7 ms·

European Court: Used software licenses may be resold.

160 points by kleiba 14y ago

maybird 14y ago
Does this ruling indirectly legitimizes DRM removal tools? I mean, without them, how can you resell a license? Then again, the EU has anti-circumvention rules similar to those in the DMCA.
- yxhuvud 14y ago
  Not all licenses depends on DRM.
  - meric 14y ago
    But some do and those can be resold.
    - antidoh 14y ago
      So DRM becomes anti-commerce, preventing resale, which would seem to be illegal.
      - mikecane 14y ago
        This is based on licenses. Even eBooks have licenses (see store's TOS). So if I buy an app from Apple's App Store and want to sell it, it seems to me Apple would be required by the Court to delete that app from my account and place it in the used buyer's account. Same for eBooks. Am I missing anything?
        flipbrad 14y ago
        the ramifications of this judgement are interesting for many reasons, and this is one; it's hard to see Apple being compelled to take positive action each time you sell your copy of software, but on the other hand, if you did and the licence is assigned to the buyer, does a contact now exist between apple and buyer which Apple has to uphold or face breach of contract?
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        >DRM becomes anti-commerce, preventing resale // Strictly the DRM doesn't prevent resale it prevents use. From the little I've seen I think they've erred away from suggesting their is any onus on the creator to enable the resale or indeed the reuse.
        flipbrad 14y ago
        If DRM is standing in the way of lawful use, there is an (apparently never used) remedy in English law: complaining about it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZE http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZE
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Interesting but Section 296ZE(2) specifically excludes the prevention of access when it is by a "computer program" and sub-section (9) excludes works for access by private individuals at a time of their choosing. So it seems to be very narrow in scope of application - how do you know about it? I only skimmed it but doesn't it merely allow you to complain; the SoS won't necessarily take any action. Do you know what this section is directed towards? It appears to be something like forcing a company to hand over data necessary to allow a researcher to work with the companies copyright materials?? Note there's a bulletin, http://www.share-the-vision.org.uk/bulletins/bulletin_70.doc http://www.share-the-vision.org.uk/bulletins/bulletin_70.doc, from Aug 2010 where it says that section has never been applied (see also page 2 of http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51998.pdf http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51998.pdf).
- rmc 14y ago
  the EU has anti-circumvention rules similar to those in the DMCA. Oh? Didn't know that. Got a source/details/explaination/more information?
  - maybird 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#European_Uni...
- IsTom 14y ago
  Well, remember that it is "Digital Rights Management". It's the time it's about our rights. I hope it means that any DRM will be obliged to include a resale functionality.
ktizo 14y ago
I thought I was just being really tired until I realised that the article had gone through a translation mangler.
- lloeki 14y ago
  Here this is Chrome being tired and acting up in a recursive manner so I can't read TFA: http://imgur.com/XZqAs http://imgur.com/XZqAs
gpvos 14y ago
Direct link to original article (in German): http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/eugh-zu-oracle-vs-usedsoft-gebrauchte-software-darf-verkauft-werden-a-842260.html http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/eugh-zu-oracle-vs... Link to English press release of European Court of Justice: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012...
- hef19898 14y ago
  And fun thing is that Der Spiegel was actually faster than HN, usually they are at least a couple of days behind (for the HN stories Soeigel is covering).
  - derda 14y ago
    I think the regal battle started on german soil since the company, that oracle was trying keep from selling the used licenses, was a german one. The case got quite some media attention over here, even the radio-news mentioned it.
kitsune_ 14y ago
Holy... mother... of... god... I know, this isn't the most insightful comment, but I can't see this NOT having a huge impact on the software industry. I don't know why you focus on STEAM, this could touch iPhone / iPad / Android apps as well.
- Strom 14y ago
  I would imagine that this may require the licence legal text to be rewritten, but not much else would change. Instead of selling a license to use, you sell some sort of authentication service. So that when the actual right to use is transferred, the new owner would need to pay for the authentication service. As for Valve, they are moving strongly to the free-to-play-but-buy-hats model anyway, where you already can give away all your hats to someone else. Although, yes, it could impact other sellers on steam.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Instead of selling a license to use, you sell some sort of authentication service. So that when the actual right to use is transferred, the new owner would need to pay for the authentication service. I sorta feel/hope such clear attempts to avoid the law by trying some sort of Jedi hand wave would not pass muster with the courts.
    - Ralith 14y ago
      They wouldn't. That's why law's so much about intent and interpretation--to avoid trivial workarounds like that.
- mduerksen 14y ago
  The posted article lacks a lot of details. According to a more comprehensive one[1] (german as well): - The court has ruled that reselling doesn't violate copyright, but nothing prevents a software vendor from forbidding the reselling in it's license. The court didn't force vendors/service providers to permit reselling. - The court has not demanded that vendors enable the reselling technically. - The court has limited its ruling to computer programs, and excluded media like ebooks, video, music and the like. So in effect, this will change: Software vendors will have to change their licenses to prevent reselling. [1]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-Weiterverkauf-gebrauchter-Software-1631306.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-We...
