hedwards: -

Darvond: Eh? These weren't copies. It was the same disk, just installing on different computers in the same house.

How is that infringing? I thought many licences were allowing for this sort of thing.

hedwards: Few game developers permit that. It's just that for most of computing history there wasn't any way of preventing it from happening. Blizzard was one of the few that would back in the day with their multiplay with one copy games.

The copy, is the one on the computer, not just the actual disc. Typically, the expectation is that it's one copy on one computer, especially back then when most people only owned one computer that could run the game. But, typically, it's an accepted practice to treat it like a book, even if that's not technically allowed.

It wasn't until more recently with online activated DRM that companies had any means of enforcing that.

Darvond: Sure, but even stingy programs tend to have a reasonable install limit like 5 installs/activation. I typically thought of it as more like a VHS. Home use and sharing is permitted, but mass duplication and commercial showing wasn't.

hedwards: That's generally how that's been treated, I think I had different things in mind when I read your posts.

It's largely a byproduct of not being able to have and enforce other standards. A part from a few companies that only sell to enterprise clients, few companies are going to be able to secure permission to conduct an audit on users and doing so is unlikely to be worthwhile anyways as you'd have to find multiple copies being used in order to pay that off.

These days with Steam and other online activation systems, it's possible for them to enforce it to one user only.

MartiusR: I'm guessing that "in general" this topic was already mentioned, but I wanted to discuss something more specific.

So, basically, my siblings is aware about my rich library of games. And they're willing to use it (from time to time, but still). Of course I've mentioned them something like "you know, I'm not going to refuse, but licence is on me, so in theory I shouldn't".But they're telling something like "don't be ridiculous" etc.

And to be honest, I didn't even told them that with conviction. However, whenever I've informed them about some freebies on GOG or even that I'm willing to gift them some games, they still had the same reply "you already have them on your account, why do I need to even create account on GOG". So yeah, even with my effort (and wallet) they're simply not willing to even make GOG account.

On the other hand - I can't say that I blame them, as this is the point of where "legal" stuff is crossing with something I would call "reasonable boarder"... Am I right? Or wrong? Do you have any thoughts about such (or similar) case(s)?

TStael: PS

Arrogantly, optimistically, fearfully - what have you - I have not made a will, as of yet.

I know the easiest thing in the world would be to submit my e-mail tied credentials to a third party, but frankly I do not want my brother to be able to access my mails once I am dead, as much I want my game library to be enjoyed once I am dead.

From this perspective, gog.com should allow us to indicate the curator / heir to our gaming library even when we live. I want my games to be enjoyed once I am dead.

Miinus passing on my e-mail password, I am not sure there is a cost efficient way. Or?

hedwards: Probably the only realistic option would be to use one email for any game purchases that's separate from whatever dastardly deeds you're looking to keep secret.

It's rather unfortunate that there's no way to securely share accounts after one's own death that can't be subpoenaed or accessed by 3rd parties ahead of time. Even handing the password over to a trusted attorney wouldn't necessarily be enough, should a warrant be issued for the log in information and it not be considered privileged communication.

TStael: In the EU, I do think we have a firm precedent, after EU Commercial court ruled against Oracle and in favour of their client.

The said client sold their old Oracle licences to a third party, because they needed the fresh ones.

Oracle sued, EU court determined that entities (and I think by extension people) do not "rent" software - they OWN it. The challenge is the password, and how to pass it on. Not ownership, at least here.

hedwards: That is a good point, with GPDR, there's got to be some way of doing it. Hmm, perhaps now is the time to move to Switzerland and start a company whose sole purpose in existing is to handle the passwords for people's accounts as part of estate planning.

Sure, a lot of websites do have a way of getting in there, but my computer does not and I'm not leaving it open to access by random perverts while I'm still alive.

TStael: I don't get the scorn. Do tell.

I rather love the idea of actually owning games, whether it is convenient or not.

Timboli: To my mind, when you are checking the relevance of a section, it must at least mention the subject you are querying in the heading. Section B does not do that. So it matters very little what else is inside that section. The heading only refers to Additional Copy or Adaption. Everything within the section, is in context to that. So ***along*** does not even get a look in, because you never get to it.

(b)Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—

In other words to be relevant, it must refer to the original copy directly. Very much like a hierarchy. You don't go to rules about a Pageboy, to find out rules about the King.

direspirefirewire: This is a strange one. How young are your siblings MartiusR? Do they all have direct access to your account?

Yeshu: Dude, just tell them no. Your money, your games. You have no obligation to give them anything.

lumengloriosum: The subject is limitations on exclusive rights: computer programs, section a is about making additional copies or adaptions by owner of a copy, not the original source, and b is in reference to consequences of section a in economic terms.

But it does. Section b is stating that the copy and any exact copies that come from it (hierarchical) must be transferred ***along*** (in complete totality)

This whole resale issue is what Wikipedia cites. I'll leave it at this.