Publishers cannot oppose resale of digital products, says EU court

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  07 July 2012
Regarding the EULA; I always found it ridiculous how software developers try to enforce an agreement towards the user after he actually already has payed and owns the product. Thats insane and totally unfair towards the consumer.
 
  07 July 2012
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: Regarding the EULA; I always found it ridiculous how software developers try to enforce an agreement towards the user after he actually already has payed and owns the product. Thats insane and totally unfair towards the consumer.

In Australia that is completely illegal...
__________________
Vizual-Element | Automotive Superstore
 
  07 July 2012
Quote: "
This is the same fallacy that causes the RIAA/MPAA to assume that 1,000,000 pirated albums/movies equals 1,000,000 lost purchases."


And then go on to Bleet to their Lawmakers& Media about X-hundreds of millions of Dollars in "Lost " Future theoretical revenue and jobs.

If those were legitimate "losses" the inland revenue system in America would Allow such "losses" to be Written off their taxable income
which ,of course they do not.


Cheers
 
  07 July 2012
It seems that people want to acknowledge all the potential future sales that may come into existence after a license resale but try their hardest to deny the actual current losses of license sales that have already occurred. You can't have it both ways in a logical discussion.

As a person states here in relation to piracy: http://richfriedeman.com/2012/01/sopa-and-lost-sales/ , which I agree.

"Digital piracy only has a monetary loss when it replaces a sale."

Well, a private resale inherently replaces a commerical sale and is thus a monetary loss to that commercial business.

Last edited by eworc : 07 July 2012 at 08:43 PM.
 
  07 July 2012
How is that going to affect business models like mac app store / appstore / app market etc?
Where your app purchases are bound to your id and you can't sell them?
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
  07 July 2012
Originally Posted by mustique: How is that going to affect business models like mac app store / appstore / app market etc?
Where your app purchases are bound to your id and you can't sell them?


Well i guess they are forced to change that system now or they could get into trouble if they obstruct someone's right to resell an app
 
  07 July 2012
Originally Posted by Srek: One point that i don't see mentioned here but i think is of interest to all but the very small developers is upgrades.
If someone sells his license of a software the manufacturer looses a customer that does not want to use the software and gains one that wants to. At this point the manufacturer does not earn any money, but the new customer is a potential buyer of upgrades and service contracts. You could see the used sale as an introductory offer.
I agree with Per though that for small developers the increasing amount of work you have to put in non sales related stuff is crippeling.
I think it would be fair to all if the manufacturer is allowed to bill a transfer charge for each license that is related to the amount of work this creates (not the value of the software).

Cheers
Björn


Excellent post and to sums it all up pretty well.The real important thing of the verdict is that the former owner MUST delete his copy, so that there is just ONE owner of the license.
As for the support, lets face it, everyone who sells software is in a competitive market, and Your success heavily relies on the quality of the support users get. Small devs dont need that 24/7 support.You get what You pay for, if someone pays 50 bucks for a tool, then of course he cant ask for 24/7 support.Simple as that.Sometimes its a shame how much mistrust developers put in their won customers, look at Dwarf Fortress, their success (financially) was purely based on a "donate" button, and I doubt they give any support woth mentioning, set up a forum and let users help each other, thats how "indie" works.
__________________
Ciao,
Emmanuel
PXLRY
 
  07 July 2012
Originally Posted by HFnord: Last time I checked the specific situation of EU citizens was covered in the AD EULA under the definitions:
(This is from an older EULA, though... I don't think anything will have changed in this respect though)


That still puts you in a potentially tight spot with AD wanting some extra cash out of you, if you decide do move yourself and your business outside of that territory, which is, in my book, just parasitic and the whole point I am making.

Cheers!
__________________
"Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do."-Bruce Lee


 
  07 July 2012
You're right, not my "Post of the Year"
Problem with taking your license with you or even selling it to someone outside of your own territory at the moment would be - I think - that EU law might apply on one end, but AD obviously could still make local law count in that "other" territory. I don't foresee this changing anytime soon & moreover I don't see how the court decision in the EU could change that.
And by the way "AD wanting some extra cash from you" will always apply, they'll simply find another way to get your money, if all else fails...
 
