Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 19:15 UTC, submitted by tupp
Legal In the Used Soft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. case, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled today that it is okay to resell software, regardless of clauses in the software license. This is a pretty big deal, and further affirms that a software license is not necessarily binding. Great news for European consumers.
Thread beginning with comment 525052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Two outcomes...
by Kroc on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "Two outcomes..."
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

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" :|

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Two outcomes...
by malxau on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 22:19 in reply to "RE: Two outcomes..."
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Two outcomes...
by WereCatf on Wed 4th Jul 2012 02:20 in reply to "RE: Two outcomes..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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!

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Two outcomes...
by Carewolf on Wed 4th Jul 2012 12:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Two outcomes..."
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

It doesn't have to be possible, but it does make it illegal to prevent it. So if you can prove a technical hindrance was made for the explicit purpose of breaking the law, well then that is illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Two outcomes...
by LB06 on Wed 4th Jul 2012 09:11 in reply to "RE: Two outcomes..."
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 4