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

[DalekFlay]

When discs and DRM free downloads are considered "licenses" the companies can supposedly revoke, we all just smile and nod and say cool story bro. It means nothing, if they actually tried to take them from us we could literally shoot them for breaking and entering, but it just makes feel better so fine, press agree. A system like Valve's though, where they can actually take away their shit? Only the biggest of Gaben cucks would defend them acting on that technicality.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

GAMERS
RISE
UP

GABEN IS GOING TO TAKE OUR GAMES
RISE UP NOW
WE ARE THE MOST OPPRESSED CLASS OF PEOPLES, WE MUST TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTS AND SECURE A FUTURE FOR OUR VIDEO GAMES!

 

[rusty_shackleford]

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO GAMERS THAT DO NOT RISE UP

 

[hell bovine]

Perhaps now game developers will focus more on attracting and keeping a fanbase by creating quality products, instead of taking advantage of steam's "no refunds past 2 hours" policy.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Maybe this might stop publishers expecting 1000% returns on games. Make them focus on niche markets again?
As I said before, I care more about the creative health of the industry over the price of shitty games.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Third, on IP rights...I know buying something doesn't grant you IP rights! I have no idea where you got that from. You're hung up on my quote. I said 'IF you owned the 0s and 1s...' because the point I was making is that, with digital products, you're just buying a license! If you were buying the data itself, then it would be LIKE buying the intellectual property. Nowhere did I mention source code, either, you brought that up. So say you go and buy a game off Steam right now. What are you actually buying? The game, or a license to use the game for personal applications? The latter, because with Steam and most other software, when you purchase it it's just a LICENSE. That's why I made the book analogy, when you go to the store and buy a copy of, I don't know, Frankenstein, you're not buying that story. Why would you, it's in the public domain so it's free to read or do whatever you want with, right? You're buying the physical book, the paper it's printed on, not the story itself.

I am buying the game. "License to use the game" is legalese designed to make it look like the time I paid for Sonic 2 3DS is somehow less valid (and gives me less rights) than the time I paid for Sonic 2 on Genesis MEGADRIVE, as if advances in technology that made it so it's now economically viable to get the product via the interwebs - instead of walking to a store and buying a cartridge containing the data - changed the nature of the transaction where I give the store money so they will give me the game to play. I don't see anything wrong with arguing that one should be able to give the game to someone else like you can with your discs, even if it might be impractical and/or cause Lord Gaben to smite us with a plague of anemic discounts.

 

[MajorMace]

You guys should relax, the french legislators love to legislate. These attempts at bringing private companies to a slightly less retarded behaviour usually ends with a similar situation.
I really doubt the experience will change for the user of steam, maybe we'll be given the option to "extract" a game from our library (valve really just needs to put some serial or equivalent on your games, that's it) and play it offline.
Make it so that it basically works like steam : you have to be online to authentify the game, then you can play offline as you wish. Except here, you need to be online once per machine at first launch, then you're good.
It's pretty much like steam, although you don't have to be online after the initial verification anymore. And you don't go through a launcher.
With this authentification system, you can own and sell your game, which will still be verified as a single copy. Said copy labelled as a steam copy.
You can also obviously sell on steam, but I'm pretty sure the spirit of this rule is that you own the game, hence you can take it out of steam.
And that's the control freak scenario suited for valve's probable efforts to keep the game devs' interest. As I keep in mind some third parties who don't give a shit at all about what their customers do with their games (GOG), and I keep in mind that piracy is already going and strong. So these considerations regarding the intricate differences between physical and digital items shouldn't matter anymore than before, really.
So yeah, inb4 'people will pirate this system'. I mean, yeah, like they're already doing atm.

As for game devs, let's be honest, some trends aiming at eradicating piracy have been going on for more than a decade now. Shitty drms, online only mode etc have plagued games even when Valve couldn't allow ownership of a game. Because that's what's discussed here : the ownership of the game, beyond the mere access to it.

