Court ruling could impact used sales in the US?

[Mayhem]

Article here about issues selling used stuff on eBay

They can't stop people privately selling I bet... but interesting to see where this might go from here...

[suckerpunch5]

Article here about issues selling used stuff on eBay

They can't stop people privately selling I bet... but interesting to see where this might go from here...

wow.

So, developers can put an end to Game Stop's business model tomorrow if they decide to, right? Just word the EULA so that the game can't be resold. That would end the ebay reselling too.

Obviously you could still sell stuff at your garage sell, but that would be about it. Could this apply retroactively, or just to new stuff coming out now? I don't think it could apply retroactively, because it isn't part of the original terms under which the item was purchased.

[Bandicat]

This whole EULA thing is really starting to get out of control. What's next? A EULA to purchase and use a trash can?

If someone purchases a physical item, that item becomes their property. This does not give someone the right to start making copies of the item, however they should have the right to resell it without any interference. I can do this with a TV, a piece of furniture, a car, a lawnmower, a house, a book, a piece of clothing, etc.

Why should digital media get some kind of magic pass, because they decide to arbitrarely slap some long boring words on a product and call it a EULA? No company should get to dictate what I legitametly do with a purchased product.

[Bandicat]

Edit: Getting rid of double post created by timeout weirdness.

[s1lence]

With all the money that Ebay, Gamestop etc have in this business I have a feeling that this will end up being appealed again to a even higher court and will most likely be tied up in the court system for quite a while.

[Fuyukaze]

Doesnt EA already have something simular in their agreement? Personaly, I'd have no issue with this if companies would put all the agreements on the box. Rather then forcing people to buy the stuff before seeing the agreement, put it on the box upfront where people can see it before they even leave the store.

Still, this is going to cause lots of trouble down the road and I'm interested in seeing the next batch of [a]RIAA[/s] EULA court cases. I cant help but wonder how many grandmothers, invilids, and 9 year olds software companies will go after in their persuit of [s]money[/s] property rights protection.

[TonyTheTiger]

A couple of things. This decision is only binding in the Ninth Circuit at the moment. Whether or not other circuits (or even the Supreme Court should it get that far) follow suit remains to be seen.

Second, the three part test the court lays out is really interesting.

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

Parts 2 and 3 look damn near indistinguishable.

The article acknowledges that simply calling something a license doesn't make it so but it seems like the Ninth Circuit is saying that all that is required beyond calling it a license is having some lockout in place. That sounds really brazen considering the lockouts are pretty much omnipresent in any asserted license. Who's going to say something is only a license but not also tie in use restrictions? I feel like, from a practical standpoint, they're inseparable.

I don't think this is over.

[Icarus Moonsight]

This crap is hilarious. Media Fascists everywhere recently!

[skaar]

Eventually, media companies are going to need to accept that people are paying for convenience and to support the product's makers - not because they have to. They want to ensure that you DO have to.

In this case, AutoCAD charges you X dollars a year to license their software and includes support.... or you can buy it outright at a greater cost. Microsoft's done the same thing for years with all of their licensing models. This wasn't a retail copy of the software the guy was reselling (at least that's what I gather based on the ruling)

The pro of this model means you get free updates, support, and ongoing software development means you get new versions usually for free. So if you go "Ok we need Autocad for 5 people and it will cost us 10k a year" it's easy to budget and you don't have to worry about paying for support, etc.

Physical product WILL eventually be retired by the software/games industry and all of these brick and mortal stores will fall by the wayside. It's just a matter of when. And really, it sucks for us as gamers and collectors.

Thankfully it does work the other way. Buyers not adopting new technology or new product hurts sales, and companies are forced to re-evaluate.

Unfortunately for all of us, the Halos and the Maddens in this world have far more dollar sway than the niche titles - they have to go along with the big boys.

[bohproper]

i don't think this is really possibly. this will be tied up in litigation for the next ten years until the courts decide against this

[God-Zilla]

I guess they are going for the 1/10th left over from the 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' ? and what if I choose not to read their eula?

[Ro-J]

But can I still give it away? Maybe as a bonus "throw-in" with an old plastic jewel case I'd sell for $50 or so.

[portnoyd]

I'm sure this appeal will be appealed and overturned. Whatever this case decides will be stalled and rot in bureaucracy for the long haul and not have any effect.

[GarrettCRW]

I'm sure this appeal will be appealed and overturned. Whatever this case decides will be stalled and rot in bureaucracy for the long haul and not have any effect.

The next level is the Supreme Court. I'd be shocked if the Roberts Court decided in favor of the consumer.

[kedawa]

It could still be overturned without going to the SC, and it very well might given the laughably outdated precedents sited in the decision.
Still, it's scary that it's gotten this far out of hand.

[JSoup]

What I'm not understanding is if this is retroactive. If Nintendo up and says 'no resales FOREVER' does that apply to everything they ever made, from the newest Wii releases to the earliest NES game?

In any case, this seems like it's going to encourage piracy in the long run.

[buzz_n64]

Don't Copy That Floppy (Official Video - Digitally Remastered)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

[kedawa]

Why would this be retroactive? You can't add an EULA or amend one after the product has been sold.
That's just an absurd notion to even consider.

[Icarus Moonsight]

You give the people that run things way to much credit, assuming they are working rationally. They do not care about your objections based on fairness to contract stipulations applied after-the-fact. Unless, you can "change" their minds through their wallets or campaign funds, of course. They are sure open to that persuasion, you just have to outbid/outbribe copyright holders...

It makes me laugh, because the only people that would see the MPAAs "Downloading is stealing" campaign are the people who bought the legit copy of the movie... The pirate copies go to a more/less crap menu or right to the feature. I love the pirated DVDs for those releases that were choked with preachy BS like that or front-loaded with non-skip-able previews...

I swear, Copyleft content is going to kill Copyright, someday. Copyright just has to get more pushy and bloated so even the talent runs away screaming.

[Porksta]

I guess they are going for the 1/10th left over from the 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' ? and what if I choose not to read their eula?

Then that would be your own fault.

But can I still give it away? Maybe as a bonus "throw-in" with an old plastic jewel case I'd sell for $50 or so.

Pobably not as in my mind that is the same thing as transferring it.