EU court rules software downloads can be resold

deleted because R&P and I lost my temper.

Since you seem to be so intent on saying what is right and wrong, and that the user has agreed to some junk that some penny pinching lawyer wrote into a eula in some vein attempt to make the company more money… im going to tell you what the company has agreed to.

You wrote a piece of software and then sold me a license with eula stating that i am not allowed to transfer the license. I live in a country that states plainly that software licenses are to be transferrable. By YOU agreeing to sell me a license in a country that plainly states that regardless of what you put in your eula that i am allowed to transfer the license, you have automatically agreed that i am allowed to transfer the license if i should choose. So it is therefore perfectly right and moral for me to do so. Dont like it? Okay then dont sell software in areas that have laws that state the end consumer has that right. Plain and simple.

This is not just on the end consumer to decide if they like terms of the deal or not… it is also on the person or company that is selling said licenses. If you dont want your license to be treated like a tangible good… well… dont sell licenses in countries that have laws that explicitly state that is how they are to be treated. As i stated… if you agree to sell licenses in countries or areas that allow you to transfer licenses, you have agreed to allow them to be transferable regardless of what you say. If all countries decided somehow that software licenses are to be treated like property, meaning there is no where for you to sell non transferable licenses on the planet, you have two choices. One, suck it up and agree that your licenses are transferrable. Two, find a new career and provide some other kind of good or service that both you and the local laws agree on when it comes to usage rights.

By reading this you have agreed to send me all your money and destroy all those who oppose my mighty will.

thanks ♥

What you are failing to notice is that I’m not talking about the legality here. I _know_ what the legal situation is – this court ruling is just one example. However, as I’ve stated, law does not define right. It defines law.

“or otherwise distributing the Software or rights to use the Software”

The first part of this is copies – that is distributing the software.
Then note the second part – where it talks about the RIGHTS to USE the software.

This clause is there, does what I described it does, but is voided by several laws. Same way an employment contract that places salaries below minimum wage is also void – the contract still says what is says, and in my opinion the freedoms we have include accepting what others might consider to be a bad deal. We just don’t have to accept just about anything – especially not in a luxury like computer-based entertainment software. The correct measure here would be for us, as consumers, to just not purchase software that has clauses we don’t like – NOT to sic the government on them. To do that is to have the government interfere in free trade, which it seems strange for me for someone with your apparently awoved political position to advocate.

To those saying I am confusing services vs products with the “rental” argument. That is exactly my point. Services like Steam ARE blurring the lines between what consumers in the past have known as rental terms vs purchase terms. Steam games, to use this example again, are a mix of the two by the very nature of the service they offer.

Part of what you are paying for with Steam IS THE SERVICE. Do you think the convenience of the community, ease of purchasing, browsing, software updates is not part of what you are paying for? Don’t fool yourself. This is the exact reason why people currently often bitch and moan when a digital game deal is listed from a source that isn’t Steam – because it doesn’t come with the appended services that people are used to (even if the competing service’s, er, services are just as good).

You are confusing the issue too. While these other services may not prohibit sales of used games or accounts, they don’t actively facilitate it either. Part of the reason this is the case now is because digital distribution model is still in it’s infancy. Companies like Steam had to entice publishers to let them sell their content in this format. As a result, it’s not like they were going to get publishers to facilitate services that might further risk their bottom line (resale programs). I think the time might come when it will be more common for these services to offer resale options after this market matures a bit – that is if they don’t all become subscription based (which I hope won’t be the case). But until someone has the impetus to figure out a system where both the publisher, service and consumer (to entice customers away from competitors) gets a fair cut, they will be avoided. And the companies that have said impetus are those trailing behind the Steam Juggernaut (hence that GOO initiative to which you were referring).

I agree somewhat about the collusion argument. Yes. it’s obviously in the publisher’s best interest to not encourage resale of games and instead encourage a model where they get at least some cut, even a small one (when an AAA game goes on sale for $10 a couple of months after its prime time). But this is something I, personally, was willing to accept when I opened my Steam, GOG accounts and made my first “purchase”. Part of the reason I don’t like paying full price for games on Steam is that I, like you, feel that I’m receiving fewer “rights” to the product than I would with a physical copy. But when the games are sold for cheaper than can be found in physical form (as is often the case) then, to me, and I suppose many others, it is worth the relinquishing of these ownership rights that, 95% of the time, I personally wouldn’t benefit from. But again, if people want to pay $60 for Skyrim the the month it comes out on Steam, vs $60 for a physical copy, then it’s really their choice.

To reiterate, as with politics, in a free system the plights of the few are dictated by the many. The alternative is that it is dictated by a dictator or totalitarian regime. Until we come up with a system that somehow fairly manages to weigh the opinion of the enlightened over that of the unwashed masses, what would you prefer? People have voted with their wallets in support of services such as Steam. Restrictions included.

DRM is awful. That said, DRM actually was invented to assuage tech-illiterate shareholders and execs at companies like EA and Activision that their product would still be capable of making money given the new reality of piracy that high-speed internet connections afforded. Sadly, the motivation behind DRM is largely about piracy, no matter how misguided, incompetent and downright insulting to the paying customer the implementations have been. Sure, some companies have taken it to ridiculous extents and perhaps envision it as a tool to limit resale (I’m looking at you Bioshock 2 with your installation limit), but to say this was some sort of market-wide grand design from the get go is purely conjecture.

As for your last comment, no need to start name calling. Let’s keep this civil.

