9 ms·

GOG is still not “selling” the game, even though they offer offline installers, as one would with certainty face legal objections for setting up a resale market

GOG is still not “selling” the game, even though they offer offline installers, as one would with certainty face legal objections for setting up a resale marketplace website for games purchased from GOG. That your license is indefinite and your installer can be archived is excellent, but that’s still only a license with benefits.

voxic11 2y ago
The California law that has driven these marketing copy changes only applies to selling of software with revocable access. If the access cannot be revoked then the law still allows you to say you are selling the software rather than renting it. The law does not require licenses be transferable to qualify for this exemption. > (b)(1) It shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental... > (4)This section does not apply to any of the following: ...(C) Any digital good that is advertised or offered to a person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet. https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2426 https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...
- altairprime 2y ago
  Yes, but they’re still selling a revocable license, whether California law compels them to declare so plainly or merely in their shrinkwrap terms: > 2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on. > 17.2. Our right to terminate the Agreement. If you materially breach this Agreement, we reserve the right to suspend or cancel your access to GOG services and GOG content. That they have provided you an installer is interesting but not legally relevant; if they revoke your license, your use of the installer is unlicensed and therefore, in theory, prosecutable. (This is of course difficult to enforce, but that’s only relevant if it’s theoretically prosecutable.)
  - voxic11 2y ago
    I think this is a good observation but GOG hasn't modified the language on their site (it still says "buy now" when advertising a game). So I wonder if they have a different interpretation of the law.
forgetfulness 2y ago
The benefit being that you will still be able to use the things you purchased even if your licensor goes down or you are not in good standing with them, which is what people used to call "owning" software back in the day anyway.
- spockz 2y ago
  Well, that, and being able to give the software to somebody else, for free or money.
  - bigfishrunning 2y ago
    You were technically never allowed to do that if you read the EULA fine print, but it didn't stop many people
    - philistine 2y ago
      A EULA does not have to be correct. Tons of absolutely unenforceable clauses end up in those.
      - bigfishrunning 2y ago
        That's fair, the onus is on the seller to enforce them, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore the EULA (hint: the LA in EULA stands for "License Agreement", not Bill of Sale...)
    - IIsi50MHz 2y ago
      Various software was transferrable. For instances, both the original Sim City 2000 and the original Myst stipulate that resale or transfer are allowed so long as the seller retains no copies.
    - exitb 2y ago
      What matters is that a physical release holds some value, as there is a resale market for it. Meanwhile, there is no market for „offline installers”.

voxic11 2y ago

The California law that has driven these marketing copy changes only applies to selling of software with revocable access. If the access cannot be revoked then the law still allows you to say you are selling the software rather than renting it. The law does not require licenses be transferable to qualify for this exemption. > (b)(1) It shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental... > (4)This section does not apply to any of the following: ...(C) Any digital good that is advertised or offered to a person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet. https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2426 https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...

altairprime 2y ago
Yes, but they’re still selling a revocable license, whether California law compels them to declare so plainly or merely in their shrinkwrap terms: > 2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on. > 17.2. Our right to terminate the Agreement. If you materially breach this Agreement, we reserve the right to suspend or cancel your access to GOG services and GOG content. That they have provided you an installer is interesting but not legally relevant; if they revoke your license, your use of the installer is unlicensed and therefore, in theory, prosecutable. (This is of course difficult to enforce, but that’s only relevant if it’s theoretically prosecutable.)
- voxic11 2y ago
  I think this is a good observation but GOG hasn't modified the language on their site (it still says "buy now" when advertising a game). So I wonder if they have a different interpretation of the law.

forgetfulness 2y ago

The benefit being that you will still be able to use the things you purchased even if your licensor goes down or you are not in good standing with them, which is what people used to call "owning" software back in the day anyway.

spockz 2y ago
Well, that, and being able to give the software to somebody else, for free or money.
- bigfishrunning 2y ago
  You were technically never allowed to do that if you read the EULA fine print, but it didn't stop many people
  - philistine 2y ago
    A EULA does not have to be correct. Tons of absolutely unenforceable clauses end up in those.
    - bigfishrunning 2y ago
      That's fair, the onus is on the seller to enforce them, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore the EULA (hint: the LA in EULA stands for "License Agreement", not Bill of Sale...)
  - IIsi50MHz 2y ago
    Various software was transferrable. For instances, both the original Sim City 2000 and the original Myst stipulate that resale or transfer are allowed so long as the seller retains no copies.
  - exitb 2y ago
    What matters is that a physical release holds some value, as there is a resale market for it. Meanwhile, there is no market for „offline installers”.