We don't actually own our software, now confirmed by the 9th Circuit.

I think Big Content just had one collective joy-gasam after this ruling.

What should be most bothersome here is that EULAs are already pretty far-reaching, and now the terms have been validated by the court. This puts far too much control in the hands of content providers and further infringes upon the rights of consumers. In their grasp for more control, Big Content is hurting its own cause. Users will just go to open source or turn to piracy. No one benefits from this, IMO.

I try to use open-source whenever I can.

This sounds counter-productive... If people have less incentive to buy something, like not being able to re-sell it, they'll just obtain it without paying for it at all. kamikaze_pigmy

Pretty much this. The only incentive a lot of people had to buy legit software was so they could resell it. I know the CAD stuff we had at my last job was super expensive and they sold it to the people next door when they upgraded to something new.

I know for a fact that my boss being who he was would have pirated it had he known he was going to be unable to sell it later. He was just cheap like that.

What I'm wondering now is just how much software developers will take advantage of this ruling to come up with even more draconian EULAs.

The people up top really have no clue. All this stuff they are doing will send piracy through the roof.

Bleeah. EULA's aren't worth the virtual paper they're written on. I think most of us are going to recognise this ruling like Palestine recognises the state of Israel.

The people up top really have no clue. All this stuff they are doing will send piracy through the roof.

Overlord93

Has been this way for years, hence why you could always get used console games but not PC games. The only difference is that in this case autodesk actually did something about it.markop2003

Has been this way for years, hence why you could always get used console games but not PC games. The only difference is that in this case autodesk actually did something about it.markop2003

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

The people up top really have no clue. All this stuff they are doing will send piracy through the roof.

markop2003

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Overlord93"] Possibly but possibly not. Autodesk is aimed at professional users, pretty much all individual users pirate it already, the people who this will catch mostly are corporations. It's the same with Photoshop, the majority of places that pay for it are professionals and education establishments.Overlord93

testfactor888

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]markop2003

Well I don't know of any big retailers now that still deal with used PC games so that could be true. As I said Eb Games used to but when Gamestop took over they stopped that completely. I do know some pawn shops still buy and sell used PC games as I have one in town where I off-load some of them on occasion. Amazon and Ebay though would be the only real options I can think of for used PC games anymore.

It is definetely harder than getting used copies of console games by far I will grant you that :) Alot less options

Goodbye used video game sales.

Goodbye retro games (can't buy those new.)

Goodbye gamefly, blockbuster, etc.

Goodbye Game industry.

Luckily most older games don't have a line like that in their EULA. Most (if not all) older console games should be unaffected, as those rarely had an EULA at all.

This ruling is still garbage. I'm not a big fan of Gamestop making bank off of games that the devs don't get paid for, but completely getting rid of used games is stupid. There is no way I'm paying $60 for a game that is only "licensed" to me; if I want to sell it to a friend, I should have the right to do so.

When companies write the law. :P

Luckily this is just in the usa, right?

Luckily most older games don't have a line like that in their EULA. Most (if not all) older console games should be unaffected, as those rarely had an EULA at all.

This ruling is still garbage. I'm not a big fan of Gamestop making bank off of games that the devs don't get paid for, but completely getting rid of used games is stupid. There is no way I'm paying $60 for a game that is only "licensed" to me; if I want to sell it to a friend, I should have the right to do so.

DOS4dinner

What about PS2 games? GC? Xbox?

What about DS games that are no longer made? (Tetris DS can only be bought used for a high price.)

What about currently modern games that in a few years will be impossible to get new?

Save those 360/PS3/Wii games now. In a few years, it'll be basically illegal to play them unless you somehow have a new copy.

When companies write the law. :P

Luckily this is just in the usa, right?

KungfuKitten

Companies always write the law. Alot of laws are designed to protect multi billion dollar companies from actual competition. Rather uncapitalistic in truth.

When companies write the law. :P

Luckily this is just in the usa, right?

KungfuKitten

This is one of those times I wish we could learn a few things from Europe.

yea, that's crap.

Companies should understand that being greedy will only serve to harm them in the long run. The consumer will dislike them and turn to other means to obtain the software. You already see this occurring with the music and movie industries.

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

worlock77

The problem here is that the law is what it is now. We need Congress to legislate the users out of this mess, yeah right. This from the same political body that gave us the DMCA and had been negotiating ACTA in secret, what a farce.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

QuistisTrepe_

The problem here is that the law is what it is now. We need Congress to legislate the users out of this mess, yeah right. This from the same political body that gave us the DMCA and had been negotiating ACTA in secret, what a farce.

I didn't say a thing about Congress, but ok.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

worlock77

The problem here is that the law is what it is now. We need Congress to legislate the users out of this mess, yeah right. This from the same political body that gave us the DMCA and had been negotiating ACTA in secret, what a farce.

I didn't say a thing about Congress, but ok.

The ruling came down because of way the law is written now. Going back to Civics 101, bills become voted into law by the legislative branch. In this example, in order to work around this ruling, the law would have to be changed. This is why I brought it up and it relates to the topic at hand.

The people up top really have no clue. All this stuff they are doing will send piracy through the roof.

Overlord93

I disagree with piracy personally...if a program (be it an uber-game or a utility) has draconian DRM (or EULA), then I simply don't have that program.

