3 ms·

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

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...
- sesqu 14y ago
  Exactly that is what is forbidden, by my reading. From the press release: Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy. As to copyright, it merely stated that on resale, the making of a digital copy cannot be prohibited, but the seller's copy must be rendered unusable.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  I read the actual ruling, or at least the official English translation of it[1]. While I'm not a lawyer, it seems abundantly clear that the court considered taking money for a permanent licence to be a sale. That brings first sale rules into the picture, for example, "[t]he first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community." Oracle's licence agreement did clearly say that the licence was non-transferrable, and they lost. [1] 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...
fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
It's an old known economic axiom that a vibrant used product market makes new products more valuable. The software industry has been both ignorant of economics and too greedy, thinking they can make more money by killing the used market. This will obviously change things but only in so far as it brings software closer to every other type of product.

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...

sesqu 14y ago
Exactly that is what is forbidden, by my reading. From the press release: Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy. As to copyright, it merely stated that on resale, the making of a digital copy cannot be prohibited, but the seller's copy must be rendered unusable.
Silhouette 14y ago
I read the actual ruling, or at least the official English translation of it[1]. While I'm not a lawyer, it seems abundantly clear that the court considered taking money for a permanent licence to be a sale. That brings first sale rules into the picture, for example, "[t]he first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community." Oracle's licence agreement did clearly say that the licence was non-transferrable, and they lost. [1] 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...

fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago

It's an old known economic axiom that a vibrant used product market makes new products more valuable. The software industry has been both ignorant of economics and too greedy, thinking they can make more money by killing the used market. This will obviously change things but only in so far as it brings software closer to every other type of product.