Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Nov 2013 22:49 UTC
Games

Sony, June this year:

"PlayStation 4 won't impose any new restrictions on used games. This is a good thing," said Tretton, to huge applause from the audience in attendance. "When a gamer buys a PS4 disc, they have the rights to that copy of the game."

Sony's Software Usage Terms, updated today:

6.3. You must not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the Software.

7.1. You must not resell either Disc-based Software or Software Downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

Liars. Similar language has been found on the boxes of previous PlayStation models, but that's hardly a comfort.

Order by: Score:
Unenforceable
by cmost on Mon 11th Nov 2013 23:23 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

This is completely unenforceable. If people want to sell a game they're done with, they should be able to, or at least trade for another title of equal value. All Sony has accomplished with this draconian rule is guarantee the creation of a thriving underground black market of illegally sold and traded games. Hackers have already proved themselves quite capable of easily bypassing most any means of trying to prevent that.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Unenforceable
by drcoldfoot on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:19 UTC in reply to "Unenforceable"
drcoldfoot Member since:
2006-08-25

It USED to be unenforceable. It's very enforceable now. Lets not forget the time they killed the "Other OS" in the PS3 with a simple online SW upgrade. But conceivably, a mandatory account can be enforced on the PSN or even on their own network via the game designer. DRM/Activation is extremely enforceable with today's internet ready consoles albeit not exactly via Sony themselves, but the hardware and firmware is their at their disposal. If it wasn't an option, it simply wouldn't be internet ready.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Unenforceable
by aliquis on Tue 12th Nov 2013 06:32 UTC in reply to "Unenforceable"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Actually say "disc-based software", which could mean the software on the disk, not the actual disk.

As in you're allowed to sell the disc with the software but you're not allowed to take the software content of the disk and sell it.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by chainq
by chainq on Mon 11th Nov 2013 23:25 UTC
chainq
Member since:
2009-06-09

I'm pretty sure such EULA is directly against the law in most EU countries. At least in Hungary (where I'm from), such EULA is a contract, but all contracts which go against the local law (which explicitly permits reselling of your own personal copy) are automatically invalid. So you can still sell the game you bought, despite what invalid lawyer brainfart the EULA contains.

Anyway, I have plenty of ideas what things we should do with Sony's lawyers and managers, despite it's against the law. But they don't care about that, so why should we? ;)

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by chainq
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by chainq"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm pretty sure such EULA is directly against the law in most EU countries.


I can vouch for at least Finland in that that such a rule is totally non-enforceable, Sony cannot forbid re-sale of items like that. The law rather clearly says that if it is sold like a shelf product it is a shelf product and all such items can be sold at the buyers' discretion, with or without permission from the manufacturer or place of purchase.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by chainq
by aliquis on Tue 12th Nov 2013 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chainq"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"I'm pretty sure such EULA is directly against the law in most EU countries.


I can vouch for at least Finland in that that such a rule is totally non-enforceable, Sony cannot forbid re-sale of items like that. The law rather clearly says that if it is sold like a shelf product it is a shelf product and all such items can be sold at the buyers' discretion, with or without permission from the manufacturer or place of purchase.
"What if the shelf product just hold a key which can only be used once and let you download a game?

I assume one can't enforce resell rights on Steam games? What about Steam games bought in a store?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by chainq
by computrius on Tue 12th Nov 2013 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chainq"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

In that case you are selling a card with a key on it, not the actual game. So, whether or not you get a game after buying just a key depends on whether or not the seller already redeemed the key.

From Steam's point of view, they are not involved with that sale and the key is redeemed. They don't need to care how you got it or who redeemed it.

Edited 2013-11-12 22:37 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by chainq
by weckart on Tue 12th Nov 2013 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chainq"
weckart Member since:
2006-01-11

I am sure the EU has pronounced on this to that effect, however, the wording did state that it would not be unlawful if the vendor implemented DRM or some other mechanism to prevent reselling. In such a case, the purchaser would not be entitled to reverse engineer nor implement some other mechanism to defeat the software block on reselling for the purposes of reselling.

Local laws in Finland may be more stringent, however, and local laws are the only ones that count.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by chainq
by bassbeast on Tue 12th Nov 2013 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chainq"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

The problem Werecat is it really won't matter what laws Finland has as all Sony has to do is tie the game to your account. You see that way they can make the disc a completely worthless hunk of plastic because once you've played the game once that is it, it won't install anywhere else and thus will be worthless.

