Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

French court rules Steam should allow resale of digital games, Valve will appeal

LESS T_T

Arcane
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
13,582
Codex 2014
French court rules Steam should allow resale of games and reimbursement of Steam Wallet (when users leave the platform): https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/09/19/steam-should-let-users-resell-games-french-court-rules/

Valve still can appeal.

Steam should let users resell games, French court rules

French Steam users have the right to resell games, a Paris court has ruled in a case brought by a consumer group. The years-long case isn’t fully settled because Valve can yet appeal, and why would they not? This is still a big decision. The official line so far has been that games bought in a downloadable form, without a physical form like a disc backing them, cannot be resold. The court also ruled against several other clauses of Steam’s terms, like keeping your Steam Wallet funds if you shut down your account.

UFC Que Choisir (officially the Union fédérale des consommateurs/Federal Union of Consumers) have been going after Steam since 2015 over a number of clauses in the Steam Subscriber Agreement. Chief among these is that Steam users must agree they don’t actually buy products on Steam, they just get subscriptions to access and use content and services.

This week’s ruling in the District Court of Paris, according to UFC Que Choisir, says this should change. While folks have the right to resell games on discs, so far this hasn’t applied to “dematerialised” products beamed down your datapipe without a physical object supporting them. Next Inpact further report that the court decided Steam doesn’t sell subscriptions, it sells licenses.

The court agreed with UFC Que Choisir, they say, that Steam’s terms claim a number of other rights Valve legally could not have. Valve should not keep Steam Wallet funds when users leave the platform, and should reimburse them if requested. Valve should accept responsibility when users are harmed by Steam or something from it, even if it’s marked as beta. Valve cannot claim so many rights to exploit mods and other content uploaded by users. And the ways players can lose access for poor conduct are not sufficiently clear, Next Inpact add.

UFC Que Choisir say they plan to take this consumer rights fight to more platforms and products. If they can actually secure the decision against a store as big as Steam, that’d be a mighty strong precedent. Given that UFC Que Choisir’s case relies on European law, the precedent’s surely helpful for other countries in the union sharing the legal framework.

This case isn’t yet settled, mind. Valve can still appeal and by gum, they surely will. I don’t doubt other large stores and publishers would rally to oppose this too. Steam today, Epic tomorrow.

Some digital game stores have launched with the main draw of allowing users to resell their games, though they’ve not really taken off. For stores which aren’t built upon that ideal, it’s less attractive. Though if Valve were forced to allow reselling, I’m sure they’d be better-equipped than many to capitalise on the opportunity. Even aside from perhaps claiming a transaction/middleman fee, a game gone to another player is a whole new set of trading cards and emoticons and hats entering circulation for Valve to skim pennies off. But first, we’ll have to see how Valve’s nigh-inevitable appeal goes.

Allowing reimbursement of Steam Wallet can open up a big can of worms.
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
Fucking retards, if it stick and spread we can welcome our game as service, always online, microtransaction riddled future of singleplayer games, or streaming exclusives, or monthly subscription plans, choose your poison.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Other EU courts won't see this any differently, it's hard to legally argue that you've purchased something but don't actually "own" it and it's only a matter of time, always remember that EULAs are basically corporate Wishlists and not settled law:
I'm pretty confident that some well-placed lawsuits will take care of "digital ownership" over short or long. They can (and usually do) write an awful lot in their EULA's, but that doesn't mean they'll hold up in court e.g.: https://www.computerworld.com/artic...oftware-licenses-is-legal----even-online.html

I can't imagine a legal status of "I paid hundreds/thousands of $/€/£'s for something, but I don't actually own it and can be deprived of it at the whim of any corporation" is going to withstand a legal test forever. Usually as soon as you fork over money and have entered into a purchase agreement, you actually own something and that comes with certain rights and responsibilities by the seller. That's likely one of the main reasons why most digital storefronts don't usually actually "ban" anyone for anything but legitimate fraud, since they don't want to be the ones to have to argue over this in court. Increasingly ban-happy "Online services" and employees that get triggered over "bad words" and deprive people of what they bought are likely to eventually be the undoing of this business model. It just has to be the right case at the right time.
As for Steam, the moment they try and start banning a larger amount of people or otherwise remove the access to their bought software is going to be the moment the EU and possibly UK/Australia and some other regions are going to buttfuck Valve again like they did with refunds and are in the process of doing with region locking, so I'm not really too worried:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...oftware-licenses-is-legal----even-online.html
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
It's amazing how our legal system still can't recognize fundamental difference, between intellectual property and physical goods.

It's somehow bad to sell a lifetime access to an intellectual property, they'll enforce transfer right which with digital goods will be so easy that dozens of people will be able to play a single copy, which will make it impossible to profit from it.

A monthly subscription though, that will be fine, no copy transfer right, just like your cable tv, or netflix, you are welcome.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
It's amazing how our legal system still can't recognize fundamental difference, between intellectual property and physical goods.

It's somehow bad to sell a lifetime access to an intellectual property, they'll enforce transfer right which with digital goods will be so easy that dozens of people will be able to play a single copy, which will make it impossible to profit from it.

