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
Old 07 July 2012   #1
Publishers cannot oppose resale of digital products, says EU court

Quote: In a move that may have significant implications for digital video games in Europe, a new ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union states that the licence agreement for a digital product can be resold between customers.


Link to article

This is a huge deal particularly for anyone using DCC software in the EU means you can now resell your licenses legally as far as I can tell...
__________________
Vizual-Element | Automotive Superstore

Last edited by Kabab : 07 July 2012 at 04:38 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #2
that's really a great news!
 
Old 07 July 2012   #3
I wonder if this affects software upgrade agreements. For example, if you upgrade Vue Xstream from 9 to 10, you can't then sell the original license currently.

Also, I imagine this would probably increase the prices of certain software, since the price reflects the assumption of a single point of use.

Last edited by eworc : 07 July 2012 at 05:14 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #4
Originally Posted by eworc: Wonder how this affects software upgrade agreements. For example, if you upgrade Vue Xstream from 9 to 10, you can't then sell the original license currently.

Nevermind, this is about games.

No its about all digital goods, the original case came up because of someone reselling oracle software...
__________________
Vizual-Element | Automotive Superstore
 
Old 07 July 2012   #5
Hmmm, I'm not sure this ruling is sound. Maybe not a proper analogy but it's like going to a buffet, paying a set price, eating want you want, then selling your seat at the table to a friend outside for a lesser amount. The process continuing. Not fair to the restaurant when $500 worth of food is consumed for $25.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #6
Originally Posted by eworc: Hmmm, I'm not sure this ruling is sound. Maybe not a proper analogy but it's like going to a buffet, paying a set price, eating want you want, then selling your seat at the table to a friend outside for a lesser amount. The process continuing. Not fair to the restaurant when $500 worth of food is consumed for $25.


It's not like that at all--it wouldn't cost Autodesk any more money for someone to sell a program to another person. There's the potential loss of a sale, but since the original person can no longer use the program I wouldn't consider that a loss.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 07 July 2012   #7
Originally Posted by eworc: Hmmm, I'm not sure this ruling is sound. Maybe not a proper analogy but it's like going to a buffet, paying a set price, eating want you want, then selling your seat at the table to a friend outside for a lesser amount. The process continuing. Not fair to the restaurant when $500 worth of food is consumed for $25.


The current EULA model has never worked well in EU courts, because users own in fact a limited license to use and don't have right to resell o even have very limited rights to claim for software errors, but at the end of the day it looks, feels and works like a sale of a product.

This not the end of the story, software giants will lobby to change EU laws used for this veredict. Our useless EU politicians will of course consent.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses

Last edited by Samo : 07 July 2012 at 05:52 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #8
Quote: There's the potential loss of a sale


darthviper107, I would have to disagree. It's not a potential loss of a sale, it's an actual loss of a sale. For instance, Joe buys SoftwareX for $500. SoftwareX company get's $500. Joe then sells the software license at some point to Bob for $400. Joe get's $400 and SoftwareX company get's $0. Bob then sells the license to Jim for $300. SoftwareX company still at $0. Jim sells it to John for $200...John sells it to Roger for $100...Roger decides to keep the license.

So, total money changing hands was $1500 but SoftwareX company only got $500 for their product instead of $2500 if all the people bought the license from the company.

So, I am thinking the companies will raise the price of the software to compensate for this shift. But I could be wrong, just playing devil's advocate on the issue. Other than the hassle of keeping track of license administration, I would be curious to find out from the business versus the consumer perspective if there are other reasons why they are against this change in law...other than what I stated before about loss of sales.

Last edited by eworc : 07 July 2012 at 06:22 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #9
Good to see some good news comming out of the courts for a change
 
Old 07 July 2012   #10
Good news. Respect of Private Property.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #11
Originally Posted by eworc: darthviper107, I would have to disagree. It's not a potential loss of a sale, it's an actual loss of a sale. For instance, Joe buys SoftwareX for $500. SoftwareX company get's $500. Joe then sells the software license at some point to Bob for $400. Joe get's $400 and SoftwareX company get's $0. Bob then sells the license to Jim for $300. SoftwareX company still at $0. Jim sells it to John for $200...John sells it to Roger for $100...Roger decides to keep the license.

So, total money changing hands was $1500 but SoftwareX company only got $500 for their product instead of $2500 if all the people bought the license from the company.

So, I am thinking the companies will raise the price of the software to compensate for this shift. But I could be wrong, just playing devil's advocate on the issue. Other than the hassle of keeping track of license administration, I would be curious to find out from the business versus the consumer perspective if there are other reasons why they are against this change in law...other than what I stated before about loss of sales.


Potential loss is because it's not necessarily true that they would have bought the software otherwise if they couldn't buy it used.

In each case there's still the same number of people using the software since the original owner can't use it anymore.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 07 July 2012   #12
Originally Posted by eworc: darthviper107, I would have to disagree. It's not a potential loss of a sale, it's an actual loss of a sale. For instance, Joe buys SoftwareX for $500. SoftwareX company get's $500. Joe then sells the software license at some point to Bob for $400. Joe get's $400 and SoftwareX company get's $0. Bob then sells the license to Jim for $300. SoftwareX company still at $0. Jim sells it to John for $200...John sells it to Roger for $100...Roger decides to keep the license.

So, total money changing hands was $1500 but SoftwareX company only got $500 for their product instead of $2500 if all the people bought the license from the company.


Right, if they were all willing to pay full price to get it. If Bob only has $400, and Jim only has $300, neither will be buying the software priced at $1500.

If I buy a new car for $25,000 and sell it two years later for $12,000, do I cause the car company to lose a sale?

Last edited by moogaloonie : 07 July 2012 at 07:41 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #13
There's another issue here beside lost sales. If I buy software from a company I will likely register it. This grants me support privileges, possibly allows me to post in forums, and allows the vendor to notify me of upgrades and special promotions. If I sell my license to another user I complicate the vendor's process of tallying and communicating with active users for support and marketing purposes. I don't think this should trump my rights to re-sell, but I do think it's a valid concern that's often overlooked in this discussion.
 
Old 07 July 2012   #14
Software is the only commercial product I can think of where the vendor can tell you "Yeah, you must pay us 3,000 Dollars to use this. But you can't sell it to someone else when you don't need it anymore."

Not only does the court ruling fix this f+%ked up state of affairs very nicely,

but it also questions the legal power of EULAs (aka "Shrinkwrap Contracts").

A binding product usage contract must normally be signed BEFORE you buy a product (before any money changes hands in other words).

EULAs force you to ACCEPT weird & wonderful product usage terms AFTER you have legally bought the product.


I hope the courts go one step further some day and declare EULA crap to be "not legally binding".


It would make the world a better place for everyone I think...
 
Old 07 July 2012   #15
I think there has been cases where they said EULA's weren't binding.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
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 10:52 AM.


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