I sort of agree. There are, unfortunately, a lot of uninformed or downright lazy people who’s consumer practices ruin it for the enlightened few (enthusiasts). While this is unfortunate, how can it work any other way?

What do you mean by “magic”? Are you referring to the ability for a market to eventually become molded to the needs of the consumers given enough time, without inference? Well at the end of the day this is true. Though admittedly over the short term it can lead to injustice. Interference can do more harm than good in some cases too. It goes both ways.

If people don’t make decisions who else will?

The ability of each “citizen” to vote with their wallet in a (supposedly mostly) free market is a basic fundamental on which our economy is based.

Would you advocate, for example, rounding up all the “stupid” people prior to political elections and not allowing them to vote?

At the end of the day, most people don’t care enough about having the ability to resell their, for example, Steam games to let that interfere with the service. And I myself am sort of one of them. Part of the reason I wait for games to go on sale before I buy them is because, for $20 or less for an AAA title delivered to me on Steam is worth the risk that I may loose access to it a couple of years from now, and certainly worth not being able to resell. Similar goes for buying mp3s on Amazon… My point is that the service these companies provide, for the most part, is worth the restrictions (and if it’s not, then I don’t buy that particular item). And this is the case for a majority of people. Ergo the system works.

That’s not quite how it works.

The Publisher has a separate, retail, contract arranged with the retailer, where the retailer acts as an agent for the publisher.

That’s why it’s the “EULA” – End User License Agreement – and not “RLA” – retailer license agreement.

For example, when a game is sold on Steam, it wasn’t like steam first purchased a stock of X amount of licenses that they then re-sell. The licenses are created upon the purchase made by the end user, with Steam acting as the sales agent.

the whole legality and concept of a ‘license’ for software is what should be at question. traditionally, copyrighted material has not been sold with licenses, like music and books. you buy a copy and the only legal limit placed on you is that you cannot duplicate the item and sell duplicates. i can however sell the copy i bought. i believe in most countries it is illegal under the equivalent of the first sale doctrine to restrict the right of a person to resell anything they’ve bought.

essentially, once you sell something you’ve exhausted your control over it. no matter what was agreed to. i’m pretty sure i’ve read articles about law suits where contract were voided because the seller attempted to restrict the resale rights of the purchaser.

a copy is a copy is a copy. i can sell my copy, but i can’t make more. that’s it. it’s that simple.

first sale doctrine says you can’t restrict what i do with what is now my property after you’ve sold it to me, no matter what i agreed to. you can’t legally enforce the agreement, because it’s not a legal agreement to begin with.

If you read my post, you’d have noticed I don’t agree with your definition of freedom. you have your own view on what that means, and it’s not the same as mine. Your view of freedom is bizarre, imo. The embodiment of liberty is the animal, and I am not an animal. I have responsibilities that come before my rights. Responsibilities to my family, community, and the world. Being able to buy what you want isn’t freedom.

Article 25 of the UN Universal declaration of Rights clearly states ” Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

You might disagree with that, but it doesn’t make you right. It’s a philosophical view point. It’s not a yes or no question. There are differing views, and differing answers that are all provable. you might find the UN to be the devil, I don’t.

You might believe that charity isn’t a responsibility. I disagree. I have an [i<] obligation [/i<] to take care of the needy. Because you feel you have the right to allow people who are suffering to suffer shows the great injustice that is present in the world. Your neighbor who can take care of himself obviously doesn't need it, and that's really a moot point. Nobody says you should take care of people who can take care of themselves, but you encourage a view point of selfishness with your position, where doing the least you can get away with is an ideal, and then complain about people who live by your same rules, taking what they can get from the system. Once we all understand how important justice is, and the need to be responsible for our contributions to the world, gaming the system won't be a problem. I agree charity should be honest, and given joyfully, but sadly that amount is currently not enough to take care of the people who [i<] need [/i<] it. We have responsibilities to take care of the needy in all nations, not just yours. I don't know if you have ever seen the global poor. I've lived it. your concepts of charity fulfilling that task are as fantasy as it gets. government intervention is required to fulfill those needs, and i'd tax your ass off to feed them. that doesn't mean the government shouldn't be efficient or accountable. it needs to. But your failure of morals to see it isn't just that infants are dying of preventable diseases so you can buy another gadget isn't my problem. it's yours. You may be right about charity care disappearing, and that might suck. I also agree that the current system of for profit healthcare is sucky. I'm not advocating for how things currently are. that would be insane. Charity has a place. But so does government. edit for spelling

I’m not referring to what controls the EULA has on the agreement between manufacturer and consumer. I’m referring to the original article, and the EU courts’ stand on the matter.

The court’s ruling on this matter brings all EULA’s into question as to their validity. (And in this case, throws out at least a portion of it entirely). An EULA is not “law”, though it is, however, backed by law.

Personally, (as is quite apparrent now, by our argument), I agree with the court’s ruling.

yes i do work for myself. and i cherish the right. and what you are advocating is some seriously twisted shit. why on earth would you ever want to intentionally destroy the free market by infringing the rights of people to sell their property? you haven’t even begun to think through your position and see how it would literally destroy life as we know it, reserving rights that all free people have had for generations to a gilded business/merchant class.

The EULA is the deal you make with the seller.

Who else do you want to make a deal with? Would you be happy if I talked to someone else about what to pay you for your work? Would your employment contract be rendered void if you, as the seller of work, is involved in the contract?

