View Full Version : EU's Court of Justice: Customers can sell their software (licences)
Richard
03-Jul-2012, 19:49
Saw on Blues (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/133476/eu-to-allow-digital-software-resales) that a preliminary ruling from this body declares software licenses, whether sold as physical or digital copies, exhaust the right of sale thereby allowing customers to resell the license. Read a longer "analysis" at RPS (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/crikey-eu-rules-you-can-resell-downloaded-games/#more-114473) especially the part where it's specifically mentioned this right can't be denied.
So, either the final decision is changed, it's appealed or software stops being sold and starts being rented. Steam, et al will have to have to provide a means to divest oneself of a game.
EDIT: if you can't read the PDF linked in those sites (like the current computer I'm using), here's the judgment's webpage (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5246101).
Yeah, pretty interesting to see where this will be going.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 08:44
Yeah, pretty interesting to see where this will be going.
Where it will be going is likely bad. This removes any incentive for publishers to actually sell you a game instead of selling you a 1 year/month/week license with additional fees for each additional time period, even if those fees are negligible.
So basically if this stays valid, expect to pay the current price for say a 6 month license and then have to pay some fee like $5 for each additional 6 month period you want access after the first month is up.
Expect this to apply to both physical and online versions.
AKA, this ruling effectively forces publishers down a path that is worse for consumers. This is because of how the ruling was worded/done which basically means that selling a perpetual license removes all rights from the publishers, and therefore the obvious solution for them is to not do it.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 09:09
On further reflection, this ruling could actually cause a complete boycott of the EU by publishers and developers, even those based in the EU. It opens such large loopholes that copyright may no longer even be enforceable inside the EU.
The problem basically becomes that I can buy a small number of digital copies and basically sell them to a near infinite number of people via timeslicing sales and buybacks.
This is REALLY REALLY bad and is going to cause an incredible number of lawsuits and legal issues. Basically the EU Court of Justice just opened up a HUGE can of worms!
And it affects so many things. This basically blows away close to a century of copyright law. The fact that this will impact both motion video, audio, computer software, etc, will likely see this ruling revisited. At the very least, the EUCoJ will have to seriously revisit the working of this ruling.
Simon F
04-Jul-2012, 09:37
This basically blows away close to a century of copyright law.
Can you "explain the logic underlying that conclusion"?
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 10:15
Can you "explain the logic underlying that conclusion"?
It is the conjunction of digital content which allows instant resale combined with no restriction on resale. In effect, it allows instantaneous transfer which means 1 copy can effectively be multiplexed among a multitude of users.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 10:17
The current licensing system was only ever an end-run around consumer law anyway.
Suppose you bought a chair, and when you got it home you found it had a EULA that says you don't own the chair, you have merely been granted a licence that allow you to use the chair as long as you stay within the licensed conditions. For instance you can't lend or sell the chair to anyone, you can't change or disassemble the chair. If the chair is broken or doesn't work correctly, you have no rights to send it back for a refund, you just have to wait to see if the manufacturers issue you with a fix at some point in the future, etc.
In anyone's book, you "bought" the chair, but in reality, it isn't really yours. At least with this new ruling, software developers will have to be honest about their products, and price accordingly. If they put out buggy pieces of crap, they won't be able to just brush it off and leave the customer stuck.
How can you multiplex 1 license?
How can you multiplex 1 license?
It's irrelevant legally anyway. If a company requires you to buy one of their products by purchasing a licence key, then licence key is one product that can be resold. Regardless of what online system the software does or does not use to validate that licence and its owner, reselling a licence key is already possible today in most cases, and in the case below supplier decided to try to fight the customer on that and failed.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 11:08
How can you multiplex 1 license?
Hour 1-10, A uses it
Hour 10-12, B user it
Hour 12-15, C uses it
Hour 16-20, D uses it
etc.
As an example, Video stores pay more for their copy of a movie than normal customers. This law effectively means that anyone can buy any copy and be free of any licensing restrictions. The licensing restrictions were the only thing preventing publishers from using a lease only model.
So, it's bad, because the publishers are dishonest scumbags who rather not sell you something than give you a honest deal? And so we want THEIR rights to fuck us over protected? Like, an enforceable EULA? Because we get worse deals in any case?
Sounds like their goods are drugs, and it's high time something is done against those practices.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 11:11
The current licensing system was only ever an end-run around consumer law anyway.
Suppose you bought a chair, and when you got it home you found it had a EULA that says you don't own the chair, you have merely been granted a licence that allow you to use the chair as long as you stay within the licensed conditions. For instance you can't lend or sell the chair to anyone, you can't change or disassemble the chair. If the chair is broken or doesn't work correctly, you have no rights to send it back for a refund, you just have to wait to see if the manufacturers issue you with a fix at some point in the future, etc.
In anyone's book, you "bought" the chair, but in reality, it isn't really yours. At least with this new ruling, software developers will have to be honest about their products, and price accordingly. If they put out buggy pieces of crap, they won't be able to just brush it off and leave the customer stuck.
You do realize that people "buy" chairs like that all the time right?
Hour 1-10, A uses it
Hour 10-12, B user it
Hour 12-15, C uses it
Hour 16-20, D uses it
etc.
As an example, Video stores pay more for their copy of a movie than normal customers. This law effectively means that anyone can buy any copy and be free of any licensing restrictions. The licensing restrictions were the only thing preventing publishers from using a lease only model.
Well, it might sound stupid to you, but if, for example, you buy a car, that's exactly what you can do with it. Why should software be different?
"Yes, but you can transfer it instantly to the other side of the Earth, which you cannot do with a car!"
Why, yes, that's why we still pay the same prices for software that is now delivered to us without distribution costs and other overhead, right? Who are we consumers to want a fair deal?
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 11:20
So, it's bad, because the publishers are dishonest scumbags who rather not sell you something than give you a honest deal? And so we want THEIR rights to fuck us over protected? Like, an enforceable EULA? Because we get worse deals in any case?
Sounds like their goods are drugs, and it's high time something is done against those practices.
Part of the issue surrounding digital goods is the ease with which the product can be multiplexed among multiple users. With a physical good, even a DVD, the ease of multiplex is significantly less. If the multiplexing ability stands, it effectively makes the digital product more valuable since any downtime can be effectively timeshared. The key point of the ruling is that no restrictions on resale are valid.
Imagine if you are a company like Winzip. You sell a useful product but a somewhat infrequently used product. You price it reasonably for this. Then someone buys 100 licenses, and start time multiplexing them among users with say 10,000 users. This becomes popular, pretty soon, all your potential customers aren't buying your product but buying a timeslice when they need to use it from a third party. You no longer make enough money to do future R&D.
I can use a lot of other examples for this.
The way in which the ruling is worded, it is pretty much open season. Once you have bought the product, you can sell it in any fashion you wish. Which also means that pretty much any rental/rental like arrangement can also be made.
This fundamentally changes the relationship between the software developer and user in such a way that it basically breaks the economics of the industry.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 11:26
Well, it might sound stupid to you, but if, for example, you buy a car, that's exactly what you can do with it. Why should software be different?
Why should it be different? Because a car cannot basically teleport anywhere on earth within a second.
Why, yes, that's why we still pay the same prices for software that is now delivered to us without distribution costs and other overhead, right? Who are we consumers to want a fair deal?
This is orthogonal to the discussion at hand.
And according to the text of this ruling, even cars have higher legal barriers to transfer of ownership.
To really understand the impact of this ruling, think of it this way, this effectively brings fractional banking to digital content! Fractional banking was a major fundamental shift in the way money works. This is very much the same and on the same level.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 11:48
You do realize that people "buy" chairs like that all the time right?
No, please explain, because you're just being obtuse here. Are you saying that the current system is okay because lots of customers are already fooled into thinking they bought and own some software, instead of realising they just licensed it with a load of unreasonable restrictions?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 11:52
Imagine if you are a company like Winzip. You sell a useful product but a somewhat infrequently used product. You price it reasonably for this. Then someone buys 100 licenses, and start time multiplexing them among users with say 10,000 users. This becomes popular, pretty soon, all your potential customers aren't buying your product but buying a timeslice when they need to use it from a third party. You no longer make enough money to do future R&D.
You mean like how if I buy a chair and I'm not sitting in it, my wife can sit in it instead? Or if I'm not using my PC, my wife can use it and the software that is installed on it?
How terrible, I'm no doubt breaching all my licences, just as I am if I lend my Ipod to my wife, or format shift her CDs to her MP3 player, or any of the unrealistic and unfair restrictions on the product I "bought".
Part of the issue surrounding digital goods is the ease with which the product can be multiplexed among multiple users. With a physical good, even a DVD, the ease of multiplex is significantly less. If the multiplexing ability stands, it effectively makes the digital product more valuable since any downtime can be effectively timeshared. The key point of the ruling is that no restrictions on resale are valid.
Imagine if you are a company like Winzip. You sell a useful product but a somewhat infrequently used product. You price it reasonably for this. Then someone buys 100 licenses, and start time multiplexing them among users with say 10,000 users. This becomes popular, pretty soon, all your potential customers aren't buying your product but buying a timeslice when they need to use it from a third party. You no longer make enough money to do future R&D.
I can use a lot of other examples for this.
The way in which the ruling is worded, it is pretty much open season. Once you have bought the product, you can sell it in any fashion you wish. Which also means that pretty much any rental/rental like arrangement can also be made.
