No, it wasn't. It was if the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies on downloaded software. Which results in the right to resell the license in the oracle case, but not universally. Because it is not the only thing governing resales.The now decided question was (simplified): Can an owner of a software license resell his license to a third party?
I'd expect an end to free updates before I'd expect a business to just give up on this issue.
And clearly there is now a difference between US and EU on the issue, only making it more complicated.
Too early to say for sure this will result in a good thing IMO.
With DLCs the time of free updates already ended.
Patches are deemed part of the software as Straight Hustlin already said.
Will you agree on this baseline:
Since today's ruling the question has been answered, if your software license applies only to the software you initially bought (be it on a DVD or downloaded from someplace), or if it applies to any kind of this individual piece of software, no matter where or how it was acquired.
The answer is the latter (in the EU since today). This makes resale tremendously easy, because you're only selling/buying a license now, that isn't bound to any individual hard copy or something else.
On the ruling, yes, but not on the effect, at least the "tremendously easy".
As mentioned already before, you can buy games which use steam as copy protection as DVD version, too. The ruling which clarified the status of downloaded steam games didn't change their status at all, it is now just as it was before and the same as the downloaded games are now.
And you couldn't sell DVD versions of steam games before. Because their key is a one-use item to upgrade your steam account. I do not see any indicator whatsoever in the ruling which changes this. Again, I am speaking of software which was already DVD-based, not downloadable. But not resellable, because its use is still account-based. The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right is no magic wand which makes every instance of software resellable. I do not see it forcing Valave making games transferable, because if it could do that it could already have done it with normal DVD based versions of a steam game.
And even if it "works", it would in the end only do what Straight Hustlin said. We would see a faster switch from unlimited licenses to advertisement / monocle financed software or subscription based models, essentially speeding up what piracy already started. This isn't necessary a good thing.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 3 2012 at 07:27:04 PM.
The selling of a product using oneway-passwords with a standard software license used up until today is not possible anymore in the EU after this ruling. So I agree, that this will catalyze the restructuring of the market going to subscription or f2p-models in the gaming industry.
In the commercial software industry, I ain't got no fucking clue with what they'll come up.
Off-Topic: Welp, there goes post #1k.
That isn't what I am saying.I very well agree with your view, that the owners will go every extra mile there is..
I am saying that the ruling does not have the effect you think it does. It is a change / clarifying for downloaded software, no universal change for software in general. The limitations of DVD based software will still apply, and there exists plenty of DVD based software which is not transferable.
I do not think this is the case.The selling of a product using oneway-passwords with a standard software license used up until today is not possible anymore in the EU after this ruling.
For the Xth time, this "oneway-passwords", etc thing is already made with DVD versions of certain games. The current ruling does not effect them, all the additions there are meant to cement in the status of downloaded games as equal of DVD based games to avoid loopholes. It isn't about changing the status of software or licences in general, it is about changing/clarifying the status of downloaded software. It certainly will have an effect, but it won't be close to the one you think it will have.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 3 2012 at 08:24:44 PM.
"For the n-th time" go read http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp120094en.pdf
It explicitly states that "Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy."
You can be pretty sure that the ruling does not differentiate between a USB Dongle for AutoCAD or a database entry that ties a license to account x, aka the steam case.
I would even go as far as the point to this ruling was excplicitly to state that there is no difference in the two, hence the resale of digital licenses must be allowed. Technically its a joke to solve anyway.
It isn't the licence agreement which stops you selling your steam games. Its because you flat out cannot because there is no means to transfer them from your account to someone else. Them being account bound stops it.
The sentence you quoted means essentially "Any license agreement of a downloaded game saying you cannot resell it is invalid", nothing less but also nothing more. It certainly does not mean "Software licenses of any kind have to be transferable". "Oppose" is meant legally (hint: it's a legal document).
The point you still miss is that the sentence you quoted is NOTHING NEW - it is already the case for DVD distributed software even before that ruling. Yet it does not lead to a "resell everything" paradise there.
/Edit: There is even a German court ruling about precisely that from 2010. User bought HL2 as DVD and sued Valve because it using Steam made resale impossible. Ruling stated Valve must not provide an option to transfer the game. Run it through google translate if you want.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 4 2012 at 07:32:55 AM.
"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."