I would like to point out though that this means there is zero reason to choose console over PC now as the consoles now have ALL of the downsides of the PC, always online, DRM, no secondhand market, but NONE of the upsides like a thriving market with plenty of sellers, lower prices for games,backwards compatibility, upgradability and the ability to choose DRM free games.

So there really isn't a point in buying a console anymore, heck I don't know how prices are there but here in the states you can get a nice PC that will play pretty much any game out there for less than the Xbone and nearly as cheap as the now crippled PS4. What MSFT and Sony have done is make their consoles the worst choice by far, congrats guys.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by chainq
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chainq"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The problem Werecat is it really won't matter what laws Finland has as all Sony has to do is tie the game to your account.


Aye, I know. That's the downside, and unless the related laws are re-worked it's not gonna get any better. Unfortunately, I do not think there will be any changes to the laws either in Finland or EU-wide, because, well, lobbyists throwing money at you is always so tempting..

I would like to point out though that this means there is zero reason to choose console over PC now as the consoles now have ALL of the downsides of the PC, always online, DRM, no secondhand market, but NONE of the upsides like a thriving market with plenty of sellers, lower prices for games,backwards compatibility, upgradability and the ability to choose DRM free games.


I concur. With previous-gen consoles you could at least re-sell some of your games, even if not all of them, but it seems we've reached the inevitable. With the upcoming Steamboxes consoles don't even have the advantage of a neat form-factor and an experience geared towards the big screen.

Now, I definitely do not predict that Steamboxes will be a hit as soon as they land, inertia is such a powerful thing and people are still ingrained in the idea that PCs just cannot be consoles, but once SteamOS matures and Valve adds features to it and people start to realize that there's no longer any other advantage to consoles than the exclusives? Well, we may be in for a big sea-change in things.

So there really isn't a point in buying a console anymore, heck I don't know how prices are there but here in the states you can get a nice PC that will play pretty much any game out there for less than the Xbone and nearly as cheap as the now crippled PS4.


All electronics are rather expensive here and we do not have such a thriving market for individual parts that could be used for building PCs, so you still can get both the Xbox One or the PS4 for cheaper than you could a similar PC. The difference isn't big, though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by chainq
by kurkosdr on Tue 12th Nov 2013 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chainq"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

I would like to point out though that this means there is zero reason to choose console over PC now as the consoles now have ALL of the downsides of the PC, always online, DRM, no secondhand market, but NONE of the upsides like a thriving market with plenty of sellers, lower prices for games,backwards compatibility, upgradability and the ability to choose DRM free games.


There is ONE advantage consoles have, which overshadows everything: No need for hardware upgrades, no need to worry about graphics settings. Yes, some PC games may have an auto-adjust-detail mechanism... still not the same. It doesn't adjust well most of the times.

I will let you on a hint about how we Average Joes think: We hate throwing away perfectly good hardware (graphics cards) just because developers raised the requirements. We hate having to adjust graphics when we want to just insert the disc and play. I wish I could say otherwise, but everyone I know who invested on a gaming rig regretted it. The only ones still investing on PCs are people who go through a lot of games each year, and they make up the upgrade costs from pirating everything.

This is why I think the SteamOS experiment will fail: It brings all the hated things about PCs, such as upgrades, and multiple configurations with every one needing a different graphics setting, to consoles. Valve could escape from this by building a really powerful steambox, but then there is cost. So, as I said in the previous post, it's either an uber-expensive steambox, or a mid-tier steambox that will be obsolete very soon. I 'll buy a PS4, thank you.

Edited 2013-11-12 17:45 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by chainq
by krinchan on Tue 12th Nov 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chainq"
krinchan Member since:
2012-06-08

People like you that go around doing their best to preach against PC gaming like this really, really rub me raw. Everything you just ranted about, Mr. Average Joe, is pretty much a relic of the 90s and early 2000s. You're out of the loop and you need to stop playing COD Madden Battlefield 2013 long enough to actually look at a laptop at Wal-Mart (or whatever the cheap, Made in China, micro-economy destroying retailer in your country is) these days.

I ran a Core 2 Duo, a GeForce 200 series card with 2 gigs of RAM (later upgraded to 4 gigs of ram for less than $30 and 10 minutes of my time), 500 GB 4200 RPM hard drive *just fine* for almost 5 years. I continued to buy games on Steam throughout it's life, even recent releases.

