[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Davros

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]

Originally Posted by Davros

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
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.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Davros

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.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Without DRM,

well then we are fortunate that games come with drm arnt we

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

joking aside does that mean you would be in favour of limiting what can go into an eula ?

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Davros

well then we are fortunate that games come with drm arnt we

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...

[Davros]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Davros

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]

Originally Posted by Davros

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.]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

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.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by aaronspink

Physical goods rely on a different form of intellectual property protection: Patents.

A lot products dont eg: postcards

Originally Posted by aaronspink

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.

Originally Posted by aaronspink

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]

Originally Posted by Davros

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]

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.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by aaronspink

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]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

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.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by Ethatron

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

[Richard]

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]

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

[Davros]

The famous "Trying to cancel an AOL account

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/...neditfinal.mp3

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Frank

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?

[Davros]

They arnt forced to adopt anything. they could be fair with the consumer - hows that for an idea

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Davros

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.

[Davros]

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