gpvos 14y ago
This is going to be interesting for software distributed through systems like Valve's Steam, which is tied to a user account. If they want to continue selling their games in Europe, they will have to create a way to transfer your license to someone else.
- pja 14y ago
  Not difficult: Valve can simply make it possible to gift your existing Steam games to any other Steam account. They already have the infrastructure in place: you can often (but not always) gift duplicates from bundles you buy to other Steam users. There'll be endless angst from the games industry if it comes to pass though.
- matt4711 14y ago
  From the german article "Sehe der mit dem Verkauf geschlossene Lizenzvertrag ein dauerhaftes Nutzungsrecht vor, sei dies nicht an den Erstkäufer gebunden - das Eigentum der Kopie werde übertragen, von der Firma an den Käufer" meaning "Permanent usage rights granted at the point of sale are not exclusive to original and may be transferred to a second buyer..." I'm guessing soon we will only be able to "buy" non permanent usage rights for stuff we buy on steam/random other online distribution platforms.
  - jannorthoff 14y ago
    Like a 99 year license? Or maybe demos can be canned because people can just try and then sell it again if they don't like the game (as there's no using effect which would reduce the software's value)?
    - matt4711 14y ago
      when it comes to these things lawyers are unfortunately very creative :(
      - stordoff 14y ago
        Which is why the EU has legislation governing consumer contracts, requiring that the contract be written in plain language etc.
morsch 14y ago
This case involves business software (Autodesk, Microsoft, SAP, etc.). But I wonder if it applies to my Steam games library, as well. That would be crazy. In the extreme case, it would reduce the number of digital sales from #(people who want to play the game) to #(people who want to play the game simultaneously).
- ajuc 14y ago
  > In the extreme case, it would reduce the number of digital sales from #(people who want to play the game) to #(people who want to play the game simultaneously). I doubt it. People who don't care about ethics already pirate game. People who care won't cheat, they'll just sell games after they had finished them. There are already game publishers, that sell games over internet (digital copies) without DRM (gog.com for example). They are doing OK. Also - in my country selling used software (including games) was always considered fair use, regardless of EULAs. Just like with books.
  - morsch 14y ago
    That's why I said extreme case. Even if people sold games only after having finished them, the consequences would be tremendous. So tremendous that it'll never happen in a large scale: either downloadable games are somehow made excempt via some sort of contract, or games will continue their shift towards being SaaS, ie. you may resell Diablo 3, but you can't resell your Battle.net account which is strictly required for playing the game. The publishers in the US hate the retail used games market with a fiery passion (and it's not hard to understand why). And by and large I think very few people make use of that, most people -- I'm extrapolating from myself here -- are going to be too lazy to carry their games to GameStop for a couple of bucks, and most buyers are going to be too wary of complications with a used game to save a few bucks. A digital download used games market would be way more convenient for both sellers and buyers. It would also be much cheaper to both start up and operate for a middleman, who could get by with much a lower cut than GameStop.
    - ajuc 14y ago
      There's one difference between pirating games, and buying used games. Pirated games make perceived value of a game smaller - because you have alternate source to get it for free, AND you get DRM in your game, making it less convenient to use than pirated version. Possibility to easily sell used game may make perceived value smaller (there's cheaper legal way to get a copy). But it also may make the perceived value bigger - if I can sell game after finishing it - I can get back some of the costs, so I can justify buying more expansive game in the first place. I know kid that routinely buy legal games, play them, and sell them at Polish equivalent of e-bay. If it wasn't possible, he would buy much less games, cause parents only give him so much money for games. I don't know which way the perceived value will go, I'd guess it's self balancing - the easier and more popular selling used games is, the more perceived value of games will rise, making it possible to rise the prices, but also making used games more popular. Anyway IMHO the entire information market (games, apps, music, movies, ebooks, etc) is going to be mostly honour-based in the future, at least for things that can't be made into services. The only thing that makes people pay you for your content is their feeling that they owe you something. Make them angry at you, and that feeling disappears. One great way to make your clients angry at you is to use law to enforce "unjust" conditions on them. And I don't see why selling used licences is ethicaly different from selling used books, so it may be hard for publishers to persuade people it's actually Evil.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- gpvos 14y ago
  I think the analogy is with software on a CD or DVD.
mootothemax 14y ago
I remember Autodesk being one company who hated beyond belief people selling second-hand copies of their software, removing lots of eBay auctions via DMCA notices. It's been a few years since I last looked at this, but here's a story from 2009: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/16847/autodesk-ebay-seller-suit-could-impact-sales-of-secondhand-software/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/16847/autode...
aaronbasssett 14y ago
What about 1 time use codes many console games come with now? I can see the multiplayer codes being safe as they can claim you are purchasing access to the servers. But what about codes which unlock extra characters or other parts of the game, such as the Catwoman code in Batman Arkham City?
