3 ms·

Surprised to see so much sentiment against this ruling. Digital software sale and distribution is just supposed to make software management easier and faster.

Surprised to see so much sentiment against this ruling. Digital software sale and distribution is just supposed to make software management easier and faster. A license is the same regardless of wether it's physical or digital. Why shouldn't this apply to resale of said merchandise? I rarely say this- but the French really make a ton of sense here.

gamblor956 7y ago
A license is not the same for a physical copy vs a digital copy. A physical copy is an actual tangible thing, and courts have ruled that licenses travel with the ownership of the actual thing--i.e., copyright law does not trump property law. A digital copy is an ephemeral, transitory thing. The very nature of a digital object means that the object used/viewed/etc is not the same digital object that was stored (i.e., the copy on your hard drive is not the copy in memory, though they may be identical). Copyright law is entirely about restrictions on copying things and digital goods are trivially copyable things. The French law makes little sense. The distinction between physical goods and intangible items exists for a reason in copyright law, and indeed is inherent in other parts of EU law, such as with respect to e-books. Importantly, earlier this week the EU itself ruled that ebooks cannot be resold (see https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/international-book-news/article/81151-second-hand-e-book-retailers-ruled-unlawful-by-eu.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/i...) and the French court's reasoning in this case is entirely contrary to the reasoning of the EU. Expect this law to be overturned, or for PC game prices to go up dramatically in the EU if it is not.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  So if a license is what's on the disc. You can sell a license. The only difference is that it's on the hard disk of your computer. Steam can still ask for a portion of the proceeds as a digital marketplace.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >A license is not the same for a physical copy vs a digital copy. >A physical copy is an actual tangible thing, and courts have ruled that licenses travel with the ownership of the actual thing--i.e., copyright law does not trump property law. >A digital copy is an ephemeral, transitory thing. The very nature of a digital object means that the object used/viewed/etc is not the same digital object that was stored (i.e., the copy on your hard drive is not the copy in memory, though they may be identical). ...as defined by courts, but not this one. It is those things because we say it is. In another reality it's perfectly reasonable to assume courts ruled that there is no difference. It's a situation which benefits the producer, not the consumer. I agree that it's tricky because you also can't allow for a buyer to produce copies and undercut you but, at the same time, I am getting a low less with my money. >or for PC game prices to go up dramatically in the EU if it is not. There has been a second hand market for games since they have existed (which was also fought against btw, along with rentals.)
oliwarner 7y ago
It absolutely makes sense. All content licenses should be resaleable. But this will have serious ramifications for how we "buy" content. If you can buy a game, play it for 100h and them hand it off to somebody else who can do exactly the same, with the publisher/developer/store are getting nothing from those transactions, they are quickly going to find another business model. There is no degeneration like there is with physical goods. There is no reason why anybody would prefer new. And while publishers only lose a potential sale, vendors like Valve actually have to service a new customer (bandwidth, save storage, etc) without extra pay. They're not going to go quietly here. And that will quickly turn into publishers and vendors both ceasing to sell software licenses. You'll still pay full price, but you'll get 100 days play, or a few years for a multiplayer. Or membership services like Origin Access. Or straight up gaming as a service (eg Stadia). So while this is great for owners of existing software licenses in the EU, we shouldn't celebrate this ruling. We're about to own even less than we historically have.
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  Seems like a great time to separate the billing of license to play from value added things like data storage & bandwidth.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    And how do you plan on doing this without any of: - $1 game with $49 infrastructure fixed price that you have to pay on every resale - monthly subscription to play game (which consumers do not like) - "free to play" nonsense
    - purple_ducks 7y ago
      > - $1 game with $49 infrastructure fixed price that you have to pay on every resale Why would data storage & data bandwidth be upfront fixed price? Bill on usage.
      - TingPing 7y ago
RaleyField 7y ago
Question: If it makes sense for games to be resalable then why not tickets for cinema or concerts? Ianal afaik both are contractual agreements.
about_help 7y ago
Greed is not surprising, but understandable you might have thought this crowd was a bit better than the average.