That just doesn’t work. 😉

No, it isn’t a natural tendency to develop a group system to protect property. That isn’t the case at all. The social system that humans use evolved because of the benefit to survival, not as a mechanism for protecting property, otherwise we would see something similar in our primate relatives (which we don’t).

The most basic element of human society (or at least, the type of society that we evolved in) is actually sharing. This is the bedrock principle of hunter gatherer lifestyles. In fact, hunter gatherers have a strong obligation to share what they have (including things they have made and animals they have hunted), and there are strong taboos against hoarding.

Property that does exist within a band is typically circulated amongst the group rather than staying with particular members, and this is facilitated by activities (like gambling games) that encourage this kind of fluid “ownership” and discourage accumulation.

Additionally, goods that would generally be available to hunter gatherers are typically quite abundant. This, coupled with the nomadic lifestyle (which makes having a lot of property cumbersome) and the equality of wealth makes the owning and accumulation of property something that was quite unimportant to our great great grandparents.

All known hunter-gatherer bands, in all known ecological niches that they live/lived in, were broadly egalitarian, both economically and socially. This is something that is widely agreed upon by anthropologists.

The modern concepts of personal property, of something that is owned exclusively for oneself, or owned to the exclusion of everyone else, is very much a modern human cultural construct. A construct that dosen’t appear until the development of the first chiefdoms and states. Ideas like “self ownership” are entirely modern philosophical constructs as well, and aren’t likely to have had much relationship to the lifestyles of our immediate and more distant ancestors.

As to your dog example, denying someone food in a hunter gatherer band would garner a similar response. It isn’t correct, however, to say that this constitutes the persons “property”, because this level of social organization dosen’t really have the same concept of it that we do. It would be more akin to being “extremely rude” rather than “theft”. Similarly with your bow analagy. The cultural concepts of these things aren’t developed or understood in the way that we do, and never were during our evolution as a species.

You are of course free to believe what you wish.

And no, I’m not in the “libertarian party”, since we don’t have one here. I am however a member of KLP, which is roughly equivalent in ideology, but does not have the same popular backing that the american LP has.

(www.liberalapartiet.se)

And yes, I know you americans have seriously violated the word “liberal” (making it essentially mean “socialdemocrat”), however that’s not what the word means over here. 😉

Perhaps if we attack the problem like this:

Over here we have a concept called “avtalsfrihet” (sorry, don’t know the english term, it translates roughly to “freedom to deal” – sort of like you and I can deal with each other freely). If we have this freedom, then we can make whatever deal we want with each other. For example:

A) You give me 100 dollars, you get to use my car for a day.
B) You give me 10 000 dollars, my car becomes your car.

or

C) You give me 60 dollars, you are now allowed to use the software I created.

Now, within the framework of this freedom, I might decide that I will only enter into this deal with you if, as part of it, you agree to not transfer the rights I conferred to you. I might also decide to give you this right. Similarly, you are free to abstain from entering into the deal with me if you don’t like the terms I require – like if I say you are not to transfer the rights conferred to you.

What the government is doing in the case of rulings like this is to restrict this freedom. This is something I do not agree the government should do. Government should protect both of us from coersion, force and fraud. (For example, if I first SAY you have the right to transfer, and THEN prohibit you from doing so, I have commited fraud and should be prosecuted. Similarly, if you agreed that you will not have the right, and still transfer, then YOU have commited fraud and should be prosecuted.)

This is a fundamental question that goes above the specific matter of software licensing terms – the same “issue” can be said to exist in employment. For example, the concept of minimum wage is the state restricting our freedom to deal in employment through mandating that the financial compensation for your work must be at or above a given level, voiding all contracts that violate this law.

So, as a fundamental question: do you agree or disagree that we should have unlimited freedom to deal with each other, and if you disagree, which specific restrictions should the state enforce and why are they justified?

[quote<]Think of it like this: if you purchase a book, what is your motive? Is it to: a) Secure some flattened wood fibers. b) Obtain and consume content. [/quote<] Does it matter? [quote<] Now, if the purcase agreement states: "You may resell this copy, assuming you remove your present copy from any system(s) you use it on", then that's fine, you may re-sell it. If it instead states "You may NOT resell this copy." then that is something you put into consideration when doing the purchase. If it's a problem for you, then you... ...don't purchase it! 😉 [/quote<] The argument at hand is one which questions the LEGALITY of restricting the resale of a good, not an argument of whether the creator/owner/publisher/developer says you can or not.

I see what you’re saying. The publisher/developer is essentially “losing” a sale from the 2nd hand consumer purchasing a “used” good, vs. a “new” good.

But my point, is that the one license that came with the “new” good, that was inherently sold to the 2nd hand consumer as a “used” good, is still the licensed by the same license, is still the same good, and still equates to the same amount people using said good (assuming the seller does the right thing and completely ceases use of said good, and/or does not keep in his possession said good after the sale ((in the case of digital goods)).

The re-sale of a car does not magically create another car, nor does it create another sale of a new car directly. So why should the manufacturer collect anything on that transaction?

Given the above scenario:

-The quantity of the good in the market is the same
-The quantity of people owning the good is the same
-The developer/publisher/creator/manufacturer has not exhausted anymore resources (whether it be sheet metal, glass, CDs, paper, bandwidth, administrative costs, etc.)

Does that warrant the collection of funds by the developer/publisher/creator/manufacturer in any way, shape, or form?

“When I purchase a game from steam, that’s not renting. I’m buying it, and that’s the business model steam is competing in. Steam sells games at retail prices, and those games are identical in terms of property and personal use. The only difference is the digital distribution, instead of physical distribution.”