ben0x539 14y ago
Can't wait to sell my copy of Diablo 3 that got banned because I was playing on Linux, or whatever happened in that other post.
sageikosa 14y ago
Excellent justification for software to become subscription based (you are granted perpetual license to the software "as is" when installed, and for a nominal fee per month you get updates). If I buy a bundle (Windows and Office installed OEM) can I split the products and resell without new hardware? I ask because if the license as written was to only be distributed with new hardware, then reseller channel pricing may go out the window. Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL?
- doctorwho 14y ago
  Agreed. When I set my price I assume users will learn more about the software over time and my support costs will decrease rather than increase. If someone resells their license they are basically creating a new user and I have to support them the same as if they bought directly from me? No thanks.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    That assumes you sell software and service as a package. Why not decouple them and take the opportunity to create a new service relationship? Even better, develop the software on the assumption that it will be resold and create a "secondary operator" install procedure that transfers the service relation to the new owner. Instead of waiting for them to call you, you have real-time information about how your software is changing hands in the market. I recognize that the effort may be non-trivial. At the same time, if the law is opening a secondary market - and it turns out to be significant - wouldn't that approach allow you to tap it?
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      Yup. I see disruptive opportunity, but I hate to see it driven as a reaction to a court judgment. However, many game and business software vendors have been heading this way anyway.
- papercrane 14y ago
  > Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? I don't think it means anything for the GPL. If you really wanted to I suppose you could transfer your license to someone else, but since the GPL lets you relicense under the GPL anyways there really isn't any change.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
The European vision of IP and the American vision of IP continue to diverge. I think that is healthy.
- johansch 14y ago
  If nothing else it is proper payback for American software companies charging non-Americans 1.5x-2x more for the same product as they charge Americans.
twelvechairs 14y ago
Does this mean it is also legal to lend licences? Someone should create a service for 'this is my licence but when I'm not using it, my friends can'....
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Do I need to license it on every machine I own? OK, how about if I know I am the only user (to put aside the case where I fiscally own every machine my kids use), and will only be using it on one machine at a time?
  - sycren 14y ago
    The licences from the Apple Mac App store works that way. You can install as many apps as you like on any number of machines as long as you own them.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      "Any" number of machines? I don't own a Mac, but surely it's similar to the iTunes Store and its 5 activated machines?
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      That's how I used to treat my copy of Turbo Pascal. I was the only one who used it, either at home, or in the engineering firm I worked summers at. Borland had a "treat it like a book" license, and I was the only one I knew who'd use the software, so I didn't uninstall it when I left for the day and re-install it in the morning.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  I think, provided it is not technically possible for you to simultaneously use the software that you could sell it for a short period and then buy it back but you're not normally given a license to lend a work (it's usually specifically disclaimed) so the original acquirer wouldn't be able to pass on such a right (as they don't have it). This could lead to rulings on what a "sale" is. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5223284 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&#38... gives a summary thus: >It follows from the foregoing that the answer to Questions 1 and 3 is that Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision. //
crazygringo 14y ago
What does this mean about copies of Windows shipped with PC's for example? That don't even come with reinstallation discs? The license prohibits you from transferring those (the manufacturers pay much cheaper than retail)... but this ruling would indicate that you still can.
- technomancy 14y ago
  I believe that means you're clear as long as you never accepted the terms of the license. With OEM Windows that shouldn't be a problem.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  In most jurisdictions license (or any contract) is not the end of the world. If license conflicts with a law, guess what wins.
yarone 14y ago
What about used mp3's? Could I (legally) create a marketplace for half-priced music: seller specifies what music they have, buyer buys, we "ensure" destruction of sellers mp3, make it available to buyer?
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  https://www.redigi.com/ https://www.redigi.com/ Maybe.
- waffle_ss 14y ago
  There's a start-up called [Murfie][1] that is doing this with physical CDs - you mail in your discs and they do a digital rip of them, and allow you to sell the digital copy on their website. They retain the physical discs in their warehouse, which is kind of their "proof of ownership" for being able to transmit and manage the digital copies. [1]: https://www.murfie.com/about_us https://www.murfie.com/about_us
wickedchicken 14y ago
I enjoyed this translated chunk: "In plain English: If you sold a piece of software, it can not simultaneously use more themselves."
Fargren 14y ago
Then, are software vendor required to offer a way too resell the software? Or are they just not allowed to persecute those who come up with a way to do it?