Besides political dogmas and whatnot, I don't see a reason to be upset about that, unless you expect valve to fuck you over.
But in this case, your standpoint on this matter kind of betrays a servile and pathetic behaviour. "Oh let's not upset our lord valve, otherwise the punishment shall be worse than our current situation !'
Dumb. Cowardly. Lame.

TL DR : There are options to implement this rule that do not hurt the user, nor steam, nor the developer.
There are already situations today which are similar to the dreaded visions people have of the foreseeable future, so relax.
Right now, you do now own games bought on steam. Like you would own a game bought on gog.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Congratulations passerby Due to your postings in this thread you've finally convinced me.

You are a true and utter dumbfuck.

 

[Lyric Suite]

We need a goddamn cringe button.

I'm pretty sure those are done ironically, because of the NPC outrage over the Joker movie (which is based purely on white man bad programming).

 

[RNGsus]

We need a goddamn cringe button.

I'm pretty sure those are done ironically, because of the NPC outrage over the Joker movie (which is based purely on white man bad programming).

They predate the joker movie, but they are ironic. They're still cringy as all fug.

 

[anvi]

because of the NPC outrage over the Joker movie

What outrage has happened?

 

[Lyric Suite]

because of the NPC outrage over the Joker movie

What outrage has happened?

Somebody will provide some links here, i'm too lazy to look for them, but it seems the NPCs are "mad" at the Joker movie because they "fear" it might incite "angry white males" (I.E., "incels" which is what NPCs are told they need to be mad about) to "violence".

Notice that the movie has no underlying "message" addressed to anyone, it's just "white man bad" or "incel man bad" (even though the Joker has a girlfriend) programming because the Joker in this film is:

1) A while male
2) Angry because life sucks for him

And that's all it took for the reaction to start. Some soy reporter even went so far as pester Joaquin Phoenix about it.

 

[mogwaimon]

Did they think that the Joker was a black guy the whole time under the chemically-induced skin condition this whole time or something? Do they not know what a villain is at all? Fucking morons, the world's gone to hell these days

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's just that the origin story of the Joker this movie came up with (guy who turns to evil because beaten by society at every corner) accidentally coincides with the current grievance of the woke NPCs, I.E., "radicalized" white males.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's just another iteration on Falling Down which despite when it was released ruffled a lot of feathers.
White males being upset at the current situation is not good for them.

 

[mogwaimon]

It's just that the origin story of the Joker this movie came up with (guy who turns to evil because beaten by society at every corner) accidentally coincides with the current grievance of the woke NPCs, I.E., "radicalized" white males.

I dunno, that just sounds like The Killing Joke to me, but then again I haven't seen the new movie yet so I can't really say if it's that similar. Of course they're not pissed at that because they don't read...But you're right, they're just hating on it because it's hip to do so like those debacles a while back with the Batgirl 41 alternate cover or the sexy Manara covers.

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's just that the origin story of the Joker this movie came up with (guy who turns to evil because beaten by society at every corner) accidentally coincides with the current grievance of the woke NPCs, I.E., "radicalized" white males.

I dunno, that just sounds like The Killing Joke to me, but then again I haven't seen the new movie yet so I can't really say if it's that similar. Of course they're not pissed at that because they don't read...But you're right, they're just hating on it because it's hip to do so like those debacles a while back with the Batgirl 41 alternate cover or the sexy Manara covers.

The point i'm making though is that they are not mad at anything that's actually in the movie. There's literally no context in the reaction besides "white man bad". This is how those people have been operating lately, getting outraged at things that aren't even there, it all exists in their mind.

 

[anvi]

because of the NPC outrage over the Joker movie

What outrage has happened?

Somebody will provide some links here, i'm too lazy to look for them, but it seems the NPCs are "mad" at the Joker movie because they "fear" it might incite "angry white males" (I.E., "incels" which is what NPCs are told they need to be mad about) to "violence".