It's essentially like you saying, "I don't want to upgrade my computer to just to be able to play FPS-Whatnot that allow more than 64 players on the map." Then...don't, because I guarantee you FPS-Whatnot has an option to not show servers that allow more than 64 people per map.

Just because there's a group of enthusiasts out there who run around mouthing off if you can't run Game X on "Ultra" does not mean it defines the entire segment. Since around 2008-ish you can get a good 5 year run out of midrange. Just don't be bitter that someone can run it with some fancy lens flare or blurry focus effect.

So because someone out there can run on better settings, you argue that because you can't/won't/don't want to spend money on top end hardware, everyone playing and developing games should be gimped. Even if they make the effort to support your cheap, aging Wal-Mart E-Machine.

You don't need a $1500 machine and anyone that tells you you do is honestly overcompensating. $1500 isn't future proof, and it'll be obsolete just as quickly as the $500, albeit you'll still get a comparable life out of both. If you don't want to be bothered with spending a few hours to piece together an upgrade on the cheap reusing parts you never need to upgrade until failure (Hard drives, optical drives, MoBo/RAM), just buy a whole new minibox for the price of a console and a half with way better graphics.

EDIT: I accidentally too much 'Merica reference! I also forgot the concluding sentences. :-)

Edited 2013-11-12 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by chainq
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chainq"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

or a mid-tier steambox that will be obsolete very soon. I 'll buy a PS4, thank you.


Have you been living in a barrel your entire life or something? Do you believe that the box somehow degrades over time and loses performance or something? Using the PS4 as a point of referral, a box that is equal to the PS4 in terms of performance will stay equal to the PS4 in performance. It doesn't magically lose components nor does it magically turn into a PS3 over time. If a game runs on the PS4 it will then run on the box just as well on similar settings unless the devs botch the porting.

I mean, this is such a bullshit argument that it's unbelievable how many people just keep repeating it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by chainq
by Soulbender on Thu 14th Nov 2013 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chainq"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

We hate throwing away perfectly good hardware (graphics cards) just because developers raised the requirements.


But you're apparently ok with buying an entirely new console every couple of years because the company decided that the current one is obsolete and the developers moved the the next gen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by chainq
by BluenoseJake on Wed 13th Nov 2013 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chainq"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You can resell any xbox 360 and Xbox One game, they changed the whole setup to allow it, like a year ago. Good to see you're keeping up. All consoles are not made by Sony

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by chainq
by aliquis on Tue 12th Nov 2013 06:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by chainq"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I'm pretty sure such EULA is directly against the law in most EU countries. At least in Hungary (where I'm from), such EULA is a contract, but all contracts which go against the local law (which explicitly permits reselling of your own personal copy) are automatically invalid. So you can still sell the game you bought, despite what invalid lawyer brainfart the EULA contains.

Anyway, I have plenty of ideas what things we should do with Sony's lawyers and managers, despite it's against the law. But they don't care about that, so why should we? ;)
Should be illegal / have some punishment to use such language anyway because it may affect what people dare to do / they may follow it regardless. I assume not the whole contract becomes invalid? Though that would had been something.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by chainq
by protomank on Tue 12th Nov 2013 11:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by chainq"
protomank Member since:
2006-08-03

Same for Brazil.
In court cases software is always considered a product, not a service, and can be sold at will. Unless you pay a montly amount, you can sell anything you buy in accordance with out "Consumer Protection Code" law.
Becuase of that, most software makers avoid going to justice in disputes, they do not want our higher courts (STJ and STF) to determine jurispridence on the matter.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by chainq
by Carewolf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 13:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by chainq"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

All EULA's are invalid in most countries. Only a small handfull has caved in to business pressure and legalized it. Even in the US, EULAs are only valid in a minority of states.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by chainq
by kurkosdr on Tue 12th Nov 2013 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chainq"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

All EULA's are invalid in most countries. Only a small handfull has caved in to business pressure and legalized it. Even in the US, EULAs are only valid in a minority of states.

Maybe, but the real reason companies user EULAs is so that you can't sue them when they violate your customer rights with draconian DRM schemes. "Don't like our DRM? Too bad, you have accepted it when you agreed to the terms" And so that they can sue people making circumvention tools.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by chainq
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chainq"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Maybe, but the real reason companies user EULAs is so that you can't sue them when they violate your customer rights with draconian DRM schemes. "Don't like our DRM? Too bad, you have accepted it when you agreed to the terms" And so that they can sue people making circumvention tools.


