Aren’t non-transferable licenses basically illegal or void in the US because they violate the First-Sale-Doctrine though? Or perhaps it does not apply to digital products and that is how Valve applies it to Steam accounts?
As far as I am aware, most of the game and sofrware companies get around it by stating you’re no longer buying a thing, but buying a non-transferrable licence to use the thing but you never actually own anything.
Microsoft, yes but they use the wording to buy windows license for example. Game companies still use wording “buy” game. Unless they change the purchase wording, I, as a consumer, am assuming I am buying a copy of the game I can play indefinitely while I own the game.
Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):
If you’re selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:
buy (ex. Buy now, buy today, etc)
purchase (ex. purchase now, purchase today, purchase to play, etc)
Own (ex. Own today, own and play today, etc)
Copy (ex. Get your copy today, your copy is waiting, we have your copy waiting, etc)
Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:
Renting
Licensing
Borrowing
Leasing
Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.
However, no one has taken the companies that started doing that to task, and now even companies like John Deer have been pulling that shit.
Hell, Monsanto actually took farmers to court on that principle for growing crops that had been naturally cross pollinated with “their” GMO crops using that principle.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am stating what we have allowed the rich fucks to get away with.
Licences are different than physical goods.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”, and the new owner can do as they like, except for the exceptions made for copyright.
With a licensed thing, it’s closer to a rental. Just because you rented the tool doesn’t mean you can sell it, and it doesn’t mean that the rental company is obligated to let your next of kin keep using it.
This goes double for things like digital media, because the rental company is also the one who has actual possession of the thing. They’re not taking anything, they’re just not giving someone they never did business with access to it.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”,
A use-right is also a thing that can be sold and for which stuff like the first sale doctrine applies. Possession and property of the use right is all yours, even if it does not include the right to make additional copies, that is, to sublicense.
At least that’s how it works over here, always has. You can get perfectly valid Windows Pro keys here on the cheap, there’s a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and the like and unbundling them. If Microsoft can’t stop that then Valve won’t, either.
I’m sure someone will challenge it in the EU then at some point.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
Valve and gog have the same policy. I’m fairly confident that both of them didn’t decide to violate the law in the same way that’s also consistent with how other digital licensing arrangements work without consulting with some lawyers on their user agreements.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
That’s maybe a service that you can’t transfer but it’s still holding property of the account holder. More like escrow.
As to lawyers, well, they aren’t hiring lawyers to follow the intent of the law but to write terms that they think they might get away with, at least for a while, and if not, not be nailed for fraud or such. Corporate lawyers are just as slimy in the EU as they are elsewhere.
The lawyers are definitely there to protect the company. No lawyer is ever there to follow the intent of the law, because it’s the letter that matters in almost every circumstance.
Knowingly adding an illegal term to the terms of the agreement is a great way to not only fail to protect the company, because the entire thing might get tossed out, but to risk professional consequences.
Even the Microsoft terms of service say “non-transferable unless you’re in Germany or other EU jurisdiction where such clauses are unenforceable”.
So I’ve spent a few minutes trying to see what the internet thinks, and it looks like there’s not a clear consensus that the First-Sale-Doctrine applies to non-physical goods similarly to physical ones, and does seem to be a consensus that digital goods make it a lot messier. Seems like the law hasn’t caught up to technology, still.
And in absence of clear law, it makes sense that companies are making their own opinions, and unfortunate that some are being greedier than they could be.
More like the technology hasn’t caught up to the law. There certainly isn’t a consensus that the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply to digital goods, and should never be because that’s absolutely wrong.
Neither am I lol.
Aren’t non-transferable licenses basically illegal or void in the US because they violate the First-Sale-Doctrine though? Or perhaps it does not apply to digital products and that is how Valve applies it to Steam accounts?
As far as I am aware, most of the game and sofrware companies get around it by stating you’re no longer buying a thing, but buying a non-transferrable licence to use the thing but you never actually own anything.
Microsoft, yes but they use the wording to buy windows license for example. Game companies still use wording “buy” game. Unless they change the purchase wording, I, as a consumer, am assuming I am buying a copy of the game I can play indefinitely while I own the game.
Its in the standard terms of service now for the big AAA publishers.
Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):
If you’re selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:
Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:
Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.
Yes. Absolutely.
However, no one has taken the companies that started doing that to task, and now even companies like John Deer have been pulling that shit.
Hell, Monsanto actually took farmers to court on that principle for growing crops that had been naturally cross pollinated with “their” GMO crops using that principle.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am stating what we have allowed the rich fucks to get away with.
deleted by creator
More commonly called “blatantly lying.”
Licences are different than physical goods.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”, and the new owner can do as they like, except for the exceptions made for copyright.
With a licensed thing, it’s closer to a rental. Just because you rented the tool doesn’t mean you can sell it, and it doesn’t mean that the rental company is obligated to let your next of kin keep using it.
This goes double for things like digital media, because the rental company is also the one who has actual possession of the thing. They’re not taking anything, they’re just not giving someone they never did business with access to it.
Sounds like something the FTC should make illegal. Someone should start revoking licenses of politicians. See how fast that law changes
A use-right is also a thing that can be sold and for which stuff like the first sale doctrine applies. Possession and property of the use right is all yours, even if it does not include the right to make additional copies, that is, to sublicense.
At least that’s how it works over here, always has. You can get perfectly valid Windows Pro keys here on the cheap, there’s a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and the like and unbundling them. If Microsoft can’t stop that then Valve won’t, either.
I’m sure someone will challenge it in the EU then at some point.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
Valve and gog have the same policy. I’m fairly confident that both of them didn’t decide to violate the law in the same way that’s also consistent with how other digital licensing arrangements work without consulting with some lawyers on their user agreements.
That’s maybe a service that you can’t transfer but it’s still holding property of the account holder. More like escrow.
As to lawyers, well, they aren’t hiring lawyers to follow the intent of the law but to write terms that they think they might get away with, at least for a while, and if not, not be nailed for fraud or such. Corporate lawyers are just as slimy in the EU as they are elsewhere.
I don’t know what to tell you beyond “in the US, not all licenses are transferable”. Different countries have different laws.
It’s a pretty well trod area of law, so it’s not really contentious that it’s a legal license term in the US.
https://www.shadesofgraylaw.com/2009/12/14/cant-transfer-this/ is an example. It’s less tested for consumers.
The lawyers are definitely there to protect the company. No lawyer is ever there to follow the intent of the law, because it’s the letter that matters in almost every circumstance.
Knowingly adding an illegal term to the terms of the agreement is a great way to not only fail to protect the company, because the entire thing might get tossed out, but to risk professional consequences.
Even the Microsoft terms of service say “non-transferable unless you’re in Germany or other EU jurisdiction where such clauses are unenforceable”.
But isn’t piracy exactly identical to stealing? I’m sure I have seen advertising saying so.
So I’ve spent a few minutes trying to see what the internet thinks, and it looks like there’s not a clear consensus that the First-Sale-Doctrine applies to non-physical goods similarly to physical ones, and does seem to be a consensus that digital goods make it a lot messier. Seems like the law hasn’t caught up to technology, still.
And in absence of clear law, it makes sense that companies are making their own opinions, and unfortunate that some are being greedier than they could be.
More like the technology hasn’t caught up to the law. There certainly isn’t a consensus that the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply to digital goods, and should never be because that’s absolutely wrong.