This fundamentally changes the relationship between the software developer and user in such a way that it basically breaks the economics of the industry.
I disagree with you. The ruling specifically says that the licence can only be sold if the software in question no longer runs on the machine of the original owner, and now runs on the machine of the new owner. It is very similar if a customer of ours buys one of our tools to export documents, and he gets requests from various different users to export documents, and he does it for them, or these customers can install the software at the same time. In fact, even now, if we buy a single user licence as a company, we can install that on the machine of one user (some licences come with four seats by default, etc.) at a time. If someone else needs it, we de-install from one machine and install on the next (also happens if a user gets a new machine).
We are both buyers and sellers of licences, and I don't see the issue.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 13:17
No, please explain, because you're just being obtuse here. Are you saying that the current system is okay because lots of customers are already fooled into thinking they bought and own some software, instead of realising they just licensed it with a load of unreasonable restrictions?
No, I'm saying that lots of chairs are sold in cases where the possessor does not in fact own the chair. Be it either via lease/reverse lease or via credit based purchases.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 13:21
You mean like how if I buy a chair and I'm not sitting in it, my wife can sit in it instead? Or if I'm not using my PC, my wife can use it and the software that is installed on it?
How terrible, I'm no doubt breaching all my licences, just as I am if I lend my Ipod to my wife, or format shift her CDs to her MP3 player, or any of the unrealistic and unfair restrictions on the product I "bought".
Fundamentally, the issue the ruling creates has little to due with ideas of freedom or fairness. It has to due with a fundamental shift in business model which will eventually force the situation that you won't be able to purchase a program but at best rent for a limited time.
This isn't a case of your wife using your computer, this is a case of your computer magically teleporting into a nebulous pool to be used any anyone when you aren't using it. That fundamentally is what this paves the way to.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 13:33
I disagree with you. The ruling specifically says that the licence can only be sold if the software in question no longer runs on the machine of the original owner, and now runs on the machine of the new owner.
It takes less than a millisecond to make this happen.
It is very similar if a customer of ours buys one of our tools to export documents, and he gets requests from various different users to export documents, and he does it for them, or these customers can install the software at the same time. In fact, even now, if we buy a single user licence as a company, we can install that on the machine of one user (some licences come with four seats by default, etc.) at a time. If someone else needs it, we de-install from one machine and install on the next (also happens if a user gets a new machine).
no need to de-install. As long as it isn't won't run, it can run on another machine. Do you really think that when you un-install a program that it still doesn't exist on the machine? In order to actually remove something from a computer is very nearly impossible. Even secure erase leaves the information behind.
For your case, company B buys a couple copies of your software. Puts a wrapper on it, and timeshares it out to anyone that needs it. Considering export of documents is a short somewhat rare operation, the fractional duplication is likely on the order of 100-10000. So are you saying that you won't have a problem with me cutting your sales by 100-10000x? While I don't sell software for a living, I would think that would significantly hit your bottom line. Remember, by this ruling, you pretty much give up all control over the copy as soon as I buy it. All I have to guarantee is that only 1 instance is running for each copy I buy.
We are both buyers and sellers of licences, and I don't see the issue.
I'll admit this issues can be hard to see at first. And the benefits of the ruling look attractive at first. But when you start looking at the possibilities that the ruling makes available, and the inevitable counter reaction that will be required of content creators (software, video, audio, etc), I think it could do real damage. Primarily the end of perpetual licenses for content.
I could just be looking at this a little too much glass is half-empty/nefariously, but the possibilities are pretty scary to some extent.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 15:34
No, I'm saying that lots of chairs are sold in cases where the possessor does not in fact own the chair. Be it either via lease/reverse lease or via credit based purchases.
Then it's not being sold.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 15:38
Fundamentally, the issue the ruling creates has little to due with ideas of freedom or fairness. It has to due with a fundamental shift in business model which will eventually force the situation that you won't be able to purchase a program but at best rent for a limited time.
This isn't a case of your wife using your computer, this is a case of your computer magically teleporting into a nebulous pool to be used any anyone when you aren't using it. That fundamentally is what this paves the way to.
You seem to be reading into this an apocalyptic doomsday scenario, rather than a fundamental balancing of the relationship between buyers and sellers (that incidentally brings it into line with other industries).
You sound rather like the media cartels that have looked at every technological advance for the last hundred years and claimed it will decimate music/movies and there will be no industry. In fact, what has happened is that new opportunities and business models have opened up, and those that have moved to them have made a lot of money. Those companies that bleated about the end of days and stuck with outdated business models eventually got replaced. Which is how it should be.
aaronspink
04-Jul-2012, 16:26
You seem to be reading into this an apocalyptic doomsday scenario, rather than a fundamental balancing of the relationship between buyers and sellers (that incidentally brings it into line with other industries).
You sound rather like the media cartels that have looked at every technological advance for the last hundred years and claimed it will decimate music/movies and there will be no industry. In fact, what has happened is that new opportunities and business models have opened up, and those that have moved to them have made a lot of money. Those companies that bleated about the end of days and stuck with outdated business models eventually got replaced. Which is how it should be.
I agree, the future will be software as a service. This issue is I'm not sure that is the fundamentally right direction to go in, this ruling further accelerates that transition.
This reminds me of a ruling by the government of Taipei City which says "downloaded Apps" are the same as mail orders and should have a 7 day unconditional refund period. Then, Google simply closed its Taiwan App store. Apple, on the other hand, "pretended" to cooperate, but I don't think they allow this 7-day refund period right now.
Richard
04-Jul-2012, 19:19
True, but Taiwan is not the EU. With a population that exceeds the US's, companies can't afford to ignore it and with the EU imposing record fines on MS and Intel (with Google and Apple waiting in the wings) I don't see a way out, other than this decision being reversed.
aaron: you won't be able to multiplex for two reasons:
1) because of DRM, the DRM controlling party (Steam, Amazon, etc.) will have to facilitate this process somehow and they'll never make it so by hitting a button you immediately transfer a license. They'll likely drag you through a 15 day support marathon to discourage the practice.
2) Secondly, even if they did provide you with a button (for legal reasons), they'd never provide you with a way to hit that button in bulk, which is what you need for the kind of systems you're describing.
All this ignoring, for argument's sake, such a system wouldn't even be considered a sale, thus legally valid. If you read the actual documents, the judges were very, very explicit in their description of what is and what is not a sale, how this only applies to sales, etc.
You say "this will make publishers rent instead of sell". If that happens and you see a game up for rent for 50 euros for 1 year, would you buy it?
If upheld, this decision is remarkable for two aspects: first of all, like BZB mentioned, it brings balance to the force marketplace. EA sells a game to GAME, GAME sells that game to JOE, WTF does EA have any say on what JOE does with it? I can't lend games anymore, a legal right I have companies have ursuped. I can't back them up and I can't sell them. Now we have companies like Blizzard that force the users through hell and back (DRM hell, not Sanctury's) just to connect to a server and play the game they paid for, then the server disconnects them and they lose loot. They've been systematically taking away rights, features whilst prices rise, game lengths shorten, gameplay becomes more shallow, etc.
The second more important aspect is that it reinforces the notion that our civilisation is nothing of the sort. The age of enlightment, the renaissance, the industrial revolution, the information age, etc. all these huge steps towards something else and we're still ruled by strength like cavemen of yore. Strength to hire more lawyers, drive other companies to bankrupcy and ultimately prevail despite the fact we were on the wrong side of the law all along. How many mon & pop used games stores were bullied into submission by cease & desist letters, GAME itself was on the verge of filing bankrupcy, leading thousands to the dole. Why? Because companies can hire a lawyer and pressure, regardless of what the law says.
If this means the games as a product business model cannot exist anymore, so be it. Guess what, their marketing departments will have to work for a living again instead of pumping another trailer with more CGI than Spirits Within and more fades to black than Jim Morrison. :razz:
Svensk Viking
04-Jul-2012, 19:43
I think it's good that someone reminds the industry that it is an industry like everything else, and not entitled to special treatment
What I fear for though, I actually think most gamers are stupid enough to put up with 1 year rentals for a game's full price
Why does this discussion remind me of the "used games are a blasphemy" topic? :)
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1465873
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
04-Jul-2012, 20:29
I agree, the future will be software as a service. This issue is I'm not sure that is the fundamentally right direction to go in, this ruling further accelerates that transition.
Or the alternative is that software will be treated as other consumer products. People don't like renting stuff, but it's worse to be conned into it and thinking that you bought something when in fact you only rented it.
Was basically going to post what Richard said in reply, so ... thanks, Richard. :)
True, but Taiwan is not the EU. With a population that exceeds the US's, companies can't afford to ignore it and with the EU imposing record fines on MS and Intel (with Google and Apple waiting in the wings) I don't see a way out, other than this decision being reversed.
Of course, EU is not a market that companies can ignore. Google can't ignore Taiwan market, either. After about 6 months with all appealing failed, they finally reached a compromise that they demand all paid apps on Google app market must have a free trial version (then they don't have to allow a 7-day refund period).
You see, the problem is not Google don't want to allow refund. It's that with most Apps selling at US$1, it's very expensive to do a refund, and it could seriously hurt small App developers. Some may say, hey, this is all for protecting the consumers! But if no one wants to sell anything, then there is no consumer to protect.