Doesn't work like that. You cannot use invalid EULAs as defense in court, regardless of whether the user agreed to them or not. In the U.S. EULAs work more like contracts and I don't know how many other countries treat them like that, but there are several countries in Europe -- including Finland -- where that's not how it works and you cannot "agree" to have basic rights taken away from you no matter how much you want to.

Edited 2013-11-12 21:52 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by chainq
by CapEnt on Wed 13th Nov 2013 16:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by chainq"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Not that simple.

Your local law may allow you to resell the game. The problem is, i'm pretty sure that no single law in world cover the very simple case that your software may depend on infrastructure outside your home country. That said, the EULA is very valid on the home country that the company's servers is based.

So here we come: it is legal for you to resell the game on your country, but the company that must activate the game for it to run on your console can refuse to activate it.

It is a huge legal gray area that we are dealing here.

Reply Score: 3

Re:
by kurkosdr on Mon 11th Nov 2013 23:32 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Some decades ago, laws to protect car buyers were enstablished (Lemon Laws, Right To Repair etc). Laws to protect software buyers need to be enstablished (and ebook/music/movie buyers), but probably won't. Ahh, those political "donations"...

PS: The rental and second-hand business is under attack. "Why should gamers be allowed to legally try out a game before commiting 50 bucks to buy it, or (the horror) be allowed to sell a game after they finish it? It OUR content dammit, gamers are "consumers", not owners of their purchased media."

Edited 2013-11-11 23:34 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Re:
by Ford Prefect on Tue 12th Nov 2013 08:05 UTC in reply to "Re:"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

These laws already exist in Europe! In Germany it was never allowed to have such terms in an EULA. They would just render the whole EULA void. So that's why in every German EULA you find a term describing that the rest of the EULA will not be void.

In Germany you always have the right to:
- resell the software
- produce a personal copy of the software for backup
- disassemble and change the software┬╣
that you buy.

Yes, you read that correctly. It is quite a good protection of the consumer.

For example, OEM distributors tried to prevent people from re-selling the software that was packaged with their computers. They always failed in court.

┬╣If needed to make it run for your purpose

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 12th Nov 2013 00:13 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

YOU DO NOT OWN THINGS YOU BUY

BUYING MEANS MONEY LEAVING BANK ACCOUNT, NOT BUYING

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Luminair
by blitze on Tue 12th Nov 2013 00:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Bingo, we have a winner.

There really needs to be a global shakeup of finance and corporate behaviour and rights.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Luminair
by HappyGod on Tue 12th Nov 2013 00:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

BUYING MEANS MONEY LEAVING BANK ACCOUNT, NOT BUYING


WTF?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Bishi on Tue 12th Nov 2013 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Bishi Member since:
2009-08-27

Buying no longer means a change in ownership of goods, but an exchange of money, with no goods exchanged. Now you pay to look at things, not to own them.

Or at least that's what I think the sentence above means.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 12th Nov 2013 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I knew the hippies were right!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by HappyGod on Tue 12th Nov 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Yeah, I knew what he was trying to say. It was more the self-referencing nature of the sentence.

Kinda reminded me of the whole 'GNU's Not Unix' thing.

Reply Score: 3

Steam machines
by fengshaun on Tue 12th Nov 2013 00:15 UTC
fengshaun
Member since:
2010-01-18

I see Steamboxes (Steam Machines?) are looking mighty good right now!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Steam machines
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:15 UTC in reply to "Steam machines"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I see Steamboxes (Steam Machines?) are looking mighty good right now!


As much as I love Steam and the SteamOS and as much as I am interested in the new controllers by Valve I have to say that I hope you were being sarcastic.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Steam machines
by tylerdurden on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:30 UTC in reply to "Steam machines"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Whatever it is that you're smoking, you should share.

Let us know how exactly do you exchange/sell a used game on steam...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Steam machines
by woegjiub on Tue 12th Nov 2013 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Steam machines"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

You don't need to for steam, because the sales make everything deliciously cheap.

I've ~300 games in my library, and I've played ~15 of them. The others seemed cool, and were cheap, so I got them just in case I felt like playing them some rainy day.

