EU Court Legalizes Selling "Used" Digital Games

[Mortuorum]

Another step closing to treating digital property as actual property, that you own after you purchase, with all the rights and permissions you normally associate with anything you actually own. I'm good with this.

Agreed. The idea that I can pay $50+ for a game and not own it doesn't sit well with me. The possibility of having legal recourse if a publisher decides I no longer have the right to "license" software I paid for can only be a good thing.

 

[FEichinger]

Alright. Thanks for that extra piece of information.

Still, without some sort of license management system (meaning DRM), it would be practically indistinguishable from piracy.

I would definitely agree, and I actually think that Valve (or, possibly more likely, GOG) will jump all over this for that reason. Since they're distributors and not purely publishers, they stand a lot more to gain from implementing a "used" game re-distribution system. And if gamers put up with GameStop's tradeback system they can probably handle whatever Valve can come up with - Steam is already generally regarded as gamer-friendly despite the fact that, when it comes down to it, it's basically a giant piece of DRM.

Agreed. I'd assume Valve to start by simply removing the library entry for the respective game once sold (and either with that step, or with a later one, also immediately uninstalling the game upon sale). Combine that with Steam Trade and it would feel perfectly fitting with the system. Non-intrusive, even a nice UI and it works pretty darn easily.
Of course, the outcry over Steam being DRM might start again, but then again, it is but it works because except for the still-not-working Offline mode it is completely non-intrusive.

 

[PingoBlack]

OK, this text takes a lot more reading than this ...

First of all, it does not cover temporary licence. So excludes nearly all subscription based games. WoW accounts might not be covered, nor any similar sub based EULAs.

Second question is digital software distribution. One can transfer (sell) a permanent licence to another person, but the software itself might be responsibility of the seller.

Thirdly, there is no need for Steam and similar systems to implement tools for sale of licences. All they are required to do to fulfill this ruling is to allow people to transfer licences between accounts. As far as I know, that is already something they can do through support process.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I don't really respect used games and I lose some for those who purchase and sell them. So I'm left bemused, if not indifferent.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Oh, wonderful. And here I thought that publishers were going to just trandform games from a product to a service without anyone deciding it would be bad for consumers.

However, publishers have now already THOUGHT of DRM, so instead of years, it'll be like weeks or days before some scumbag manages to reinvent it for digital 'used' copies.

Although part of me hopes that used copies will become irredeemable and you'll have to buy every game new, because then companies will realise how used games underpin the whole system. I wouldn't buy half as many games if I couldn't get money off old ones.

 

[TheTechnomancer]

really no one has seen it yet the nuclear option the publishers have reread the second to last sentence.
"the Court explained that if a copyright holder both distributes a copy of the product and grants the customer unlimited uses of the product, the transaction "involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy." "
Anyone else see the harbinger of doom in that sentence.

Why... Why did you have to bring that idea up? Now the EA spies will read it here and use it against us. What have you done...

Other than that possibility though, I think this case deserves a smiley face.

 

[Johnlives]

If they "grant the customer unlimited uses of the product". Could they not just then limit the number of usees the customer is allowed to avoid this?

 

[Aardvark Soup]

As far as Dutch lay goes EULA's including with games (or software) you bought from a store are practically meaningless: you made a deal with the store-owner and not the game publisher, therefore they can't add additional requirements about you can and can't do with your games.

It's still under discussion how valid license agreements are that come with downloaded games, and it probably depends on whether they are displayed before or after you buy the game. There is a rather ridiculous ban on any form of circumventing DRM, though. So when publishers put some kind of simple and ineffective DRM that prevents you from reselling your downloaded game they can still sue you here if you do so.

 

[oktalist]

But it's still a matter of passing off a copy of copyright-protected software to another person.

You're not selling the data. You're selling the license. The buyer would then presumably download the data from the same place that the person who bought it new got it from.

All they are required to do to fulfill this ruling is to allow people to transfer licences between accounts. As far as I know, that is already something they can do through support process.

Wait, WHAT? They kept that quiet!

No, a quick look at their support FAQ shows you can currently only resell unused games (games you have bought but never played).

There is sadly one thing I think will go away with this:

Deep discounts.

I don't see why. If I can buy a license for $5 used or $10 new, I'll buy the used one and the publisher will get no money from the sale. If the new license is discounted to $5 then I'll buy it new and the publisher will get $5 instead of $0. So wouldn't it make sense for them to offer more discounts?

 

[PingoBlack]

Wait, WHAT? They kept that quiet!

No, a quick look at their support FAQ shows you can currently only resell unused games (games you have bought but never played).

They surely can transfer a game between two accounts you own, so technically they have no limitation. The big question is who would be the one to verify if the licence was sold.

But I mostly meant to say they are not under obligation to add a button "Sell this used game" at this point from the looks of the ruling.

