It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
amok: ...Upps, I accidentally forgot to delete my game... I might as well play a little more... completely risk free... as it is DRM free, this is untraceable. Do you really think this will not be abused?
Sure DRM free gets abused. In this very moment someone somewhere downloads a GOG game and plays it without buying. Its traceable but only with a lot of monitoring since it could be done via private sharing networks or just a quick curtesy of a friend who bought a GOG game - virtually untraceable. And in many geographical locations nobody will persecute it anyway. I find it difficult to judge how much more abuse there would be and if this would be significant. Maybe... maybe not.
Post edited February 07, 2013 by Trilarion
avatar
amok: ...this will require the federal agency to have access to your gog shelf / steam account / what-ever. I am not sure about you, but I am not so comfortable with that. ....
It doesn't have to be a federal agency although for example things of value like cars, houses ... are all registered somewhere on a federal level - and it's good because otherwise people could just occupy your house and say it's theirs.

The question is how you prove that you own something (physical or digital). With GOG even now it is not really clear. Copying or forging these emails you get is a bit too simple. So if GOG accidentally forgets that you bought 400 games with them for $3000, you face a huge financial loss and will have a difficult next to impossible time to be awarded your rights. If it would be easy, probably everybody would say that GOG owes him some games. But GOG games you can backup. What if Steam accidently forgets a customer? Or if you buy a license for access to a valuable database and they don't let you in for some reason.

What if your bank forgets you had money in an account? After all this is the most essential and convertible form of digital good. It's just a number somewhere and can so easily be adjusted. Actually I feel never really comfortable.
Post edited February 08, 2013 by Trilarion
avatar
Trilarion: The question is how you prove that you own something (physical or digital). With GOG even now it is not really clear. Copying or forging these emails you get is a bit too simple. So if GOG accidentally forgets that you bought 400 games with them for $3000, you face a huge financial loss and will have a difficult next to impossible time to be awarded your rights. If it would be easy, probably everybody would say that GOG owes him some games. But GOG games you can backup. What if Steam accidently forgets a customer? Or if you buy a license for access to a valuable database and they don't let you in for some reason.

What if your bank forgets you had money in an account? After all this is the most essential and convertible form of digital good. It's just a number somewhere and can so easily be adjusted.
That's why you keep receipts, credit card statements and other proofs of purchase. Never delete those emails, and you are fine. If you use things like PayPal you will also have nice lists of transactions. Bank statements show you your transactions. The onus is on you to make sure it is OK, and if you find something wrong, you contact the bank/seller. If they do not fix things, then you take it further. They are regulated, but it is still up to you to make sure things are going correct with your money.

The bank lock your money during a transaction, not any outside agency, they need an court order (or what it is called) to be able to do so. Banks also transfer money between themselves, as do not work in your previous example. Money is not a good, and not really transferable example. It is a concept. it is like trading in the concept of a game, which then can be redeemed at store point (Duke Nuke'em is worth 5 game, Postal 2 is worth 1/100 game, and so on), and the DD's do not transfer the licenses, but "Game" between themselves - but this is not how things work... does it make sense?

avatar
Trilarion: I find it difficult to judge how much more abuse there would be and if this would be significant.
mm - the problem is that this will have different impact than piracy, and publisher and sellers will most likely be more scared of it. It is hard to tell, but as you might have guessed - I am pessimistic. Best case scenario as I see it? we will see increase in game prices... worst case? more subscription based gaming and heavier DRM. Basically, I do not see a single positive outcome in the long run for resale of games. Short term, yes, I get some money for some games I do not want any more right now - but is it really worth it for the long term consequences? I think not.

("Or if you buy a license for access to a valuable database and they don't let you in for some reason." - this is surely DRM?)

(P.S.. "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future" - Niels Bohr.)
avatar
amok: ...I do not see a single positive outcome in the long run for resale of games. ...
But that's not due to a lack of proposed positive outcomes (less financial risk of buying a bad game, additional competition restrict monopolies or excessive pricing, functioning market for abandoned games, passing games on to your beloved) in the thread. You probably disagree with them, but it's not because nobody find any.

Regarding ownership there was an interesting case some years ago: A heir found a bank account savings book from 50 years ago with 100,000€ on it. The bank had changed ownership twice in this period and had no files about this anymore. In the end an expert wrote an expertise about the authenticity of the book and based on this after several years of trial the court decided that the claim is valid. It can be that difficult but it is also interesting because there are real life cases where such things become important. I doubt that my GOG confirmation mails are officially enough to count much in court. An independent third entity being notified by GOG - that would be much better.
Post edited February 08, 2013 by Trilarion
Actually I recently changed my mind. I still don't think that used sales are dangerous to anyone, almost independently of how they are implemented, but I now think that it is much, much less important to have.

I just said goodbye to the idea, that you can realistically own them in the sense of having all the freedoms you usually have with the usual things before the century is over. The industry doesn't want it, most customers don't care and even me, looking at my games yesterday decided, that most of them I never want to play again.

There are some notable exceptions, some games that are important to me and I want more than just renting them, even if it is livelong. I would be willing to pay more to get a version including more rights.

But for most others GOG is already like the best possible model. Still it also greatly changed the price I am willing to pay. In the old days I paid full price, played them and sold some of them later, now I just expect to rent them and after some months they could even be deleted from my account, I wouldn't care. But I will probably never pay more than 10$ for any game again.