I guess if the EU ruling stands, software companies will have to either abandon digital sales in EU, or forces everyone (in the EU) to a subscription model. That is, after all of this, you can't sell do what you want: lend or sell your software to your friend, etc. and you'll have to keep paying to be able to use your software. Consider this: right now, if a company gone bust, but you already bought your game with digital download, you can still play it. However, with a subscription model, it's more likely that you can't even play your game which you already paid, because once your "subscription" is over, it's over.
I understand that people want to do something they used to be able to do, but the fact is that many things have been changed with internet downloads. A better idea is to reach a new compromise, not blindly want to make everything just like the good old days. For example, forcing paid apps to have a trial version is a better compromise than forcing a 7-day refund period, because it's cheaper for Google, it's cheaper for the developers, and the most important, it's also cheaper for the consumers.
I guess that could be solved partially by giving users real control over their purchase, so there would be no such huge costs involved in "approving" such refunds, or resales. Of course these changes caused by the internet also mean chances for products to be used more and by many more people.
In the end it comes down again to purchasing power not being big enough to support new software (and hardware) all the time. If one doesn't have to worry about a 50$ purchase being an issue in their household, then they would go for the easiest way of purchasing a "new" license from the developer instead having to waste time hunting second hand licenses, and having to worry about infected software too. It would be just a lot easier for the customer.
Maybe people don't have use for all the software out there and the industry has to shrink back too?
A good article here :
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173538/What_a_new_digital_game_trading_law_in_Europe_coul d_mean_for_you.php
Thanks, that is a good article. Particularly these comments:
Problem No. 6: is the real world going to pay any attention?
Not many businesses are using legal methods to control second hand sales anyway (apart from Oracle, obviously). The focus is much on putting pressure on the retailers facilitating second hand sales while also devising technical, creative and business solutions to reduce the appeal of second hand sales. I'm not sure this case will do much to stop that (although, as I said, over time there might be more focus now on these 'workarounds' now it has been established that the principle of second hand sales is permitted).
Problem No. 7: does this even matter in the long run?
Two words: cloud computing. Actually, four more words: Software as a Service. As software and games increasingly become long-tailed services rather than digital goods, the question of the legality of second hand sales recedes into the distance. (Of course, eventually we'll get to a stage when questions about the legal transferability of SaaS services starts coming up, but we're a way off that yet).
If I was the dude in charge I'd ban eula's altogether
My software never came with one (apart from once when I required the end user to make their internal organs available if I should need them and to sacrifice their first born to Beelzebub)
They are just a vehicle to deny users their rights, I valued my customers I had no intention to deny them their rights.
If I was the dude in charge I'd ban eula's altogether
My software never came with one (apart from once when I required the end user to make their internal organs available if I should need them and to sacrifice their first born to Beelzebub)
They are just a vehicle to deny users their rights, I valued my customers I had no intention to deny them their rights.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
For most software vendors, EULA is also a protection. You really don't want people to sue you for damage just because they use your software improperly (i.e. not on your intended purposes). One of the EULA's purpose is to prevent that. This is not just limited to software. Many electrical appliances also have similar (albeit much shorter) disclaimers in their operation manuals.
Of course, electrical appliances have their own traditional ways of liability protection, such as UL. However, due to software's nature, it's hard to imagine how the UL model could be applied to software.
Of course it's not that simple, but it is worthy of note that Europe is not as litigious as the U.S. in these matters.
I think it is that simple, If you do something stupid with a product its your fault, you dont need a eula for that,(1. its obvious 2. a disclaimer would do) not that eula's are used for that purpose, they are abused and the publishers try to protect themselves from absolutely everything
eg:
, THE PRODUCT IS MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
I dont beleive you should be able to do that, The idea that a company can stick something in a text file and it then becomes true and law is just wrong on so many counts. If one of my programs damaged a pc I should absolutely be liable (damages a pc through improper use not liable, thats just common sense) the idea that I may be wrongly sued does not give me the right to blanket immunity.
pps: little gripe a lot of software is sold to under 18's. Trying to hold children to a legal agreement shame on you software industry.
Brad Grenz
06-Jul-2012, 11:16
Say goodbye to Steam sales. No point in deep discounts on virtual good if you're still always competing with "used" copies.
Also, for companies like Valve the cost of having to facilitate unlimited resale of digital licenses may very well outweigh the benefits of being in a market the size of the EU. In fact, this seems like an almost unenforceable ruling. If you buy that chair the furniture store may deliver it to you, but this is tantamount to forcing them to redeliver the same chair every time it changes hands for as long as it exists, and since digital goods don't degrade. I guess they could just put a blanket $20 license transfer fee on the service which would largely negate any benefit while complying with the ruling...
In any case, activation limits and always on requirements are simply going to become more onerous as a result. I'm failing to see how this is a win for consumers in any way. Buying digital goods has always been about trading right to resell for convenience. In many cases you pay less as well.
I think it is that simple, If you do something stupid with a product its your fault, you dont need a eula for that,(1. its obvious 2. a disclaimer would do) not that eula's are used for that purpose, they are abused and the publishers try to protect themselves from absolutely everything
.
This Is getting OT, so I'll be brief. Basically, it's impossible to argue something is stupid in court. Even if you are able to do that successfully, you still are going to be spending a lot money on lawsuits. Sooner or later you won't be able to make any money selling software. Worse, you can be liable even if you provide your software for free.
Tradtionally electronic appliances are protected by insurances (e.g. The UL model). As I said, right now no one knows how to do the same for software (it'll be difficult to find someone willing to insure your software). So while unfortunate, there's a reason why everyone is using EULA to protect themselves.
This Is getting OT,
Your right, a shame really as my rebuttal was a superbly crafted work of pure genius, majestic in its eloquence.
back to software re-sales, It's good to see the old attitude that software is special and the rules and standards that apply to other goods should not apply to it.
"Software sellers having to survive with the same conditions that every other sales product has coped with (for 100's of years in some cases) they cant possibly survive they will all have to close down"
It's a nonsense...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
06-Jul-2012, 19:57
In any case, activation limits and always on requirements are simply going to become more onerous as a result. I'm failing to see how this is a win for consumers in any way. Buying digital goods has always been about trading right to resell for convenience. In many cases you pay less as well.
Remember the days when you used to go into a shop, buy a disc, and it was yours? Oh yeah, they were covered by illegal EULAs, you couldn't take them back if they were faulty, and this was long before there were even digital downloads. We still had onerous DRM for professional software, and some games.
Nothing changed with DD, and we didn't even get the promised price benefits by cutting out the middleman, because the middleman still governs the price of DD through market blackmail. That isn't good for the customer either.
Licences were always about doing an end-run around consumer law, about control and denying a customer their rights. There have been several court cases over this, and AFAICR they have all been leading up to these unsigned EULA contracts for "licences" being illegal and superseded by statute law. Even signed licences have shown to be illegal where they deny the customer even the basic right of being supplied with what was bought.
It's long overdue that the software industry is held to the higher standards of other industries who operate selling products and services to customers.
Licences were always about doing an end-run around consumer law, about control and denying a customer their rights. .
And their idea that if they put it in a text file it's true, lawful and supersedes any current law.
My current favourite
By entering into this Agreement, you and EA With respect expressly waive the right to a trial by jury or in a class to participate action
So you can agree that rights you have under the law no longer apply to you :D
Second favourite
The parties agree that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980) shall not apply to this License or to any dispute or transaction arising out of this License
Ahh, its up to the individual to decide weather a law applies :D
If you really want software to be insured like other products, then what you are going to see is inevitably:
- most software will be only allowed to run on specifically certified platforms. No more "open" environment (obviously, it's impossible to insure a software which may run on any possible weird hardware configurations)
- most software will be more expensive because of the extra cost.
- most software will be updated much less frequently, including new features. And you can kiss free new feature updates goodbye, because any new features will require new insurance and will be expensive.
You guys talk like these things are new. Of course they aren't. If what you describes are really doable, in the history of software development (that's several decades), there should be someone doing that and be successful at the same time.
Really, if you don't like EULA, well, no one forces you to buy those software products with one. Good luck finding anything without one, though.
Brad Grenz
07-Jul-2012, 03:15
Nothing changed with DD, and we didn't even get the promised price benefits
Sure we did. Downloads for eBooks, music and movies are all cheaper than their physical counterparts. Games frequently launch at a savings versus physical on Steam and Vita and are rapidly discounted on platforms where they aren't competing with used sales (Steam, Amazon, Impulse, etc). Amazon was selling recent popular albums for 99 cents this week. Spec Ops: The Line was 50% off on Amazon less than a week after it went for sale. We get multiple Steam and Amazon games sales each year and new business models like the Humble Indie Bundle and its imitators. That's a lot of fucking price benefits from digital. And that's in addition to benefits like convenience and portability. Demanding a right to resell those goods is just greedy. We all knew the bargain we were making when we bought digitally.
If you really want software to be insured like other products,
So your saying that hifi's, tv's lawn mowers ect have to have insurance and this is very bad and far outweighs having any consumer rights, Please explain whats so bad about the hifi industry that I should fear it and fear the software industry having to live by the same standards ?