 

[oktalist]

They surely can transfer a game between two accounts you own, so technically they have no limitation. The big question is who would be the one to verify if the licence was sold.

But I mostly meant to say they are not under obligation to add a button "Sell this used game" at this point from the looks of the ruling.

Yes, there's no technical reason why they can't transfer a license between two accounts. I didn't suggest otherwise. Whether it's a quick, easy button or a long, drawn out support request, the end result is the same.

You seemed to be saying that this ruling hasn't changed anything, because Steam users have already been able to transfer ownership of games through support requests. My point was that until now, they've been able to simply refuse such a request.

Surely the only verification necessary would be to ensure that the request to transfer the license comes from the original holder of the license. There's no need for Steam to verify that money has changed hands, as some people might want to give away some of their games for free. There's also nothing to stop anyone taking someone's money and then failing to transfer a license to them in return as promised. This is the case with any internet trading. This could be mitigated by only buying through a marketplace run by a reputable third party, like eBay.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I don't see why. If I can buy a license for $5 used or $10 new, I'll buy the used one and the publisher will get no money from the sale. If the new license is discounted to $5 then I'll buy it new and the publisher will get $5 instead of $0. So wouldn't it make sense for them to offer more discounts?

I don't think that will happen because of the digital market´s axioms. A Natural Monopoly like this can simply "manufacture" a license out of nothing.

More probable in that scenario of yours is that when you resell a license back to a digital distributor, the DD will revoke your license and then simply destroy it. It is pointless to sell an old license at a discount when a new can be made with little effort and sell at full price.

Alternatively, they can simply sell the license as new as there would be no discernible difference between a new and a pre-owned one. That wouldn't be risk-free however, especially if it is a one-activation license.

 

[PingoBlack]

Surely the only verification necessary would be to ensure that the request to transfer the license comes from the original holder of the license. There's no need for Steam to verify that money has changed hands, as some people might want to give away some of their games for free. There's also nothing to stop anyone taking someone's money and then failing to transfer a license to them in return as promised. This is the case with any internet trading. This could be mitigated by only buying through a marketplace run by a reputable third party, like eBay.

Yeah, it makes for interesting questions tho.

The ruling as such only provides a framework for final decisions by member states judicial systems. So it can depend on tax regulations for every EU state.

I'm still searching for a legal opinion as to what the ruling could imply in practice. If I find a good blog by some legal student I'll make sure to post it here as well.

 

[Kathinka]

it does mean, however, that now you can just make a new account for a steam game you buy, and then sell that account with it's pw and email adress.

ok, granted, this was done already since steam first reared it's ugly head to slowly chip away at customers rights, but now it's completely legal and they can't do anything about it.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Why not just go straight ahead and legalize piracy?

Because when it comes to passing on purely digital content, there really isn't much of a difference.

Damn, arrived late to the thread, has this been compared to bicycles yet? I mean if you buy a bike and re-sell it, then the manufactorers will be broke. Ah no wait, only the gaming industry has IP

Paste a post of mine from another forum :

I would much much rather have a money back guarantee on games rather then the ability to re-sell it. I got 118 games on STEAM, and I would have been happy to have returned many of them 10 minutes after buying them due to either broken games or horrible degeneration of a perfectly good franchise.

 

[oktalist]

I don't see why. If I can buy a license for $5 used or $10 new, I'll buy the used one and the publisher will get no money from the sale. If the new license is discounted to $5 then I'll buy it new and the publisher will get $5 instead of $0. So wouldn't it make sense for them to offer more discounts?

I don't think that will happen because of the digital market´s axioms. A Natural Monopoly like this can simply "manufacture" a license out of nothing.

More probable in that scenario of yours is that when you resell a license back to a digital distributor, the DD will revoke your license and then simply destroy it.

My scenario does not involve reselling a license back to a DD. I'm talking about reselling a license directly to another individual.

 

[WaysideMaze]

I think Valve and the like would be stupid not to jump all over this. Lets face it, if they don't do it, someone else will.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I love it when EULA's get taken down a peg. Hopefully a similar ruling happens in the US at some point.

me to or least steam, i have some games I'd like to be rid of :/

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I don't think that will happen because of the digital market´s axioms. A Natural Monopoly like this can simply "manufacture" a license out of nothing.

More probable in that scenario of yours is that when you resell a license back to a digital distributor, the DD will revoke your license and then simply destroy it.

My scenario does not involve reselling a license back to a DD. I'm talking about reselling a license directly to another individual.

Hmm. Well, how would the transfer work? I am not aware of a DD that allows you to download the game files onto your hard drive before you purchase the license, so how would one prove that they are in possesion of the license (the game files have to come from somewhere, after all)? Do you think that one could simply transfer the game files to the receiving party?

I am also skeptcical as to whenether a client-driven DD would even permit this sort of thing, but it isn't entirely relevant at the moment and I have asked enough questions for now.