160 points by kleiba 14y ago

Does this ruling indirectly legitimizes DRM removal tools? I mean, without them, how can you resell a license? Then again, the EU has anti-circumvention rules similar to those in the DMCA.

yxhuvud 14y ago
Not all licenses depends on DRM.
- meric 14y ago
  But some do and those can be resold.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    So DRM becomes anti-commerce, preventing resale, which would seem to be illegal.
    - mikecane 14y ago
      This is based on licenses. Even eBooks have licenses (see store's TOS). So if I buy an app from Apple's App Store and want to sell it, it seems to me Apple would be required by the Court to delete that app from my account and place it in the used buyer's account. Same for eBooks. Am I missing anything?
      - flipbrad 14y ago
        the ramifications of this judgement are interesting for many reasons, and this is one; it's hard to see Apple being compelled to take positive action each time you sell your copy of software, but on the other hand, if you did and the licence is assigned to the buyer, does a contact now exist between apple and buyer which Apple has to uphold or face breach of contract?
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >DRM becomes anti-commerce, preventing resale // Strictly the DRM doesn't prevent resale it prevents use. From the little I've seen I think they've erred away from suggesting their is any onus on the creator to enable the resale or indeed the reuse.
      - flipbrad 14y ago
        If DRM is standing in the way of lawful use, there is an (apparently never used) remedy in English law: complaining about it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZE http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZE
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Interesting but Section 296ZE(2) specifically excludes the prevention of access when it is by a "computer program" and sub-section (9) excludes works for access by private individuals at a time of their choosing. So it seems to be very narrow in scope of application - how do you know about it? I only skimmed it but doesn't it merely allow you to complain; the SoS won't necessarily take any action. Do you know what this section is directed towards? It appears to be something like forcing a company to hand over data necessary to allow a researcher to work with the companies copyright materials?? Note there's a bulletin, http://www.share-the-vision.org.uk/bulletins/bulletin_70.doc http://www.share-the-vision.org.uk/bulletins/bulletin_70.doc, from Aug 2010 where it says that section has never been applied (see also page 2 of http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51998.pdf http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51998.pdf).
rmc 14y ago
the EU has anti-circumvention rules similar to those in the DMCA. Oh? Didn't know that. Got a source/details/explaination/more information?
- maybird 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#European_Uni...
IsTom 14y ago
Well, remember that it is "Digital Rights Management". It's the time it's about our rights. I hope it means that any DRM will be obliged to include a resale functionality.