A monthly subscription though, that will be fine, no copy transfer right, just like your cable tv, or netflix, you are welcome.
What is "our legal system", IP is generally handled differently from region to region, there are countries in the EU where you can't even transfer it from the author of a work, only license it to others for commercial purposes. In neither case does what you're saying make any sense though, since "intellectual property" is generally not being sold or transferred (other than in the US when Disney buys another huge media company). In most cases the authors behind a work (or their publishers) are the owners of an IP and remain that way and goods based on it are being sold or licensed, either physically (books, DVDs, software, artwork) or digitally (downloads of music/movies/games etc.). In either case this counts as a purchase and you now own said goods or licenses and thankfully have rights. In the EU you can generally resell software licenses that you've bought, whether they're physical or digital and a company can't stop you from doing it no matter how hard they stomp their feet, see the articles posted above in which commercial resellers of Microsoft or Oracle licenses went before court and were proven right.

Steam and similar services are already trying to claim that they're offering a "Subscription" service by e.g. stating that you accept their "Subscriber Agreement": https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/ and are a "Subscriber" of Steam's service and your purchases are "Subscriptions" on their "Subscription Marketplace":
You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by completing the registration of a Steam user account. This Agreement takes effect as soon as you indicate your acceptance of these terms.
As a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content available to Subscribers. The Steam client software and any other software, content, and updates you download or access via Steam, including but not limited to Valve or third-party video games and in-game content, software associated with Hardware and any virtual items you trade, sell or purchase in a Steam Subscription Marketplace are referred to in this Agreement as "Content and Services;" the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."

This is of course wishful thinking on the part of Steam and similar services like it that won't hold even a cursory legal test, since things like purchases and purchase agreements, as well as software licensing and similar are already rather well defined legally. Putting down a concrete amount of money to acquire a product or software license doesn't suddenly turn a purchase into a Subscription because it is stated so in some Agreement.
 
Last edited:

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
Dexter
I don't argue with that everything you wrote is correct. My point is that the law that handle intellectual property sales is almost identical to the ones that we have for physical goods, because legislators didn't understand fundamental differences between them and their implications.
Most of expensive professiona software is for a long time in a transition into timed subscriptions, or even web aps. Gaming was relatively free from this trend because tying games to accounts killed concept of second hand game for a while.
Once courts enforce this law we can expect rapid transition into different business model. We can kiss goodbye owning a permanent access to a digital games library of future games.
 
Last edited:

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
This is wishful thinking and close to retardation and doom-mongering on your part, the legal decisions from back in 2011 didn't appreciably change Microsoft's or Oracle's business models substantially, they just had to live with people being able to resell their licenses. If Valve ultimately loses this legal challenge it will just have to operate more like GOG (same for its competitors). At the end of the day customers still have the final decision over what's profitable and will succeed commercially as a business model. As much as big publishers for instance disliked GameStop and their reselling of physical games, they had to bear it and play ball till consumers organically moved on from retail (and Microsoft had to eat crow over their attempt to try and force consumers with their console last generation). There isn't any particular indication that anyone would want to move on from digital purchases or that consumers at large prefer other models to any appreciable degree. Similarly to how as long as consumers are going to the cinema or are buying DVDs/Blu-Rays they'll be in ample supply, while the most intense marketing push won't make something that they generally don't want a market reality (say 3D TVs).

And on top of that it would be pretty stupid and counterproductive for publishers/developers to try and trade in safe $59/$29 or whatever day one purchases against pennies or low dollar amounts generated by any said "Subscription services" (which wouldn't be just "shit" for Indie devs):
 
Last edited:

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
Legal decisions from back in 2011 didn't appreciably change Microsoft's or Oracle's business models substantially, they just had to live with people being able to resell their licenses.

You can't see a difference between a software that you need to use for years and a game that can be "consumed" in an evening and then resold and call others a retard.
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,862
Amazing news.

Summary:
- Velve lost court battle in France over sales of digital goods on second hand market.
- French highest court used EU law as its basis.
- It means now that Velve and no one can stop resale of digital goods in France.
- EU is single market which means that goods sold in France and bought from France can be used in whole EU.
- You can now lend your digital games to friends and sell them as you see fit.

Developers/publishers r/games and various shills on suicide watch.
So are miscrotranaction hells games since this means ALL digital goods including skins, dlc, music so on and so forth.

The biggest question is how this will get implemented because so far now it is ruling on clauses that disallow sale and for sure there will be oncoming cases where people will litigate way of selling their games.



The UFC-Que Choisir won a major victory against Valve, the publisher Steam, the largest video game platform on the market. The association has obtained the cancellation of several clauses, including the one prohibiting the possibility of reselling dematerialized games.

This is the culmination of almost three years of proceedings. And a victory for the UFC-Que Choisir. In a judgment handed down on 17 September by the Paris Regional Court, and relayed by the Next Inpact website, the consumer rights association succeeded in obtaining the annulment of a number of clauses that Valve had imposed on Steam.

