTS, then making a bajillion copies and selling them on my website for 1p each?

Are digital copies referenced?

Good news for Game/Gamestop etc… How would this work in practice though? Would I be copying/transferring my digital game onto a USB to take into store?

@7

You only have the license for one copy, so presumably you can only sell that one.

Surely though, the consumer could argue that they should be able to free-up the license once they’ve finished with the game, so they can distribute it. Currently, once it’s used that’s it.

GMG get around this by being in control of the game key and transferring it from user to user, but this has to be pre approved by the publisher, and not many big titles are on their trade system.

This makes no sense.

All a dev would have to do is make once licence per copy, and it makes the ruling meaningless.

@10 see post 9.

@6
RE:Steam. Well that’s kind of the point isn’t it? This ruling suggests you should be able to.

@7
I think the implication is you can sell on your licence to play it. So just the once.

@8
If this sticks then the people you bought the game from will have to provide a way for you to sell it on to someone else. I think that’s a big “if” though. This will drag on and go further, can see them all rolling over and giving in on this.

@11:

Ah, I see.

Good point.

Wait if I’m reading this right, the EU court has said publishers cannot legally prevent you reselling your digital copy… So any action the pubs take to block you would be illegal and leave them liable right?

@14 that’s a possibility.

So how do we sell our Steam games?

The way I read the ruling, it’s not actually forcing anyone to do anything, or really voiding any EULAs.

It’s just saying that the author only has the right to the first sale. After that, the user can do whatever he wants with his license or licenses.

If anything, I could see this being a threat to online passes, since they are essentially a coporate imposed tax on the resale of a license. Since multiplayer is a part of the original product, that would also be transferred when the license changes hands.

So if this ruling stands, online passes can’t be legal.

Something like Steam won’t be forced to allow resales, but you would be allowed to sell your Steam account however you want, along with any license you have laying around. And if Steam took action against you for doing that, they could be chased out of the EU.

I’m not sure that’s really in my best interest, since it means that every hacker under the sun is going to look to trade in ill gotten accounts.

This is a aweful. A really bad ruling. And I am betting most people can’t see why.

Here are two reasons:

The big one is that this will push Diablo III style always on DRM. Nice.

Secondly this will push “service” subcsriptions. Think online play passes are bad now…just wait.

Your only ever going to get one install. You will have to buy another liscence for everytime you want to install it. So, buy a new PC, rebuy. Want to play it on a tablet, rebuy. etc.

Do you really think your going to sell off your Steam libary for bunches of monies? Morons.

@17
Why wouldn’t Steam be forced to allow resales? This ruling is about the licence to play individual games – nothing to do with the accounts people sell you the games through.

Online passes are an interesting point. They are given with the original product – but they are not part of the core product in that you have to enter a code you get in the same package as the game. Quite a grey area.

Far from this ruling being all gravy, it could have longer term detrimental implications too. Higher prices, and other ways to make the money will be implemented.

And yes, I agree with orbit, this opens the doors for more legal action on rulings down the road. Will Blizzards always on DRM even be legal? Will Steam run into legal trouble? Could this effectivly kill digital sales? PC?

I know companies are often seen as evil, and I curse some of them here and there too. But we are talking about intelectual and tanagable products. At some point their rights to make money and stay in a viable profitable bizz needs to be considered.

I love the indie scene, this will kill it completly if you can buy a 15usd game for 50cents on amazon. There won’t be a way for a start up company to get a foothold. Might as well make/sell mobile games for a buck.

This could crumble several parts of the industry, cause you know second hand sales have been so good for consoles…

@18
I can see service subs yes. Not sure I understand the “one install” argument though. That’s further down the path that the court has ruled against.

This will all become redundant once streaming games becomes commonplace.

@22 Which they never will.

@19 Because the ruling says no such thing.

Steam are still free to define their own business model and the features of their client. At no point does it say that anyone has to provide the specific means for a resale.

In that regard, it also doesn’t explicitly state that people are free to sell their subscription to something like Steam, but since that’s the only way to transfer the licenses of the account (that are already in use) I don’t see how Steam could prevent it without being in some form of violation of that ruling.

@TBH, this is going to force streaming gaming. Like I said, services. Monthly subscription fees. Even if not streaming them ala netflix/Gaikia style, then the current PSN+ style of services. Monthly fee, selection of games, download and play.