Here’s the thing: last time I checked a physical copy of a game (it was many years since I purchased “hardcopy”, so this might have changed, but did a few quick looks and it seems to be the case still) does actually NOT come with the right to re-sale – that is, as far as the deal goes.

It is correct that in some territories there are laws on the books that make these clauses void, and this ruling appears to do the same for digital distribution. I’m not disputing that.

I’m discussing the right/wrong of this. That something is the “law” doesn’t make it “right”. It only makes it the law. That’s an important distinction to make.

“Cognitive dissonance much?”

No, you just failed to actually read. 😉

What I am saying is that we aren’t talking about “property” in the sense that a vehicle or a house or a silk brassiere is “property”. We are talking about obtaining a license to use a piece of software. This is an important distinction. Now, IF said license agreement agrees that you DO have the right to transfer your license, then obviously your license is transferable and then you are allowed to… transfer it… Still with me? BUT, if the license you purchase is non-transferable, then you are not allowed to transfer it, because your license is not transferable. See now?

Of course, you may argue that you’re not interested in purchasing a license thast is not transferable, and to an extent I agree with you – as I said, I would love to sell off some of the Steam games I have. But I am also saying that I was aware of this during my purchase, weighed it in when deciding on the purcase, and still came up on the side of forking up the money.

If you come up on the side of NOT wanting to fork up the money, then you don’t purchase. That really isn’t a complex or revolutionary concept.

“If the license isn’t mine, why did I pay for it again?”

Well, ask yourself that.
And the license is yours, but it’s non-transferable. How can this be so difficult?
If you don’t like the license terms, don’t purchase the license.

Yes, this does probably mean you won’t be playing Battlefield 3 or Mass Effect 3 or whatever else. But so what? These are luxury goods.

“Yet you just gave licensing that very definition. I agree. Your definition of a license is morally reprehensible.”

No I didn’t.
You seem to be inventing things that just aren’t there. Perhaps if you could explain, step-by-step, how you got there, I might be able to understand exactly where you get it wrong, because right now you seem to be making some rather fantastic leaps in your ‘logic’.

For example:
EXACTLY how did I define a license as “taking something someone else has made without their permission”?

I’m really curious, because this is one of the more hilarious leaps in logic I’ve ever seen in this specific subject. Reminds me of [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14[/url<] 😉

[quote<]Renting a car becomes problematic[/quote<] No it doesn't, and this is the same ridiculous confuse the issues tactic somebody else used several posts down. When I purchase a game from steam, that's not renting. I'm buying it, and that's the business model steam is competing in. Steam sells games at retail prices, and those games are identical in terms of property and personal use. The only difference is the digital distribution, instead of physical distribution. [quote<]You've poisoned the well immediately through the choice of words: "be able to resell your (digital) property". yes, it is within your rights to sell it.[/quote<] Cognitive dissonance much? [quote<]I obtained a license[/quote<] Court ruled licenses are property and can be resold, which isn't telling me anything I don't already know. [quote<]something belonging to someone else.[/quote<] If the license isn't mine, why did I pay for it again? [quote<]I consider it morally reprehensible to take something someone else has made without their permission.[/quote<] Yet you just gave licensing that very definition. I agree. Your definition of a license is morally reprehensible.

The disc is actually not what you paid for. You paid for a license to use the software, which may or may not be delivered on a physical medium.

Think of it like this: if you purchase a book, what is your motive? Is it to:

a) Secure some flattened wood fibers.
b) Obtain and consume content.

Now, if the purcase agreement states: “You may resell this copy, assuming you remove your present copy from any system(s) you use it on”, then that’s fine, you may re-sell it. If it instead states “You may NOT resell this copy.” then that is something you put into consideration when doing the purchase. If it’s a problem for you, then you…

…don’t purchase it! 😉

Where in the user agreement is it stated that we can’t resell the good we paid for?

For me this is all beside the point.

I look at the deal I made on purchase. That’s the agreement I made with the seller. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t have entered into the agreement. Now I did, so I have to stand by it.

That’s not really a difficult concept, and it’s not like are no good alternatives. If you don’t like it, use Free Software instead. (I would, personally, and have used several Linux flavors previously, except that for me my gaming habits and tastes basically made it “worth it” for me to license my software.)

[quote<]I'm not a constitutionalist, I'm not american either.[/quote<] Right, I get that, but freedom is a philosophy that happened to create, influence, and mold our government. Promoting the constitution and rights may be meaningless to the chinese, but the philosophy is not. I don't know how many people know this, but Ron Paul is a global figure in terms of his philosophic message. America is the last bastion of freedom in the world, and it's quite disturbing to watch it disappear. I don't know why we can't just send all the socialists to Canada, which would be great for everyone. [quote<]I think healthcare is a human right[/quote<] It's not a right in any way, and it's not part of natural humanity, but it is an obligated responsibility for the better off to take care of the helpless. This falls upon charities and churches to uphold, and if they aren't doing it, you have to individually step up to the task. One example of charity that I do is mowing my elderly neighbor's grass, I don't have to do it, and I don't mow the other neighbor's grass because he's perfectly capable of doing so. It's not my responsibility to take care of people who can take care of themselves, nor is it their responsibility to take care of me. Charity has to be given willingly for it to be honest, and it cuts down on leeches who game the system. FYI, the US has charity care, which will disappear once universal health care, written by the insurance companies, takes over. [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_care[/url<] [quote<]In the United States, charity care (also known as uncompensated care) is health care provided for free or at reduced prices to low income patients.[/quote<]

I DO understand what you’re saying, i just don’t agree about the causes and the concerns.

