Resale of Software deemed legal by highest EU Court. Impact for Steam etc?

[Mrenda]

The important thing is that circumventing copy protection to get access to software you own, is as far as I know currently legal. So my friend could buy a game, play it, sell it to me for three cents, I could download it from ~where ever~ put my key in, when my key doesn't work, I could use cracks to play it. And all of that would be legal.

Where it gets interesting is at what point the license is a license, at what point the license is a non-term-limited license, at what point it's not a license but a service, and at what point it's not a service but a rental. Even if you agree in a EULA that you're only renting something until the whims of the rentor withdraws the game but the rentor is using this as a get-around-the-law bit of hackery, I have no qualms predicting that the court rules, "Actually, no, you're still selling something not renting it because of the effect of the agreement so the right of sale still exists." In consumer law the actual contract isn't as important the rights afforded to you by Consumer Protection Law.

Also outright illegal EULAs are, well, illegal.

What's outright illegal?

[Torashuu]

If this ruling does mean all companies need to enable software reselling I expect most will go to a subscription based model for their games. Either that or F2P.

[FatFreddy]

The important thing is that circumventing copy protection to get access to software you own, is as far as I know currently legal. So my friend could buy a game, play it, sell it to me for three cents, I could download it from ~where ever~ put my key in, when my key doesn't work, I could use cracks to play it. And all of that would be legal.

Where it gets interesting is at what point the license is a license, at what point the license is a non-term-limited license, at what point it's not a license but a service, and at what point it's not a service but a rental. Even if you agree in a EULA that you're only renting something until the whims of the rentor withdraws the game but the rentor is using this as a get-around-the-law bit of hackery, I have no qualms predicting that the court rules, "Actually, no, you're still selling something not renting it because of the effect of the agreement so the right of sale still exists." In consumer law the actual contract isn't as important the rights afforded to you by Consumer Protection Law.

Also outright illegal EULAs are, well, illegal.

What's outright illegal?

For example if you would write in your EULA that reselling the software is forbidden when EU law exists that claims otherwise. Or if you set a no-return policy, etc. -> counts for fuck in court, even if you signed it triple.

[Nooby]

What is all this uninformed, incredibly stupid hurfblurf about "american companies wont care"? Do you think there is a magical "murica" stamp that exempts them from the law?

Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean Valve has to make it possible on their platform.

wow some of you guys are exceptionally stupid

American courts will LOL at this and tell the Eurocommiefags to make their own games.

If I buy a game here, I and the person who sells it to me fall under EU customer laws. See 14-day return time etc.


WTS common knowledge to muricans, although I'm not sure if you guys can afford it - couple years of zomgcrisis later and you still need 125% of your money to get ours

I can't decide if you actually have more knowledge about the issue or if you're just talking out of your butt to look smart on the internet.

[FatFreddy]

What is all this uninformed, incredibly stupid hurfblurf about "american companies wont care"? Do you think there is a magical "murica" stamp that exempts them from the law?

Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean Valve has to make it possible on their platform.

wow some of you guys are exceptionally stupid

American courts will LOL at this and tell the Eurocommiefags to make their own games.

If I buy a game here, I and the person who sells it to me fall under EU customer laws. See 14-day return time etc.


WTS common knowledge to muricans, although I'm not sure if you guys can afford it - couple years of zomgcrisis later and you still need 125% of your money to get ours

I can't decide if you actually have more knowledge about the issue or if you're just talking out of your butt to look smart on the internet.

Both

[FatFreddy]

Oh and before you all get your panties in a twist about steam, here is a little hint (Electronic Arts offices in Yurop):

[Aramendel]

Thats exactly the issue that was at hand,..

No, it wasn't.

Let me try my reasoning again in a more easy to follow logic chain:

- the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right already did apply since ...well... forever for DVD-based steam games
- yet, despite that, you cannot resell DVD-based steam games
- downloaded steam games have now the same rights as DVD based steam games
- You cannot resell DVD based steam games, so you cannot resell downloaded Steam games either

And before you want to go again why you think this goes against the ruling:
The fact that you cannot resell non-downloaded steam games makes it rather obvious that your reasoning is flawed and/or you are missing information. The law wasn't changed, just expanded to apply to downloaded games as well.

My best guess is because the software in the ruling was self-contained. You downloaded the software, you put in the licence key, stuff worked. Zero influence from Oracle outside of patches.
Steam, however, is a lot more complex. Beside updating it also manages savegames, creates a social net, manages multiplayer, etc. But no idea really why exactly you cannot resell a DVD of in example Deus Ex 3, despite the exhaustion of the distribution principle applying on it already before this ruling. But it is a fact that you cannot sell it, so there has to be something which makes that principle not apply there.

[Aramendel]

The important thing is that circumventing copy protection to get access to software you own, is as far as I know currently legal. So my friend could buy a game, play it, sell it to me for three cents, I could download it from ~where ever~ put my key in, when my key doesn't work, I could use cracks to play it. And all of that would be legal.

The ruling specifically mentions that you would have to remove the software you resell from machines you own.

[Alistair]

How will/could this ruling effect game account sales, if at all? Is your account in an online game equivalent to your licence, and hence becomes re-sellable despite the wishes of the game maker/provider? Obviously, alot of accout sales happen already, but will this bring that activity out of the semi-shadows and make it "legit"?