As for you brad wanting to sell something you own is greedy - really
ps: I dont know about other stuff but steam has nearly been more expensive than retail even hl2 valve's own game they dont even have to give a publisher a cut and they still sold it for more than retail was selling it. At release every game I have been interested in I have bought retail becuse its been cheaper, I checked. Are you sure it's gamers that are the greedy ones...
spec ops the line - also discounted 50% in retail. right now I can buy it retail with delivery £6 cheaper than steam
If your trying to say, that having the same rights with software as I do with my hifi, tv, dvd player then why not
I think I already list the reasons, or if you can't read, then I don't know why I should discuss anything with you anymore.
Ive read them and I disagree
I know someone who manufactures and sells a product
1. his customers can resell the product
2. his customers can get a refund if its faulty
3. his customers can sue him
his company doesnt have any insurance against being sued
his his product doesnt come with a list of conditions limiting how its used (the equiv of your open environment point)
he isnt prevented updating his products (obviously he cant improve sold products)
hey a couple of $ more (if its even that) to have consumer rights would be a great deal imho
and you know if the software industry had some morals and said "our product is faulty you are entitled to a refund" people wouldnt need to take them to court
but then again the games industry i so goddam shoddy they may be deluged with cases at first until they improve their practices.
seriously has the game industry ever produced a fully working product
Brad Grenz
07-Jul-2012, 07:24
As for you brad wanting to sell something you own is greedy - really
ps: I dont know about other stuff but steam has nearly been more expensive than retail even hl2 valve's own game they dont even have to give a publisher a cut and they still sold it for more than retail was selling it. At release every game I have been interested in I have bought retail becuse its been cheaper, I checked. Are you sure it's gamers that are the greedy ones...
spec ops the line - also discounted 50% in retail. right now I can buy it retail with delivery £6 cheaper than steam
Spec Ops is $25 USD right now as a download that registers on Steam. No physical version on console or PC can be bought new or used for less than $40 at Amazon.
On Steam many games offer 10-20% preorder discounts, and Valve themselves were selling Portal 2 for $6 within a year of that game's launch.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury the defence now presents its case
steam £29.99
http://store.steampowered.com/app/50300/
retail boxed version £24.99
http://www.game.co.uk/en/spec-ops-the-line-45044
The defense rests :D
but I dont want to turn this into a digital vs retail price competition ;)
and you know if the software industry had some morals and said "our product is faulty you are entitled to a refund" people wouldnt need to take them to court
How is this going to work? Do you mean no one is abusing the right for refund for normal products?
For normal products, at least you have to return it for a refund. How do you enforce that with software without DRM?
And yes, most electronic products have insurance (maybe you need to look up what UL means). There were some people advocating similar models for software, especially w.r.t. security issues. However, no one managed to successfully propose a working model. If you have a better one, maybe you can propose your idea, instead of saying naive things about how you can get by without an EULA. If you can sell some software up to maybe 100k copies without forcing an EULA and still be able to make money, maybe you can tell us how you manage to do it?
Brad Grenz
07-Jul-2012, 07:43
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury the defence now presents its case
steam £29.99
http://store.steampowered.com/app/50300/
retail boxed version £24.99
http://www.game.co.uk/en/spec-ops-the-line-45044
The defense rests :D
but I dont want to turn this into a digital vs retail price competition ;)
OK, but if you go to Amazon.com it's cheaper than either of those all month. You just have to put in a US address when you buy the download. I can provide one if you need it. And it will still activate on Steam.
How is this going to work? Do you mean no one is abusing the right for refund for normal products?
For normal products, at least you have to return it for a refund. How do you enforce that with software without DRM?
abusing refunds, im sure some people do but the industries survive ok surely this is better than the current situation of publishers abusing the customers.
for retail boxed copies return them
for digital download steam ect could ban that game from running on a users account unless they re-buy it
I typed ul into Google but came up with nothing
ps: it appears your saying the game industry is so shoddy that they cant survive without having this document that protects them from absolutely everything dont you think the better solution is to get them to raise their standards not protect them. Other industries manage ok
If the hifi industry couldnt operate without electrocuting a lot of people would the answer be to let them
If an industry cannot survive with the freedom to do whatever it damm pleases then maybe there is something wrong with the industry the solution is not to let them carry on in this fashion
for retail boxed copies return them
Without DRM, you don't really need the original media to run the software.
for digital download steam ect could ban that game from running on a users account unless they re-buy it
Then this is DRM (requiring internet connection).
I'm not saying that all EULA are good. Some of them are bad, such as the EA examples you mentioned. But "some EULA are bad" does not mean "all EULA are bad." Legitimate software developers still need EULA to protect them.
Of course, if for some reason the history went another way, with software less frequently updated, then maybe it's possible to held normal software products to higher quality standard, and maybe even insured (such as for security problems, i.e. if a software product is the reason for a security breach, then its developer can be held liable for the damages). But current software market does not work that way, and it's unlikely to be that way for foreseeable future.
Without DRM,
well then we are fortunate that games come with drm arnt we :D
there are laws regarding copyright, I do not believe a clause in a eula saying "you may not copy this software" offers any additional protection.
Imho the law offers publishers all the protection they need I never saw the need for any additional protection thats why my software never contained an eula
"some EULA are bad"
Turning to the light side are we - come on young padawan dont be afraid :D
joking aside does that mean you would be in favour of limiting what can go into an eula ?
well then we are fortunate that games come with drm arnt we :D
there are laws regarding copyright, I do not believe a clause in a eula saying "you may not copy this software" offers any additional protection.
Actually, this is just to demonstrate how software are different from "traditional" products. You can't have your cake and eat it too...
I dont agree, physical goods can be copied too, their protection comes from the fact that its well a physical product and requires construction ect. having physical products come with an elua saying "you may not copy" doesnt offer them any additional protection either.
I can scan in a postcard and make a copy, probably for less money than it would cost to send someone a dvd or upload a purely digital game to someone don't see how that means I shouldn't be able to buy a postcard and then sell it.
Brad Grenz
07-Jul-2012, 10:21
But who is going to want your used postcard with a postage mark and a bunch of personal writing on it? Plus it will suffer significant wear and tear going through the mail system multiple times. That's a pretty poor stand in for a digital good that suffers zero degradation through normal use, can change hands an infinite number of times without compromise to core functionality and costs exponentially more to create in the first place. If we want digital goods to be treated like physical ones I guess programmers should start hiding degradation routines in their products so they get flaky after a while and eventually break. Hope you got a service history with that software license. Don't want to get stuck with a lemon!
aaronspink
07-Jul-2012, 11:07
As for you brad wanting to sell something you own is greedy - really
Lets get something VERY clear here, right now.
You do not own it. You do not own any book in your possession. You do not own any DVD in your possession. Nor BR. Nor any software. Unless, you created the work or you acquired THE copyright for the work.
And not, this ruling doesn't change that one bit.
At best you have a single possibly transferable license to a single copy of a work that may or may not have come with a physical medium and may or may not have a time restriction.
A book is not a chair. A Chair is not a digital download.
It is important to understand this when talking about copyrights. Bringing non-copyrighted goods into the discussion simply doesn't help the discussion in any useful way.
Copyright was invented because the pre-existing laws and concepts of goods did not really apply to the works/goods that copyright covers.
And to further that, the economic and real realities of digital distribution ARE significantly different than physical distribution, different enough that using the same law for both probably doesn't work for the spirit of copyrights. Instantaneous transfer is a big deal. A very big deal with significant consequences that will take a long time to wind themselves through both the economics and the legal sides of the fence.
I certainly think we'll see the EUCoJ pull back significantly from this ruling OR we'll see law created to make this ruling largely null and void. And we'll probably in all honesty be better off for it.
aaronspink
07-Jul-2012, 11:18
I dont agree, physical goods can be copied too, their protection comes from the fact that its well a physical product and requires construction ect. having physical products come with an elua saying "you may not copy" doesnt offer them any additional protection either.
I can scan in a postcard and make a copy, probably for less money than it would cost to send someone a dvd or upload a purely digital game to someone don't see how that means I shouldn't be able to buy a postcard and then sell it.
Physical goods rely on a different form of intellectual property protection: Patents.
And you can buy a postcard and sell it to someone else. If on the other hand you scan it and make a copy, you will be breaking the law.
And the "you may not copy" portions of an EULA are merely delineation of rights. In fact for software, most EULAs are granting you more rights than you would have without an EULA. Technically, the EULA is what allows you to use a piece of software as the mere act of installing the product and then loading portions of the product into memory violate a strict reading of copyright law without the rights granted via the EULA.
Technically, I could sell you a piece of software of a medium, and you wouldn't be able to do anything with that software without violating copyright law except look at it. You wouldn't be able to install it. You wouldn't be able to execute it.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
07-Jul-2012, 11:44
Sure we did. Downloads for eBooks, music and movies are all cheaper than their physical counterparts. Games frequently launch at a savings versus physical on Steam and Vita and are rapidly discounted on platforms where they aren't competing with used sales (Steam, Amazon, Impulse, etc). Amazon was selling recent popular albums for 99 cents this week. Spec Ops: The Line was 50% off on Amazon less than a week after it went for sale. We get multiple Steam and Amazon games sales each year and new business models like the Humble Indie Bundle and its imitators. That's a lot of fucking price benefits from digital. And that's in addition to benefits like convenience and portability. Demanding a right to resell those goods is just greedy. We all knew the bargain we were making when we bought digitally.