gamblor956 7y ago

A license is not the same for a physical copy vs a digital copy. A physical copy is an actual tangible thing, and courts have ruled that licenses travel with the ownership of the actual thing--i.e., copyright law does not trump property law. A digital copy is an ephemeral, transitory thing. The very nature of a digital object means that the object used/viewed/etc is not the same digital object that was stored (i.e., the copy on your hard drive is not the copy in memory, though they may be identical). Copyright law is entirely about restrictions on copying things and digital goods are trivially copyable things. The French law makes little sense. The distinction between physical goods and intangible items exists for a reason in copyright law, and indeed is inherent in other parts of EU law, such as with respect to e-books. Importantly, earlier this week the EU itself ruled that ebooks cannot be resold (see https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/international-book-news/article/81151-second-hand-e-book-retailers-ruled-unlawful-by-eu.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/i...) and the French court's reasoning in this case is entirely contrary to the reasoning of the EU. Expect this law to be overturned, or for PC game prices to go up dramatically in the EU if it is not.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
So if a license is what's on the disc. You can sell a license. The only difference is that it's on the hard disk of your computer. Steam can still ask for a portion of the proceeds as a digital marketplace.
EpicEng 7y ago
>A license is not the same for a physical copy vs a digital copy. >A physical copy is an actual tangible thing, and courts have ruled that licenses travel with the ownership of the actual thing--i.e., copyright law does not trump property law. >A digital copy is an ephemeral, transitory thing. The very nature of a digital object means that the object used/viewed/etc is not the same digital object that was stored (i.e., the copy on your hard drive is not the copy in memory, though they may be identical). ...as defined by courts, but not this one. It is those things because we say it is. In another reality it's perfectly reasonable to assume courts ruled that there is no difference. It's a situation which benefits the producer, not the consumer. I agree that it's tricky because you also can't allow for a buyer to produce copies and undercut you but, at the same time, I am getting a low less with my money. >or for PC game prices to go up dramatically in the EU if it is not. There has been a second hand market for games since they have existed (which was also fought against btw, along with rentals.)

oliwarner 7y ago

It absolutely makes sense. All content licenses should be resaleable. But this will have serious ramifications for how we "buy" content. If you can buy a game, play it for 100h and them hand it off to somebody else who can do exactly the same, with the publisher/developer/store are getting nothing from those transactions, they are quickly going to find another business model. There is no degeneration like there is with physical goods. There is no reason why anybody would prefer new. And while publishers only lose a potential sale, vendors like Valve actually have to service a new customer (bandwidth, save storage, etc) without extra pay. They're not going to go quietly here. And that will quickly turn into publishers and vendors both ceasing to sell software licenses. You'll still pay full price, but you'll get 100 days play, or a few years for a multiplayer. Or membership services like Origin Access. Or straight up gaming as a service (eg Stadia). So while this is great for owners of existing software licenses in the EU, we shouldn't celebrate this ruling. We're about to own even less than we historically have.

purple_ducks 7y ago
Seems like a great time to separate the billing of license to play from value added things like data storage & bandwidth.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  And how do you plan on doing this without any of: - $1 game with $49 infrastructure fixed price that you have to pay on every resale - monthly subscription to play game (which consumers do not like) - "free to play" nonsense
  - purple_ducks 7y ago
    > - $1 game with $49 infrastructure fixed price that you have to pay on every resale Why would data storage & data bandwidth be upfront fixed price? Bill on usage.
    - TingPing 7y ago

RaleyField 7y ago

Question: If it makes sense for games to be resalable then why not tickets for cinema or concerts? Ianal afaik both are contractual agreements.

about_help 7y ago

Greed is not surprising, but understandable you might have thought this crowd was a bit better than the average.