George Orwell feared Big brother destroying all the books. Adlous Huxley feared the devices that would undo an individuals capacities to think. Huxley feared that there would be no reason to ban books, for there would be no one who cared enough to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information, Huxley feared that we would be reduced to such ego and selfish laziness that we wouldn’t care at all. there was no reason to bother hiding the truth, because nobody would care enough to look at it. We’d be overcome with triviality.

Obviously Orwell’s opinions have validity, and i think it’s probably where you find yourself leaning. I personally worry more about Huxley’s position. That is the one I see as more likely in the immediate future. they’re both concerning, but the government isn’t my biggest fear.

I’m not a constitutionalist, I’m not american either. I think healthcare is a human right that surpasses “property rights”. obviously, you may disagree. I’m not siding with the “wolves”, i think we need justice in EVERY aspect of our globe. Not just in government, but business as well. I’m not a hypocrite, and i believe the right to trade, and own property is an important right at this current stage of human evolution. You call me dishonest, but you fail to understand that I AM honest, I just don’t agree with what you feel is innate. I think it’s wrong for a man to live in a mansion while his neighbors starve. I’m not advocating communal property, because i don’t think our society is in any position to be just. In an ideal world, (and i’m an idealist) the rich should [i<] with joy [/i<] take care of the needy. I do believe what is acceptable over human history changes. I'm not saying slavery was good, just, or acceptable but humanity gets educated, like an individual. We realize the mistakes of the past. I will end with my view that the failure of communism's greatest impact was not that it showed it's own weakness. it was that it mistakenly led some to believe that our method of capitalism is the best method. that it was invincible. I believe in the right to trade, but i think we need a world of justice, where each individual cannot allow for unnecessary suffering. technically, we're breaking the rules by talking about this here.

i don’t have an issue with property ownership, but I don’t buy your “natural state of mind”. The fact that other cultures/animals display it means nothing as to whether it is legitimate or not. plenty of animals and cultures have sex with their parents, and some psychologists argue it’s “natural”. it doesn’t matter though. I’m not going to do it. there are MANY examples of things people are inclined to do naturally that are wrong. Societies job is the take the best, improve, and leave the bad behind. That means that property ownership, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, is dynamic, and varies according to time and place. Nothing is static in the universe, i’m not going to pretend my owning my TV is the only exception. I can understand concern in regards to the honesty of our culture, but I don’t find property rights to be the major concern, i find that the monoculture being created through mass consumerism, generating adult children addicted to purchasing, a larger issue.

Specific groups argue that the market creates choice. it doesn’t. it creates a single culture that is universal across the planet that corrupts people into being addicted to purchasing crap they don’t need. It usurps democracy. You have the choice to pick whatever you like off the menu of “choice”. I think this “restaurant” sucks, and want to make a different menu.

I was in future shop yesterday, and they have a big sign up: ‘YOU ARE YOUR CELL PHONE’. i thought that summed up nicely my concerns.

Your comparison to a game being like the design of the Audi is nonsense; if you were sharing the source code, or making unlimited copies of the game to resell then the analogy would make sense, but as it’s a tightly controlled digital [i<]copy[/i<] that only one individual can own at any one time then - putting aside issues that might need addressed such as the lack of physical deterioration, etc. - it can be compared to a owning/selling car or any other physical good.

but if you could buy a car without the resale right, and save 10% would you? I would. I buy cars outright and tend to keep them until they aren’t worth much anyway. So I’d happilly save $4’000 to promise that I won’t sell the car. Sure it stops me from selling my car if I need the money, but it saves me 10% of a lot of money. That’s worth it for me, most of the time.

That’s not my business. I’ve got better things to do than open a cable shop.

[quote<]What about rentals[/quote<] Rentals are something completely different. Stop trying to mix the two. Cloud gaming doesn't exist, or at least is not very prevalent or ready for market, and that falls under renting. Cloud gaming will not become mainstream because: * It's not cost effective. Companies have to pay for the hardware, storage, and staff to maintain it. * People won't pay high prices to rent software. * People like to "own" their purchases. * Lag * Bandwidth Caps * Quality of game graphics and video artifacts * 30 fps vs 60+ fps. No competitive quake player would use this. * Highly likely that somebody will develop software enabling you to do this yourself. What do I think about your arguments? Deliberate falsification and obfuscation of the issues. You don't have a leg to stand on aside from mixing completely separate things. You can't equally compare apples to oranges. [quote<]Taking the Steam example, if enough people truly cared about the ability to resell software, then wouldn't there be a Steam competitor offering such a service?[/quote<] Impulse, d2d, gamersgate, Amazon, GOG, Desura, DotEmu, Origin, etc. There are plenty of steam alternatives if that's what you're asking, and more than a few offer DRM free downloads, and any digital game using a cdkey and being DRM free can be resold, provided you give up use of the key. Not to mention accounts can be sold. BTW, until digital distribution everyone was able to resell software over ebay. It's not like there isn't precedent, and this ruling just reinforces what I already know to be truth. The reason we don't have digital distributors allowing resale is basically collusion. DRM was designed specifically to battle the resale market, not piracy, and it's the same with DLC. The distributors are at war specifically with the consumer and the resale market. Not to say resale isn't impossible or being worked on. Impulse created a resale system called GOO, but has yet to be implemented. [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/news/stardock-goo-drm-copy-piracy,7390.html[/url<] [quote<]I'm all for the protection of consumer rights[/quote<] No you're not. I've read your post and it's pretty obvious where you stand. This is a fine example of Doublethink if I've ever saw it. I wouldn't even be surprised if you were [i<]paid[/i<] to write it.