[Aramendel]

I can't decide if you actually have more knowledge about the issue or if you're just talking out of your butt to look smart on the internet.

He is perfectly right and it is kinda obvious.

For lawsuits against a product it does not matter where you produce it, it matters where you sell it.
And if you ignore those lawsuits because you are based in a different country you will notice that selling your product in the country you were sued is suddenly illegal.

[FatFreddy]

It is clearly time to bomb Yurop to get rid of their weapons of mass socialism.

[Mrenda]

The important thing is that circumventing copy protection to get access to software you own, is as far as I know currently legal. So my friend could buy a game, play it, sell it to me for three cents, I could download it from ~where ever~ put my key in, when my key doesn't work, I could use cracks to play it. And all of that would be legal.

Where it gets interesting is at what point the license is a license, at what point the license is a non-term-limited license, at what point it's not a license but a service, and at what point it's not a service but a rental. Even if you agree in a EULA that you're only renting something until the whims of the rentor withdraws the game but the rentor is using this as a get-around-the-law bit of hackery, I have no qualms predicting that the court rules, "Actually, no, you're still selling something not renting it because of the effect of the agreement so the right of sale still exists." In consumer law the actual contract isn't as important the rights afforded to you by Consumer Protection Law.

Also outright illegal EULAs are, well, illegal.

What's outright illegal?

For example if you would write in your EULA that reselling the software is forbidden when EU law exists that claims otherwise. Or if you set a no-return policy, etc. -> counts for fuck in court, even if you signed it triple.

I know. That's why I said, "In consumer law the actual contract isn't as important the rights afforded to you by Consumer Protection Law." You can't sign away consumer rights.

The important thing is that circumventing copy protection to get access to software you own, is as far as I know currently legal. So my friend could buy a game, play it, sell it to me for three cents, I could download it from ~where ever~ put my key in, when my key doesn't work, I could use cracks to play it. And all of that would be legal.

The ruling specifically mentions that you would have to remove the software you resell from machines you own.

Obviously. That's what selling something involves.

[GiDiYi]

The law wasn't changed, just expanded to apply to downloaded games as well.

I am not sure wether I just misinterpreted your post or if you got something wrong there:

The court didn't decide about a difference of downloaded and DVD-based software, because there isn't any difference in a legal way and there never was one.

The now decided question was (simplified): Can an owner of a software license resell his license to a third party?

Final answer in the EU since today is: Yes, he can.

This fucks up pretty much every software license that is out there, because until today it was forbidden in the licenses due to an obvious loss of a crapton of revenue for the developer due to resales. Up until now, you had to buy a new license by the original copyright owner, no matter how you acquired the software.

This means possibly the biggest loss in revenue for the software developing industry since forever, if you disregard the illegal practice of software piracy.

Edit for clarification: It's not consumer law we're talking here. This decision also applies to all software used in a commercial way. Here lie the biggest losses for software developers.

[Mrenda]

Edit for clarification: It's not consumer law we're talking here. This decision also applies to all software used in a commercial way. Here lie the biggest losses for software developers.

Oh yeah, absolutely. There have been prior cases that state that the resale of a license, if the license is ~forever~ is OK. Although from what I remember in America the ruling was based on the idea that a forever license is indistinguishable from buying a real life product. It exists in that state forever and that is resaleable and the license was never in fact a legal entity. This is different because it recognises that the license exists, and it rules that the license is transferable.

The reason we're talking about games is because games are the most important aspect on this forum. The biggest threat to business is of course commerical buyers reselling their licenses.

Edit: And add on the fact that when this gets tied into consumer protections it's going to be a behemoth of legal protections for gamers.

[Jolin]

So you could theoretically resale your windows/office/Adobe key?

[Cortess]

So now we're legally able to sell our steam-games. You could sell it and ask support to move it to another account. They could (and propably will) say "lolnope" but then you could go all "lolyes: EU-law strikes your EULA".

There should be another law that says that publisher have to make it possible to transfer software.

[Cortess]

So you could theoretically resale your windows/office/Adobe key?

You could always do this (at least in germany with license = sticker with key on it)

[Straight Hustlin]

This is going to have huge ramifications on the software industry as a whole, not just gaming. Take for instance a company like Autodesk that produces ACAD, Inventor, Mechanical Desktop, Etc...; These programs can cost into the 10's of thousands. Currently when you buy a new version of the software, your stuck with your old product version that you cannot sell. There was a ruling a few months ago in the States where a guy was sued by autodesk because he was buying peoples old versions of CAD and reselling them, and Autodesk sued the shit out of him. Of course with America being fuck yeah corporations, the court ruled in favor of Autodesk. Now as this ruling effectively makes this practice legal in the EU, I dont see Autodesk and other large software companies taking this lightly. I would bet my money that they stop selling licsensed versions software and instead shift to a subscription based product model. Autodesk already started something in this vein, but it was more of that instead of buying the single product you paid a subscription and you automatically get the upgraded versions whenever they came out. So the ground work is already there for them to shift to this model.

So I wouldnt get all "Woo hoo I can sell my steam games" about this yet and wait to see how the software industry reacts to this. I personally foresee that in the future instead of buying software you will have to purchase subscriptions so that the biggest lost the software companies would face is you selling the remainder of your sub time. Inb4 windows 9 only 19.99 a month

[Zeekar]

Or they switch to selling support/fixes etc...

[Krugerrand]

I guess we might see account fees introduced more than anything.