French Court rules that Steam users can resell their games

[philehidiot]

Have it valve! And it comes just in time for us to leave the EU and watch from poverty exploit island while our cousins across the channel benefit.

And pro-brexit folk will no doubt claim it is another one of those "EU rules tying us up in red tape".

Only if this judgement is adopted by a supranational court or written into EU law, which it won't be. Likely it will be cited as precedent in countries with similar laws but what happens in a French court has no legal standing at all in the UK and vice versa. It can be cited to support a case but that's kinda it. This is not an EU court. If it was Romania this was happening in, it'd be interesting but still just the same, legally. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit and, unless it's taken to the European supranational courts, would never have had any effect on the UK, legally speaking. In terms of the actual effect, well... that's open to debate. These kinds of things usually happen in the most amenable country first and then spread if they win so Valve will almost certainly take action.

And yes, as above, this will just help push Steam into offering subscriptions. Then you'll find the cost of buying a game goes up, making subs seem great value. £45 for a single game or £75 for a year... Then some AAA titles will be on subscription only. Then the smaller titles. Then, they'll end up being the Netflix of games, slowly ramping up the cost as people have now invested in games they don't own and lose them if they stop paying. This ruling will just move us towards that future (which will push me finally out of gaming) faster as Valve, et al seek to keep ahead of the courts. Odds are they'll end up appealing this in the EU courts. And then yes, Europe will probably end up being the testbed for the enforced sub-model as it's the market where it's less profitable to not take the risk.

This isn't about Brexit. That's like Thomas Cook blaming their failings on Brexit. A certain TV chef did the same and then realised.... oh, it wasn't... it was that the people I put in charge of running my business had no clue what they were doing and blamed Brexit and I made a fool of myself.

There are pros and cons to leaving the EU. Deal with it. If you can't see both sides, you're not thinking clearly.

People having to make computer games a political issue just means there's now nowhere we can go to escape this hysteria.

[Spud1]

Currently when you purchase digital goods from a platform you are purchasing a lease/license/right to access the goods but not actually purchasing the goods themselves. .

This is the fundamental point, as this is exactly the same as with a physical game. You never "own" the game - with a physical product you own the media/box/manual etc, but you are provided with a licence to play the game whilst you own that media (effectively, its more complex than that in reality). That licence can also be revoked at any point. So you can resell the media and the licence transfers, but you are not selling the "game" itself - just the media.

With a digital game, you only have that licence so you have nothing that you actually own to resell.

I think this ruling is a bit ridiculous and I hope that it gets overturned at appeal - its illogical and has very damaging, far reaching consequences to the industry if this actually becomes EU law.

It's good that the courts are looking at issues like this though - hopefully we'll soon see a case against Epic for the crusade to take a monopoly on PC gaming and ruin the market for us all in a different way

[Saracen999]

This is the fundamental point, as this is exactly the same as with a physical game. You never "own" the game - with a physical product you own the media/box/manual etc, but you are provided with a licence to play the game whilst you own that media (effectively, its more complex than that in reality). That licence can also be revoked at any point. So you can resell the media and the licence transfers, but you are not selling the "game" itself - just the media.

With a digital game, you only have that licence so you have nothing that you actually own to resell.

I think this ruling is a bit ridiculous and I hope that it gets overturned at appeal - its illogical and has very damaging, far reaching consequences to the industry if this actually becomes EU law.

It's good that the courts are looking at issues like this though - hopefully we'll soon see a case against Epic for the crusade to take a monopoly on PC gaming and ruin the market for us all in a different way

The critical bit is that traditionally, the licence does indeed, as noted in your first para, transfer.

So, if you "sell" software, the box, manuals, physical media etc all go to the buyer. and the licence transfers, along with all the rights and obligations, resulting in a situation analagous to what would happen if I sold some physical item, like a bike, or a guitar, or a lawnmower.

After all, if I sell a lawnmower, it's difficult to carry on using it afterwards, which mirrors the transfer of rights and restrictions, but the new owner has no more legal right to start producing copies of the lawnmower just because he bought one, than I did before I sold it,

While traditionally such rights transfer on sale of software, ir's a tradition that has been getting slowly blurred along the edges for quite a while, reflecting the non-physical nature of the primary purpose of the goods, with companies trying to impise ever-narrower "primary purposes", including but by no meas limited to MS changing licence terms on Windows, as they travel diwn the road to Windows being a subscription "service", and eventually, subscription only.

At least Adobe had the good manners to do it quite openly with Photoshop, etc, with the migration to CC. However, for me, it was an utterly unacceptable migration as I am not, now or ever, paying a subscription for Photoshop any more than I'm tagging along with MS as they do it surreptiously. So I parted company with Adobe, and indeed an still quite content with my previous full licence version, and if ever I need something that won't do well, there's GIMP, etc. Ditto Linux rather than W10.