So, it's already perfect as it is, except for the gems, and they are too few to be important.
The only practocal way for gog to allow license sales is a small, unintrusive, optional DRM. ZIe, when you buy a game, you ate asked if you wish to preserve your resale right, and that doing so will require a DRM to be installed.
What really pisses me off is that I recently discovered that my bought copy of Corel Paint Shop Pro X2 from 2008 installed a DRM Windows service (protexis) that slows down the computer at startup, runs all the time and does not become uninstalled when you uninstall the software. Also nowhere on the box it said anything about it. Compared to that Steam is open and transparent about what they are doing and probably less resource wasting too. :/
It's been a long, long time, and it will take quite some more:
Hearing is scheduled for the 21st of January.

We'll just have to wait for the sentence, and probably the losing party going to the BGH (higher court level) after that... see you in a few years.
avatar
Trilarion: Compared to that Steam is open and transparent about what they are doing and probably less resource wasting too. :/
Steam may be, but that doesn't mean it's always easy to find if a game uses it until it's to late

Compare....
http://www.amazon.com/Remember-me-Pc/dp/B00CP1DUW2/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1385651678&sr=1-1&keywords=remember+me+pc

to...

http://forums.entertainmentbeacon.com/topic/1538-what-type-of-drm-will-remember-me-use-on-the-pc/
Hearing is today, I assume that if you want the latest developments, your best bet is their Twitter feed.
Again, I can't imagine that anything will be decided today. Hopefully someone with a bit of background in German law can give an estimate.
I heard through the grapevine that the the district court of Berlin have dismissed the lawsuit. Waiting for official sources to confirm.
avatar
amok: I heard through the grapevine that the the district court of Berlin have dismissed the lawsuit. Waiting for official sources to confirm.
Seems so. The court dismissed the lawsuit by the 21.01.2014. Additional information will be provided when they have the written reasons for the judgment.

http://www.surfer-haben-rechte.de/cps/rde/xchg/digitalrechte/hs.xsl/75_2546.htm

Depending on the judgment, I guess they will file an appeal at the next higher instance (probably the Bundesgerichtshof/BGH?) if this is possible when it was first turned down by a court for once.
This article seems to support my assumption:
http://www.telemedicus.info/article/2708-Neues-aus-dem-Verfahren-vzbv-gegen-Valve-vor-dem-LG-Berlin.html?pk_campaign=twitter

Up it may go to the next higher instance. Sorry for German-only links.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by Quasebarth
Good news or bad news depending on what the actual reasons for dismissal are. It'd be good to see some proper understanding of the virtual market from those who actually set policies for it.
avatar
Quasebarth: snip
Now if u can translate it a bit,cause my german is quite rusty
Google Translated:
News from the process vzbv against Valve before the District Court Berlin
On Tuesday took place before the Landgericht Berlin the hearing in the process Federation of German Consumer Association ( vzbv ) against the computer game developer Valve instead . Here, the District Court of Berlin expressed doubt that the digital exhaustion principle applies to computer games. Could have an exciting case , the impact on many digital distribution models .

The history

Subject of the proceedings is the inevitable coupling of computer games to an account at the online platform Steam. When customers via Steam download computer games, they must register and activate it with their local account. Also some games that one acquires as DVD must be unlocked on Steam and is linked to an account. Valve also prohibited in its general terms and conditions (T & C ) to pass the account to a third party . This has the consequence that, although the game can be passed on and sold in theory , can play the second person acquiring it but not . Because of these practices vzbv injunction against Valve has raised the Berlin court . Argument: The practice of Valve run under the so-called principle of exhaustion in copyright law , according to which the rights holder the resale of a work can not prohibit , when he brought within the European Economic Area on the market and received a remuneration it .

Screenshot Steam
Screenshot of Steam © Valve Corp .


The hearing

At the hearing, the court hinted now that it tends to dismiss the action . It was first briefly the admissibility and the application of German law as unproblematic from . The chamber was then quite quickly becoming the core of the process , namely , whether the Used soft decision of the ECJ is of relevance to the present case . Although the verdict is still pending, it could be seen that the chamber the copyright exhaustion principle well in spite of this decision will not apply to downloaded online computer games. The coupling game and account would therefore not violate the principle of exhaustion .

The vzbv had in 2008 sued Valve and its business model to couple computer games to Steam accounts . This process ended in 2010 with the Supreme Court of its Half Life II decision. Also, the Supreme Court saw no contradiction for copyright exhaustion principle . Unlike in the current proceedings before the Berlin court went there to a game that bought the plaintiff on a DVD and not downloaded online had . Despite the Supreme Court, the vzbv decided to start a new run . Reason for this is apparently the aforementioned Used soft decision of the ECJ. After that is the copyright exhaustion principle on software application that is only sold online. Even then it must be possible for the product to resell , the rough conclusion of the ECJ to the original buyer . The vzbv sees in that case a new approach to move the courts to a new assessment of the facts and strengthen the rights of consumers in online Used game market.

Regardless of the decision of the Berlin court to appear both the representative of the Federation of German Consumer Association as well as the representative of the computer game developer Valve adjust to the fact that the process is finally decided until the next higher instances.

However, a partial success could reach in advance of the hearing, the vzbv . In AGB- changes Valve made ​​further use of the Steam platform - and thus the computer games of the user - from the assent to the amended terms dependent. Who did not accept the new conditions could henceforth no longer use the Steam platform and its acquired games. This practice Valve will no longer hold in the future.

The consequences

The dispute about the coupling of licenses to user accounts has a special poignancy. Whether apps, music , books or computer games : Digital content is increasingly distributed through central closed online marketplaces and tied to user accounts . The procedure before the Berlin court sawed on this very business model and raises many fundamental questions about copyright law , consumer protection and contractual details on .

Still, the Berlin court has handed down a final judgment . Until then will go into the country even a few weeks . Nevertheless, the direction of the dispute is emerging already - at least in the first instance. The further course of the proceedings , however, remains extremely exciting.