5 ms·

When I buy a film on disk, I have a reasonable expectation that I own the film and can play it as long as I wish. Why should it be different just because I boug

When I buy a film on disk, I have a reasonable expectation that I own the film and can play it as long as I wish. Why should it be different just because I bought it in a different format? I hope consumer right groups and maybe the EU can crack down on this clear abuse of "wording".

gambiting 6y ago
They already did, EU has ruled multiple times that you should be allowed to re-sell your digital content. Companies keep being brought to court over it and losing consistently. In spite of that, I don't understand how Steam and other digital stores haven't been forced to implement this yet.
- filleokus 6y ago
  Depending on what limits can be imposed on the re-selling, I've always been afraid that laws like this could potentially be quite dangerous for digital goods markets. If we would apply the First Sale doctrine in the fullest to digital content, secondary marketplaces would pop-up where people just rented games by the hour instead of purchasing them. With the transaction costs being really low, and the utilisation rate for many games being fairly low, this seems like a no brainer. There are important differences between physical content and digital content that need to be considered.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Yes, I hope they introduce some measures to keep utilization rates low. Maybe say that you can only transfer it once a year or something like that.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      It's really simple - after you submit the request to Steam it takes 3 days to transfer ownership. Problem solved.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 6y ago
    First sale in the US already has something to deal with this. 17 USC 109(a) is what most people think of when they talk of the first sale doctrine in the US. That's the part that says that owner of a particular lawfully made copy "is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord". Renting is included under "otherwise dispose of the possession". What is less well known is 17 USC 109(b)(1)(A). That carves out an exception for copies of sound recordings of musical works and copies of computer programs ("including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program"). The exception prohibits "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage" disposing of or authorizing disposal of possession of that copy by "ental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending", unless authorized by the copyright owner. So for programs, first sale allows selling copies but not renting them (same for musical recording). Hence, the reason you saw back in the CD days many places selling used music CDs and used software CDs, but not many selling rentals of those. (There were software rental stores, but they were not operating legally). There is also exception to the exception. 17 USC 109(1)(B) says that 109(1)(A) does not apply to: (1) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or (2) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes. That's why it is legal to rent console games, such as GameFly does. It's also why rental car companies don't have to get permission from whoever owns the copyright on the engine control unit software or the entertainment system software. There are other exceptions in 17 USC 109 for things like nonprofit educational institutions and libraries which are not relevant to this discussion. If anyone wants to read the whole thing, here it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109
- rasz 6y ago
  Judge in Germany decided games are Art and not Software, thus dont fall under the ECJ UsedSoft/Oracle decision.
crispyporkbites 6y ago
You don't own the film on disk. You own a license which can be very restrictive, and you own a physical medium (i.e. the disk itself) You cannot copy that disk, you can't play it in front of large audiences, you can't modify it and redistribute it etc. You don't own it, and the license can be revoked and changed at any point. It's not practical to always enforce this, but you agreed to the license when you purchased it, it's the same with online media, it's just easier to enforce, hence you see more application of licenses with online mediums.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >> but you agreed to the license when you purchased it, That part specifically isn't true in all of EU. There is no such thing as implicit licences at purchase time - that's why EULA and the likes of it are worth as much as toilet paper here. And in a lot of countries you can absolutely make copies of the discs you own, no legal issue at all. You usually can't show it to large audiences, but that's not because of the licence terms, but because the laws of the country prohibit it without paying a fee to the national association of artists. If I want to show a Blu-Ray I bought to a large group of people I need to pay a nominal fee to my country's national artist's association and then it's completely legal - but I don't even need to tell the distributor of the movie, or the owner of the copyright at all, that's not my problem. Same with playing music at events and such - a fee is paid to a national organisation governing this, the distributor can say whatever they want on the box but it's just irrelevant. >>, you can't modify it and redistribute it etc Of course you can in certain ways and formats, "fair use" is even allowed in such restrictive countries as US.
  - burntoutfire 6y ago
    > There is no such thing as implicit licences at purchase time - that's why EULA and the likes of it are worth as much as toilet paper here. But EULAs are not implicit, usually you have to explicitly agree to them before you can use the product?
    - gambiting 6y ago

gambiting 6y ago

They already did, EU has ruled multiple times that you should be allowed to re-sell your digital content. Companies keep being brought to court over it and losing consistently. In spite of that, I don't understand how Steam and other digital stores haven't been forced to implement this yet.

