Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 19:15 UTC, submitted by tupp
Thread beginning with comment 525048
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The ruling is useless without enforcement. You can’t resell DLC from console stores for example, because it's all DRMed and tied to your account. All the console vendors are breaking this law, they know it, and they don’t have to do a thing about it. It wouldn’t be doable anyway, they’d have to remove all DRM to allow you to sell your purchases openly and that would "enable piracy" :|
It wouldn’t be doable anyway, they’d have to remove all DRM to allow you to sell your purchases openly and that would "enable piracy" :|
I don't think that's true. Steam allows me to buy something and tie it to my account. It allows me to gift things to others. How hard is it really to remove something from my account and send it to others? The DRM could still be in place. Better yet, the provider could potentially charge a service fee for the resale.
The ruling is useless without enforcement. You can’t resell DLC from console stores for example, because it's all DRMed and tied to your account. All the console vendors are breaking this law, they know it
You are confusing things. This ruling clearly states that it is all about EULAs: you cannot deny people the ability to sell the software after you're done with it simply by slapping such a clause in the EULA, it does absolutely not say that the software must be possible to be transferred to someone else. In other words if the DRM makes it impossible to sell the thing then you're still sh*t out of luck and there is nothing illegal with that, there is nothing to enforce!
You've got it wrong (unfortunately, I must add). From the ruling:
Moreover, a copyright holder such as Oracle is entitled, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from his website, to ensure by all technical means at his disposal that the copy is made unusable.
In other words: the user of the software is entitled to sell the software without fear of violating the EULA (law trumps EULA), but the vendor on his turn is in his right to do everything possible to make this as difficult as possible, by technical means. This has NOT changed. What HAS changed is that vendors are no longer able to take the legal course and sue those that resell.
This ruling is analogue to the law (at least in Europe) that permits the reverse engineering of software. One can do everything they want to reverse engineer a piece of software for the sake of compatibility, but the vendor does not have to facilitate this by any means whatsoever.





Member since:
2005-12-04
...will online distribution services have to be changed to allow for resale, or will they actively try to prevent it with technical measures? Somehow I'm suspecting the latter, so the question becomes how far the courts will go in really enforcing this ruling.