ktizo 14y ago

I thought I was just being really tired until I realised that the article had gone through a translation mangler.

lloeki 14y ago
Here this is Chrome being tired and acting up in a recursive manner so I can't read TFA: http://imgur.com/XZqAs http://imgur.com/XZqAs

gpvos 14y ago

Direct link to original article (in German): http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/eugh-zu-oracle-vs-usedsoft-gebrauchte-software-darf-verkauft-werden-a-842260.html http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/eugh-zu-oracle-vs... Link to English press release of European Court of Justice: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012...

hef19898 14y ago
And fun thing is that Der Spiegel was actually faster than HN, usually they are at least a couple of days behind (for the HN stories Soeigel is covering).
- derda 14y ago
  I think the regal battle started on german soil since the company, that oracle was trying keep from selling the used licenses, was a german one. The case got quite some media attention over here, even the radio-news mentioned it.

kitsune_ 14y ago

Holy... mother... of... god... I know, this isn't the most insightful comment, but I can't see this NOT having a huge impact on the software industry. I don't know why you focus on STEAM, this could touch iPhone / iPad / Android apps as well.

Strom 14y ago
I would imagine that this may require the licence legal text to be rewritten, but not much else would change. Instead of selling a license to use, you sell some sort of authentication service. So that when the actual right to use is transferred, the new owner would need to pay for the authentication service. As for Valve, they are moving strongly to the free-to-play-but-buy-hats model anyway, where you already can give away all your hats to someone else. Although, yes, it could impact other sellers on steam.
- rmc 14y ago
  Instead of selling a license to use, you sell some sort of authentication service. So that when the actual right to use is transferred, the new owner would need to pay for the authentication service. I sorta feel/hope such clear attempts to avoid the law by trying some sort of Jedi hand wave would not pass muster with the courts.
  - Ralith 14y ago
    They wouldn't. That's why law's so much about intent and interpretation--to avoid trivial workarounds like that.
mduerksen 14y ago
The posted article lacks a lot of details. According to a more comprehensive one[1] (german as well): - The court has ruled that reselling doesn't violate copyright, but nothing prevents a software vendor from forbidding the reselling in it's license. The court didn't force vendors/service providers to permit reselling. - The court has not demanded that vendors enable the reselling technically. - The court has limited its ruling to computer programs, and excluded media like ebooks, video, music and the like. So in effect, this will change: Software vendors will have to change their licenses to prevent reselling. [1]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-Weiterverkauf-gebrauchter-Software-1631306.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-We...

gpvos 14y ago

This is going to be interesting for software distributed through systems like Valve's Steam, which is tied to a user account. If they want to continue selling their games in Europe, they will have to create a way to transfer your license to someone else.

pja 14y ago
Not difficult: Valve can simply make it possible to gift your existing Steam games to any other Steam account. They already have the infrastructure in place: you can often (but not always) gift duplicates from bundles you buy to other Steam users. There'll be endless angst from the games industry if it comes to pass though.
matt4711 14y ago
From the german article "Sehe der mit dem Verkauf geschlossene Lizenzvertrag ein dauerhaftes Nutzungsrecht vor, sei dies nicht an den Erstkäufer gebunden - das Eigentum der Kopie werde übertragen, von der Firma an den Käufer" meaning "Permanent usage rights granted at the point of sale are not exclusive to original and may be transferred to a second buyer..." I'm guessing soon we will only be able to "buy" non permanent usage rights for stuff we buy on steam/random other online distribution platforms.
- jannorthoff 14y ago
  Like a 99 year license? Or maybe demos can be canned because people can just try and then sell it again if they don't like the game (as there's no using effect which would reduce the software's value)?
  - matt4711 14y ago
    when it comes to these things lawyers are unfortunately very creative :(
    - stordoff 14y ago
      Which is why the EU has legislation governing consumer contracts, requiring that the contract be written in plain language etc.