The most significant of these concerns the one that effectively prohibited the resale of dematerialized video games, i.e. products that are not linked to a particular physical medium (a cartridge or a disc for example). In the subscription agreement that Valve drafted for its video game distribution platform, provisions prevent this possibility in principle.

It is thus declared that the Valve account and the information attached to it "are strictly personal". This applies in particular to subscriptions, which refer to "rights of access and/or use of content and services accessible through Steam". These contents and services include video games, purchased virtual objects, game content, software or updates.

However, just as it is "not permitted" to sell or invoice or transfer an account's right of use to third parties, neither is it permitted to "sell or invoice the right to use subscriptions or to transfer them". In other words, you cannot resell dematerialized video games, even though you have the possibility to do so when it is a physical product.

EUROPEAN LAW TO THE RESCUE This is where the High Court comes in.

The disputed clause (1-C) has been rejected by the French courts, on the basis of European law, via European directives (Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs), and on the case law of the European Court of Justice.

These two directives, the court wrote, "prohibit the possible obstacle that copyright protection could constitute by recognizing the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right, which "prohibits", if only by the interplay of contractual provisions [as, here, those set out in the Steam subscription agreement, editor's note], the free movement of goods within the Union. »

Exhaustion of the right is a principle according to which once a work has been sold with the author's authorization, the author no longer has control over subsequent resales. This allows the second-hand market, as individuals do not need to seek the prior agreement of the author to sell a particular property. However, this provision also applies to legally acquired dematerialized content.

In 2012, the European Court ruled that a rightful claimant is prohibited from opposing the resale of software. When it is sold, including by downloading, its purchaser is free to resell it: "Such a transaction implies the transfer of the right of ownership of this copy", if, "against payment of a price, a licence agreement[grants] the customer the right to use this copy for an unlimited period".

IT IS INDEED A PURCHASE

However, the court observes that the licence of a game is indeed purchased and not obtained within the framework of a subscription to the subscription of the said game. Indeed, this subscription mentioned by Valve "actually consists of a purchase, the game being made available to the said user for an unlimited period of time. It cannot therefore be a "subscription" - in the usual sense of the term - but the sale of a copy of a video game, made for a price determined in advance and paid in a single instalment by the user. »

The court went on to explain that the owner of the right in question "may no longer oppose the resale of this copy (or copy) even if the initial purchase is made by downloading". As for the software publisher or his successors in title, it is no longer possible to "object to the resale of this copy or copy, notwithstanding the existence of contractual provisions prohibiting a subsequent transfer. »

Of course, the court did not ignore the fact that, in the Intellectual Property Code, there is reference to a "material copy" in the case of exhaustion of the right. But for the sake of justice, this wording "must not be assimilated to the sole physical medium of the software, but must be understood as the downloading of the software from the website and its installation on the user's computer. »

The court thus brandishes another article of the same code, which states that "intangible property is independent of the ownership of the material object", which distinguishes the work from the material object in which the work is incorporated. Moreover, the Court continues, European law "in no way leaves it to the Member States to provide for an exhaustion rule other than that of Community exhaustion. »

CLAUSE DEEMED UNWRITTEN

In these circumstances, the disputed clause is "deemed unwritten" because of its unfair and unlawful nature. Valve cannot therefore in principle brandish it to prevent a player from reselling a game, which was then considered "second-hand". Its effects are considered non-existent. The clause will have to be removed and, among the court's decisions, the judgment will have to be posted on Steam for 3 months.

The entire judgment must therefore be accessible and activatable via the site's home page as well as on those of its tablet and smartphone applications. Valve has one month to comply with this request, from the day of the verdict, otherwise it will be liable to a daily penalty payment of 3,000 euros for each day of delay, up to a maximum of six months. Damages are also planned for the UFC.

Finally, the Court recalls that all the contractual offers of Valve, although under American law, and its Luxembourg subsidiary Valve SARL, "must be governed by French law when they concern users with a residence on French territory". Which, in theory, should lead Valve to foresee the possibility of being able to resell games on its platform.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
http://www.DeepL.com/Translator
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
There is absolutely no legal difference, retard.
Where I wrote there is ? I don't argue that these laws legally prohibit selling games digitally, but that companies will simply stop doing it, because only various forms of timed subscription models will remain viable from business perspective, genius.
 
Last edited:

Alienman

Retro-Fascist
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
17,145
Location
Mars
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex Year of the Donut Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Would be interesting if you could "unlock" a game you own on Steam, and get a serial key instead for selling. Would probably try to sell at least 50% of my library of games on Steam.
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
Most of these keys would instantly became worth 0,1$ before you'd manage to sell them.
 
Last edited:

Morkar Left

Guest
The biggest question is how this will get implemented because so far now it is ruling on clauses that disallow sale and for sure there will be oncoming cases where people will litigate way of selling their games.

They will only rent out games with their live services / subscription models. End of story.
 

Lady_Error

█▓▒░ ░▒▓█
Patron
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,879,250
It used to be normal that you can sell the games you bought. Looks like the merchants got too greedy, though I guess this may have also helped developers who would otherwise get a smaller number of sales.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom