It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Games licensed and not sold(58 posts)(58 posts)
(58 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 13, 2012
I have no common sense or knowledge on this topic but I will berate those smarter than me for trying to help! Bastards!

/ugh
Posted February 13, 2012
EULAs always seemslike a rather over-complicated puzzle of words to me. So the license for using a programme is sold, but the programme itself is not sold, but for everybody this means more or less that you own this copy of the programme and can use it as much as you want, because the license basically is not limited in any way except for personal use.

This can be brought even to philosophical levels: Is a license a good? Can goods be licensed? Where is the limit to all this?

The most important question seems to be if the lifetime of the license is bound to GOG's existence? Do contracts automatically die, if one partner goes out of business? I guess not. The contract will exist forever, only the dead site will cease to contribute to it. But since you don't need GOG, it doesn't matter here.

So GOG gamers buy unenforced, lifelong, personal usage permissions of certain programmes without any guarantee whatsorever.

Anyway I will pass them on to my children. They can do ... if they want, but I'll happily breach their terms. Anyway they can never prove me I didn't bought the license.
Post edited February 13, 2012 by Trilarion
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
mg1979: I really doubt it is so. License is personal, when you buy a boxed game you can borrow it, rent it or sell it. The same you can't do with GOG games (or any other digital distributor I guess)

My question was, will the license have still value if GOG runs out of business? I guess so, as long as you have the receipt of the payment. If it wasn't so I'd rather start a war instead of renouncing to something I paid for. But what if, like the other guy said, you're bound to keep the receipt only for a limited period of time? In that case you could say you owned the receipt once and trashed it. Then there wouldn't be any difference between legally purchased games and not. That's what still makes me think there could be problems if GOG runs out of business.
By "bound to keep the licence for 7 years" he means the law requires you to keep that receipt for that period of time at the minimum. This does NOT mean that after 7 years the receipts are not valid NOR does it mean that the law requires you to discard receipts after that period of time. I am fairly confident that the mental and logical reasoning skills of the human race (at least those that buy products and software online) will mean that everyone will continue to keep the receipts for their digital purchases long after the minimum period required by law is over.

Secondly, well the thing is, you NEVER own software. The agreement that comes with all software (except maybe open source software) explicitly mentions that the software is licensed to you and that you do not own it. Thus, regardless of whether GOG is operating or not, or even whether you buy from GOG or not, you DO NOT own your software. It is just a license (exceptions may be open source software as previously stated).
Post edited February 13, 2012 by abolat
Posted February 13, 2012
Before everybody gets the blues, I just want to say that what we currently have is far from the legal "end state" on software and digital trading.

A lot is happening at the moment in this field, there are several issues and problems with the way software companies (especially Steam) use their rights and how consumer rights are affected.

We might see a lot of changes in the near future, especially in Europe.
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
mg1979: I really doubt it is so. License is personal, when you buy a boxed game you can borrow it, rent it or sell it. The same you can't do with GOG games (or any other digital distributor I guess)
Also, in reference to "I really doubt it is so. License is personal, when you buy a boxed game you can borrow it, rent it or sell it. The same you can't do with GOG games (or any other digital distributor I guess) ", it doesn't matter what you think it is or it is not. The fact that you have the physical media does not make it legal to trade or rent (and even sometimes resell a game or software, though the area of reselling is often debated and varies from software to software; e.g. Microsoft Windows OS) your software. I know the End User License Agreements are generally too long for many people to bother, but if you read it (I mean actually read and not skim over it to get to the end so that the "I have read and agree to the terms of use" check-box becomes available (for more recent software)) you will see that the software you buy is licensed in both cases- physical and digital media have the same licenses.

The fact of the matter is that it was easier for people to lend, borrow, rent, sell physical media and the concept of licensed use was not very readily accepted by people because they could not comprehend why lending the DVD/CD (etc) they bought to their friend should be wrong or against the terms of use- but it is; unless if you bought a corporate or mult-user license (and this it self should be enough to point out that you do not own the software but the license to it and the license is between you and the company and no one else. With the increase in digital download services and digital software, the reality of the licenses began to become more apparent, that is all. So you are right, it is personal, which is exactly why you cannot trade, rent, borrow or lend software legally.
Post edited February 13, 2012 by abolat
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: Also, in reference to "I really doubt it is so. License is personal, when you buy a boxed game you can borrow it, rent it or sell it. The same you can't do with GOG games (or any other digital distributor I guess) ", it doesn't matter what you think it is or it is not. The fact that you have the physical media does not make it legal to trade or rent (and even sometimes resell a game or software, though the area of reselling is often debated and varies from software to software; e.g. Microsoft Windows OS) your software. I know the End User License Agreements are generally too long for many people to bother, but if you read it (I mean actually read and not skim over it to get to the end so that the "I have read and agree to the terms of use" check-box becomes available (for more recent software)) you will see that the software you buy is licensed in both cases- physical and digital media have the same licenses.