I don’t mind that notion, not at all. Except while it works great for the Actis, EA, MS, Sony, Nintendos…it simply doesn’t work at all for small companies.

I swear OG, you’re the donkey from Winnie the Pooh.

Very little is going to change simply because an EU court gives people the right to their licenses in full.

It will certainly take the fun out of offering free games to users on something like Steam, since that license will suddenly have an actual value, beyond just a nice gift for a friend, or a mutual trade. Valve and the publishers don’t mind handing out licenses for a bit of extra business, but they’re not going to give away actual money.

It does open the door for new business models to be undertaken by other sites, like GreenManGaming which has already been mentioned.

However, GreenManGaming obviously haven’t caused a revolution, so I don’t see how a court affirming the legality of that strategy changes very much.

Either way, the sky is in no way falling, man.

@DSB

I don’t know Rabbit, sure looks like rain to me.

The law may say that you can sell your digital games but it doesn’t say that the publishers or services like Steam have to provide you a way to do so.

@DSB & Phoenixblight
It’s a bit complex in wording but this bit …
“In this context, the Court’s answer is that any subsequent acquirer of a copy for which the
copyright holder’s distribution right is exhausted constitutes such a lawful acquirer. He can
therefore download onto his computer the copy sold to him by the first acquirer. Such a download
must be regarded as a reproduction of a computer program that is necessary to enable the new
acquirer to use the program in accordance with its intended purpose.
Therefore the new acquirer of the user licence, such as a customer of UsedSoft, may, as a
lawful acquirer of the corrected and updated copy of the computer program concerned,
download that copy from the copyright holder’s website.”

Says the new owner may get a copy from the copyright holder’s system. So if they don’t allow that what then? Aren’t they stopping the sale that way?

Finally!!!

Consumers are now a little less screwed ^^

Though I`m sure the Industry will try new loopholes to prevent people from owning games and reselling them. (how dare they – games are special)

Looking forward for the industry`s next futile attempt to corrode basic consumer rights in The EU.

@30

Still doesn’t specify the key or how that is handled. Publishers, Devs, and DRM developers will have to create a new system that allows for license to be passed from one person to another.

They won’t be allowing this and will be dragging their heels until they appeal this law or find another way so this law doesn’t effect their products. EU may have just push cloud gaming or services like PSN just for EU. Yay!

@32
Oh sure, this is something which will take a long, long time to reach a proper conclusion on. The court case was based on Oracle software. I would expect this to be fought in a big way all of the big software houses.

@29 You`re transferring the license, so whatever the “original” owner had access to – the new owner has access to – You cannot limit the license as the publishers tried to, that`s the point of the ruling.

@34

They will be dragging their heels Apple won’t let this fly. As I said they will be going with services like Zune or PSN where you subscribe to a service and have access to the software but you do not own them.

@30 It is lawyerspeak, so I won’t pretend like it’s totally clear, but they’re talking about what happens after UsedSoft has acquired the license.

They’re in no way saying that the other guys have to accomodate them. Just that they can’t stop them from using the license in the same way as the original user.

In other words, the author is already providing the download, so he can’t just take it away because the license changes hands.

@32 These things should have been included from the start, publishers just got away with it for a time, probably due to the average age of politicians and their limited knowledge of games and ze Net.

It looks like the Wild West Age for game publishers is finally over. Wild piracy claims, unbalanced rights which limit consmuers, Etc… are no longer enough to push digital laws through the system, at least not in The EU (like ACTA).

I agree with OG in this, this ruling is the start of a huge shitstorm in the digital games scene; providers like Steam and Impulse will be required to put in place a different client (this means they can also cut games from release on this particular market because it isn’t “profitable”) for the EU market with the tools that enable users to “transfer” their game licenses.
These providers will also have to put “always-on” DRM on the games that constantly check who is using the game, worse than Diablo III and the Ubisoft one, effectively preventing any user without a stable Internet connection from playing their games.

Is this what you really want?

@38 First of all, in no part of the ruling does it say they have to change anything about their business practices, beyond desisting in disabling licenses and downloads on resale.

Secondly, how would always-on stop anyone from selling their account?

@39

The DRM would be there to verify the owner of the software is in fact playing the game.

Not to mention this ruling is in no way helpful to the “little men” in the industry, the indies that still try to sell their games on their own.