Sorry, whilst you can find bargains from people self publishing, you can also find e-titles that are more expensive than their physical counterparts. I rarely buy from Steam, because it's cheaper to buy from a discounted e-tailer and get a DVD and case in the post than it is to get a direct download. Same for music. There are also many popular e-books that cost the same as the paper version. And it's all because of licensing restrictions from the retailers that the publishers still pander to.
If a company is going to rent out their goods, then rent them and let everyone know what is going on. Don't con customes into thinking they "bought" something, when in fact it disappears when the seller decides they don't want to maintain their DRM servers any more.
Physical goods rely on a different form of intellectual property protection: Patents.
A lot products dont eg: postcards
And you can buy a postcard and sell it to someone else. If on the other hand you scan it and make a copy, you will be breaking the law.
Exactly just like software. Postcards survive with out an eula or restrictions. no one tries to prevent second hand postcard sales why restrict them for software.
And the "you may not copy" portions of an EULA are merely delineation of rights. In fact for software, most EULAs are granting you more rights than you would have without an EULA. Technically, the EULA is what allows you to use a piece of software as the mere act of installing the product and then loading portions of the product into memory violate a strict reading of copyright law without the rights granted via the EULA.
Technically, I could sell you a piece of software of a medium, and you wouldn't be able to do anything with that software without violating copyright law except look at it. You wouldn't be able to install it. You wouldn't be able to execute it.
You have a good point here but, i see no reason that the loading of a program into memory ect could not be integrated into existing fair use laws.
I still dont beleive they are needed and the world would be a better place without them.
And at the very very least some legislative body should look closely at them and decide what can and cannot be put in them at the moment they are being abused terribly.
aaronspink
08-Jul-2012, 00:30
Exactly just like software. Postcards survive with out an eula or restrictions. no one tries to prevent second hand postcard sales why restrict them for software.
Once again, we are in the domain of slow transfer of physical media vs worldwide instantaneous transfer. There IS a difference.
Brad Grenz
08-Jul-2012, 03:03
A lot products dont eg: postcards
Exactly just like software. Postcards survive with out an eula or restrictions. no one tries to prevent second hand postcard sales why restrict them for software.
Postcards rely on copyright to protect their designs from duplication. You are still completely ignoring the fact that postcards, unlike software, are effectively single use. Even if you are talking about a collector's market, a postcard's value is dictated by condition and scarcity, neither of which applies to software.
Once again, we are in the domain of slow transfer of physical media vs worldwide instantaneous transfer. There IS a difference.
And an eula somehow negates that difference? software is protected from copying under they law. A clause in an eula offers no additional protection, no additional deterrent.
These arguments, software is easily transfered/copied, Software is not single use, software doesnt degrade therefore the industry needs eula's. I dont buy it
ps: not sure where your getting this instantaneous transfer from If I was to sell you any recent game it would take me over a day to upload it to you (0.440mb/ sec) 43:24:10 for a 10gb game
Ethatron
08-Jul-2012, 18:52
Postcards rely on copyright to protect their designs from duplication. You are still completely ignoring the fact that postcards, unlike software, are effectively single use. Even if you are talking about a collector's market, a postcard's value is dictated by condition and scarcity, neither of which applies to software.
I think he's talking about the easy replicability of postcards, as an analogue physical case to easy software replication. You can scan or copy the motive off and print it on another carton. Though it may have no big monetary re-sell value or promise.
A T-shirt replication may be a better example, motives (copyrighted band-designes whatever) are scanned, ripped and printed on cheap T-shirts, infringing lot's of copyright laws, and still, music band and shops continue selling the real stuff to fans just fine.
I don't want to take any sides on this physical vs. digital debatte, just pointing out that neither side is entirely right or wrong.
My opinion about the case is, that is just forces developers to put the right label on their "contract" with users, that's all. It won't have any immediate and apocalyptic consequences. If they care about what's happening after first-sale is pretty much unanswerable. The creation of complex secure key re-selling structures will only be considered for softwares which cost into the thousand(s) dollars I think. And you can always take a little fee for the processing, there is nothing wrong with that.
I don't know if dongles are going to be revived. There are key-mechanisms which are based on the MAC, every time you change the network card you have to get in contact with the software-company and get a new key. So what? I don't see the big deal with the creation of such an infrastructure as required for key-reselling. And online-DRM is just a an Internet-Dongle.
And I wouldn't be so sure the judges consider shareware included in the ruling, as shareware by default is a fairness model. I don't consider trialware to be shareware btw.
I think he's talking about the easy replicability of postcards, as an analogue physical case to easy software replication.
Yes exactly, thank you. Would you like a job as official Davros to English translator :D
Richard
12-Jul-2012, 20:06
aaron: from your various posts it seems you are basing your argument on the instantaneous transfer of ownership where there is no indication this could be so. Corporations being what they are, they'd never allow it.
I'll give you one example: over here ISPs had the bad habit of making life miserable for customers who, after the contract was over, didn't want to renew it and instead opted to switch to a different ISP. They did everything:
Firstly they didn't have the rules to cancel a renewal anywhere on their websites, etc. If you called them asking how to do it, they'd say an email would suffice then you wouldn't hear from them again. Next month when the bill came you would call them and they'd say you'd need to fax them (!!!!) a letter formally asking to cancel. Guess what? Next month another bill, another call to them and they'd finally tell you only a snail mail letter would do. You'd also have to send some other bill (electrical bill, water, etc.) that proved you were the real owner of the property (and phone line, whatever) even though they only required a username and password to manage your account on their website.
When you did all that, you know what they did? They'd call you and offer a discount or some other petty deal to change your mind. If you did not accept they'd redirect you to another agent where another (better but still overall shitty) deal was offered. If you stuck to your guns you'd have to wait for your other ISP to connect your new line. Sometimes weeks would go by. When you called your new ISP they'd often tell you the current ISP was withholding access to the distribution node, it had lost the cancel letter, whatever. I also know of cases where if you didn't take those bribes they offered to make you stay the ISP would cut your internet weeks before the new ISP could connect your line to their distribution nodes. And when you finally transfered over to the new ISP, sometimes (it happened to me) you would get 2 bills for months with the old ISP threatening legal action even though you had cancelled in writing and they had cut your internet access before you stopped paying.
So... finally the legislator passed laws to stop these and other practices and regulate an industry out of control. It helped but even now, almost 5 years after the first law came into being if you want to switch ISPs you better be prepared to wait at least one, often two months before you'll be able to enjoy the better speeds/lower prices of your ISP of choice.
So... Steam, et al will never make it this easy to "transfer" your licence. They'll never implement paying for it in their networks so you'll always be exposed to scams and whatnot. I'll be surprised if takes less than a fortnight between your desire to transfer and actually being able to do so.
Silent_Buddha
12-Jul-2012, 20:53
Sounds like a nightmare over where you live Richard. It was never (that I can recall) that bad here in the US with regards to ISPs and cancellation of service. Now if we talk about porting phone numbers between different cell phone companies, that was certainly a mess for a relatively short period here.
With Steam being a US based service, I have no doubt they would probably facilitate that. But hopefully with some sort of transaction fee where the developers/publishers can get some money for their work. And that you don't have people instantaneously transfering the license for no fee. Hence potentially allowing say 6 or 7 friends around the globe to play the same game in the same day by just transfering the license before they went to bed, and having it ready to play when the license is transferred back to them when they got off work the next day. Rinse and repeat. Then just transfering it instantly to another person or group of persons when they've finished.
And that is like nothing that has ever existed or is doable with any other sold product. If you want to share a physical copy of the game, it's unlikely you'll be instantaneously giving it to someone halfway around the world to play while you sleep and then getting it right back again. A person is unlikely to be able to sell a DVD, CD, movie, car, chair, table, whatever the instant they are tired of it and then instantaneously finish the transaction. There's a period of advertising (craigslist, forums, ebay, pawn shop, whatever) and sales which slows the transfer of goods and potentially allows for "some" ongoing sales.
I'm with others here in viewing this as a trainwreck of a decision with very little thought put into it.
I'm all for the sale of digitally distributed goods. Just look at all the posts made in the console forum discussing a world where console games are only digitally distributed with no physical copies. But it should be reasonable and with at least some protection/compensation for the content creators. Because if those don't exist, then content will start to die or developers cease to make product as it gets harder and harder to recoup the investment in production and developement.
Either that, or they'll go to a leasing/rental agreement type of deal for all digitally distributed items. I know various companies have talked about it in the past. Many anti-virus firms are doing this now with yearly lease type agreements of service for example.
Regards,
SB
The famous "Trying to cancel an AOL account
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/cubensis/images/SA/aolcancellationeditfinal.mp3
If you really want software to be insured like other products, then what you are going to see is inevitably:
- most software will be only allowed to run on specifically certified platforms. No more "open" environment (obviously, it's impossible to insure a software which may run on any possible weird hardware configurations)
- most software will be more expensive because of the extra cost.
- most software will be updated much less frequently, including new features. And you can kiss free new feature updates goodbye, because any new features will require new insurance and will be expensive.
You guys talk like these things are new. Of course they aren't. If what you describes are really doable, in the history of software development (that's several decades), there should be someone doing that and be successful at the same time.
Really, if you don't like EULA, well, no one forces you to buy those software products with one. Good luck finding anything without one, though.
You are forgetting a very important point.
This ruling has seen a lot of global air time, so people know about it. The next time they are confronted with the issue (while having to check off an EULA that forcefully disposes their rights, or wanting to sell some old games), they will remember it. It will change their perception of what is right and wrong on this issue.