Notice that the movie has no underlying "message" addressed to anyone, it's just "white man bad" or "incel man bad" (even though the Joker has a girlfriend) programming because the Joker in this film is:

1) A while male
2) Angry because life sucks for him

And that's all it took for the reaction to start. Some soy reporter even went so far as pester Joaquin Phoenix about it.

Thanks for the info. I can totally imagine all of that happening and despair at all of it.

 

[Sentinel]

https://www.isfe.eu/news/french-ruling-on-copyright-exhaustion-flies-in-face-of-established-eu-law/

French Ruling on Copyright flies in face of established EU law
20/09/2019
A French court ruling on 17 September in a case brought by the French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir against Valve found that purchasers of video games on Valve’s digital platform, Steam, are permitted to resell them. This ruling contradicts established EU law and should be overturned on appeal.[1]

“This French ruling flies in the face of established EU law which recognises the need to protect digital downloads from the ease of reproduction allowed by the Internet. Far from supporting gamers, this ruling, if it stands, would dramatically and negatively impact investment in the creation, production and publication of, not just video games, but of the entire output of the digital entertainment sector in Europe. If Europe’s creators cannot protect their investments and their intellectual property, the impact on both industry and consumers will be disastrous.”

Simon Little, CEO of ISFE

Under EU copyright law, the “exhaustion doctrine,” which applies to physical goods and extinguishes a copyright owner’s right to distribution after the first sale, does not apply to digital goods.

Note to editors:

Video games are creative works with an interactive element. Video games have been recognised as complex works by the Court of Justice of the European Union and are protected by copyright for both their non-software elements (music, audiovisual, graphics) and their software elements.

The 2001/29/EC Directive on Copyright and Neighboring Rights provides that:

“(29) The question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services and on-line services in particular. This also applies with regard to a material copy of a work or other subject-matter made by a user of such a service with the consent of the rightholder. Therefore, the same applies to rental and lending of the original and copies of works or other subject-matter which are services by nature. Unlike CD-ROM or CD-I, where the intellectual property is incorporated in a material medium, namely an item of goods, every on-line service is in fact an act which should be subject to authorisation where the copyright or related right so provides”.

Current case before the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) – judgement expected end of 2019

The recent Opinion of the Advocate General in the Tom Kabinet case (concerning the resale of e-books) that is currently before the CJEU confirms that the exhaustion doctrine is limited only to tangible, physical supports and has no application whatsoever to digital downloads (which are covered by the communication to the public right and not by the distribution right).

The Opinion concludes that:

“Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of e-books by downloading online for permanent use is not covered by the distribution right within the meaning of Article 4 of that directive but is covered by the right of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.”

 

[Dexter]

https://twitter.com/ISFE_Games

Representing the interests of video game publishers in Europe.
Brussels, Belgium

Hmm, a Game Industry and Software Lobbying organization that represents:

• Activision Blizzard
• Bandai Namco Entertainment
• Disney Interactive Studios
• Electronic Arts
• Gameloft
• King
• Microsoft
• Nintendo
• SEGA
• Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
• Square Enix
• Supercell
• Take-Two Interactive Software
• Ubisoft
• Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
• Wooga

is butthurt about a legal ruling that might hurt their bottom line.



Luckily we have a CJEU case that dealt with exactly this in software context before: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.e...erer=&httpsredir=1&article=1552&context=naalj

The UsedSoft case held that software licenses that are granted for an unlimited time could be resold because the EU complies with the exhaustion doctrine. Once the copyright holder sold a particular copy, the copyright holder’s rights in that copy were exhausted, and a purchaser of a copy could resell it without the copyright holder’s authorization. This effectively negated license agreements that prohibited resale of computer programs, and may possibly even negate end user license agreements (EULA) in the video game context. EULAs—also known as software license agreements—are made between the end user (licensee) and the software vendor (licensor). The licenses apply when the end user agrees to the vendor’s terms, most commonly in the form of shrink-wrap or click-wrap agreements.

