EU Ruling allows the resale of Digital Games.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/pCGWkBT4pyo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/pCGWkBT4pyo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

Yea I saw that. Interesting..

Europe! Fuck yeah!

Pariah wrote:Europe! Fuck yeah What Ho!

seems really cool.Not sure how it could work tho...would the client service like steam have to have a "trade in" button or something? >__>

I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

HydrasBreath wrote:I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

it doesn't work like that. you sell the rights to the license when you resell the game.

and for music, you resell the license to own the digital copy, when you sell the digital copy. you do not own the rights to the song, only the rights to a digital copy of the song.

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

it doesn't work like that. you sell the rights to the license when you resell the game.

and for music, you resell the license to own the digital copy, when you sell the digital copy. you do not own the rights to the song, only the rights to a digital copy of the song.

ah I watched the video you posted and they made it sound like you could also give it away if you wanted since you essentially owned what you paid for now hence the whole file sharing thing.

and the music thing...I didn't mean that you'd own the songwriters rights but lets say you buy an album in mp3 form from iTunes or whatever. This ruling sets a precedent that it would be ok to just give it to any one you wanted cause once you paid for it you owned that copy of the album regardless of what whoever sold it to you says. I know the ruling is for software and games so it doesn't translate to music 100% but the potential for precedent is there and the recording industry has been pulling it's hair out trying to squash sharing the past couple of years. If this ruling could make a case for music sharing being ok it could be very interesting to see what happens.

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

it doesn't work like that. you sell the rights to the license when you resell the game.

and for music, you resell the license to own the digital copy, when you sell the digital copy. you do not own the rights to the song, only the rights to a digital copy of the song.

ah I watched the video you posted and they made it sound like you could also give it away if you wanted since you essentially owned what you paid for now hence the whole file sharing thing.

and the music thing...I didn't mean that you'd own the songwriters rights but lets say you buy an album in mp3 form from iTunes or whatever. This ruling sets a precedent that it would be ok to just give it to any one you wanted cause once you paid for it you owned that copy of the album regardless of what whoever sold it to you says. I know the ruling is for software and games so it doesn't translate to music 100% but the potential for precedent is there and the recording industry has been pulling it's hair out trying to squash sharing the past couple of years. If this ruling could make a case for music sharing being ok it could be very interesting to see what happens.

yes, you could give the track to whoever you wanted, but then you would lose your license to the track. it would be the same as selling a CD that you hadn't copied to another location.

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

it doesn't work like that. you sell the rights to the license when you resell the game.

and for music, you resell the license to own the digital copy, when you sell the digital copy. you do not own the rights to the song, only the rights to a digital copy of the song.

ah I watched the video you posted and they made it sound like you could also give it away if you wanted since you essentially owned what you paid for now hence the whole file sharing thing.

and the music thing...I didn't mean that you'd own the songwriters rights but lets say you buy an album in mp3 form from iTunes or whatever. This ruling sets a precedent that it would be ok to just give it to any one you wanted cause once you paid for it you owned that copy of the album regardless of what whoever sold it to you says. I know the ruling is for software and games so it doesn't translate to music 100% but the potential for precedent is there and the recording industry has been pulling it's hair out trying to squash sharing the past couple of years. If this ruling could make a case for music sharing being ok it could be very interesting to see what happens.

yes, you could give the track to whoever you wanted, but then you would lose your license to the track. it would be the same as selling a CD that you hadn't copied to another location.

ah ok right I hadn't thought of that angle. Makes sense. Guess it doesn't really apply to music then. It's just limited to the PC software realm.

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:I can't see this lasting long...it basically encourages pirating. Not that I'm against pirating but according to that ruling if I buy some software and then upload a torrent and share it with thousands of people then that's ok cause I bought the license and I can do whatever the fuck I want with that software once I paid for it.

Companies will fight this tooth and nail.

It also sets a very interesting precedent for the whole music copyright issues that have been going on the past couple of years. If you can own the rights to software you bought but didn't create then couldn't you own the rights to music you bought but didn't create?

it would basically make all file sharing ok and 100% legal as long as someone somewhere paid for the initial file.

This ruling is basically a big fuck you to all copyright law when it comes to selling something copyrighted since once you pay for it it's yours and you can do as you please.

