EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games

[mrowakus]

EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games

As the topic says: EU rulled that publishers cannot stop you from transfering your license to use software - even if it is downloadable. In other words, preventing users from selling used games - even if they are on Steam - is illegal. The users must have the option to transfer the license to the third party in exchange of money.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-03-eu-rules-publishers-cannot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games

Edit 1: On the surface it is good news, but...

I wonder how it'll impact GOG...

It seems to me they are going to be forced to have a DRM system in order to monitor the transfer of the licenses. Else, they are not going to get any new games, because reselling games without DRM can be very easily abused.

Edit 2: More on the issue:

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

 

[DeargRuadhri]

As the topic sais: EU rulled that publishers cannot stop you from transfering your license to use software - even if it is downloadable. In other words, preventing users from selling used games - even if they are on Steam - is illegal. The users must have the option to transfer the license to the third party in exchange of money.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-03-eu-rules-publishers-cannot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games

I wonder how it'll impact GOG...

Yes, I read that too, and this might be an interesting thing, but I don't know if it turns out to be a good or bad interesting thing.

 

[norolim]

My prediction is that it won't be a good thing at all. If this stands, big publishers will go even faster in the direction of always online, online passes, premium content (read: 70% of your game) and basically games as a service. You will be able to buy used games, but what good will it do for you, if you won't even have half of the game. And then, there is GOG, as the OP mentioned. They will have to find a way to make sure that a customer selling his copy of a game has no way to play it again. Normally, I would be happy about such a ruling, but taking the state of the industry into consideration, it may turn out to be a disaster

 

[CostinRaz]

So they just made selling WoW accounts something that Blizzard can't stop anymore eh?

 

[mrowakus]

My prediction is that it won't be a good thing at all. If this stands, big publishers will go even faster in the direction of always online, online passes, premium content (read: 70% of your game) and basically games as a service. You will be able to buy used games, but what good will it do for you, if you won't even have half of the game. And then, there is GOG, as the OP mentioned. They will have to find a way to make sure that a customer selling his copy of a game has no way to play it again. Normally, I would be happy about such a ruling, but taking the state of the industry into consideration, it may turn out to be a disaster

Actually the EU fellows thought about it as well and discussed the issue thoroughly:

Issue 4: does it matter that the software has been patched/updated/changed between being bought by the first purchaser and then transferred to the second purchaser?

Oracle argued that, because the software in question had been updated under a maintenance agreement since it was bought by the first purchaser, it could not be said that the second purchaser was purchasing the same software. Therefore, Oracle said, there could not be an issue of exhaustion of rights here.

The CJEU disagreed. It said: "the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 extends to the copy of the computer program sold as corrected and updated by the copyright holder" (para 68).

Issue 5: what happens if the first purchaser acquires more licenses than he actually needs?

The CJEU said that the first purchaser couldn't then slice and dice the licenses into piece and sell them off individually – they had to be transferred en masse (para 69). (This is only likely to be relevant in block license deals of course).

So it appears that whatever premium content you acquire, it has to be automatically transfered to the new buyer.

However here's the DRM danger

Issue 6: what happens to the first purchaser's installed copy of the software once he has sold it to a second purchaser?

The CJEU held that the first purchaser needs to "make his own copy unusable at the time of its resale…in order to avoid infringing the exclusive right of reproduction of a computer program which belongs to its author", laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24".

(This makes sense – if you sell the software on you shouldn't have the right to keep using it – otherwise you won't really have sold it at all).

Later on, the CJEU acknowledged that in practice this could impose difficulties on the software developer because it'd be hard to know whether the first purchaser has made his copy "unusable". The CJEU therefore briefly commented "to solve that problem, it is permissible for the distributor – whether ‘classic’ or ‘digital’ – to make use of technical protective measures such as product keys".

 

[Sirnaq]

In my opinion it is completely natural. When i buy movie on dvd, i can just sell it to anyone after i watched it. No one cares that movie industry lost sell. BUT, movie is not in my collection anymore so i can't just watch it again, to watch it again i must buy another copy, used or new one. Completely natural market law by me.

 

[mrowakus]

What I fear is that it will just pressure the devs into changing software from "products" to "services". The product (game) will be free, but you doing anything in it will be the service they offer which will milk the money out of you. Plus you will have to be online at all times for the services to be offered from a remote server - like storying a character in a singleplayer game, even though you could do that on your hard drive... Cloud computing, here we come!

 

[Sirnaq]

What I fear is that it will just pressure the devs into changing software from "products" to "services". The product (game) will be free, but you doing anything in it will be the service they offer which will milk the money out of you. Plus you will have to be online at all times for the services to be offered from a remote server - like storying a character in a singleplayer game, even though you could do that on your hard drive... Cloud computing, here we come!

Well if publishers want to create terrible prducts (or services), we can't stop them. Vote with your wallet and buy single player games from indie devs then. Even without new law big corporations as microsoft, ea or sonny have nothing to offer. Im simply not buying their products becuse i know they are low quality or are not what im looking for in gaming.

 

[dragonbird]

So it appears that whatever premium content you acquire, it has to be automatically transfered to the new buyer.

