• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

9th Circuit Court rules on Software EULA and Resale enforcement. Spoiler alert... :(

V

Victrix

*beard*
S

Somnid

Member
Gamestop's fucked. Thankfully retail price wars means I haven't touched the used market in a long time mostly because Amazon/Steam sells new games at better prices than most places sell used. Same with selling games, I just don't do that especially for the pittance I'd get.
 
M

makingmusic476

Member
It's only related to digital media, guys, but it still has some really crappy implications.

Some tidbtis from the Ars article:

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled (PDF) on a long-standing case involving used software on eBay, and it came to an important decision: if a company says you don't have the right to resell a program, you don't have that right.
Click to expand...

Autodesk, the software's developer, forced all users to accept an agreement before using AutoCAD. This agreement made clear that AutoCAD was merely licensed, never sold, and that one's license was non-transferable. Further, a licensee could not rent, lease, or sell the software to anyone else; you couldn't even physically transfer the discs out of the Western Hemisphere (!). Finally, if you upgraded to a new version, the old version had to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

In [the courts] view, US "first sale" protections don't apply to Vernor, because he didn't buy the software from a legitimate "owner." That, in turn, is because the architecture firm had only "licensed" the software, and that license could indeed allow a software company to prevent resale, lending, and even removal from the Western Hemisphere.

So how does one know when it's a "license" or a "sale"? (In other cases, courts have ruled that simply calling something a "license" doesn't make it so.) In today's ruling, the judges laid out a test:

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."
Click to expand...

This ruling has tremendous implications for most digital media, which is licensed rather than sold. For instance, music from Amazon's MP3 music store comes with these license terms: "You agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content."
Click to expand...
 
B

Blizzard

Banned
Wait, that Amazon MP3 agreement...

You agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content.
Click to expand...

You agree that you will not...use the Digital Content.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something or do they outright say that? :lol
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
And to think, there are people who still sneer in disbelief when you suggest that companies really do want to take ownership of everything possible away from the customer.

In an ideal corporate fantasy world, nobody would own anything and merely lease property from their corporate entity overlord :lol Best way to control monetization of consumer units :lol
 
ElRenoRaven

ElRenoRaven

Member
This is a very bad road they're heading down. That is a foot in the door to not allowing people to sell physical copies of games and software. It starts with Digital copies. A while down the road someone will start attempting that with physical copies.
 
P

Ponn

Banned
Kaijima said:
And to think, there are people who still sneer in disbelief when you suggest that companies really do want to take ownership of everything possible away from the customer.

In an ideal corporate fantasy world, nobody would own anything and merely lease property from their corporate entity overlord :lol Best way to control monetization of consumer units :lol
Click to expand...

I am only leasing my body from Activision. Kotick says I can't resell any of my body parts.
 
C

Cels

Member
Plaintiff will surely appeal (he is represented by public interest attys so cost is not an issue here), but I doubt SCOTUS will grant cert.


I am a law student
 
K

Krauser Kat

Member
makingmusic476 said:
It's only related to digital media, guys, but it still has some really crappy implications.

Some tidbtis from the Ars article:
Click to expand...
Video games are digital media. The guy was trying to sell boxes of disc and the keys that you use to install the program.
 
D

delirium

Member
Does this mean people aren't stealing intellectual properties now since they don't own them... they're uh... trespassing?
 
C

Cosmo Clock 21

Banned
PsychoRaven said:
This is a very bad road they're heading down. That is a foot in the door to not allowing people to sell physical copies of games and software. It starts with Digital copies. A while down the road someone will start attempting that with physical copies.
Click to expand...
slippery slope is slippery
 
W

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Its the publishers wildest fantasy to turn living rooms into the new arcade where you only rent the time for the game played.
 
M

Michan

Member
makingmusic476 said:
This ruling has tremendous implications for most digital media, which is licensed rather than sold. For instance, music from Amazon's MP3 music store comes with these license terms: "You agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Amazon wouldn't apply in this case, as it doesn't meet all the requirements.
"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."
Click to expand...
It only meets #1.
 
C

charlequin

Banned
This is an idiotic ruling based on an insultingly poor understanding of the issues at hand, a direct intent to hand over an invented right to content companies, or both, but that's pretty much par for the course. SCOTUS isn't going to touch it and Congress isn't going to act to reverse it, so this is pretty much on the books now.

About the only redeeming feature is that it's only adding the 9th Circuit to the 7th and 8th that already buy the licensed-not-sold codswallop rather than making any definitive ruling for the country as a whole.
 
DiscoJer

DiscoJer

Member
water_wendi said:
Its the publishers wildest fantasy to turn living rooms into the new arcade where you only rent the time for the game played.
Click to expand...

Not just games. Everything digital, from TV shows to music to books.
 
K

Krauser Kat

Member
This is not really that crazy. The two most likely outcomes were to enforce eula or to say they are not binding. The court choosing to banish eula was way less likely. The scotus would probably agree with it. It would be nice to here a deloper opinion on it.
 
