As far as I know, they ruled you can SELL the LICENSE not that you OWN it. What you linked doesn't claim you own the software.

Not from what I have read all of which is more current that the 1980s. If you want to actually link to some info then I'd be willing to check it out though.

But as of now you haven't proven anything to be incorrect.

No it doesn't. It existed because companies had no way to enforce the license until the internet and digital distribution took off.

In the US it is called "First sale" doctrine. It has been around for decades.

The US Supreme court recently (2013) upheld this policy again on copyrighted works, including copyrighted works bought in other countries. and this is the PDF of the [url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf]ruling

In the USA you can buy and resell music, board games, video games, books, baseball cards and all manner of copyrighted material. Comic books too without having to pay the copyright holder. Right of First Sale.

We have already discussed this, I don't usually like linking to wiki but it does a good job covering this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_requirement

It is argued you are licensed software, not sold, hence the first sale doctrine would not apply here. It's all very complicated.

Again, the EU Court ruling left no doubt and specifically mentioned that any EULA prohibiting the sale is not valid. Same with USA first sale. It is why Gamestop was never sued for reselling games or Amazon or Best Buy or anybody else, because people own software. It's not as if a publisher couldn't have sued if it was illegal or enforced it. Amazon, Best Buy and Gamestop are easily big enough companies to sue and enforce the law upon.

No matter what the EULA says, the courts and legislatures have ruled that digital property is still property and is protected under first sale law. which is why you can resell your steam games even though they are only digital.

And really, your argument is using a wikipedia article as opposed to me linking the PDF of the acutal court ruling?

^^ You pretty much pulled the words right outta my mouth with this observation Pheace

Oh, sure, but, no, public performance is not at all the same thing, and it's not at all related. It's similar yes, but the essential step defense is something entirely different. I guess public performance of music would be akin to the copying of software at a lan party or such.

What the essential step defense is about is the copy inherently made in RAM during the execution of a program (in private or not). It is stated that the owner of the copy has the right to make this copy. Licensees do not have this right; they must be granted the right by the license. Likewise for other non-owners. I don't know if there are any special provisions for family members (or users of public computer systems?). But assuming there aren't, it means that in the US you couldn't borrow and run a copy of some software that I own.

Thus the analogy of inherent duplication of an audio work during the course of playback. If only the owner is allowed to make such a copy, it means I cannot lend a music disc and let someone else play it. And likewise, if you somehow ended up being a licensee to some piece of music, you'd better make sure the license explicitly grants you the right to make the inherent copy/copies for the purposes of playback. (Or you stream the bits directly from the disc into your brain somehow, without using any intermediate storage.) Silly, right? It's all focused on such a technicality, and it's got nothing to do with distribution or copying in practice..

Now if they wanted to ban lending, whatever, who am I to stop that. But that ban shouldn't hinge on some nitty gritty technical details of what happens between the non-volatile storage and CPU.

Prohibiting the sale. Again from what I have read, given you the right to sell a license does not mean you OWN the software. It simply means you have a right to sell the license. You are still licensed the software, not sold.

Allowing you to sell your license does not grant you ownership. This is not a hard concept to understand. Had they tried to enforce that they would have received public backlash just like MS did when their original idea for the Xbox One which would have not allowed games to be re-sold. The publishers just didn't enforce it or even tried to enforce it and that doesn't mean the EULA is now invalid.

You can think that if you want, but it's not true based on what info is out there (at-least in the USA, EU I'm not 100% sure but from what I understand you can sell your license (in the case of digital but still don't own the actual product)...as far I am aware has not be decided by the supreme court in the US. Just on a case by case basis in the lower courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/digital-media-licensed-not-owned
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-perzanowski-schultz-tesla-software-ownership-20161104-story.html
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/01/thought-do-we-own-our-steam-games/

Just for you reading...

Sorry I actually missed this the first time around. What I gathered from this is it deals with selling foreign goods and copyright issues. This augment is NOT about your rights to sell products you bought. This is about OWNERSHIP of software and who actually owns it, just because you may or may not have a right to sell something doesn't mean you own it.

Again this resolves around ownership of said software for example if I code something and then sell you that software. Do you now own my code? Can you now reverse engineer it and sell the code or use the code as you wish? Nothing you posted has indicated that is true, certainly not this case and certainly not any ruling I have read. What this case says is goods can be re-sold without the copyrights owners permission, this doesn't say however that because you buy something you are now become the copyright owner or the owner of the licensed material. You are simply able to repurchase a license someone else already bought, and the person/company selling to you is free to do so.

Again this isn't that hard to understand...

First, to clear up a misunderstanding: In the US you mean something completely different than in the EU when you say: "I own software X". In the US you mean: "I own the copyright/trademarks to software X and can do with it whatever the heck I want." In the EU you mean: "I own a (store bought) copy of software X,which gives me the right to install and use it on one computer concurrently." So you might be talking about two different things without even realizing.