So, if the software industry is jumping on the "reduce their rights as much as possible and have them subscribe for ridiculous amounts of money through lease contract with non-negotiable auto-renewal", they'll think twice, discuss it with their friends and tell others how that company is fucking with you and that you shouldn't buy any of their stuff.
That's the win.
You are forgetting a very important point.
This ruling has seen a lot of global air time, so people know about it. The next time they are confronted with the issue (while having to check off an EULA that forcefully disposes their rights, or wanting to sell some old games), they will remember it. It will change their perception of what is right and wrong on this issue.
So, if the software industry is jumping on the "reduce their rights as much as possible and have them subscribe for ridiculous amounts of money through lease contract with non-negotiable auto-renewal", they'll think twice, discuss it with their friends and tell others how that company is fucking with you and that you shouldn't buy any of their stuff.
That's the win.
How's that a win if all software developers are forced to adopt a much more consumer-unfriendly term?
They arnt forced to adopt anything. they could be fair with the consumer - hows that for an idea
They arnt forced to adopt anything. they could be fair with the consumer - hows that for an idea
You seem to be missing the point that this is not a good way to make them to be fair with the consumers.
then how do you suggest, leaving it up to them has produced nothing, if anything the situation has got worse. Legislation is about the only option left
then how do you suggest, leaving it up to them has produced nothing, if anything the situation has got worse. Legislation is about the only option left
Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.
The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.
I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free). People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.
How's that a win if all software developers are forced to adopt a much more consumer-unfriendly term?
Software publishers, not developers.
And they aren't forced into a "kick those consumers as hard as possible and steal their wallets!" business model. Mostly, because those consumers now recognize that for what it is, and understand that they are blatantly ripped off.
As with all mass-produced products, you earn more money not by raising your prices and blackmailing your customers, but by offering a fair product for a fair price. If you want to earn more money over the long term, you need to drop your price and be more consumer-friendly instead. Economics 101, really.
Unless you're only in it to make a fast killing, of course.
Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.
The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.
I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free). People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.
You mix things up. Digital distribution is first and foremost very convenient. You don't have to wait until you can go to the shop, and you don't need to find one that has it in stock and offers a good deal. Pay and play.
But most of their sales volume isn't in first-day deliveries. They're in the (heavy) discounts, and the huge catalog offered. I spend far more money on deals for games I never play than on premium-priced games. And I'm not alone in that, far from it.
While Blizzard still has a lot of credits, it won't last when the actual gaming experience is riddled with many annoyances. They're arrogant and think they can fuck over anyone, and have those abused users still buy their products at premium. That's exactly the mindset that would have me sell their stocks, if I had any.
Economics 101, really.
Software publishers, not developers.
Hardly any differences. More regulations only forces more independent developers to find a publisher to publish their software, because they won't be able to do (or it would be too expensive) by themselves.
And they aren't forced into a "kick those consumers as hard as possible and steal their wallets!" business model. Mostly, because those consumers now recognize that for what it is, and understand that they are blatantly ripped off.
You mean consumers are all stupid and need the government to tell them what's what?
As with all mass-produced products, you earn more money not by raising your prices and blackmailing your customers, but by offering a fair product for a fair price. If you want to earn more money over the long term, you need to drop your price and be more consumer-friendly instead. Economics 101, really.
Actually, Economy 101 tells us that we don't prefer the help from the government to achieve this, and this is the whole point of this discussion.
But most of their sales volume isn't in first-day deliveries. They're in the (heavy) discounts, and the huge catalog offered. I spend far more money on deals for games I never play than on premium-priced games. And I'm not alone in that, far from it.
If you are talking about Steam's sales being more than GOG's, then I can tell you that my data is after the first month of the release of the Witcher 2. That is, no discounts involved.
Richard
30-Jul-2012, 18:53
You seem to be missing the point that this is not a good way to make them to be fair with the consumers.
So has been argued, like it was argued GOG.com would never work.
So has been argued, like it was argued GOG.com would never work.
Does GOG.com allow you to sell a digital purchase to another user? If not, then "it was argued GOG.com would never work" is not relevant in this discussion.
Richard
30-Jul-2012, 19:28
Has the situation really got worse? Do you know that some of the earliest digital distributed software only allows a limited number of installations? I believe most digital distributed software don't do that anymore. That didn't take a legislation to accomplish.
Actually, that is still normal. Almost all G4WL have a limit of 15 installations, games that are sold on Steam still have installation limits (on Steam alone: http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/index.php?page=DRM_Lists/The_Big_DRM_List), games like Borderlands, Crysis, Dirt 3, GTA4 Episodes, Batman Arkham City.
The problem with legislation on business matter is, in most case, the legislators don't really understand the underlying problem. They don't have to implement the system, nor they know what problems may occur when implementing such system. So, there bounds to be some very bad laws, which, when you look at it, may seem to be very good, but actually completely unworkable. Unfortunately, once something is written into the law, it can be very difficult to get rid of it.
You're correct in saying the legislator has no idea but that's why they're lobbied by the industry. See SOPA/PIPA and even going back a few years the DMCA. Practically every single piece of legislation about tecnology is driven by the industry.
I believe most people are satisfied with current digital distribution systems (well, at least some systems). Steam, for example, seems to be very popular (the Witcher 2 sold much more copies on Steam than on GOG, which is DRM-free).
Steam also has 40 million accounts. It was installed, almost as a trojan because it was the only way to play CS/HL2 - see also BF3, or do you believe Origin would have had 13 million accounts if BF3 or SW: TOR was available on Steam?. Not to mention payment options which GOG sorely lacks. Don't underrestimate the community focus Steam has. That's what's driving people to buy on Steam because they have full integration, friends can see what we're playing, competing for achievements, etc.
People don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that they can't sell those games they bought on Steam. If enough people started to demand for the ability to transfer their licenses to other account, I believe there will be some business willing to take this market.
And yet, when some people show concern they are shot down with FUD (the market would colapse, every publisher will move to subscription-based games, it will be worse for consumers). As for some business willing to take on this market: http://www.kitguru.net/software/gaming/jon-martindale/gamestop-considering-resale-of-digital-content/
Richard
30-Jul-2012, 19:29
Does GOG.com allow you to sell a digital purchase to another user? If not, then "it was argued GOG.com would never work" is not relevant in this discussion.
The point I was trying to make is that simply arguing some new idea/product will fail does not make it so.
P.S. Also, I don't think anyone is under any illusions of the current stores allowing sale transactions. At best they'd allow license transfer.
I think this discussion should already beyond that: I mean, already many possible downsides of a required license transfer for a digital distribution system was discussed, yet not too many solutions to these problems presented here.
This second-hand game problem was already discussed many times on this board. Basically, since I believe in efficient market, I support the right to sell used games, because it, in some way, make a market for games with more accurate prices (i.e. market prices), since most retailers are not allowed to sell games too much below its MSRP. However, with a vibrant used game market, a worse game is going to have worse second-hand sales value, and that helps the market to decide the real price of a game better.
However, this is for games with physical media. In the world of digital distribution, there are too many problems (some of them presented here by others) needs to be solved before this becoming "required by law." Without something to persuade the majority of publishers and developers that this is doable, most of them are just going to go the route that's even worse for consumers, such as a renting or subscription model. And apparently even the EU are not going to make laws forbidding these models.
GOG.com vs Steam is actually a very good example for DRM-free (a different issue) games. Most publishers don't believe in DRM-free games, because they fear that piracy would be rampant (note that this is not a recent thing, game publishers were trying to protect their games way back in the floppy disc era). GOG.com started by talking with publishers for backlog games, which most publishers think are already worthless (just like movies already shown on HBO regularly: they are practically worthless for movie studios). GOG.com provides a way to make money from something practically worthless, and that's why those publishers agree to provide DRM-free versions to them, because they have nothing to lose.
However, even with this, and I think GOG.com is already quite successful, they are still not able to afford to sell their games, DRM-free, all by their own. They still have to use Steam. Of course, most of the reason is that Steam has way too many users than GOG. But one may also argue that if consumers like this DRM-free game model so well, there should be even more publishers willing to replicate this. Apparently, there is none.
Now, what will happen if the government started to demand that all games should be DRM-free, and written it into law? It's likely to be even worse than this law.
Richard
31-Jul-2012, 19:17
Most of the problems being presented are doomsday scenarios taking absolute cases with 1.0 probability of situations that aren't even legal. Case in point: license transfer would allow multiplexing.
This is a non-starter because condition sine qua non for multiplexing is one owner having control over who uses what. If EA sells a game to Joe and Joe sells to Jane then Joe stops having access to the game to multiplex to another person. Jane would have to sell the game back to Joe for that to happen. Even if that were to happen, Joe could then be sued for renting the game rather than selling it which IS prohibited. Even if you ignore all this, for argument's sake, no company would make it easy to transfer licenses in bulk like you need for multiplexing. Like I mentioned previously, they'll make you endure 15 days or whatever of support calls every single time you want to transfer a license. So that's that "problem" solved.
The second issue I've seen raised, that you also mention, is that publishers are simply going to move to subscription-based games. Again, this problem is not a real one for two factors. First of all, we're already moving towards subscription-based gaming (see XBOX live, WoW and OnLive), this law has nothing to do with it. Secondly, as I retorted, publishers can do what they want: they can charge the same thing for a rented game. Didn't you imply that consumers aren't stupid? If people continue to buy rent games for 50/60 euros then they have no problems with this thus the law is okay. If they don't, publishers will drop the price or permit license transfer. Supply & demand.