The fact of the matter is that it was easier for people to lend, borrow, rent, sell physical media and the concept of licensed use was not very readily accepted by people because they could not comprehend why lending the DVD/CD (etc) they bought to their friend should be wrong or against the terms of use- but it is; unless if you bought a corporate or mult-user license (and this it self should be enough to point out that you do not own the software but the license to it and the license is between you and the company and no one else. With the increase in digital download services and digital software, the reality of the licenses began to become more apparent, that is all. So you are right, it is personal, which is exactly why you cannot trade, rent, borrow or lend software legally.
It may not be the case everywhere, but I do remember there are provisions specifically for lending a DVD/CD/VideoGame to a close friend or family member. Regardless of the terms of use, 'personal' does extend to people close to you - You don't have to buy the same DVD for every people in your home to watch it together (but you still can't use it in two different places at the same time). If you want lending it in other situations, then either you need a different license (games/DVD renting) or it's covered by another exception (library).
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: By "bound to keep the licence for 7 years" he means the law requires you to keep that receipt for that period of time at the minimum. This does NOT mean that after 7 years the receipts are not valid NOR does it mean that the law requires you to discard receipts after that period of time. I am fairly confident that the mental and logical reasoning skills of the human race (at least those that buy products and software online) will mean that everyone will continue to keep the receipts for their digital purchases long after the minimum period required by law is over.
I don't know what this law exactly says, but if a minimum is stated, this means to me that after this period of time the receipt becomes unimportant to prove you've bought the software. If you always need the receipt to prove that, why to set a minimum? I don't think laws are interested in logical reasoning skills, if they set a minimum, it means that after that you can trash the receipt with no consequences, whatever a reasonable person will do with his receipts. But again GOG's software without a receipt is the same as without. There's not even a warning in the EULA or in the site (afaik) that tells you you need to keep your receipts or the game's ownership cannot be proven.

Am I wrong?
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: The fact that you have the physical media does not make it legal to trade or rent (and even sometimes resell a game or software, though the area of reselling is often debated and varies from software to software; e.g. Microsoft Windows OS) your software.
There's plenty of unenforceable crap in user agreements that publishers put in to test their luck. That's basically what the severability clause is for - preventing the whole agreement from being brought down by invalid clauses. I know the first-sale doctrine has been pretty much whittled down to nothing in the US, but in Europe there is a clear difference drawn between digitally distributed software and packaged software.

The ban on resale has been struck down several times before in Germany.

Just because a publisher says in an EULA that the resale or lending of a game is not permitted does not mean that a court of law will uphold that.
Post edited February 13, 2012 by jamyskis
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: The fact that you have the physical media does not make it legal to trade or rent (and even sometimes resell a game or software, though the area of reselling is often debated and varies from software to software; e.g. Microsoft Windows OS) your software.
avatar
jamyskis: There's plenty of unenforceable crap in user agreements that publishers put in to test their luck. That's basically what the severability clause is for - preventing the whole agreement from being brought down by invalid clauses. I know the first-sale doctrine has been pretty much whittled down to nothing in the US, but in Europe there is a clear difference drawn between digitally distributed software and packaged software.

The ban on resale has been struck down several times before in Germany.

Just because a publisher says in an EULA that the resale or lending of a game is not permitted does not mean that a court of law will uphold that.
Germany is usually the odd one out in these things, sadly. I wish it were the same everywhere, but it isn't. I love how Germany is going about its digital software and consumer rights. More should follow suit. However, the fact of the matter is that the EULA states that resale or lending of games is not permitted, just as it states that copying, reproducing and distributing copies of the software is restricted. I find it difficult to understand why any objective and fair court would allow restriction of one type mentioned on the EULA and not allow another.

Also, sure, maybe you would be able to take it to court should a software company send you a letter demanding a high sum of money for lending your game/software to your friend or whatever, but the outcome would not be clear from the start. It would be good to know though :)
avatar
abolat: By "bound to keep the licence for 7 years" he means the law requires you to keep that receipt for that period of time at the minimum. This does NOT mean that after 7 years the receipts are not valid NOR does it mean that the law requires you to discard receipts after that period of time. I am fairly confident that the mental and logical reasoning skills of the human race (at least those that buy products and software online) will mean that everyone will continue to keep the receipts for their digital purchases long after the minimum period required by law is over.
avatar
mg1979: I don't know what this law exactly says, but if a minimum is stated, this means to me that after this period of time the receipt becomes unimportant to prove you've bought the software. If you always need the receipt to prove that, why to set a minimum? I don't think laws are interested in logical reasoning skills, if they set a minimum, it means that after that you can trash the receipt with no consequences, whatever a reasonable person will do with his receipts. But again GOG's software without a receipt is the same as without. There's not even a warning in the EULA or in the site (afaik) that tells you you need to keep your receipts or the game's ownership cannot be proven.