But this .... 'cultural shift' with IP has been coming for a very long time. My first discussion with ab IP-lawyer friend was certainly more than 20 years ago. The law is now starting to catch up in many ways, and this French court ruling may well be one of, or even the thing that tips the balance into laws catching up with reality. I certainly hope so, anyway.

And if this does end up (and it sure could) as EU law and we miss out because we've Brexited, well only an idiot would think that when the EU has a really good idea, we can't just nick the idea and follow suit, even if it does mean we have to do it ourselves rather than have EU legislators (or worse, activist EU judges) do it to us.

[Otherhand]

This is quite interesting but also very far reaching.

Currently when you purchase digital goods from a platform you are purchasing a lease/license/right to access the goods but not actually purchasing the goods themselves. What this ruling is effectively stating (as an element of the plaintiffs argument) that users are actually purchasing an ownership of the digital goods and not long term leasing them from the platform.

If the appeal fails and this goes ahead, this will create a legal precedent going forwards for all digital goods. This means purchasing Kindle books, music on a streaming platform and all those other digital streaming services you currently purchase "rights to access" will have to change to an ownership model. This does not affect subscription model services.

By stating you own a digital good and have actually purchased an ownership of the product means you can resell it. Digital goods cannot depreciate except for when the product itself drops in price. That means it's not a second hand market but becomes a lower form of a grey market. Does this also mean that a company going under that provided digital goods must provide the product to all users who purchased it in the past as part of their adminiatration/liquidation?

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just shakes up the digital goods market.



This doesn't just affect Valve, it creates a far reaching precedent.

Music software is overwhelmingly sold in the form of plugins (effects and instruments) and sequencers (Cubase and the like). These are all digital goods, and the licenses are standardly resellable. In fact, it's weird when they're not. Because these businesses are generally independent, some will ask for a small admin fee, but many don't.

The reason for this mixed picture is because it's a voluntary system for good business. No law is forcing them to do this (yet), and the fact that they chose to do it has not set a precedent to shake the foundations of law for all digital goods. I think you're overstating the problems here. If the game industry wants to do this, they can set their own terms. And they have, but they're not nice or fair terms, and so now the law is stepping in. *That's* the policy decision that's causing a sweeping legal shift, not the alternative of offering reselling (which would have avoided this problem).

[excalibur1814]

We only have ourselves to blame. Streaming music/movies, instead of actually owning it and having the original mp3/cd etc. Heck, even subscription models of Solidworks, adobe products and MS office is just wrong.

We GAVE these companies the option to take everything away.

[EN1R0PY]

This is quite interesting but also very far reaching.

Currently when you purchase digital goods from a platform you are purchasing a lease/license/right to access the goods but not actually purchasing the goods themselves. What this ruling is effectively stating (as an element of the plaintiffs argument) that users are actually purchasing an ownership of the digital goods and not long term leasing them from the platform.

If the appeal fails and this goes ahead, this will create a legal precedent going forwards for all digital goods. This means purchasing Kindle books, music on a streaming platform and all those other digital streaming services you currently purchase "rights to access" will have to change to an ownership model. This does not affect subscription model services.

By stating you own a digital good and have actually purchased an ownership of the product means you can resell it. Digital goods cannot depreciate except for when the product itself drops in price. That means it's not a second hand market but becomes a lower form of a grey market. Does this also mean that a company going under that provided digital goods must provide the product to all users who purchased it in the past as part of their adminiatration/liquidation?

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just shakes up the digital goods market.

Have it valve!

This doesn't just affect Valve, it creates a far reaching precedent.

Even when you buy a disk you are just buying the licence to use what is on there. The law allows you to transfer that licence when you sell the disk so this ruling far from being far reaching just reaffirms the law as it stands. A subscription is never bought with a one time purchase, a one user licence is and thus can be resold. It changes how the digital market works but not how it should have been working all along.

[EN1R0PY]

They may have the right to resell, but I don't see why Steam has to provide the facilities for them to do so...

Because the law?

[Ttaskmaster]

Because the law?

You'll have to explain that one... lest I go storming into M&S demanding they provide a marketplace for me to resell my unused cans of chopped tomatoes, because "the law".

[ik9000]

We only have ourselves to blame. Streaming music/movies, instead of actually owning it and having the original mp3/cd etc. Heck, even subscription models of Solidworks, adobe products and MS office is just wrong.

We GAVE these companies the option to take everything away.

this^. If you hunt through old posts I have said more than once that if it was up to me I would make it law that all software must be available with an option for a standalone, perpetual licence on physical media. Also when declared EOL all DRM must be removed such that online server activation and licence checks do not prevent users running the software should they wish to.

I get why the effects of this French ruling could be bad. Sadly I agree that is the direction they will likely take, when it ought IMO to move in the opposite direction to a more sensible and reasonable system instead.

[ik9000]

And did you really need to bring Brexit into yet another thread?

It will affect pretty much every part of our lives so why shouldn't we?