morsch 14y ago

This case involves business software (Autodesk, Microsoft, SAP, etc.). But I wonder if it applies to my Steam games library, as well. That would be crazy. In the extreme case, it would reduce the number of digital sales from #(people who want to play the game) to #(people who want to play the game simultaneously).

ajuc 14y ago
> In the extreme case, it would reduce the number of digital sales from #(people who want to play the game) to #(people who want to play the game simultaneously). I doubt it. People who don't care about ethics already pirate game. People who care won't cheat, they'll just sell games after they had finished them. There are already game publishers, that sell games over internet (digital copies) without DRM (gog.com for example). They are doing OK. Also - in my country selling used software (including games) was always considered fair use, regardless of EULAs. Just like with books.
- morsch 14y ago
  That's why I said extreme case. Even if people sold games only after having finished them, the consequences would be tremendous. So tremendous that it'll never happen in a large scale: either downloadable games are somehow made excempt via some sort of contract, or games will continue their shift towards being SaaS, ie. you may resell Diablo 3, but you can't resell your Battle.net account which is strictly required for playing the game. The publishers in the US hate the retail used games market with a fiery passion (and it's not hard to understand why). And by and large I think very few people make use of that, most people -- I'm extrapolating from myself here -- are going to be too lazy to carry their games to GameStop for a couple of bucks, and most buyers are going to be too wary of complications with a used game to save a few bucks. A digital download used games market would be way more convenient for both sellers and buyers. It would also be much cheaper to both start up and operate for a middleman, who could get by with much a lower cut than GameStop.
  - ajuc 14y ago
    There's one difference between pirating games, and buying used games. Pirated games make perceived value of a game smaller - because you have alternate source to get it for free, AND you get DRM in your game, making it less convenient to use than pirated version. Possibility to easily sell used game may make perceived value smaller (there's cheaper legal way to get a copy). But it also may make the perceived value bigger - if I can sell game after finishing it - I can get back some of the costs, so I can justify buying more expansive game in the first place. I know kid that routinely buy legal games, play them, and sell them at Polish equivalent of e-bay. If it wasn't possible, he would buy much less games, cause parents only give him so much money for games. I don't know which way the perceived value will go, I'd guess it's self balancing - the easier and more popular selling used games is, the more perceived value of games will rise, making it possible to rise the prices, but also making used games more popular. Anyway IMHO the entire information market (games, apps, music, movies, ebooks, etc) is going to be mostly honour-based in the future, at least for things that can't be made into services. The only thing that makes people pay you for your content is their feeling that they owe you something. Make them angry at you, and that feeling disappears. One great way to make your clients angry at you is to use law to enforce "unjust" conditions on them. And I don't see why selling used licences is ethicaly different from selling used books, so it may be hard for publishers to persuade people it's actually Evil.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gpvos 14y ago
I think the analogy is with software on a CD or DVD.

mootothemax 14y ago

I remember Autodesk being one company who hated beyond belief people selling second-hand copies of their software, removing lots of eBay auctions via DMCA notices. It's been a few years since I last looked at this, but here's a story from 2009: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/16847/autodesk-ebay-seller-suit-could-impact-sales-of-secondhand-software/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/16847/autode...

aaronbasssett 14y ago

What about 1 time use codes many console games come with now? I can see the multiplayer codes being safe as they can claim you are purchasing access to the servers. But what about codes which unlock extra characters or other parts of the game, such as the Catwoman code in Batman Arkham City?

ben0x539 14y ago

Can't wait to sell my copy of Diablo 3 that got banned because I was playing on Linux, or whatever happened in that other post.

sageikosa 14y ago

Excellent justification for software to become subscription based (you are granted perpetual license to the software "as is" when installed, and for a nominal fee per month you get updates). If I buy a bundle (Windows and Office installed OEM) can I split the products and resell without new hardware? I ask because if the license as written was to only be distributed with new hardware, then reseller channel pricing may go out the window. Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL?