Am I wrong?
If a minimum is stated, that is how long you are required by law to hold the receipt. After that period is over, you are not required to hold that receipt (by law). That doesn't mean to say that the document is worthless as proof. If it were, it would say something like "receipts should be held for 7 years after which they should be discarded as they will not be considered valid proofs of purchase". the periods are placed there based on how long the law thinks that products would need proofs of purchase (cases of warranty for example) and is a generalized figure. Under what logic did you come by the conclusion that a proof of purchase would no longer be valid after the legal MINIMUM period of keeping that proof is over? If it were a MAXIMUM, then yes, I would totally agree with you (i.e. if the law stated "proofs of purchase must be held for a maximum of 7 years" then yes it would imply and most certainly be followed by a statement saying that the said proof would no longer be valid after that period). This is a minimum not a maximum
Post edited February 13, 2012 by abolat
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
kavazovangel: Or if GOG goes down and you haven't downloaded the games. :p
Well they're not going to do that (again) are they? :)
Posted February 13, 2012
I frequently see people pointing out that you can only purchase a license to use a game. Alright, so you cannot buy a game. But what does that even mean? Can someone give me a definition of "buying a game"?
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
kavazovangel: Or if GOG goes down and you haven't downloaded the games. :p
That's an interesting thing with downloadable "purchases", people often don't fetch them right away.

How often to you go to the store, pay, and leave with the intention to pick your groceries up later? I generally download my stuff right away, if I don't and loose the ability to do so later, I only have myself to blame.
avatar
spindown: But what does that even mean? Can someone give me a definition of "buying a game"?
That would mean having full access (legally) to do pretty much whatever you want with it (within the bounds of the law, of course)- modify the game, sell your modification, sell copies of the full game. As if you bought a table, studied how it was built, made copies (perhaps with a slight modification to show it off as "your design"), then sold those copies - which you are allowed to do. You own the table, not merely a license to use it.
Post edited February 13, 2012 by Miaghstir
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
spindown: I frequently see people pointing out that you can only purchase a license to use a game. Alright, so you cannot buy a game. But what does that even mean? Can someone give me a definition of "buying a game"?
It's the old book vs. contents difference. You buy a book, you get to read the contents. You did not buy the contents: you bought only a license to use the contents. You receive only the right to use the contents within the scope of fair use and any rights you were explicitly granted. You cannot copy it and sell or even give away the copies; you cannot revise it and pass it off as your own.
Post edited February 13, 2012 by cjrgreen
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: If a minimum is stated, that is how long you are required by law to hold the receipt. After that period is over, you are not required to hold that receipt (by law). That doesn't mean to say that the document is worthless as proof. If it were, it would say something like "receipts should be held for 7 years after which they should be discarded as they will not be considered valid proofs of purchase". the periods are placed there based on how long the law thinks that products would need proofs of purchase (cases of warranty for example) and is a generalized figure. Under what logic did you come by the conclusion that a proof of purchase would no longer be valid after the legal MINIMUM period of keeping that proof is over? If it were a MAXIMUM, then yes, I would totally agree with you (i.e. if the law stated "proofs of purchase must be held for a maximum of 7 years" then yes it would imply and most certainly be followed by a statement saying that the said proof would no longer be valid after that period). This is a minimum not a maximum
I don't mean that the receipt wouldn't be valid anymore after 7 years, but that it wouldn't be necessary anymore. If 7 years have passed after a game has been released, you could say that you bought it 7 years before, held the receipt 7 years and then trashed it. If a minimum is set, after which you can't be blamed, that's what you can do. At that point how could you distinguish a game legitimately bought from a copy? You couldn't.
Posted February 13, 2012
avatar
abolat: If a minimum is stated, that is how long you are required by law to hold the receipt. After that period is over, you are not required to hold that receipt (by law). That doesn't mean to say that the document is worthless as proof. If it were, it would say something like "receipts should be held for 7 years after which they should be discarded as they will not be considered valid proofs of purchase". the periods are placed there based on how long the law thinks that products would need proofs of purchase (cases of warranty for example) and is a generalized figure. Under what logic did you come by the conclusion that a proof of purchase would no longer be valid after the legal MINIMUM period of keeping that proof is over? If it were a MAXIMUM, then yes, I would totally agree with you (i.e. if the law stated "proofs of purchase must be held for a maximum of 7 years" then yes it would imply and most certainly be followed by a statement saying that the said proof would no longer be valid after that period). This is a minimum not a maximum
avatar
mg1979: I don't mean that the receipt wouldn't be valid anymore after 7 years, but that it wouldn't be necessary anymore. If 7 years have passed after a game has been released, you could say that you bought it 7 years before, held the receipt 7 years and then trashed it. If a minimum is set, after which you can't be blamed, that's what you can do. At that point how could you distinguish a game legitimately bought from a copy? You couldn't.
a fair point ^^
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Games licensed and not sold(58 posts)(58 posts)
(58 posts)