G

GregLombardi

Member
I'm actually not sure how I feel about this for games. But my gut tells me that for everything else this is a very dangerous ruling meant to strip ownership of anything digital from those who pay for it.
 
I

Icarus

Member
Mulberry said:
I thought video games were classified as toys(at least for consoles), and not as software. This shouldn't apply.
Click to expand...

The lines blur more and more every day. Frankly, the ruling makes sense to me.
 
W

Wthermans

Banned
Mulberry said:
I thought video games were classified as toys(at least for consoles), and not as software. This shouldn't apply.
Click to expand...
Since many toys feature some sort of software running in them, they are no longer classified as toys and instead are software. Don't you dare think of reselling your Tickle Me Elmo or Zhu Zhu Pets in your next garage sale.
 
S

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
mclaren777 said:
I would love to see the used game market die (especially Gamestop) so I fully support this decision.
Click to expand...
If you read the OP or several posts, this only affects digital content. Nor do I understand why you want to forfeit consumer rights for faceless corporations >_>

Anyways, a bunch of bullshit. It's clear companies just want you to license their products and never own them.
 
S

Somnid

Member
So this is for digital items, eh? That actually makes sense. You cannot own a digital item, it's not a thing, it's a patten of bits (or more generally a logical idea). The only way it makes sense to govern something like this is by license, not ownership. Obviously, we do not currently have a system in place to curb abuse given as is and the correct way to address this would be to specify basic rights that need to be included in such a license not try to shoe-horn physical property rights on it.
 
G

Garjon

Member
Wow.
What an amazing decision. Would this effectively make modding games illegal? Either way, it's the general populace that gets the short straw once again.
 
Jex

Jex

Member
Remember, they're just loaning you the lease on that content. It's always been theirs.

Ugh.
Somnid said:
So this is for digital items, eh? That actually makes sense. You cannot own a digital item, it's not a thing, it's a patten of bits (or more generally a logical idea). The only way it makes sense to govern something like this is by license, not ownership. Obviously, we do not currently have a system in place to curb abuse given as is and the correct way to address this would be to specify basic rights that need to be included in such a license not try to shoe-horn physical property rights on it.
Click to expand...
What.

Oh, sorry, didn't see the tag.
 
K

Koren

Member
Assuming that by opening a game you become the licensee, that would forbid the shops to sell opened games because of "theft concerns" (and of course also all habits of shops that allow their employes to play games then sell them as new) ?

That would be the only good news of such a decision (god I hate that... of course, I go elsewhere, but that means it's sometimes more difficult to find some games)


Really, I don't like this and its implications. And that come from someone who never resell a game, nor buy used, except very old games for collection purposes. Besides, even for people like me, such a decision would, if applied to games, increase the games prices (most VG sellers make a part of their business with reselling software, they'll have to find other sources of income)
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
mclaren777 said:
I would love to see the used game market die (especially Gamestop) so I fully support this decision.
Click to expand...

derp derp doesnt affect physical copies derp derp doesnt like consumer rights.
 
B

B.K.

Member
GregLombardi said:
I'm actually not sure how I feel about this for games.
Click to expand...

It won't have any affect on games. Game companies don't care if people sell used games on Ebay. This whole ruling came about because Autodesk doesn't want people reselling copies of 3Ds Max, Maya, Mudbox or AutoCAD online.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
mclaren777 said:
I would love to see the used game market die (especially Gamestop) so I fully support this decision.
Click to expand...
why would you want the used game market to die :lol
 
V

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Just another reason I've taken certain computing steps over the past year. I'm tired of supporting companies that want to bend me over. I actually don't mind the ruling persay. What I mind is the crappy eula in the 1st place.
 
S

Somnid

Member
eznark said:
The poors should not be able to partake in my hobby.
Click to expand...

The used market is actually pretty abusive in terms of pricing unless you do all your trades one-on-one. Gamestop is certainly not helping poor gamers.
 
S

Str0ngStyle

Member
Brettison said:
Just another reason I've taken certain computing steps over the past year. I'm tired of supporting companies that want to bend me over. I actually don't mind the ruling persay. What I mind is the crappy eula in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
Please clarify. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but I am honestly curious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Federal court bars feds from prosecuting medical marijuana cases
3
2K
tearsofash replied
  • Locked
9th Circuit Court - No right to carry concealed weapons in public
2
96
5K
Rest replied
  • Locked
Ninth Circuit panel rules CA's concealed weapon restrictions unconstitutional
2
52
4K
HyperionX replied
  • Locked
4th Circuit Court agrees that gay marriage ban unconstitutional, again 2-1 ruling
2
65
5K
alvmew replied
  • Locked
Supreme Court rules ‘first sale doctrine’ applies to lawful copies of a (c) work
25
2K
Coffee Dog replied
Top Bottom