filleokus 6y ago
Depending on what limits can be imposed on the re-selling, I've always been afraid that laws like this could potentially be quite dangerous for digital goods markets. If we would apply the First Sale doctrine in the fullest to digital content, secondary marketplaces would pop-up where people just rented games by the hour instead of purchasing them. With the transaction costs being really low, and the utilisation rate for many games being fairly low, this seems like a no brainer. There are important differences between physical content and digital content that need to be considered.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Yes, I hope they introduce some measures to keep utilization rates low. Maybe say that you can only transfer it once a year or something like that.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    It's really simple - after you submit the request to Steam it takes 3 days to transfer ownership. Problem solved.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 6y ago
  First sale in the US already has something to deal with this. 17 USC 109(a) is what most people think of when they talk of the first sale doctrine in the US. That's the part that says that owner of a particular lawfully made copy "is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord". Renting is included under "otherwise dispose of the possession". What is less well known is 17 USC 109(b)(1)(A). That carves out an exception for copies of sound recordings of musical works and copies of computer programs ("including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program"). The exception prohibits "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage" disposing of or authorizing disposal of possession of that copy by "ental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending", unless authorized by the copyright owner. So for programs, first sale allows selling copies but not renting them (same for musical recording). Hence, the reason you saw back in the CD days many places selling used music CDs and used software CDs, but not many selling rentals of those. (There were software rental stores, but they were not operating legally). There is also exception to the exception. 17 USC 109(1)(B) says that 109(1)(A) does not apply to: (1) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or (2) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes. That's why it is legal to rent console games, such as GameFly does. It's also why rental car companies don't have to get permission from whoever owns the copyright on the engine control unit software or the entertainment system software. There are other exceptions in 17 USC 109 for things like nonprofit educational institutions and libraries which are not relevant to this discussion. If anyone wants to read the whole thing, here it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109
rasz 6y ago
Judge in Germany decided games are Art and not Software, thus dont fall under the ECJ UsedSoft/Oracle decision.

crispyporkbites 6y ago

You don't own the film on disk. You own a license which can be very restrictive, and you own a physical medium (i.e. the disk itself) You cannot copy that disk, you can't play it in front of large audiences, you can't modify it and redistribute it etc. You don't own it, and the license can be revoked and changed at any point. It's not practical to always enforce this, but you agreed to the license when you purchased it, it's the same with online media, it's just easier to enforce, hence you see more application of licenses with online mediums.

gambiting 6y ago
>> but you agreed to the license when you purchased it, That part specifically isn't true in all of EU. There is no such thing as implicit licences at purchase time - that's why EULA and the likes of it are worth as much as toilet paper here. And in a lot of countries you can absolutely make copies of the discs you own, no legal issue at all. You usually can't show it to large audiences, but that's not because of the licence terms, but because the laws of the country prohibit it without paying a fee to the national association of artists. If I want to show a Blu-Ray I bought to a large group of people I need to pay a nominal fee to my country's national artist's association and then it's completely legal - but I don't even need to tell the distributor of the movie, or the owner of the copyright at all, that's not my problem. Same with playing music at events and such - a fee is paid to a national organisation governing this, the distributor can say whatever they want on the box but it's just irrelevant. >>, you can't modify it and redistribute it etc Of course you can in certain ways and formats, "fair use" is even allowed in such restrictive countries as US.
- burntoutfire 6y ago
  > There is no such thing as implicit licences at purchase time - that's why EULA and the likes of it are worth as much as toilet paper here. But EULAs are not implicit, usually you have to explicitly agree to them before you can use the product?
  - gambiting 6y ago