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
teceem: According to which definition of ownership?
The one you can feel.

Try and sell a GOG game, where you have an installer. See how you can do it without breaking the law.
Because once you have sold it, you must not be able to play it anymore.

Back in the days a licence was tied to the CD or DVD. When you gave that away, the other person owned it. Also back then there were games without copy protection, but only the CD owner was allowed to play the game.
This is not the case for the offline installers. GOG s policy is not to check if the players actually have a licence, but that's nothing more than putting faith in the players. This method is valid for both offline and online installations. The installer is also a sign of good faith, allweing you to back it up on your servers or CDs for later use. But the licence is still tied to your account. One who did not buy the game on GOG, is allowed to use the installer, but he's not allowed to play the game. They just have enough trust in us not to double check it.

avatar
neumi5694: But so far not a single gaming platform implemented the means to do it.
avatar
rtcvb32: Then maybe we should all stop buying games until they do implement it.
We definitly should :)
But I doubt that most of us will. And this is EU law btw. Digital goods have to be tradeable the same way as tangible goods are. I don't know how it's in the US.
Post edited December 03, 2023 by neumi5694
high rated
EU courts have ruled in the past that you have a right to resell software. Many courts (even in the US) have ruled variations of "A publishers copyright doesn't extend to having a right to limit end user resales" (eg, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus), First Sale Doctrine laws trump EULA's by default and "just because you call a sale a 'license' doesn't automatically make it one" (various patent holders and even Microsoft lost that one) as did Hollywood's MPAA vs Jon Johansen (creator of DecSS, Hollywood sued on the grounds that the DVD he used to create DVD ripping software to watch it on Linux wasn't "licensed" to use it like that, Norwegian court responds "He bought it, he owns it. Acquitted on all charges").

The real issue is that regardless of what the law says, the right to resell digital software is naturally incompatible with DRM-Free distribution on a technological level. Eg, Windows / Adobe licenses or Steam / Origin / uPlay, etc, games can be revoked & deauthorized by Microsoft / Valve / EA / Ubisoft server-side. GOG can't do that with DRM-Free offline installers which are advertised as part of the official product as it was sold, not just an unofficial hack (like being able to run some Steam games client-less without Valve's approval). So it really isn't in our interest for the EU to force all digital game stores to allow resales (which requires post-purchase revocation / access control aka DRM), as it would mean the death of DRM-Free stores like GOG. Being able to resell digital games like physical boxed CD-ROM games is one of those things that sounds nice, but it has a downside and many of us are here because we want to own DRM-Free games far more than we want the right to resell DRM'd ones.
Post edited December 03, 2023 by AB2012
avatar
AB2012: ...
I don't see the existance of the offline installers as a problem, because they don't give you any rights.

Let's just assume that someone downloads a original GOG offline installer from a warez site (or copies it from a friend).
Sure, he can play the game, but he has no right to do so. If you sell a DVD with an offline installer on it to someone else and then remove it from your disks, you are still the account holder and the one allowed to play the game. The offline installer has no legal significance.

Also having no DRM is not a legal problem, no store or platform or publisher or whatever is bound to perform licence checks. If that is done, then they do it for self protection, to force wannabe players to buy the game.
avatar
AB2012: *snip*
Thanks for this.

In regards to GOG/DRM-free, game X is tied to a user's account. Said user wants his license revoked and a key to be issued which one can resell to another party. This automatically makes the original buyer ineligible to access the software, and in turn would imply piracy accessing the software without a license. No?

Edit: ninja'd by neumi. Basically, what neumi said.
Post edited December 03, 2023 by ThatGuyWithTheThing
avatar
ThatGuyWithTheThing: In regards to GOG/DRM-free, game X is tied to a user's account. Said user wants his license revoked and a key to be issued which one can resell to another party. This automatically makes the original buyer ineligible to access the software, and in turn would imply piracy accessing the software without a license. No?