  07 July 2012
Indeed!

Cheers!
__________________
"Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do."-Bruce Lee


 
  07 July 2012
here is another link to the court doc

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...t=1&cid=5339216
__________________
Heights of great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they while their companions slept were toiling upwards in the night.
 
  07 July 2012
Originally Posted by eworc: It seems that people want to acknowledge all the potential future sales that may come into existence after a license resale but try their hardest to deny the actual current losses of license sales that have already occurred. You can't have it both ways in a logical discussion.

As a person states here in relation to piracy: http://richfriedeman.com/2012/01/sopa-and-lost-sales/ , which I agree.

"Digital piracy only has a monetary loss when it replaces a sale."

Well, a private resale inherently replaces a commerical sale and is thus a monetary loss to that commercial business.


Ewroc, I don't think I've ever posted on CGS (besides maybe saying hello) but the polarity of your views compelled me to do so. I think your perspective is very black and white on the issue of reselling. There are far too many factors to consider to say that definitively the reselling of an item causes a loss to a company. There is no guarantee that someone would have bought a new license had they not gotten it used. It's not "inherent". It's speculative at best. The only thing inherent in a private resell is that the reseller recoups money spent.

Using GM as an example in the beginning of the thread for instance does not really work as any reputable manufacturer of cars use resell value and longevity of product as a selling point. The instance of what you're saying is very true of video games on a physical medium. Companies like GameStop make out like bandits and the company that made the game only make money on the initial sale of the game. It's the exact same game as the current full price offering at less cost by an independent seller. But it is very legal. That's one of the reasons for DLC.

Software programs as they are now differ in that new versions are released of the same program with new features that make it a different program in the way of backward compatibility. If I own a license and for whatever reason don't need that software anymore, I should have the right to sell it unless I got a discount on the upgrade on that license then sold the old lic. That's a monetary loss of the company beyond good practices. Someone looking to buy a USED license chose to find a used copy. It was not forced on them as the attempted to buy from the original maker... Maybe cause the newest version won't work on their hardware or they can't afford the newest release. Or it could be that they don't want to pay that much for the latest and greatest. If I can't afford CS6 for instance, but I need it, I'm going to first try to find it at the best price I can. If the best price is still too much, I'll look for CS5 or CS4. Adobe does not make those anymore. Adobe knows they don't make it anymore and that some people may want or need it. They could offer legacy software at a discount to capitalize on it. They don't. So I find it used where I can.

All companies loose money if a potential customer buys from somewhere else. It's the nature of a competitive market and companies understand this. Your theory says that I can't buy a '57 Chevy from the original owner (or 5th owner) cause I am loosing Chevrolet a sale. Every truck sold that is not a current year Chevy is loosing them a sale! Companies expect and accept losses for many reasons that are perfectly acceptable and/or legal (or should be). Of course they will use the law if they can to do what they can get away with. If they could, they would stop the sell of Ford, Dodge, Toyota, etc... siting loss of revenue.

Then, Sony can't make the PS3 cause Microsoft lost money from people who bought it instead of the Xbox which should be stopped cause Sega had.... But Nintendo made... But not before Atari which stepped on the toes of Commodore... Pong... Computer Space! We're all playing Computer Space and nothing else.

The reason Autodesk makes a new version of Maya and 3D Max every year instead of a free update with all the new features is so that we go and buy it again. I think companies that follow this business model and make a good product will do just fine.
 
  11 November 2012
Software publishers need to make up their minds. If it's "stealing" to copy, distribute, or receive software (a la filesharing), then their licenses where they say "no no, you're only 'licensing' the software and can't sell it" are bogus. If their licenses where we're only "licensing" the software and can't sell it are valid, then filesharing isn't "stealing."

Course, this is all moot. Filesharing isn't "stealing" and never was; copyright violation or breach of contract or whatever, but not "stealing." "Stealing" implies the offender has deprived the owner of something - the owner used to have that something, but the offender took it; when someone steals your car, you no longer have it. Making a copy of a Ferrari with your magic wand is not "stealing"; copyright violation, IP law violation, whatever, but not "stealing."

IP lawyers "stole" the idea of "stealing" and mis-applied it to their products.
 
  11 November 2012
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.