They will have no reason to sell their games cheaper, because they will lose sales over sales after some thick-headed prick hacks their DRM system, because they will have to put these on to track the user-associated key and, you know, DRM cost much money.

This ruling also endangers charity initiatives like Humble Bundle, because normal people (I’m not counting true donors like Notch and the Bronies) will just purchase the bundle for 1$ (the minimum to get Steam Keys atm) and resell their keys for much more.

This is unfair and destructive for the industry. The Judges have made the worst sentence ever.

@40 That doesn’t change anything. The owner now has a right to transfer his license at his discretion.

The EULA connected to the service delivering the license might have something to say about that, but given this verdict, that lawsuit might not be in their favor.

They already voided one part of the standard EULA by ruling this way.

@41 That’s very true. The smaller businesses who deliver installers directly will be in a far worse position based on this, but then they’re already shouldering the biggest risks and at least to some degree depending on peoples trust in not distributing those installers.

@39 If Steam will be forced to adapt to this ruling, Valve will have to modify the client to allow license transfer because, at the moment, it doesn’t have no such functions.

The always-on DRM will be required to allow publishers to track the effective user of the game.
This means publishers will have to control your games more than they do now, and they’ll likely do it by registering your personal data, coupled with the MAC address of your machine(s), because you can lie for the former, but not on the latter.

This is not more freedom for the end consumer, it’s the true concept of “leasing games” that you could only glimpse with the previous EULAs.

@42 You can’t trust people in not distributing your products, if they can make money out of it.
It’s a rule of the business.

@43 Where does it say that? Please point out the part of the ruling that stipulates that all services must now accommodate the user in enabling the resale of licenses.

All it says is that they aren’t allowed to stop them from doing it, which is what the suit was about:

A user sold his license.

The author tried to stop the new owner from using the license.

The new owner sued the author.

The author has now been told to allow the new user the full use of the license as it was originally sold.

“Cannot oppose” does not mean “Must accomodate”.

@44 I don’t know about that. GOG and Wadjet Eye Games both distribute DRM free installers to be used by anyone and everyone, and they both seem to be making a business even though all people would have to do is share it through a torrent, ftp or messenger.

Trust is also a rule of business.

Tbh, all this will probably do is drive up the prices of digital dlc for Europe, as Pubs make up for *lost sales* :-/

You sure are naive, DSB.
Valve, EA and GameStop will have to change their clients to allow people to sell their license, if they decide to accomodate the ruling, because they have no system to allow that right now.

Also, GOG and the other sites that sell DRM Free games are still doing it because they sell at the lowest prices in the industry and also offer various extras with the games.
Now that people can sell their game licenses at potentially lower prices one can think that even these publishers will have lower sales and risk to shut down or be forced to implement a tracking DRM to allow the “legally enforced resale” of the games.

All the publishers need to do, is adapt their terms and conditions. End of story.

@47 You didn’t even come close to answering the question.

Where does it say that they must accommodate the user in reselling their games?

It’s a 2 page document, it doesn’t take long to read.

The conclusion itself is right at the top: “An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet”

“Cannot oppose the resale” still does not mean “must accomodate the resale”. You are not allowed to sabotage or deny anyone the right to resell their items. That, however, does not in any way mean that you must go to the opposite extreme.

“Thou shallt not kill” does not mean “thou must be a necromancer”.

It’s two very different things.

So for the third time: Where did you find that meaning in this ruling? For a law or a legal precedent to be enforced, it must be specific.

I hope this will be the start of what is long overdue; the complete death of DRM and online activations.

When I buy a car, I’m allowed to sell it.
When I buy a DvD Box set, I can give away the parts I own.
When I buy *anything at all* I have the right to give it away or sell it, because I bought it. The only exception has always been digital content and as such just downright wrong.

I should entirely have the right to sell on old steam games. Yes they will have to change their software but it isn’t rocket science. Right click – deactivate. Uninstalls the game and adds the key to your steam gifts area.

I should entirely have the right to pass on parts of bundles that I already own. I suspect due tot his ruling Valve will no longer be able to sell bundles without gifting you copies of the games you already own; which to be fair they should have always done.

This will go a long way to vastly reducing piracy on the PC; suddenly legal digital content is more tempting because we’re free to do with it as we please. Like we can with cars. And DvD’s. And books. And clothes. And makeup. And food. And.. you get the gist.