Because the CJEU was not specific on its meaning of “software,” this could still potentially affect the EU’s second hand market in the video game industry. If the game developer or publisher sells a game and, thus, gives ownership of a game for an unlimited period of time to the customer, then that is what the customer gets—despite any language in the EULA. The consequences of this case for video game companies are that it may be “legal for users to download titles from places like Steam, Xbox Live or the App Store” and resell those games once the user is finished playing with it. Therefore, companies will be prohibited from exercising control of their right to distribution of games and may lose out on the extra sales that could have been made. On the other hand, this is perhaps a victory for gamers to buy games cheaper, to legally rid themselves of online games not worth playing twice, and to protect users by being able to hold onto their rights of possessing copies under copyright.

Further, this may align the second-hand market for downloadable video games on the same level as the market for tangible copies of games on discs and cartridges, allowing all hard-copy and digital software sales.

However, recent cases on technology may not take immediate effect in the EU or in other countries affected by it, as there may need to be “some kind of legal catalyst to actually spark implementation of the case.” Because of the ambiguity of the case, its effect on mobile games, cloud computing, freemium games, subscription models, and product keys is still unknown. Even with this ambiguity, it is clear that the EU judgment shows that there is little regard by courts in the EU for EULAs enforced by software companies.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-03-consumers-can-resell-downloaded-games-rules-eu

Consumers can resell downloaded games, rules EU
"An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences" says Court Of Justice
Rachel Weber
Senior Editor
Tuesday 3rd July 2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union has made a crucial judgement determining that publishers cannot oppose the resale of their previously bought and played downloadable games.

The ruling even goes as far as to say the judgement stands even if the original buyer has signed a End User License Agreement, and will have major implications for distribution services like Valve's Steam and EA's Origin.

The judgement, explained below in more detail, came about after a legal battle in the German courts between software reseller UsedSoft and developer Oracle.

"The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website," said the official document.

"Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy - tangible or intangible - and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy."

 

[Sentinel]

The ruling would hurt the consumer more than the companies, lmao. Companies are already pushing time sink garbage with subscription models, this decision makes no difference to them.

 

[Sentinel]

Dexter Please explain to me in what world is the French ruling a good thing for consumers.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Dexter Please explain to me in what world is the French ruling a good thing for consumers.

They unironically think that everything would go on as normal except there would be a used game market.

 

[Dexter]

Dexter Please explain to me in what world is the French ruling a good thing for consumers.

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing for consumers depends on your answers to the following questions:

1) Do you like having basic consumer rights?
2) Do you like owning things you buy? (Do you like being able to do the things you are usually able to do with things you own?)
3) Do you want companies to have the power to deprive you of your property for any reason whatsoever against your will?

Another bonus question to check for elementary intelligent thought:
Do you think a lobbying organization representing and working in the name of Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard, UbiSoft and Disney would be for or against something that is good for consumers?

 

[Sentinel]

Dexter Please explain to me in what world is the French ruling a good thing for consumers.

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing for consumers depends on your answers to the following questions:

1) Do you like having basic consumer rights?
2) Do you like owning things you buy? (Do you like being able to do the things you are usually able to do with things you own)
3) Do you want companies to have the power to deprive you of your property for any reason whatsoever?

Another bonus question to check for elementary intelligent thought:
Do you think a lobbying organization representing and working in the name of Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard, UbiSoft and Disney would be for or against something that is good for consumers?

I see a lot of dogmatic consumer rights and ownership talk. But have you actually tried thinking through the consequences of this decision on the market? Are you even aware that in a digital market there is no difference between a used and a new product? Have you maybe wondered what consequences that would have on the market? I'll leave you a hint: the consequences wouldn't be positive for the consumer. But the companies could easily get away with it and fuck you in the ass because of this decision.