Live data from Hacker News

French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

vg247.com

81–90 of 178 posts

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#81
post #66
post #44

Sensible but not surprising decision. The right to resell software was made incredibly clear in the CJEU case Oracle v UsedSoft . In fact, how did Steam manage for so long to ignore the pivotal case law?

Steam? How about pretty much every digital storefront? You can't sell prime movies, you can't sell iTunes music and so on. All of these store fronts should ideally allow people to resell all digital content they purchased.

Why should? The whole idea of copyright is that only the author (or otherwise copyright holder) can profit from making copies. Just because you purchased a copy yourself shouldn't automatically result in a right to making another copy for someone else as long as you promise not to use yours.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#82
post #5

I can't imagine Valve won't find some loophole or way around this. Being able to resell digital games would destroy that economy. A possible outcome would be games in France are never on sale and they can only be traded within the French Steam economy. Can Valve still take a cut of all sales on their platform or add fees? Very curious how this turns out, but I feel like it's 50/50 whether this makes things better or…

Destroy the economy is a gross exaggeration. Game sales over time generally resemble a power distribution. Most sales happen within the first week or so, then sales follow a steep drop-off. There are of course exceptions in the indie game community, but AAA publishes build up to a tidal wave of marketing for release day, then things kind of simmer down. So a second hand market would cut into the tail-profits. Certain…

It's a toss up whether I want money going to the dev or publisher rather than someone selling their game. With the way that prices drop drastically, sometimes not even a few months after, I'm fine with the current model. The only thing I'd really want changed is a more permanent way of keeping games like GOG.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#84
> and isn’t required to pay recurring payments in order to maintain access

Simple solution: make French users pay recurring fees. Problem solved?

EDIT: would be nice if I could prune my library and perhaps swap some games. But what about other marketplaces and other stores? Why only Steam?

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#86

If steam loses this case, what is to stop someone to ask the same of app stores and reselling apps you have purchased, or eg movies on iTunes.

Nothing, I would imagine.

...which seems to me like a good thing.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#87
Surprised to see so much sentiment against this ruling. Digital software sale and distribution is just supposed to make software management easier and faster. A license is the same regardless of wether it's physical or digital. Why shouldn't this apply to resale of said merchandise?

I rarely say this- but the French really make a ton of sense here.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#88
post #48

With laws like this you generally have to ask what's best for the consumer. I'm not sure reselling is. The current setup gives game developers a somewhat predictable revenue model and on the strength of that model they can encourage investors to put up money to make the games. Changing the revenue model may change how investors look at the market. Maybe for better maybe for worse. Who knows, but it would be a disrupt…

Steam would get ts cut on reselling, and it might give devs/pubs a share. Right now, customers are less and less for traditional single player games.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#89

> and isn’t required to pay recurring payments in order to maintain access Simple solution: make French users pay recurring fees. Problem solved? EDIT: would be nice if I could prune my library and perhaps swap some games. But what about other marketplaces and other stores? Why only Steam?

If Valve prefers not selling games in the EU to implementing a way to sell second hand games, sure.

Remember that the French court is referencing EU law. This basically means that the practice is forbidden across the entire EU based on current jurisdiction.

It's possible for Valve to introduce pay-as-you-go games, but doing so would probably violate the contract under which previously sold games were sold. This means that they still need some way to allow customers to either resell or download and resell the old games regardless of whether they will charge a fee to their users or not.

They might also undo the sale of the old game, assuming the customer agrees to do that, and give back the entire paid amount spent on the platform in exchange for removing the old games. This would be a huge financial loss to the company and would only be possible if all customers agree to getting their money back.

If they do charge a fee, they should expect their consumer base in Europe to shrink significantly.

If Steam wants to appeal, they might be able to put the case in front of an EU judge. This will cost them even more legal fees and is likely to end in the same result. Reselling digital goods is allowed in the EU and Valve (as well as other companies like it) are breaking the law.

In my opinion, just following the law would be a better choice commercially than trying to work around it.

Re: French high court rules that Steam can’t ban users from reselling digital games

#90
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam? How about pretty much every digital storefront? You can't sell prime movies, you can't sell iTunes music and so on. All of these store fronts should ideally allow people to resell all digital content they purchased.

Why should? The whole idea of copyright is that only the author (or otherwise copyright holder) can profit from making copies. Just because you purchased a copy yourself shouldn't automatically result in a right to making another copy for someone else as long as you promise not to use yours.

I know, people here are demanding that after you fill up at an all you can eat buffet, you should be allowed to sell your seat to somebody else.
Post reply on HN