The third issue, which is completely philosophical mind you, is the issue that because digital sales are not physical the same laws can't be applied. Why? Every day laws are applied in many different circunstances and contexts. Who gets to say which laws are applied where? Publishers? Again, why? The court here was very clear: a sale is a sale is a sale. What matters is that money exchanged hands. The money was for a sale and not for renting or some other kind of service.
Or do you argue that because DMCA was passed before digital distribution it can't be applied to digitally distributed games? Because taxes were created before there was currency it could only be applied to bartered goods?
It's fine to agree or disagree with the ruling but I haven't seen any strong arguments supporting the doomsday scenarios.
Now, what will happen if the government started to demand that all games should be DRM-free, and written it into law? It's likely to be even worse than this law.
Worse how? Worse for whom? What are your thoughts on goverment requiring that all market analysts disclose any and all relations they have with the companies that are advising about? Or that all new buildings be asbestos-free. Or the various consumer protection to guard against lemons? Or the prohibition on cartels?
Companies exist to make money. Everything else is just a means to make money. Self-regulation is contradictory to that goal. You need regulation to ensure that companies don't cause harm in their pursuit of their only goal. Quality control only exists because of government oversight (and regulation): you only follow a spec if you know someone will judge you against it.
WRT GOG, they now sell brand new games. Many publishers are not putting their (new) games there for the same reasons I've stated above: whilst they have no basis or proof it will be worse, they fear change. There are many such examples, see music industry and "mp3 downloads", even Steam got a very slow start despite having the backing of Valve/Half-Life 2.
Most of the problems being presented are doomsday scenarios taking absolute cases with 1.0 probability of situations that aren't even legal. Case in point: license transfer would allow multiplexing.
This is a non-starter because condition sine qua non for multiplexing is one owner having control over who uses what. If EA sells a game to Joe and Joe sells to Jane then Joe stops having access to the game to multiplex to another person. Jane would have to sell the game back to Joe for that to happen. Even if that were to happen, Joe could then be sued for renting the game rather than selling it which IS prohibited. Even if you ignore all this, for argument's sake, no company would make it easy to transfer licenses in bulk like you need for multiplexing. Like I mentioned previously, they'll make you endure 15 days or whatever of support calls every single time you want to transfer a license. So that's that "problem" solved.
So you think it's ok to let the publishers establish their own rules? Is it legal if the publisher only allow one to sell their licenses after a year? Or a month?
Furthermore, even with a "reasonable" time like a month, or 15 days, it's still possible to establish a "renting" system simply by asking those who wants to "rent" to transfer back the license back. All they need is to ask them to deposit some money in advance and guarantee that they can get the money (minus the "rent") back if they transfer the license back. It's hard to argue that this is "renting" because the "buyer" can choose to not return the license back.
Also, there's no apparent limitation on softwares with physical media, why should digital distributed games differ? If you believe that all software should obey the same law, why digital distributed softwares are allowed to set such limitation like 15 days or a call to the support?
So you see, digital distribution is indeed different.
The second issue I've seen raised, that you also mention, is that publishers are simply going to move to subscription-based games. Again, this problem is not a real one for two factors. First of all, we're already moving towards subscription-based gaming (see XBOX live, WoW and OnLive), this law has nothing to do with it. Secondly, as I retorted, publishers can do what they want: they can charge the same thing for a rented game. Didn't you imply that consumers aren't stupid? If people continue to buy rent games for 50/60 euros then they have no problems with this thus the law is okay. If they don't, publishers will drop the price or permit license transfer. Supply & demand.
I'm just saying that demanding digital distribution to allow license transfer will accelerate this trend. Consumers don't like rent things (as proved by the performance of renting and selling of home video on Apple ITMS). So publishers, at the moment, want to provide a way to let the consumers buy their software, instead of renting. (Surprisingly, publishers do know that they have to satisfy their consumers) However, if this second-hand law is established, publishers may believe that it's no longer a viable model and will have to go renting model.
And as you say, if it's simple supply & demand, there will be no need for such law. Publishers will have to permit license transfer if consumers really want that.
There are also many other problems that's not mentioned here. For example, right now, if your Steam account is hacked, all you have to do is to prove that you are the legitimate owner, reset your password, and all your games are back. However, if a license transfer is allowed, it's possible that all your games will be gone. You may say that Steam should cancel these license transfer if you can prove your account is hacked, but it's very difficult in practice, and those who "bought" these games may also be scammed, because they'll find the "used game" they bought with real money suddenly gone. This is a legal mine field many publishers are not willing to tackle. Either way, in the end we'll see a lot more account hacking and stealing because it'll actually be profitable.
Worse how? Worse for whom? What are your thoughts on goverment requiring that all market analysts disclose any and all relations they have with the companies that are advising about? Or that all new buildings be asbestos-free. Or the various consumer protection to guard against lemons? Or the prohibition on cartels?
I'm talking about DRM-free software, not those unrelated examples you mentioned. If the government require that all software to be DRM-free, then I can assure you that most commercial software will become service, be it cloud based or otherwise. Do you think this is better for consumers?
WRT GOG, they now sell brand new games. Many publishers are not putting their (new) games there for the same reasons I've stated above: whilst they have no basis or proof it will be worse, they fear change. There are many such examples, see music industry and "mp3 downloads", even Steam got a very slow start despite having the backing of Valve/Half-Life 2.
Of course, and my point is exactly that: GOG seems to be performing worse than Steam on the same game, which is actually published by GOG. Apparently, DRM-free is not that attractive to general consumers. But of course this is off-topic.
Extra Credit made an episode about this issue:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/digital-resale
It seems that they believe the most plausible way to do this is to let players to sell their games for store credit. I'm not sure if this fit the philosophy of the EU court decision though. Also this doesn't seem to help any with the free market idea, because the resale value is certainly decided by the store.
Richard
01-Aug-2012, 23:12
So you think it's ok to let the publishers establish their own rules? Is it legal if the publisher only allow one to sell their licenses after a year? Or a month?
That's exactly what I'm saying it will happen. If they blatantly break the law today, how much do you think they'll try to bend it?
Furthermore, even with a "reasonable" time like a month, or 15 days, it's still possible to establish a "renting" system simply by asking those who wants to "rent" to transfer back the license back. All they need is to ask them to deposit some money in advance and guarantee that they can get the money (minus the "rent") back if they transfer the license back. It's hard to argue that this is "renting" because the "buyer" can choose to not return the license back.
What you describe is called leasing and it is very well defined in law. It's not a sale and it's not a rent. Basically, if there's any legal-binding guarantee of getting money back it's not a sale. That's why "sales are final" can not be used in a regular sale over here because you always have 15 days to return a product (with some exceptions like underwear, perishables, etc.) and get a refund no questions asked. Yet another law digital stores break today. Apple is required by law to provide 2 years of full warranty here in Europe: they're now being sued for only covering the first year.
Also, there's no apparent limitation on softwares with physical media, why should digital distributed games differ? If you believe that all software should obey the same law, why digital distributed softwares are allowed to set such limitation like 15 days or a call to the support?
The original argument (not by you) was that physical media was not instantaneous while digital games were. I'm simply showing that, just like physical media, there can be artificial delays that make it non-instantaneous. If you argue that physical media is instantaneous (I just hand over my DVD to my friend) then digital games being instantaneous is no different at all.
Put another way: the argument of "transfer delay differences" is falacious because the time it takes to transfer ownership of purely physical products varies by the product itself and yet, the law doesn't vary: it takes longer to transfer ownership of an airplane versus a book but the exhaustion rule applies to both.
So publishers, at the moment, want to provide a way to let the consumers buy their software, instead of renting. (Surprisingly, publishers do know that they have to satisfy their consumers).
That's demonstrably false because of the existence of this ruling. Oracle's main case was that it did not sell but instead rented the license, therefor the exhaustion rule did not apply! For the last 20 years or so software EULAs have changed "software product" to "software license" and "sale" to "grant a license", hoping that would deflect First-Sale claims.
However, if this second-hand law is established, publishers may believe that it's no longer a viable model and will have to go renting model.
Like I said, this is not a second-hand law. This decision only recognises that digital products, like physical products before it, follow the exhaustion rule. There has been a second-hand market for as long as there have been home consoles (i.e. 30 years) and only now they're moving towards subscriptions/pay-per-play/etc.
And as you say, if it's simple supply & demand, there will be no need for such law.
Publishers will have to permit license transfer if consumers really want that.
Like they have supplied DRM-free games? Ask anyone if they prefer DRM-free games over any kind of DRM you care to mention or be forced to install SecuROM, or whatever. Have you ever seen anyone "like" DRM? At best you'll see comments about how they didn't have problems with it. Ask them if they'd prefer to play they Blu-Rays over non HDCP-compliant equipment or be forced to buy a new TV to enjoy the content they paid for, not because their old TV was lacking technically but because of copy protection. Customers didn't want DRM.
Turn it around and the argument you're making is: Companies will stop producing games because people just pirate them. If people want companies to continue to make games they'll have to stop pirating them. Because people want to continue to play new games they stop pirating, so there isn't any need for copy protection laws.