Also; I've spent the equivalent of about 10 console games to get all of those, and there are a fair few 'AAA' titles amongst them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Steam machines
by tylerdurden on Tue 12th Nov 2013 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Steam machines"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Ug? Why bring oranges to a discussion about apples?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Steam machines
by woegjiub on Tue 12th Nov 2013 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Steam machines"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Just pointing out that there's no point in reselling steam games, because they cost approximately the difference between shelf price and resell value, or less.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Steam machines
by tylerdurden on Tue 12th Nov 2013 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Steam machines"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

And what I'm trying to point out is that for those, interested of selling some of the games they play no more in order to recoup some of the original investment, the fact that Steam has sales is completely irrelevant.


Never mind that having a "sale" once a year is not something exclusive to Steam in the least. It's basically the norm in the retail sector really.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Steam machines
by Kivada on Wed 13th Nov 2013 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Steam machines"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Can you sell your cable subscription? Your phone service? Your internet service?

No?

Well thats what Steam games are, one time payment lifetime subscriptions sold over the internet as direct download items that never touch a store shelf. Buy your Steam game via Amazon? Amazon doesn't ship you a disc, they just give you a steam key.

Traditional console disc or cartridge based games aren't tied to an account, they aren't a subscription. They are something you can swap with your friends and resell.

If the wording was only for games that are for games that are only available via the PSN network shop as direct download the same as Steam then nobody would have a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Steam machines
by aliquis on Tue 12th Nov 2013 06:33 UTC in reply to "Steam machines"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I see Steamboxes (Steam Machines?) are looking mighty good right now!
No. You can't sell shit from Steam. Or lend it. Family sharing is very crippled.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Steam machines
by kallisti5 on Thu 14th Nov 2013 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Steam machines"
kallisti5 Member since:
2009-09-08

Except steam games generally aren't $60 USD+ :\

Reply Score: 1

RE: Steam machines
by kurkosdr on Tue 12th Nov 2013 10:07 UTC in reply to "Steam machines"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

I see Steamboxes (Steam Machines?) are looking mighty good right now!

Wish I could say so, but they 'll probably mess up the price. There was one other company which made just the designs and let others do the manufacturing: 3DO.

Or they 'll release a reasonably priced "mid-tier" model which will be obsolete a year from now, allienating the console audience, which hates "upgrades". Take your pick.

Also Steam is a DRM mess of it's own.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Steam machines
by Kivada on Wed 13th Nov 2013 01:19 UTC in reply to "Steam machines"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

I see Steamboxes (Steam Machines?) are looking mighty good right now!

Right, because being able to resell a disc based game you paid $60 for and have always been able to do with every previous disc based console is completely the same thing as not being able to sell direct download only games that you picked up on a 75%+ sale or bundle site that are registered to your account.

Theres a world of difference between the 2 systems. If The restriction was only to your PSN account direct downloaded games then nobody would have a problem, but when its a CD you bought at Best Buy thats another story all together.

Reply Score: 2

not the first or last time
by gus3 on Tue 12th Nov 2013 00:36 UTC
gus3
Member since:
2010-09-02

Sony like to think they are a law unto themselves, and have thought so for a while. Seriously, why would anyone besides masochists buy Sony in this day and age?

Reply Score: 4

Disc-based software
by Jbso on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:31 UTC
Jbso
Member since:
2013-01-05

I think "Disc-based Software" means you can't copy the software and resell it. Note that it does not say you can't sell the disc. I think this is just folks misunderstanding legal-speak.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Disc-based software
by kwan_e on Tue 12th Nov 2013 01:37 UTC in reply to "Disc-based software"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I think "Disc-based Software" means you can't copy the software and resell it. Note that it does not say you can't sell the disc. I think this is just folks misunderstanding legal-speak.


It doesn't matter what "Disc-based Software" means. What matters is what they EXPLICITLY say cannot be done with it:

"You must not resell either Disc-based Software"

No mention of copies. "Resell" does not magically apply only to some meanings of Disc-based.

Legal-speak is there to be deliberately misunderstood so that they can munge the language in anyway that suits them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Disc-based software
by kragil on Tue 12th Nov 2013 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Disc-based software"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Sure, but this is just legalese against piracy.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE
.. you can still sell your PS4 games just like your PS3 games, just like your PS2 games, just like your PS1 games.

All those consoles had this legalese. It was just copy and pasted on the next box.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Disc-based software
by kwan_e on Tue 12th Nov 2013 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disc-based software"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Sure, but this is just legalese against piracy.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE


What part of this:

"You must not resell either Disc-based Software"

do you not understand?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Disc-based software
by AndyB on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:00 UTC in reply to "Disc-based software"
AndyB Member since:
2013-03-22

I think "Disc-based Software" means you can't copy the software and resell it. Note that it does not say you can't sell the disc.