I just can't see it staying like this. I mean it would be awesome if it did though.

it doesn't work like that. you sell the rights to the license when you resell the game.

and for music, you resell the license to own the digital copy, when you sell the digital copy. you do not own the rights to the song, only the rights to a digital copy of the song.

ah I watched the video you posted and they made it sound like you could also give it away if you wanted since you essentially owned what you paid for now hence the whole file sharing thing.

and the music thing...I didn't mean that you'd own the songwriters rights but lets say you buy an album in mp3 form from iTunes or whatever. This ruling sets a precedent that it would be ok to just give it to any one you wanted cause once you paid for it you owned that copy of the album regardless of what whoever sold it to you says. I know the ruling is for software and games so it doesn't translate to music 100% but the potential for precedent is there and the recording industry has been pulling it's hair out trying to squash sharing the past couple of years. If this ruling could make a case for music sharing being ok it could be very interesting to see what happens.

yes, you could give the track to whoever you wanted, but then you would lose your license to the track. it would be the same as selling a CD that you hadn't copied to another location.

ah ok right I hadn't thought of that angle. Makes sense. Guess it doesn't really apply to music then. It's just limited to the PC software realm.

afaik it applies to anything you buy digitally. but im just saying that piracy and shit would still be illegal, since you are selling the product on to more than one person (or giving more than one copy away for free) and also not relinquishing your right to own your copy.

true but people don't generally go through the trouble of trying to sell a digital copy of something they bought for 6 bucks so I'm guessing it wouldn't impact the music world as much as the PC software world where the prices are considerably higher making the effort to sell something worth the return.

HydrasBreath wrote:true but people don't generally go through the trouble of trying to sell a digital copy of something they bought for 6 bucks so I'm guessing it wouldn't impact the music world as much as the PC software world where the prices are considerably higher making the effort to sell something worth the return.

that is true, a 79p song is nowhere near as resellable as a £40 game (probably less after release though). im sure the big DD stores will find a way to get a cut of the resale profits though, as someone is using their servers for free otherwise.

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:true but people don't generally go through the trouble of trying to sell a digital copy of something they bought for 6 bucks so I'm guessing it wouldn't impact the music world as much as the PC software world where the prices are considerably higher making the effort to sell something worth the return.

that is true, a 79p song is nowhere near as resellable as a £40 game (probably less after release though). im sure the big DD stores will find a way to get a cut of the resale profits though, as someone is using their servers for free otherwise.

For sure. Rest assured companies will find a loophole or a way around this ruling. They'll get their money.

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:

HydrasBreath wrote:true but people don't generally go through the trouble of trying to sell a digital copy of something they bought for 6 bucks so I'm guessing it wouldn't impact the music world as much as the PC software world where the prices are considerably higher making the effort to sell something worth the return.

that is true, a 79p song is nowhere near as resellable as a £40 game (probably less after release though). im sure the big DD stores will find a way to get a cut of the resale profits though, as someone is using their servers for free otherwise.

For sure. Rest assured companies will find a loophole or a way around this ruling. They'll get their money.

my guess is that they'll allow the resale (obviously, or else they'd get lawyered to hell and back) but invoke some kind of tax for the transfer and a charge for the buyer downloading the game from their servers (otherwise they'll lose a ton of money from server and bandwidth costs)

holy shit! this might apply to online passes as well...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/crikey-eu-rules-you-can-resell-downloaded-games/

'“The Court observes in particular that limiting the application of the principle of the exhaustion of the distribution right solely to copies of computer programs that are sold on a material medium would allow the copyright holder to control the resale of copies downloaded from the internet and to demand further remuneration on the occasion of each new sale, even though the first sale of the copy had already enabled the rightholder to obtain appropriate remuneration. Such a restriction of the resale of copies of computer programs downloaded from the internet would go beyond what is necessary to safeguard the specific subject-matter of the intellectual property concerned.”

this whole deal just got an awful lot more interesting. It appears to be directly stating that it is inappropriate for copyright holders to insist on the right to be remunerated with every re-sale, which could even have legal implications for the current systems various console publishers have introduced, forcing pre-owned customers to pay a tithe before the game will work properly.'

oh dayum.

that's good....fuck online passes and fuck ea with their cheesy "project 10 dollar"

i watched TBs video on this and he has no idea what this means, even after researching it. even lawyers that have entire careers revolving around this kind of thing have no idea what it will mean for the industry. its pretty crazy.

the frist time its tested in court should be interesting to say the least

Alpha Brit wrote:
the frist time its tested in court should be interesting to say the least

Let's all sue EA right now!

HydrasBreath wrote:

Alpha Brit wrote:
the frist time its tested in court should be interesting to say the least

Let's all sue EA right now!

i doubt they have enough Lawyers, it would have to be the most crippling CAL in the history of ever.
pretty much every gamer in the EU vs pretty much every DDS in the world

they didn't get voted worst company for no reason