[quote<]"ownership of property is still part of our natural state of mind" I think this is ideological propaganda. [/quote<] Why? Because the communist manifesto says we can't own property? That's what I think you're getting at anyway, and I don't follow that school of thought. That tripe comes from brainwashing liars who want to communalize wealth so they have the wealth, nothing more. Property ownership is part of our natural instincts because they are behavioral characteristics that cross the human/animal social boundary. Different animals exhibit "ownership" over their kills, and primates exhibit "ownership" over their personal tools. Property rights are a social evolutionary trait that have evolved to be part of a civilized society, and it's existed ever since we've been here, and even before we've been here. The ideological propaganda is what you believe, not me. Not to say that there isn't a struggle, because there is and always was. Every society has thieves, even the animals, and our society has basically progressed to the point of creating a philosophy specifically for the justification of theft. Not really a noble philosophy to embrace because that doesn't work out well once fully implemented.

No, it is philosophically close enough because the product provides a physical experience and money is physical. If you want me to pay for a virtual product, then I’ll give you virtual money, much like buying a sword from the trader in Diablo. Software also does depreciate in value, which is poor analysis on your part, easily proven by price drops, and outdated versions of software such as DOS which are worth little or nothing. Also, software doesn’t function well after 2 years, being as there are always bugs that need fixed, and you are not buying a “new” piece of software used. Buying a used copy of XP does not give you Windows7. Software is a resalable product, because it is a product, and products can be resold.

Also, like I said initially, if you want to go this direction in saying software isn’t a real product, then there is no reason for any of us to pay for it, because money is something you use to pay for real products. Why should I pay money for something that isn’t “real”?

You’re making the incorrect assumption that software depreciates in value in the same way that furniture does – which it does not. A piece of software functions as well after 2 years as it does when bought. Thus you can buy a “new” piece of software from someone other than the creator and you do not suffer the scrapes/scratches/faded varnish etc that you get with used furniture. Software is not a PHYSICAL product (your emphasis).

I pay full price for games I’ve been looking forward to or that I know I want to play. If there’s a game I’m on the fence about, I wait for a sale. If the game was never on sale, I’d probably never buy it. So which is better, to not get a sale from me, or to get a sale 6 months later for half the price? Pretty simple, and my money is at least still going to the people who made it.

Thank god, some sense at last.

Next up! USPTO reform means that Apple can’t sue anyone for making a product becuase said product infringes on one of 192349765829348 ridiculously obvious patents, eg “touch interface using fingers” or “rectangular electronic device with screen”

I’ll be enjoying the new(ish) vehicle I bought (used) after selling my old vehicle. The Audi is better than the Mazda, and no, I did not pay Audi full price for a four-year-old product. Funny how that works, huh?

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery! Nevermind that we have existing laws that could be used to enforce reselling digital property, those don’t exist. Instead, we make property rights such a grey area, you don’t realize you have them. Of course the real reason it’s a grey area is that the abolition of private property is part of the communist manifesto and oh look who’s in the white house and what legislation just got passed. Just saying is all. Whether or not you agree, Orwell was right and his philosophy is in our face everyday. Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

The only thing I’ve liked that this government has done recently is the ceremonial burial of Emmanuel Goldstein at sea and the end of the 2 minutes of hate. Too bad the team involved had to die in a helicopter crash, if they even existed or there was a crash. Of course all that really means is they have yet to find another Emmanuel Goldstein, because after 10 years the old one was becoming too surreal and unbelievable, not to mention made the administration look extremely incompetent.

Basically, our gov is too corrupt to be credible anymore, and there are too many socialist infiltrators. Are democrats socialists? Yes. I have relatives that are admittedly socialist and it drives me mad every time I see them. Socialism doesn’t work, it isn’t the American way, and it is the total destruction of the country. Hello Greece.

Depends on if you’re religious or not. If not, you could call it natural instincts or part of evolutionary anthropology. Your attempt to box in my statement as purely superstitious mumbo jumbo is pretty close minded, since there are multiple ways of describing this. Whether or not you believe in a deity, ownership of property is still part of our natural state of mind, as it’s something even children and animals recognize, who have no distinct concept of religion. Religion may be recognizing these natural instincts or be the source of natural instincts. Overall it’s a chicken and egg scenario, and doesn’t really matter how we arrived here overall. 1+1=2, doesn’t matter how. Unless you’re steve kaneko and 1+1=11, which also summarizes quite well the argument and how we got here.

Some people in society are too gullible and can’t recognize a liar, and liars know this. Therefore we have a whole section of society that falls for scams again and again, even to the point of developing stockholm syndrome and defending their abusers. This philosophy extends into my own interpretation of government and how totalitarian regimes operate. Pretty hats and fancy titles don’t mean they have the inherent right to boss you around, it just means they’ve mastered mind control and you’ve fallen for it. Therefore I act according to what I think is right, religion or not, and ignore pompous self aggrandizing “officials”. Think for yourself, basically.

I would go a step further and predict that we will see the demise of games as anything other than services in the near future.

-1 because you actually quoted where he said paid to WORK but then went on to argue that one has to work to be, um, paid for work. yeahh…

Your second paragraph is good though.