Second: MajicMan is right. Licences to computer software are generally treated like property in the EU. With all rights that come with property like being able to resell it. Google Oracle vs. Usedsoft, you'll easily find not only the court ruling but also many analyses and discussions on what it means for consumers as well as businesses.

The EC ruling is publicly available: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=124564&doclang=en

So based on the cases we already talked about, it seems that under US law, you're either an owner of a copy, or a licensee, and different rights apply in each case.

By contrast, the EC ruling pretty much dictates that when you agree to a license and obtain a copy (whether by downloading or via physical media), you also become the owner of that copy. This is precisely to eliminate the "licensed but not sold" loophole, which would make the exhaustion of distribution rights (EU terminology for the copyright owner losing the exclusive distribution right to a copy after first sale) pointless and the corresponding law dead weight. The issue is discussed under the Question 2 heading.

Relevant quote with some emphasis & cut out references for ease of reading:

Yes I am referring to the first part... not the second. He is from the US according to profile, so I have to assume he understands that. I say I "own" my games/software too, but I also know I don't actually own the copyright/trandmarks and can't do anything I want with it.

I said I was specifically talking about the US, not the EU as I had no idea just what was passed there only what I've occasionally read. Anyway it may be treated like property but isn't software still licensed to you in the EU? I would assume you still don't own it in the sense you could takes someone's software, reverse engineer it and sell someone's code correct?

I think the question was all along about whether you own it "like a book" as GOG puts it. I.e. is the (tangible or intagible) copy yours (to keep, to burn, to sell on, or do anything else that isn't limited by the copyright holder's exclusive rights), or is it just something you got the limited right to run through a license?

From the EC ruling, it looks like you both own the copy *and* are a licensee (if there's a license.. I still want to know how to think of software that only comes with purely copyright licenses that do not pertain to use; you shouldn't need a license for that anyway). So you own the copy, you can sell it on, and you're a licensee. Weird eh?

Reverse engineering is permitted for some uses (interoperability?), if I recall correctly. Selling someone's code.. selling the copy you have is ok. But not more than that -- you'd be treading on the copyright holder's exclusive rights.

I guess it come down to how you define "own"... looking at this from a US view point, a physical product like a book, game or movie. Sure you can resell them if you want, I don't think there is any law that prevents that. I consider myself owning my books in the truest sense of the word. But you don't own the words in the book, I guess you own the paper the words are printed on. You don't own the movie itself (just the physical disc). When I say you don't own software I'm specifically referring to the fact you don't own the code, the assets, etc. Everything that makes up a game or piece of software. This is specifically why software is licensed to you.

According this US ruling described in this article which is after the ruling MajicMan posted the first sale doctrine does not take into account for digital goods like music and software.

So MajicMan isn't completely correct in that statement. You can't, according to that ruling re-sell your GOG games like a physical product in the US so what I originally said is true. You don't own your Steam games anymore than your GOG games. In the EU you may be able to sell digital software, but you still don't own it (in the sense that you own the code, assets, etc.) The copyright owner does. I guess in that sense you own the file, not the work that makes up the file?

That's all I'm saying... but these rulings are complicated stuff and we really need to settle this matter once and for all. It's looks like the EU has settled it far more than the US has, which is a good thing.

EDIT:

But we have gotten way off topic here, so at this point I will refrain from commenting unless something significant to the argument is posted. Sorry Shendue for taking us off track here.

You are mistaking the meaning of "owning", that can differ a lot depending on the legal system of your country and the context. I'm writing about legal ownership of A COPY of the game, not of the commercial rights to it.

What you are writing about is ownership of the legal rights to the game, which means basically obtaining the rights to copy, sell, market, modify, enforce fees on the use of a product you have the legal rights of.

I'm writing about owning A COPY of the game, which is a completely different beast.
If you buy a Sony TV in a shop, you definitely own the TV, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to market that TV, make copies of it and sell them.

We are talking about two different things, as user Geralt_of_Rivia pointed at. As you can see, I'm from Italy, not US.
When I wrote that you own a copy of a game bought on GOG, and you don't on Steam, I mean that, legally speaking, buying a digital copy of a game on GOG is pretty much like buying a movie on bluray, while buying a game on Steam is legally more akin to renting a movie from a store indefinitely.
In the first case scenario, the shop owner can't suddenly ask you to return him your copy of the game, because it's YOURS, while in the second case he has all rights to do it, if he wish so.

I'm obviously oversimplifying things for the sake of clarity, but that's more or less how it works in pratice. If tomorrow Steam goes out of business, you just lose all of your games and can't do anything about it. If it happens with GOG and you downloaded and stored all of your games, they are still yours.

You are mistaking the meaning of "renting".... in any legal system