Edit: ninja'd by neumi. Basically, what neumi said.
It would but if such resale laws were enforced "for real" they would almost certainly have to take the practicality of ownership transfer into account. In theory, GOG could just delete the game from people's accounts "just like Steam". In practise, if DRM-Free friendly publishers started seeing disproportionately more resold GOG games on Ebay (because it would be more easily 'gamed' to 'forget' to delete a backup vs actively seeking out Steam cracks) and a larger drop in new sales, they may be more likely to drop DRM-Free builds altogether. Those who always pirate are the same ones who'd be unlikely to buy a legal 2nd-hand copy. Resold copies though will cut into "new" copy sales, and GOG will have more of a job trying to convince such publishers that sellers aren't just keeping a copy vs DRM'd up to the eyeballs distributors like Ubisoft Connect.

Edit: It's less about "rights" and more market perception. Take a look at the halfwits on the Steam forums who respond to polite requests for a GOG version with "ur a pirate". Take a look at what isn't on GOG, what used to be on GOG but what games left GOG, etc. We need to not upset those DRM-friendly publishers that are left by demanding the right to resell whilst being the only store that guarantees offline installers that can't be remotely wiped if a resale took place...

Likewise EU law affects only EU countries. If GOG were forced to resell games (because they're based in Poland) but non-EU stores weren't, and publishers started seeing a faster drop in sales of GOG versions, you think publishers won't suddenly drop EU-based stores like a rock? This is probably why after 10 years the ruling isn't enforced for games, ie the court will agree with software reselling like Company A bought and used only 967 out of 1,000 Windows licenses and wants to resell the other the 33 on Ebay. But I don't think even the dumbest EU politician is going to want to accidentally kill off all European software stores by putting them at a huge disadvantage that non-EU stores won't have.
Post edited December 03, 2023 by AB2012
avatar
rtcvb32: Then maybe we should all stop buying games until they do implement it.
avatar
neumi5694: We definitely should :)
But I doubt that most of us will. And this is EU law btw. Digital goods have to be tradable the same way as tangible goods are. I don't know how it's in the US.
I've not bought a game from GoG since 2017, same for steam. (well steam when i joined GoG but meh). I might have bought stuff on Humble Bundle, or in Walmart (GF likes hidden object games). So i've not bought many games in the last 6 years. Same for refusing to get consoles or games after the PS3/XB360.

Unless i'm incentivized, i don't see the point.
avatar
ThatGuyWithTheThing: EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games
"No matter what EULA you agreed to."
If this gets ever implemented, it will be the death of GOG.

I wouldn't celebrate it. But if you want to...go ahead.
high rated
So, I've done some reading and there's something pretty important for this discussion:
-- In European law, video games do not count as software 1) as article from the OP link suggests. Apparently it's an open question at the moment.
-- While you can resale a license for software, you can't legally sell your backup copy of software you put on a storage medium (like it was suggested above).
-- A couple of years ago it was ruled you can't resell ebooks. Something about ebooks not being physical and selling ebooks not being an act of distribution but a communication to the public. It could possibly hint a future ruling for video games?

1) Comment part of this article: https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/12/12/does-the-doctrine-of-exhaustion-apply-to-videogames-purchased-digitally-french-court-says-oui/


Some more reading:
-- https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2016/10/20/eu-court-rules-that-back-up-copies-cannot-be-resold/
-- https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/05/19/is-the-digital-exhaustion-debate-really-exhausted-some-afterthoughts-on-the-grand-chamber-decision-in-tom-kabinet-c-263-18/
-- https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/05/28/ranks-aftermath-or-tomkabinet-reference-versus-reality/


Somebody send help, I read large parts of rulings mentioned in those articles (not claiming that I understood everything)...
Post edited December 03, 2023 by InkPanther
avatar
InkPanther: *snip*
Oh, wow! Nice finds. Thank you for going through all the trouble.
avatar
InkPanther: -- In European law, video games do not count as software 1) as article from the OP link suggests. Apparently it's an open question at the moment.
That is incorrect. Games are as much software as every other program. The problem is not the type of software, but who or that the licences are tied to (i.e. the account). Retail games can be sold without problems, as long as they don't have to be registered to an account.