While being able to resell software means that developers will make less money over time on the product, it also means that their products are more valuable due to resale value. The car market is an excellent analogy corroborating this concept.

+1 and -1 corrected.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, other than a few specific cases, media/software makers should be allowed to append whatever sort of licenses they want to their product. If they make it too restrictive/are too greedy, then people can choose not to buy.

The few exceptions may be scenarios where companies have become dependent on certain software, requiring periodic upgrades, and a software company realizes this and purposeful alters the license to gouge said company…

I’m reading a lot of it’s our “natural”, “God-given” right, etc to be able to resell downloaded media/programs. What about rentals where you pay less and only have access to the media file for a limited time/number of sessions. Should these be rendered illegal? What about the new era of cloud gaming/apps that is ever threatening on the horizon? Presumably in such models, you pay a flat fee to access multiple games… Is this somehow unfair because you can’t resell this experience? You could even extend this argument to streaming services such as Netflix,,, I don’t see that there is such a black and white distinction just because you have downloaded the software first and are running it on your computer vs the publisher’s or cloud service’s.

When an industry becomes too dependent on legal regulation mandating specifically what can and can’t be done, content creators become too focused on how to circumvent such laws to maximize their own bottom line rather than on making a competitive product (both in content and in fair use policy) at a price customers are willing to pay.

Like it or not, services like Steam or Itunes have achieved their success because, overall, they’ve provided a service that a large proportion of the market was/is willing to pay for. And if, one day, we are only left with options to buy media on services such as Itunes or Steam (due to the majority of customers patronizing said models) and still collectively find that these services are too restrictive than we only have ourselves to blame.

Taking the Steam example, if enough people truly cared about the ability to resell software, then wouldn’t there be a Steam competitor offering such a service?

I’m all for the protection of consumer rights (and, for example, am becoming more and more appalled at the way the ongoing Android vs iOS legal battle is looking to end up restricting consumer choice insofar as dictating what devices we will be able to buy, etc). But in this situation, the majority have voted with their wallets. Who is any one individual to dictate that all these prior/ongoing patrons have been wrong?

Not revolutionary, but a correction of a deviation from the norm.

This could be revolutionary but only if it is applied broadly to cover music, video, and books, essentially all digital content.

Right, like they weren’t already paid for it. Completely fraudulent logic. You only get paid ONCE with every other PHYSICAL product known to man, so why should software be any different? A: It’s not. You get paid ONCE for each copy you directly sell. Used products are not required to pay you again for the original sale. A carpenter does not get paid every time his chair is resold, only the first time he sells it.

You do have the right to charge the next owner for repairing the chair, and that’s the same with software. Tech Support requires payment.

Additional analogy:
Reselling software has no significant impact on the market, and companies also sell new software versions like windows. Does a used copy of windows XP take money out of Microsoft’s pockets toward a windows 7 sale? No it does not. Used copies only enter the market once the original owner is done with the product. This doesn’t affect initial sales, and as a product gets older the price drops, keeping competitive with the used market. Warranties and support don’t transfer with used copies, so your point is nonexistent and completely ridiculous.

Please explain me the part where the developer has to refund the money they were paid when selling their product.

Ok, please answer this question, if you may: Should we apply those “morals” to cars, houses, furniture, TV sets or graphic cards?

[quote<] I want to have the option to pay less to not have the first sale doctrine.[/quote<] Ha! That's not going to happen. You'll pay more and get a lesser product for not having that privilege. The used market provides competition to the producers. It helps keep new prices in check, and producers have to increase the value of each version in order to compete.

Sounds good, let’s make PC games even less profitable… I’m sure that will do wonders for the already dying market. (I’m well aware this has implications beyond the gaming market, just highlighting a potential repercussion)

You don’t need to explain me the PR spin, but that doesn’t make it true. The truth is most of the people who buy used goods do that because they can’t afford new ones. Or maybe they’re willing to pay 30-50% of the price, but not full price. As simple as that.

And even if that were the case (it’s not, but let’s play)… Then what? Should we destroy the used cars market because, you know, when somebody buys a used car, he may well have bought one new shiny model were the used car not available? And houses? What about used houses? If your answer is “yes”, then we have nothing more to talk. I like my right to own things. And sell them if I want to.

And if your answer is “no”, what makes software companies special, with more rights than furniture, cars, or other industries?

This ruling wasn’t even about games. It was about licenses of Oracle. Its just that the decision has implications for all forms of software licenses, from DVDs, to downloadable movies, games, operating systems, to perhaps even iTunes music.

And you don’t pay less for a car by proving to the dealership that you’re going to be the only owner and never sell it to anyone else. Thats just silly.

you’ve missed my point, so I’ll reverse it. I want to have the option to pay less to not have the first sale doctrine. it’s worth something. and I don’t want it. so I want to sell it back to the creator.

as another example, when you buy a blu ray player, and it comes with a dozen expensive cables that I already have, I’d like the option to buy the blu ray player without the cables — to save the cost of the cables that I don’t need.

I’d reckon that less than 20% of customers sell their used games.

prepare for the court to force the publisher to allow transfer of the balance of the time limit to the new owner of the ‘license’.

What? I don’t even.

Back in the old days your license wasn’t tied to an online account, but a cdkey. The cdkey only lets one user log in to the sever at a time. Don’t see why we can’t go back to that, especially when plenty of games still use cdkeys with your account. Just deactivate the key from your account and move it to whomever you sold it to. Also, there isn’t anything keeping the distributor from charging a fee either, like ebay.