Maybe. It will depend on how the vendor phrases it. If they say the premium content is a "free gift" they may be able to stop it being transferred, but if it's part of the sold product, then yes, you're right. It covers patches and other software updates delivered through a maintenance/support agreement that was in force before the transfer took place. Generally though, the decision excludes services, so it doesn't say that the maintenance contract itself MUST be transferred. My reading of that is that the original developer would NOT be required to support the new owner.

However here's the DRM danger

Yes and no. Yes, it means that a developer still has the right to have DRM, but if they do, they will also need to provide a way of transferring the licence to a new owner.

What I fear is that it will just pressure the devs into changing software from "products" to "services". The product (game) will be free, but you doing anything in it will be the service they offer which will milk the money out of you. Plus you will have to be online at all times for the services to be offered from a remote server - like storying a character in a singleplayer game, even though you could do that on your hard drive... Cloud computing, here we come!

Again, yes and no. The difference between a "product" and a "service" is defined in most jurisdictions because it has taxation impact, so they can't just decide to call something a service because they feel like it, it will have to be a genuine on-line service. But you're right, it will probably encourage cloud-based games. But the companies who are going to want to screw their customers are doing this anyway, so it isn't going to make things worse.

 

[mrowakus]

Maybe. It will depend on how the vendor phrases it. If they say the premium content is a "free gift" they may be able to stop it being transferred, but if it's part of the sold product, then yes, you're right. It covers patches and other software updates delivered through a maintenance/support agreement that was in force before the transfer took place. Generally though, the decision excludes services, so it doesn't say that the maintenance contract itself MUST be transferred. My reading of that is that the original developer would NOT be required to support the new owner.

My reading is different - the new owner has the same obligations with the producer as the old one (e.g. he cannot make 1000000 copies of the game and distribute it for free) so the producer has the same obligations with the new ower as with the old one.

Yes and no. Yes, it means that a developer still has the right to have DRM, but if they do, they will also need to provide a way of transferring the licence to a new owner.

What more effective way of following the license transfer than DRM do you know? How e.g. GOG is supposed to secure selling of their games to third parties and making sure the game is uninstalled on the seller's computer?

I am not saying that there are no other alternative methods but we both know this will be a good excuse to use even more draconian DRM.

Again, yes and no. The difference between a "product" and a "service" is defined in most jurisdictions because it has taxation impact, so they can't just decide to call something a service because they feel like it, it will have to be a genuine on-line service. But you're right, it will probably encourage cloud-based games. But the companies who are going to want to screw their customers are doing this anyway, so it isn't going to make things worse.

This is exactly what I meant. And that a game could perfectly well store save-files on my computer would be meaningless, when the dev decides simply not to provide this functionality and charge me for storying the files in his cloud instead.

 

[dragonbird]

My reading is different - the new owner has the same obligations with the producer as the old one (e.g. he cannot make 1000000 copies of the game and distribute it for free) so the producer has the same obligations with the new ower as with the old one.

I disagree. The ruling explicitly excludes services. The developer has no obligation to provide any type of support except for making the original download plus patches that were provided under their agreement with the first buyer available (if necessary). But they may need to change the EULA's to clearly separate product and service.

What more effective way of following the license transfer than DRM do you know? How e.g. GOG is supposed to secure selling of their games to third parties and making sure the game is uninstalled on the seller's computer?

I am not saying that there are no other alternative methods but we both know this will be a good excuse to use even more draconian DRM.

Yup, it'll be DRM, but not in itself any more draconian than now. It really depends on the company - GoG rely on the honour system now, so why go to the expense of changing? EA have draconian DRM now, and still will have draconian DRM after this. It's just that the draconian DRM will need to include a way of allowing legal transfers.

This is exactly what I meant. And that a game could perfectly well store save-files on my computer would be meaningless, when the dev decides simply not to provide this functionality and charge me for storying the files in his cloud instead.

Yup, they could. And the types of companies that would do something like that are going to do to find new and inventive ways of screwing us out of money anyway. It's up to us as gamers to decide whether or not to support these companies by buying from them.

 

[Zanderat]

Yup. To work the original (and be fair to the publisher), the original owner can't be allowed to keep the game that he is selling. How does that work?

 

[dragonbird]

Yup. To work the original (and be fair to the publisher), the original owner can't be allowed to keep the game that he is selling. How does that work?

Exactly the same way as you're currently stopped from copying the game and giving the copy to someone else while keeping the original. Either DRM or the honour system, both backed up by whatever laws apply. If someone sells the game but keeps a copy, the seller is either the proud "owner" of a pirate copy, or has defrauded the buyer.

 

[wichat]

Just another new...

4th July. The European Parliament rejects ACTA.link

 

[dragonbird]

Just another new...

4th July. The European Parliament rejects ACTA.link

Yes, what a GOOD day it was

 

[norolim]

Pfff. All that is nothing. They found the Higgs boson!!!

 

[mrowakus]

Pfff. All that is nothing. They found the Higgs boson!!!

Man, think about the possibilities! It was a good day indeed.

 

[norolim]

Man, think about the possibilities! It was a good day indeed.

Yea, so Mass Effect wasn't lying. We'll soon start building mass relays I'm already planning which planetary system to move to.