I read it this way as well!

If you try to sell the software itself without the disk (ie rip the data from the disk) then you are effectively committing piracy, which is what they mean. Similar wording is on current PS3 titles and it doesn't stop second hand game sales on the high street!

As a side note, didn't all this EULA crap get sorted out when Apple tried to stop people making hackintosh's?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Disc-based software
by Soulbender on Wed 13th Nov 2013 11:35 UTC in reply to "Disc-based software"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think "Disc-based Software" means you can't copy the software and resell it. Note that it does not say you can't sell the disc


Doing that is already a violation of copyright law so there's really no reason why Sony should be referring to that.

Reply Score: 3

Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Watch the original video before they shut it down! This was the video in which Sony were poking fun at xbox for their intention to regulate the 2nd hand market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA


Begin Script

Opening scene: Asian male in possession of a game disk

Transition: "Step 1 - Sharing the game"

Action Scene: Owner transfers possession to a Caucasian male friend by placing game disk in his hand. "Thank you"

Small print: *** The foregoing instructional video applies only to disk based games ***
PS4 multi-player online access requires PSN account & PS Plus subscription

Fade Out: PS4 Logo

Show copyrights

End script

It seems like those two men violated the license agreements assuming money changed hands as well.

Reply Score: 4

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

They won't remove it. It is not an outright LIE, it is DISINFORMATION. This is a legal barrier to commercial second hand markte: they will let you lend a game to a friend that easily, but they will not let you sell it through a videogame store. That leaves me out as a videogame customer: I play too little, too seldom, to invest much in full-price games, and rely heavily on second-hand and platinum editions; if that makes me a bad customer in their eyes, well, fuck them.

Shitty scumbags, after all the flak they gave Microsoft, they are doing mostly the same thing. I hope they get twice, no thrice the backlash MS got (for a reason).

They can really forget about me as a customer, whether they care or not: no more Playstation, Xperia, or Bravia; I start _today_ by buying a Yamaha home theatre receiver, rather than the rather nice Sony I was contemplating.

Reply Score: 2

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Hum, It looks like they are back pedaling in a way. It seems they are saying explicitly that there will be no barriers to second hand or borrowed games.

https://twitter.com/yosp/status/400129434264805377

But then, why is that language in the license terms? Is it forbidden to trade used games unless they allow it, but they do allow it separately?

Some more clarification would be really nice.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Lorin
by Lorin on Tue 12th Nov 2013 05:06 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

SCOTUS shot that down with fair use in the US

Reply Score: 3

Much ado about nothing...
by Novan_Leon on Tue 12th Nov 2013 05:26 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

This is much ado about nothing. Like Thom said, similar fine print has been used before and it meant nothing. This type of language is very common and never enforced. It hasn't had an effect on the used games market up-til-now and there's little reason to think that will change now.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Much ado about nothing...
by Novan_Leon on Tue 12th Nov 2013 15:08 UTC in reply to "Much ado about nothing..."
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

A confirmation that this isn't the world-shattering change of position that some are claiming it to be:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/204555/Sony_repeats_its_PS4_used...

Reply Score: 3

A storm in a tea-cup
by Bengar on Tue 12th Nov 2013 05:54 UTC
Bengar
Member since:
2009-07-30

Just because Sony throws some random text into their end-user license agreement doesn't make it law or enforcible. All it gives them is an extra claim if they ever take a reseller to court for breach of contract. It's up to the court to decide and most places it would probably be thrown out due to other conflicting civil laws such as the first-sale doctrine.

If anything I see this as a potential launch pad for a legal challenge at big resellers such as GameStop. Though in the US back in 1987, Nintendo lost its case against Blockbuster when it tried to stop it from renting out NES video cartages. So I can't imagine Sony having much luck here with the banning of PS4 resales.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A storm in a tea-cup
by galvanash on Tue 12th Nov 2013 07:35 UTC in reply to "A storm in a tea-cup"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Just because Sony throws some random text into their end-user license agreement doesn't make it law or enforcible. All it gives them is an extra claim if they ever take a reseller to court for breach of contract.


snip...

If anything I see this as a potential launch pad for a legal challenge at big resellers such as GameStop.


Considering it is a license agreement between Sony and users of their products, I don't see how you can promote that point of view. Resellers such as GameStop do not and have no reason to ever actually enter into this license agreement.