So, just like the DMCA and similar laws pushed by industry in the last two decades favouring companies, now comes a ruling favouring the consumer; why is it such a shock? Why weren't all the other cases of government regulation abusive?
There are also many other problems that's not mentioned here. For example, right now, if your Steam account is hacked, all you have to do is to prove that you are the legitimate owner, reset your password, and all your games are back.
As an aside, I had a incident with Steam roughly a year ago where, because of an update they did, my account was wiped of all games. This happened to a lot of people mind you. I did a few posts here, the Steam forums were rioting. Long story short I spent 19 days on their support system without access to my games, most of which single-player but let's not even go there. Even after providing the purchase receipts for every single one of my games they wouldn't restore them. Finally, in desperation I PMed a Valve employee (not a support staff) on the forums which finally admitted they had a DB problem and restored my account. And THEY caused the problem, imagine if my account had been hacked.
However, if a license transfer is allowed, it's possible that all your games will be gone. You may say that Steam should cancel these license transfer if you can prove your account is hacked, but it's very difficult in practice, and those who "bought" these games may also be scammed, because they'll find the "used game" they bought with real money suddenly gone. This is a legal mine field many publishers are not willing to tackle. Either way, in the end we'll see a lot more account hacking and stealing because it'll actually be profitable.
Another perfect example of government regulation. That's why banks are required by law to reimburse customers of drawn funds when their account is accessed illegally where the bank cannot prove gross negligence. Why the need for such a law if banks would quite obviously (sarcasm) do the right thing for their customers! I'm sure a clever lawyer could drag Steam into this requirement, now that customers can deposit funds in the Steam Wallet.
I'm talking about DRM-free software, not those unrelated examples you mentioned. If the government require that all software to be DRM-free, then I can assure you that most commercial software will become service, be it cloud based or otherwise. Do you think this is better for consumers?
Those examples are related because you're arguing government has no business regulating the industry. That's why I pointed out fairly diverse examples of situations or industries where government regulation/oversight is quite obviously needed. You simply disagree that DRM needs regulation. It's fine to disagree.
But WRT your question, see my signature. I'm quite pragmatic: it will be better in some aspects and it will be worse in others. One thing I don't fear is change. The video game market was better off after the crash of 83. Sometimes you need a forest fire to clear away the debris and start anew.
Of course, and my point is exactly that: GOG seems to be performing worse than Steam on the same game, which is actually published by GOG. Apparently, DRM-free is not that attractive to general consumers. But of course this is off-topic.
You can't compare sales numbers directly. The two stores aren't comparable on community features, payment options (my favourite payment option isn't available on GOG - yes, I've compained to them already), or even something as simple as brand recognition. You and me can immediately acertain whether GoG is trustworthy or not. If a regular joe wants to buy online what store do you think they'll recognise, therefor trust, therefor buy from? Probably Amazon. :wink: Anyway, what drives people to buy the exact same game on Steam versus Gog could be any number of factors that override the DRM: i.e. correlation and causality. One thing we are sure is that GoG is growing in members, sales and (newer) games.
EDIT: I should add that I have no intention of selling any of my games. Well, perhaps NWN which is my only regret - but it's a physical copy so... Anyway, I'm only interested in this discussion for the principle of the thing.
What you describe is called leasing and it is very well defined in law. It's not a sale and it's not a rent. Basically, if there's any legal-binding guarantee of getting money back it's not a sale.
Of course, you can patch the law to forbid this to happen, but as you said, there will be holes.
The original argument (not by you) was that physical media was not instantaneous while digital games were. I'm simply showing that, just like physical media, there can be artificial delays that make it non-instantaneous. If you argue that physical media is instantaneous (I just hand over my DVD to my friend) then digital games being instantaneous is no different at all.
Actually there's still big difference. You can transfer a digital license to any one on the earth at any time almost instantaneous. I doubt that you can do that with a physical media, unless you happen to have an access to a Star Trek beaming machine.
Put another way: the argument of "transfer delay differences" is falacious because the time it takes to transfer ownership of purely physical products varies by the product itself and yet, the law doesn't vary: it takes longer to transfer ownership of an airplane versus a book but the exhaustion rule applies to both.
But has anything in the history ever to be like digital distribution, where it can be near instant to anywhere on the earth? I guess maybe money? (and money do have different rules, for different reasons)
That's demonstrably false because of the existence of this ruling. Oracle's main case was that it did not sell but instead rented the license, therefor the exhaustion rule did not apply! For the last 20 years or so software EULAs have changed "software product" to "software license" and "sale" to "grant a license", hoping that would deflect First-Sale claims.
Since Oracle already wants to go the renting model, this ruling is not going to change that. However, for those publishers who don't want to go all renting model, this ruling may make them more likely to go that way. And this is my main problem with this ruling.
Like they have supplied DRM-free games? Ask anyone if they prefer DRM-free games over any kind of DRM you care to mention or be forced to install SecuROM, or whatever. Have you ever seen anyone "like" DRM? At best you'll see comments about how they didn't have problems with it. Ask them if they'd prefer to play they Blu-Rays over non HDCP-compliant equipment or be forced to buy a new TV to enjoy the content they paid for, not because their old TV was lacking technically but because of copy protection. Customers didn't want DRM.
Of course, just like most people don't like cops, or tax. But they are sometimes necessary, or at least "have no problem with it".
Turn it around and the argument you're making is: Companies will stop producing games because people just pirate them. If people want companies to continue to make games they'll have to stop pirating them. Because people want to continue to play new games they stop pirating, so there isn't any need for copy protection laws.
Really? I mean, if we look at adult entertainment industry, it looks like piracy is basically killing it. Some news reports said that many "actors" and "actresses" have to do something like "internet live show" to maintain their livelihood. Of course, that's what people said about "finding new business model," but I think it's natural to assume that if this goes on they'll abandon traditional adult movies and go for "live show only" model.
So, just like the DMCA and similar laws pushed by industry in the last two decades favouring companies, now comes a ruling favouring the consumer; why is it such a shock? Why weren't all the other cases of government regulation abusive?
Because DMCA is bad. This ruling, IMHO, is not much better (although it may look good on the surface).
As an aside, I had a incident with Steam roughly a year ago where, because of an update they did, my account was wiped of all games. This happened to a lot of people mind you. I did a few posts here, the Steam forums were rioting. Long story short I spent 19 days on their support system without access to my games, most of which single-player but let's not even go there. Even after providing the purchase receipts for every single one of my games they wouldn't restore them. Finally, in desperation I PMed a Valve employee (not a support staff) on the forums which finally admitted they had a DB problem and restored my account. And THEY caused the problem, imagine if my account had been hacked.
But at least they can get your games back. If your account is hacked and all game licenses are transferred to other accounts, you can imagine that it's going to be much harder to get them back. But of course, since you actually paid money to them, even if your licenses are stolen, they are still more likely to get your game back (and cancel the license transfer).
Another perfect example of government regulation. That's why banks are required by law to reimburse customers of drawn funds when their account is accessed illegally where the bank cannot prove gross negligence. Why the need for such a law if banks would quite obviously (sarcasm) do the right thing for their customers! I'm sure a clever lawyer could drag Steam into this requirement, now that customers can deposit funds in the Steam Wallet.
Actually you can see that's my argument is that Steam will get them back if the user can prove that the account was hacked. However, those transferred licenses are likely to be "sold" to other innocent people on e-bay or other second-hand channels. Those are very unlikely to get their money back from the scammers. So this is still profitable for scammers.
Right now, hacking Steam account is already somewhat profitable, because many have credit cards associated with their Steam account, and right now it's possible to "gift" games (buy a new game and send it to another account) in Steam. But at least there's extra protection from credit card companies.
Those examples are related because you're arguing government has no business regulating the industry. That's why I pointed out fairly diverse examples of situations or industries where government regulation/oversight is quite obviously needed. You simply disagree that DRM needs regulation. It's fine to disagree.
No, I'm not against regulations. I am against bad regulations. This ruling is, IMHO, a bad regulation, for those obvious reasons discussed on this board. I believe there are going to be even more problems after this ruling is established.
You can't compare sales numbers directly. The two stores aren't comparable on community features, payment options (my favourite payment option isn't available on GOG - yes, I've compained to them already), or even something as simple as brand recognition. You and me can immediately acertain whether GoG is trustworthy or not. If a regular joe wants to buy online what store do you think they'll recognise, therefor trust, therefor buy from? Probably Amazon. :wink: Anyway, what drives people to buy the exact same game on Steam versus Gog could be any number of factors that override the DRM: i.e. correlation and causality. One thing we are sure is that GoG is growing in members, sales and (newer) games.
My point is, GOG is just a start (though already for a few years). However, DRM-free vendors and platforms are still in the very minority. Why is that? I mean, customers certainly don't want DRM, as you said, but why don't they embrace the DRM-free platforms? And DRM has been there in various form for decades.
Of course, Steam is much larger and more popular. But this can be seen as the market working. Apparently, DRM-ed games are more profitable, so they can spend more money on making more payment options available, marketing, or even better games. For game developers, DRM is also extra work. If DRM-free sells more, they wouldn't do that. But again, this is off-topic.
FDSL Enables Used Digital Game Sales
German software developer GDC Game and Download Company announces they are ready to roll out FDSL (Fast Download Technology with Streaming Logic) to digital distributors as a way of facilitating the trade in used games, saying this will enable them to comply with a recent legal ruling in Europe about used digital games:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.