doctorwho 14y ago
Agreed. When I set my price I assume users will learn more about the software over time and my support costs will decrease rather than increase. If someone resells their license they are basically creating a new user and I have to support them the same as if they bought directly from me? No thanks.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  That assumes you sell software and service as a package. Why not decouple them and take the opportunity to create a new service relationship? Even better, develop the software on the assumption that it will be resold and create a "secondary operator" install procedure that transfers the service relation to the new owner. Instead of waiting for them to call you, you have real-time information about how your software is changing hands in the market. I recognize that the effort may be non-trivial. At the same time, if the law is opening a secondary market - and it turns out to be significant - wouldn't that approach allow you to tap it?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Yup. I see disruptive opportunity, but I hate to see it driven as a reaction to a court judgment. However, many game and business software vendors have been heading this way anyway.
papercrane 14y ago
> Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? I don't think it means anything for the GPL. If you really wanted to I suppose you could transfer your license to someone else, but since the GPL lets you relicense under the GPL anyways there really isn't any change.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

The European vision of IP and the American vision of IP continue to diverge. I think that is healthy.

johansch 14y ago
If nothing else it is proper payback for American software companies charging non-Americans 1.5x-2x more for the same product as they charge Americans.

twelvechairs 14y ago

Does this mean it is also legal to lend licences? Someone should create a service for 'this is my licence but when I'm not using it, my friends can'....

sageikosa 14y ago
Do I need to license it on every machine I own? OK, how about if I know I am the only user (to put aside the case where I fiscally own every machine my kids use), and will only be using it on one machine at a time?
- sycren 14y ago
  The licences from the Apple Mac App store works that way. You can install as many apps as you like on any number of machines as long as you own them.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    "Any" number of machines? I don't own a Mac, but surely it's similar to the iTunes Store and its 5 activated machines?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    That's how I used to treat my copy of Turbo Pascal. I was the only one who used it, either at home, or in the engineering firm I worked summers at. Borland had a "treat it like a book" license, and I was the only one I knew who'd use the software, so I didn't uninstall it when I left for the day and re-install it in the morning.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
I think, provided it is not technically possible for you to simultaneously use the software that you could sell it for a short period and then buy it back but you're not normally given a license to lend a work (it's usually specifically disclaimed) so the original acquirer wouldn't be able to pass on such a right (as they don't have it). This could lead to rulings on what a "sale" is. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5223284 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&#38... gives a summary thus: >It follows from the foregoing that the answer to Questions 1 and 3 is that Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision. //

crazygringo 14y ago

What does this mean about copies of Windows shipped with PC's for example? That don't even come with reinstallation discs? The license prohibits you from transferring those (the manufacturers pay much cheaper than retail)... but this ruling would indicate that you still can.

technomancy 14y ago
I believe that means you're clear as long as you never accepted the terms of the license. With OEM Windows that shouldn't be a problem.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
In most jurisdictions license (or any contract) is not the end of the world. If license conflicts with a law, guess what wins.

yarone 14y ago

What about used mp3's? Could I (legally) create a marketplace for half-priced music: seller specifies what music they have, buyer buys, we "ensure" destruction of sellers mp3, make it available to buyer?

Dylan16807 14y ago
https://www.redigi.com/ https://www.redigi.com/ Maybe.
waffle_ss 14y ago
There's a start-up called [Murfie][1] that is doing this with physical CDs - you mail in your discs and they do a digital rip of them, and allow you to sell the digital copy on their website. They retain the physical discs in their warehouse, which is kind of their "proof of ownership" for being able to transmit and manage the digital copies. [1]: https://www.murfie.com/about_us https://www.murfie.com/about_us

wickedchicken 14y ago

I enjoyed this translated chunk: "In plain English: If you sold a piece of software, it can not simultaneously use more themselves."

Fargren 14y ago

Then, are software vendor required to offer a way too resell the software? Or are they just not allowed to persecute those who come up with a way to do it?