I'm just saying everyone is grasping for reasons to explain how this is not what it sounds like, when it is exactly what it sounds like...

It's up to the court to decide and most places it would probably be thrown out due to other conflicting civil laws such as the first-sale doctrine.


Maybe, but so what? I don't think that potential buyers should be concerned with whether or not the license agreement they are entering into is enforceable or not.

They should be more worried about whether it denies them freedoms they believe they should have - like being able to sell a game after you are done playing it. This license agreement clearly states that you do not have the right to do that without prior consent.

On the subject of first sale doctrine... The track record of US courts upholding first sale doctrine when it comes to licensed products is pretty damn confusing. Between Vernor v. Autodesk, UMG v. Audusto, and MDY v. Blizzard, I think it is safe to say that no one has any fricken idea whether the first sale doctrine applies to licensed products or not.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A storm in a tea-cup
by bfr99 on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: A storm in a tea-cup"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

License agreements cut both ways: You are free to interpret license terms any way you see fit until a court with controlling jurisdiction rules otherwise.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Though the language means copying the disc. They will probably have some nasty copy protection on it anyway.

Edited 2013-11-12 08:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Donate or change instead of resell
by dulus on Tue 12th Nov 2013 08:59 UTC
dulus
Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, when we can't resell it does not mean we can't exchange used game disc by other used game disc (barter) or donate it. Any disc swapping not related to money transfer is legal. Other thing is that publisher will usually add some serial keys to game and key will be usually not transferable or locked to console where first used.

Reply Score: 2

Meh
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 12th Nov 2013 09:03 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

That's just some text (hell, don't CD/DVDs also have that printed somewhere on the cover?). Unless there is some DRM implemented to prevent that who's going to stop you?

Edited 2013-11-12 09:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Coxy
by Coxy on Tue 12th Nov 2013 10:26 UTC
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

Just don't buy their products. I don't, you won't miss much.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Coxy
by viton on Tue 12th Nov 2013 18:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by Coxy"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So, you're not using Steam as well?

Reply Score: 3

License Terms != Legal Obligation
by siraf72 on Tue 12th Nov 2013 11:40 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

Lawyers can and do put EVERYTHING they can think of covering any scenario imaginable in contracts and licensing terms. That does not make it legally binding because the terms themselves may not be legal.

It is up to Sony to attempt to enforce the terms by taking someone who violates them to court. The court then decides of there is a legal basis for enforcing the terms and if they have indeed been violated.

Most of this legalese is designed to prevent piracy of some form or another. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

Edited 2013-11-12 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 5

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

agreed. lawyers like to copy other's documents and perhaps add even more crap to it. They're inherently very lazy and like earning 400usd+ an hour rates with as little effort (but as much time) as possible. Just because a lawyer put something in there doesn't mean its legal, but they sure know how to threaten you and try to fool you into thinking it is.

Reply Score: 4

drcoldfoot Member since:
2006-08-25

Lawyers can and do put EVERYTHING they can think of covering any scenario imaginable in contracts and licensing terms. That does not make it legally binding because the terms themselves may not be legal.

It is up to Sony to attempt to enforce the terms by taking someone who violates them to court. The court then decides of there is a legal basis for enforcing the terms and if they have indeed been violated.

Most of this legalese is designed to prevent piracy of some form or another. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.



Actually, now the US government to enforce.

Check out TPP
http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

(Actually this should be it's own thread)

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

drcoldfoot,
Thank you for the link. That's very informative stuff going on behind closed doors...

It covers everything from patenting plants, to anticompetitive use of patents, to drm enforcement (ie worldwide DMCA), etc, and I only read a fraction of the document.


[US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]:
(a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms];


[AU/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/VN propose93; US/JP oppose: A Party may also provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified on the basis that the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive in a judicial [VZ/CA/MX propose: or administrative] proceeding] [AU/CL/CA/MX propose: US oppose; consistent with Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention.]


[US/AU/SG/PE/MX143 144 145 propose; MY/VN/BN/JP oppose146: (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights147 and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who: knowingly, [CL oppose: or having reasonable grounds to know]148, circumvents without [CL oppose: authority] [CL propose: authorization] any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CA/CL oppose: or other subject matter]; or


Edited 2013-11-14 22:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Let's rename it
by martini on Tue 12th Nov 2013 12:34 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Let's don't call it "resell", lets call it "extended paid sharing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA

Reply Score: 4

Storm. Teacup
by jrockey on Tue 12th Nov 2013 12:50 UTC
jrockey
Member since:
2012-11-06
RE: Storm. Teacup
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 12th Nov 2013 12:59 UTC in reply to "Storm. Teacup"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure, because a random, deletable tweet carries more weight than the actual terms you agree with.