Oh, and there are plenty of old cdkey games being resold on ebay. It’s 100% legal too. This solves the problem of abandonware, but now abandonware will truly be abandoned with digital accounts.

Hahaha, it is a bit silly at first glance to be talking about hunter gatherer tribes in this context, I admit. Keep in mind, though, that humans evolved to live over millions of years in close-knit tribal, hunter-gatherer societies. That’s what we’re built, at a genetic level, to do. So if we want to know what “natural” for us looks like, that’s the best place to look.

And it’s pretty radically different from how we live today, by the way 🙂

I bet millions of iphone/ipad user would love to sell their old games and junk app for half price to the next guy…

Since this would decimate revenue, I can only guess software download would switch to ‘free’ add driven or time limited license.

Now since you would need to use the app store to resell your copy, Apple would still make another 30%.

“Selling Angry Birde for 50 cents” , be ready to receive a 35 cents credit….

Let ’em have it!! 🙂

Software companies already differentiate their software infrastructure and policies by country/political region.

Exactly right. Personal property is a human construct, with limits placed on it by the humans who created it. In some contexts it’s a useful construct, in others it is not. And nowhere, outside of fantasy fiction, is it an absolute right.

It’s good to dream unattainable dreams!

What about Bioshock type DRM where you can only install the software 3 or so times?

You’re assuming that the idea of “personal property” is a natural one to begin with. Just ask any hunter-gatherer tribe whether that’s the case, and you might be surprised by the answer.

I don’t really care if you do or not.

Personally, I don’t buy used games because I want my money to go to the people who made the game. If I can bypass the publisher, that’s even better, and the $175 I’ve pledged on kickstarter shows that.

Imo it’s the same thing for me, you, him and every other person. Why shouldn’t we do it? Personally i’m thrilled by the idea that soon i’ll be able to purchase games at much lower prices. Sort of revenge for the BS Steam did with 1$=1 Euro. I just fear the Publishers will come up with some sort of sh*t that will make the process painfull.

Sorta like they did with Anno 2070 which voided the license after you changed a component in your system. They could do the same and make the use of a game, on another machine impossible while voiding the license on the original machine as well. But I “trust” them to come up with a lot more neferious ways of screwing us over.

Depends. Consumer protection laws are pretty good in the EU relative to the US, it may not fly, but who knows.

[quote<]Even a farmer's market is far from being "natural" in any sense. There are rules set up to ensure fair dealing, to prevent people from just walking up and stealing products, etc. In the absence of laws, regulations, and institutions, we would just go around bonking each other on the head and taking what we want. [/quote<] You're ignoring that that wouldn't happen, and that it's not unnatural, because it's natural to protect your property, and therefore come up with a system to do so. What we have right now [i<]is[/i<] pretty much people taking what they want, but with a badge of approval from an artificial "authority." Where we get into trouble is when we ask someone else, who doesn't understand a particular industry or technology, to take care of it all for us. [quote<]So the trick is to figure out the bare minimum incentive necessary to have creators create.[/quote<] How about the potential profit from making something better than someone else and letting the buyer decide? That's all it took before IP, and that's all it still takes for what isn't dependent on it.

Wait, let ne get this straight….so it’s A OK for corporations to scheme, litigate, lobby and do everything in their power to bend the law to increase their bottom line but if you do it it’s some sort of sin? Has marketing and main stream media completely washed your brain?

Oh, I agree. I still revisit my SNES, Genesis, and Saturn from time to time, and the Dreamcast is always set up. I just think that’s what you’ll see next.

Meh. Bad times to be in the software development market. I’ll keep getting my cheap games from the Steam sales, at least that way the developer/publisher sees at least a little bit of the money.

Well, the point is that the person who bought the “used” copy may well have bought one of their own, were the used copy not available. Thus making for two sales for EA, rather than one sale to EA and one to the original owner. It’s a fairly big difference.

Of course nothing is stopping EA, even in Europe to charge an administration fee of what ever they like to facilitate the transfer.

Without breaking the law in which country? That would be illegal in all European countries I know. There are laws against cracking devices/software.

There is the possibility this would allow piracy. Buy the code its yours crack and sell it no problem. pirates can distribute cracks for protected software and bam your over that hurdle without breaking the law.

“Nuts!”

Edit
If it’s too obscure:
[url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe[/url<]

Yeah, the fact that – at least in Europe – EA will now be required to allow a new username and password for the license. They’ll be perfectly within their rights to cancel your old one, of course.

this is good progress, but my question is this;

let’s say i want to resell my digital copy of battlefield 3

the person who buys it from me will try to log in with a new username and password but still have the old license

I don’t think that EA will allow this, they’ll be losing money

am i overlooking anything?

I doubt it will make any difference in the coming age of computers that conspire against their owners in order to serve corporate interests.

And this will happen in the US next!

Nothing’s going to change for services that lock ownership by design. All the EU said is that customers are ALLOWED to sell their software. Services don’t have to FACILITATE this. Steam and Origin can remain as they are. They don’t have to give people the ability to sell their game to others.

“Let’s hope it doesn’t lead developers offering their wares as time-limited services, though.”

I suspect that is exactly what will happen.

Companies that are forced to adjust their sale infrastructure for the EU may very well end up finding it more cost effective to just leave it in place elsewhere, especially if other countries, such as Canada, follow the EU’s lead.

I wouldn’t exactly bet on that of course, but there is a chance that the US will get it in practice by virtue of everyone else getting it.

this should be law everywhere.

frist