What the ruling says in a fictive example:
1. Ie, if I buy a Diablo 3 I will in in all aspects be the rightful owner of the license and the software connected to the license.
2. Blizzard on the other hand has no obligations in this ruling to set it up so that I can.
3. They can however not deny me access to Battle-net if I obtain a "copy" of Diablo 3 in other ways and installs it with my bought code.
In the case of Steam and a game that requires Steam to work,
1. I buy a code and can by the local EU country's laws prove that I have obtained the code lawfully (this also applies to the D3 case but the obvious is obvious).
2. Since I am now the rightful owner of the software (and its uses - this part varies between EU countries) Steam can not deny me access.
Oh and while software developers will hang on to that "may" to obstruct as much as possible depending on the specific consumer rights laws in the various member states of the EU, anyone should know that in communist EU one does not fuck with the consumer rights law.
Again, all the ruling states is that the "principle of exhaustion of the distribution right" applies on downloaded games just as with DVD games. However, again, there are ways to "disable" this thing for DVD-based games already. See the ruling I provided. The judges agreed there that Valve provides with steam a service and the DVD is essentially a "movie ticket" for that one and therefore the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right does not apply for the (DVD!) version of the game.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 4 2012 at 08:15:17 AM.
The court specifically overrules that verdict.
I was not talking about a "copy", which is clearly stated in my 1. ... license ... please stop going for straws...
If Blizzard sells a game with a code that provides access to B-net, the court ruled that if I as a second buyer of that code also has access to B-net.
To clarify it even more:
The court NUKED the "principle of exhaustion of distribution" regarding any (tangible or intangible methods of distribution) software.
Usedsoft buys old licenses for Oracle software and resells them. Oracle stops the buyers of used licenses to obtain software, upgrades and connection to the oracle "network", arguing exactly as Valve did in the Valve case.
Court rules that a buyer of a "used" license has the same "right" of use as the original buyer. Hence, if a license grants access to the oracle network for the first buyer, it does also provide access to the Oracle network for the second buyer (and all other "rights" provided by the license).
I.e. If someone sells me a license for Tower Defense IV, and that license provides access to the Steam network for the original buyer so does it also for me. DVD or "download" does not matter.
Also, Lallante is spot on.
Does the ruling also mean that it's legal to sell MMO accounts for RL cash?
(Also a bit of an grey area, because the account itself is technically something you get for free. And they still have the (legal) means to ban an account for no particular reason. But this only as sidenote.)
If the court "nuked" the "principle of exhaustion of distribution" rights then you COULDN'T resell software. Because this is what ALLOWS the re-selling, not the other way around. It means that Oracle has exhausted its right to distribute a certain copy of their software by the initial sale of it to the first customer. If the court nuked this principle of exhaustion Oracle would retain that right, therefore would be the only party which could re-sell that copy of their software.
Basically, Oracles argument was that the "principle of exhaustion of distribution rights" does not apply on downloaded software. It applies on DVD-based software. Court said "Nope, it also applies on downloaded software".
The tl'dr of the ruling is "If a software is downloaded it does not stop following the principle of exhaustion of distribution rights".
Your fallacy is that you read that as "All software follows always under all circumstances the principle of exhaustion of distribution rights" which isn't the same thing. There are already prior rulings where software was determined NOT to follow this principle. And NOT because it was downloaded, so they aren't countered by the new ruling. See that HL2 ruling I provided.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 4 2012 at 10:59:55 AM.
Thinking about it, this might be applicable to Eve-Online accounts, if you could argue that each account is its own, specific product.
For germany at least: no resale of steam games.
Here's a heise.de article written by an actual lawyer as opposed to an internet lawyer: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...e-1631306.html
Since it is in german and most won't read it either way, here are the core bits, paraphrased:
this part of the EUGH ruling:
"the EUGH has ruled to allow reselling of software, but the ruling does not force publishers to actually technically implement a way to do so"
this is germany specific due to an additional ruling by the highest german court:
"same for steam, origin or other similar retail methods that logically bind the software to the hardware in question by a product activation"
this again is EUGH ruling:
"the ruling spcifically only applies to programs, defined as [coming from] a sourcecode that is capable of executing loops and jumps, so no mp3s, no video files, no other media [and no eve accounts]"
Tanks: theBlind[SOBAD] (in my heart there will always be a place for [FAIL])