Hey, want to buy a bridge?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Storm. Teacup
by lucas_maximus on Tue 12th Nov 2013 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Storm. Teacup"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

TBH Thom it seems you can't read.

The T&Cs talk about the software, not the physical disc ... the important word in both of your highlighted paragraphs is "Software".

Also as others have pointed out whatever equivalents there are in the EU of the "Office of fair trading" would be all over this like a rash, if they tried pushing this through.

Edited 2013-11-12 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Storm. Teacup
by thebluesgnr on Wed 13th Nov 2013 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Storm. Teacup"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

The EULA simply states you need their permission. They have given you permission multiple times.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by The123king
by The123king on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:11 UTC
The123king
Member since:
2009-05-28

I think they mean copying the software and selling burnt disks...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by The123king
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by The123king"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think they mean copying the software and selling burnt disks...


That wouldn't be written like that. It's already within copyright law that you can't just start selling copies of someone else's work, so writing it in the EULA would serve no one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by The123king
by The123king on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by The123king"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Either way, i don't think Sony is really going to enforce it like Thom believes they will. I'm all for biased FUD (heck, isn't that what OSNews is full of nowadays...) but sometimes i wonder if Thom is just trying to slag off companies for the sake of it sometimes... I mean, he stated himself that similar wording has been in the TOS for previous Playstation generations, and, correct me if i'm wrong, but the preowned market has never suffered a lawsuit or other legal action from Sony due to reselling legitimate disks.

Storms and teacups come to mind

Edited 2013-11-12 14:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Just Relax People
by sheokand on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:36 UTC
sheokand
Member since:
2013-04-23

Sony has confirmed that despite the update to the PSN Software Usage Terms, you'll still be able to resell your disc-based PS4 titles.

Shuhei Yoshida issued the following statement on Twitter

If you are concerned about our new European TOS, we confirm that you are able to sell or share your disc PS4 products, including in EU.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/12/ps4-sony-updates-psn-terms-o...

They meant to say that you cannot copy disk & than sell it.

Edited 2013-11-12 14:40 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Froyton
by Froyton on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:39 UTC
Froyton
Member since:
2013-08-29

You will still be able to resell your PS4 discs.

It's understandable that people would start to panic over hearing news like this, especially in light of all the DRM fiascoes we've seen in recent years. However, it is really being blown out of proportion.

Sony is simply describing the way it's always been, not just for games, but also for movies, books and music. You don't own the creation; only the creators/publishers own it. What you are buying is the right to use it, e.g. the physical object that allows you to use it. When you resell a movie, book, game or music cd, you aren't selling the content - you're selling your right to use the content. That's why we've read legal verbiage that states you can keep a backup copy as long as you still have the original, but if you sell the original (e.g. your right to use the content) you're legally supposed to delete your backup.

If you buy a disc, you don't own the data - you can't copy it, alter it, act like it's your own and then sell it or distribute it for free - but you do own the right to use the data, and you are free to sell that right. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will continue to be for the PS4.

I wish Sony had the foresight to have worded it better, because their opponents are just going to eat this up and use it against them.

Edited 2013-11-12 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Froyton
by Soulbender on Wed 13th Nov 2013 11:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Froyton"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe they shouldn't put it in the EULA at all since all the cases you mention are already illegal under copyright law.

Reply Score: 3

How is that news?
by toast88 on Wed 13th Nov 2013 22:27 UTC
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

I have nearly 100 Japanese Nintendo 64 games and ALL of them state with a big label on the back "For sale and use in Japan only. Rental prohibited, second hand sale not allowed."

I bought all of them used and I don't live in Japan.

So what?

Sony can write whatever they want in their TOS, they can't overrule actual law:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

Reply Score: 3

Perfect...
by s3cr3to on Thu 14th Nov 2013 01:10 UTC
s3cr3to
Member since:
2010-01-12

Perfect... reason to wait for Steam Machines.

Crapboxone and PeSsimistic4 consoles can put all the restrictions they want, but they will not see our money. Well not mine.

Reply Score: 0