Example: I didn't care for the DRM that Atari placed on Riddick: Dark Athena. To this day that game is not in my collection, and won't be.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

The people up top really have no clue. All this stuff they are doing will send piracy through the roof.

topsemag55

I disagree with piracy personally...if a program (be it an uber-game or a utility) has draconian DRM (or EULA), then I simply don't have that program.

Example: I didn't care for the DRM that Atari placed on Riddick: Dark Athena. To this day that game is not in my collection, and won't be.

I remember Spore being the most pirated PC game ever. Many of the people who downloaded it had actually purchased the game, but didn't want to deal with the DRM. I have to agree that the more Big Content tries to tighten the reins, the more pirates they will create.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The problem here is that the law is what it is now. We need Congress to legislate the users out of this mess, yeah right. This from the same political body that gave us the DMCA and had been negotiating ACTA in secret, what a farce.

QuistisTrepe_

I didn't say a thing about Congress, but ok.

The ruling came down because of way the law is written now. Going back to Civics 101, bills become voted into law by the legislative branch. In this example, in order to work around this ruling, the law would have to be changed. This is why I brought it up and it relates to the topic at hand, but ok.

No, in order to work around this ruling the law would have to be invalidated by the courts. In cases you haven't noticed the courts aren't shy about doing that sort of thing when a law contradicts the Constitution or previously established law (such as the Rule of First Sale).

I think Big Content just had one collective joy-gasam after this ruling.

What should be most bothersome here is that EULAs are already pretty far-reaching, and now the terms have been validated by the court. This puts far too much control in the hands of content providers and further infringes upon the rights of consumers. In their grasp for more control, Big Content is hurting its own cause. Users will just go to open source or turn to piracy. No one benefits from this, IMO.

QuistisTrepe_

This ruling is a joke, so if I buy a movie or a car they are still owned by MGM or Ford? :P

roulettethedog

No, in the U.S., you own the vehicle (Tax, title, tag, insurance).

If there's a lien on it, it is still yours as long as you make the payments.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I think Big Content just had one collective joy-gasam after this ruling.

What should be most bothersome here is that EULAs are already pretty far-reaching, and now the terms have been validated by the court. This puts far too much control in the hands of content providers and further infringes upon the rights of consumers. In their grasp for more control, Big Content is hurting its own cause. Users will just go to open source or turn to piracy. No one benefits from this, IMO.

F1_2004

It's not going to change anything in the present, but what this does is enable software developers to take protection schemes even further now that there is a firm precedent to build on. Can you imagine console games becoming $60 rentals? How about console games being tied to a console upon activation, after all, it's only a license, not anything that you own. This is the kind of nonsense that could potentially come about in the not so distant future.

Wouldn't this need to be approved all over the world before they start making all these changes? After all, they're not just selling in the USA.F1_2004

It's a court ruling that affects the U.S. market. Europe is more lax on this sort of thing.

So it is now illegal to sell or rent used games?

It's odd that gamestop and gamefly have not gone out of buisness over night. And they, along with one of the biggest companies in the world (walmart. Who also sells used games) are not fighting this.

So, how much was the cost of bribing this "9th Circuit Court"?

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Three points....

1: It remains to be seen if this ruiling will hold in a higher court (if in fact the case is persued further).

2: This ruiling only effects software with an EULA that is worded in a particular way (this doesn't make this ruling any less stupid however).

3: It remains to be seen how many companies might actually persue such cases.

While this doesn't set a good precident I wouldn't count the used software market out just yet.

Serraph105

Probably will depend on what their lawyers figure their potential liability could be.

What about PS2 games? GC? Xbox?

What about DS games that are no longer made? (Tetris DS can only be bought used for a high price.)

What about currently modern games that in a few years will be impossible to get new?

Save those 360/PS3/Wii games now. In a few years, it'll be basically illegal to play them unless you somehow have a new copy.

Pixel-Pirate

If a video game isn't even being sold new anymore, there is literally no benefit for someone to try and stop used sales of that game. The only time that a company is going to care is when people are buying a game used that they could instead be buying new.

I can see this being a legitimate problem for rental places, though.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

What about PS2 games? GC? Xbox?

What about DS games that are no longer made? (Tetris DS can only be bought used for a high price.)

What about currently modern games that in a few years will be impossible to get new?

Save those 360/PS3/Wii games now. In a few years, it'll be basically illegal to play them unless you somehow have a new copy.

GabuEx

If a video game isn't even being sold new anymore, there is literally no benefit for someone to try and stop used sales of that game. The only time that a company is going to care is when people are buying a game used that they could instead be buying new.

I can see this being a legitimate problem for rental places, though.

Yet some developers and companies do rotuinely go after sites that have old NES roms on them. And unless an exception is made in the ruling stating that it's fine after X amount of years or if the product is no longer available new, then it really does not matter. It would be illegal for anyone to sell used copies of those old games, regardless of if the company cares. I doubt ebay, gamestop, walmart, small game store chains will want to risk the police visiting them and will simply stop selling them. So keep all your old Atari games, folks.

And this won't be a problem for rental places. It will simply kill them, simple as that. Atleast ones that only do games (gamefly).

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

When companies write the law. :P

Luckily this is just in the usa, right?

QuistisTrepe_

This is one of those times I wish we could learn a few things from Europe.

It will simply kill them, simple as that. Atleast ones that only do games (gamefly).Pixel-Pirate