[Tabbykatze]

Music software is overwhelmingly sold in the form of plugins (effects and instruments) and sequencers (Cubase and the like). These are all digital goods, and the licenses are standardly resellable. In fact, it's weird when they're not. Because these businesses are generally independent, some will ask for a small admin fee, but many don't.

The reason for this mixed picture is because it's a voluntary system for good business. No law is forcing them to do this (yet), and the fact that they chose to do it has not set a precedent to shake the foundations of law for all digital goods. I think you're overstating the problems here. If the game industry wants to do this, they can set their own terms. And they have, but they're not nice or fair terms, and so now the law is stepping in. *That's* the policy decision that's causing a sweeping legal shift, not the alternative of offering reselling (which would have avoided this problem).

I think you mistake my use of the term "music", i literally mean music as in songs and albums. For instance, if you buy music through iTunes you don't own any of it and if Apple were to shut down the services goodbye expensive library and that's because you've purchased a lease to the song and not the actual song itself.

Even when you buy a disk you are just buying the licence to use what is on there. The law allows you to transfer that licence when you sell the disk so this ruling far from being far reaching just reaffirms the law as it stands. A subscription is never bought with a one time purchase, a one user licence is and thus can be resold. It changes how the digital market works but not how it should have been working all along.

So I think we need to clarify what type of licensing model to which we're referring. Computer software is generally that the license allows either a limited number of activations or that the key cannot be used/installed simultaneously with other devices. You cannot resell a purchased license key in most terms and conditions of computer software IIRC. Games and their license keys used to be similar then the advent of game store DRM came into play and you are no longer purchasing a personal use license and are instead purchasing a continuous lease to the software/game. I don't remember when this sudden shift happen but it was subtle and happened at least between 2004 and whenever the explosion of private/public game stores occur. There used to be a time when a game key was validated locally inside the game software and not with a cloud server. About that time your licensing terms changed, because if the cloud activation server is gone, goodbye legal access to the game.

It will affect pretty much every part of our lives so why shouldn't we?

You're right, it does affect all of our lives but Brexit is not the gosh darned topic of everything in our lives. When my wife has a headache and doesn't want to park the pink pocket rocket with me, I don't suddenly go "god dammit, Brexit". There is a time and a place for Brexit, this thread wasn't it.

[atemporal]

You're right, it does affect all of our lives but Brexit is not the gosh darned topic of everything in our lives. When my wife has a headache and doesn't want to park the pink pocket rocket with me, I don't suddenly go "god dammit, Brexit". There is a time and a place for Brexit, this thread wasn't it.

That puzzles me. Doesn't seem a sensible comparison. Mentioning pink rockets seems wayyyy off topic and uncessary.

[Tabbykatze]

That puzzles me. Doesn't seem a sensible comparison. Mentioning pink rockets seems wayyyy off topic and uncessary.

He said "pretty much every part of our lives". Where does the buck of Brexit start or where does it end? It is also a joke and was wholly meant as one.

We are off topic now and as much as I like going off topic, this news thread is nothing to do with Brexit so moving swiftly on.

[Ttaskmaster]

It will affect pretty much every part of our lives so why shouldn't we?

Because I've logged in to HEXUS, not Brexus....

When my wife has a headache and doesn't want to park the pink pocket rocket with me, I don't suddenly go "god dammit, Brexit".

Depending on how she voted, you might be able to guilt-trip her....

[Saracen999]

It will affect pretty much every part of our lives so why shouldn't we?

Because it'd be nice to have a discussion that stayed on the thread topic, not end up as a rehash of the same-old, same-old arguments that, as everywhere else, aren't likely to change anyone's opinions, perhaps.

It's getting to be like have stepped in dog .... erm .... mess and not realised it - a bad smell that goes everywhere we do.

Seriously, what does it achieve? This is supposed to be about a court ruling and reselling Steam games. We have Brexit threads for Brexit discussions.

[Saracen999]

This is the fundamental point, as this is exactly the same as with a physical game. You never "own" the game - with a physical product you own the media/box/manual etc, but you are provided with a licence to play the game whilst you own that media (effectively, its more complex than that in reality). That licence can also be revoked at any point. So you can resell the media and the licence transfers, but you are not selling the "game" itself - just the media.

With a digital game, you only have that licence so you have nothing that you actually own to resell.

....

I think that trying to draw a distinctiob between owning physical media and transferring a licence is sophistry, because the whole point of the concept of intellectual property law is to ascribe the same 'property' rights to intangible goods like software as with physical goods (like a lawnmower, and to allow conventional markets and contract law to cover sale of either pure IP, or a product that is a mix of physical and intangible (i.e. IP) goods.

And this, by the way, applies not just to users re-selling, but to companies selling to the user, especially a consumer-user, in the first place.

It will come down to :-

- what the licence (which few consumers ever read) allows, and
- what laws, peecedents and judicial interpretations of laws, have to say about the first point.

Yoy are bang on in the last para (not quoted) .... it's good that courts are finally getting around to catching up with the world and taking an interest in this.