Steam & Co. found a loophole: You don't own the games that you bought on online platforms and that are tied to an account. Therefore the right to sell your property does not apply. This is not just valid for games, but for every software. Our customers also can't sell the software they bought in our house (and that's not game, that's professional stuff).
avatar
ThatGuyWithTheThing: EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games
"No matter what EULA you agreed to."
avatar
BreOl72: If this gets ever implemented, it will be the death of GOG.

I wouldn't celebrate it. But if you want to...go ahead.
Why?

Imagine being able to sell off games that you decided were crap. Imagine that less than 1% might be the type to turn in a game to gamestop to buy a different game?

No, i think most gamers like having an actual library. And if they got the game DRM-free and then sold the access rights? Well they don't get updates... One major reason i re-bought NWN which i had the DVD platinum physical disc was because the updates provided were superior vs the Atari patching that was a huge issue if you had to do it manually.

To sell said games you'd have to likely go under the selling price of any of the distributors, and while some of those will get snatched up i don't see that many going around. Maybe you can make a profit? Get a free game you claim and sell for $1? Sure... but i don't see that really being an issue.

No i don't see why this would change hardly anything.
avatar
InkPanther: -- In European law, video games do not count as software 1) as article from the OP link suggests. Apparently it's an open question at the moment.
avatar
neumi5694: That is incorrect. Games are as much software as every other program.
I see you didn't bother to read the thing I linked.
avatar
neumi5694: Steam & Co. found a loophole: You don't own the games that you bought on online platforms and that are tied to an account. Therefore the right to sell your property does not apply.
Then we should demand they mail us physical CD's/DVDs/Bluerays of the games bought. 'tied to an account' still requires you to technically purchase a license to use said game/programs.
As others have remarked, the case and ruling is not easily applicable to video games. Or rather not at all.

Which is good, because of course UsedSoft eventually ceased and desisted, in 2015, just three years after the EU court's ruling.
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/the-end-of-the-usedsoft-case-and-its-implications-for-used-software-licences

Apparently, well, maybe not surprisingly, software law is a complicated thing, and UsedSoft had not done their legwork. Yes, in principle they were allowed to re-sell used keys from Oracle International, if they could provide evicence to the following (quoting from above article):

- Oracle consented to the download of the software in exchange for remuneration
- Oracle granted the software purchasers the right of use for an unlimited period (perpetual licence) for the respective program copy
- the use of software updates in the actual individual case was subject to a maintenance agreement between the Oracle and the initial purchaser
- the initial purchaser deleted their program copy entirely at the time of the resale so there was no copy left on the server and an (illegal) “split” of licences could be ruled out
-it is ensured for the actual individual case that the second purchaser (client of the defendant) uses the program copy only to the extent granted to the first purchaser in its original contract

UsedSoft could not provide evidence to even one of those points, which is why they eventually lost big time. And, really, the first point would have been extremely easy to prove given adequate documentation of the source where UsedSoft had legally bought those licenses from end consumers.

You might forgive me for thinking that they couldn't provide that data because the aquisition of those license keys wasn't legal in the first place. It was just some run off the mill shady piracy shit.
Post edited December 04, 2023 by Vainamoinen
I think the ruling is pretty much meaningless because the store/service is not obligated to transfer the game from an account to another, ie. transfer the service related to that game (license) with it.

The license to play a game, and the service provided so that you can download the game, get updates for it, and use the Steam/Galaxy service to play its multiplayer part, are two different things.

So sure, you can sell your license to play some GOG or Steam game to someone else, but the service (Steam or GOG) is not obligated to offer any of the services to the new owner of the license, including the ability to download the game from the servers.

Neither would the selling of that service to someone else be allowed, ie. you couldn't legally e.g. sell your GOG account (with its games) to someone else because then you are transferring also the service, not just the game licenses.

In the distant past, I think GreenManGaming had a system which supported the ability to sell and transfer games, but naturally they took a margin from that too, I presume part of that margin went to publishers. The system didn't seem to fly (ie. not enough interest among end-users) and later GMG became a mere Steam key seller.
Post edited December 04, 2023 by timppu