Court ruling could kill used game business

SINNED

CAGiversary!
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/

"A federal appeals court said Friday that software makers can use shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses to forbid the transfer or resale of their wares, an apparent gutting of the so-called first-sale doctrine.

The first-sale doctrine is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows legitimate owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. That defense, the court said, is “unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works.” (.pdf)

The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, if it stands, means copyright owners may prohibit the resale of their wares by inserting clauses in their sales agreements."

welp.
 
When I first saw this headline, I immediately dismissed it as a joke. It was only after reading that this was an actual federal court decision that I continued to dismiss it as a joke.
 
If you read what it is about, it isn't really talking about games at all, it is talking about $4000+ software which typically does have a lot of restrictions already written in to what a user can do with their license of the software. While I do think it could be extended into other areas of copyright, I have a feeling that they would have more trouble trying to add this as part of a game/movie/cd/book license agreement.
 
[quote name='icebeast']If you read what it is about, it isn't really talking about games at all, it is talking about $4000+ software which typically does have a lot of restrictions already written in to what a user can do with their license of the software. While I do think it could be extended into other areas of copyright, I have a feeling that they would have more trouble trying to add this as part of a game/movie/cd/book license agreement.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

The only thing here is if it sets a precedent that other industries could try and follow. But this was really a licensing issue where some guy went to buy copies of AutoCAD that should never have been sold under the agreement.
 
[quote name='Vinny']OP, where do you see "Selling used games is now prohibited"? The court didn't say anything like that...[/QUOTE]
Exactly. This ruling has zero effect on selling used games and does not prohibit selling them in any way.
 
[quote name='blissskr']Oh no I just tried to go into GameStop and they had an out of business sign on the door lol.[/QUOTE]

Oh no I checked this topic and douchebags showed up LOL'tastic
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']Bingo.

The only thing here is if it sets a precedent that other industries could try and follow. But this was really a licensing issue where some guy went to buy copies of AutoCAD that should never have been sold under the agreement.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing in there about limiting the decision on expensive software only.
 
[quote name='SINNED']Oh no I checked this topic and douchebags showed up LOL'tastic[/QUOTE]

Oh no I checked this topic and the OP has absolutely no idea how to interpret a law, nor what it means when an appeals court makes a ruling that applies to only a handful of states IF another court doesn't reverse it's decision.
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']Oh no I checked this topic and the OP has absolutely no idea how to interpret a law, nor what it means when an appeals court makes a ruling that applies to only a handful of states IF another court doesn't reverse it's decision.[/QUOTE]

The court specifies which types of license agreements will defeat the first sale doctrine, and it pretty much applies to every EULA you see before you play any game today:

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

Applying our holding to Autodesk’s SLA,
we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an
owner of copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to
invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense.

[6] Autodesk retained title to the software and imposed
significant transfer restrictions: it stated that the license is
nontransferable, the software could not be transferred or
leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software
could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. The
SLA also imposed use restrictions against the use of the soft-
ware outside the Western Hemisphere and against modifying,
translating, or reverse-engineering the software, removing any
proprietary marks from the software or documentation, or
defeating any copy protection device. Furthermore, the SLA
provided for termination of the license upon the licensee’s
unauthorized copying or failure to comply with other license
restrictions. Thus, because Autodesk reserved title to Release
14 copies and imposed significant transfer and use restric-
tions, we conclude that its customers are licensees of their
copies of Release 14 rather than owners.

[7] CTA was a licensee rather than an “owner of a particu-
lar copy” of Release 14, and it was not entitled to resell its
Release 14 copies to Vernor under the first sale doctrine. 17
U.S.C. § 109(a). Therefore, Vernor did not receive title to the
copies from CTA and accordingly could not pass ownership
on to others. Both CTA’s and Vernor’s sales infringed
Autodesk’s exclusive right to distribute copies of its work. Id.
§ 106(3).

[8] Because Vernor was not an owner, his customers are
also not owners of Release 14 copies. Therefore, when they
install Release 14 on their computers, the copies of the soft-
ware that they make during installation infringe Autodesk’s
exclusive reproduction right because they too are not entitled
to the benefit of the essential step defense.

The court also addresses the economic arguments over the issue that mirror the arguments over the used game market:

Although our holding today is controlled by our precedent,
we recognize the significant policy considerations raised by
the parties and amici on both sides of this appeal.
Autodesk, the Software & Information Industry Associa-
tion (“SIIA”), and the Motion Picture Association of America
(“MPAA”) have presented policy arguments that favor our
result. For instance, Autodesk argues in favor of judicial
enforcement of software license agreements that restrict trans-
fers of copies of the work. Autodesk contends that this (1)
allows for tiered pricing for different software markets, such
as reduced pricing for students or educational institutions; (2)
increases software companies’ sales; (3) lowers prices for all
consumers by spreading costs among a large number of pur-
chasers; and (4) reduces the incidence of piracy by allowing
copyright owners to bring infringement actions against unau-
thorized resellers. SIIA argues that a license can exist even
where a customer (1) receives his copy of the work after mak-
ing a single payment and (2) can indefinitely possess a soft-
ware copy, because it is the software code and associated
rights that are valuable rather than the inexpensive discs on
which the code may be stored. Also, the MPAA argues that
a customer’s ability to possess a copyrighted work indefi-
nitely should not compel a finding of a first sale, because
there is often no practically feasible way for a consumer to
return a copy to the copyright owner.
Vernor, eBay, and the American Library Association
(“ALA”) have presented policy arguments against our deci-
sion. Vernor contends that our decision (1) does not vindicate
the law’s aversion to restraints on alienation of personal prop-
erty; (2) may force everyone purchasing copyrighted property
to trace the chain of title to ensure that a first sale occurred;
and (3) ignores the economic realities of the relevant transac-
tions, in which the copyright owner permanently released
software copies into the stream of commerce without expecta-
tion of return in exchange for upfront payment of the full soft-
ware price. eBay contends that a broad view of the first sale
doctrine is necessary to facilitate the creation of secondary
markets for copyrighted works, which contributes to the pub-
lic good by (1) giving consumers additional opportunities to
purchase and sell copyrighted works, often at below-retail
prices; (2) allowing consumers to obtain copies of works after
a copyright owner has ceased distribution; and (3) allowing
the proliferation of businesses.
The ALA contends that the first sale doctrine facilitates the
availability of copyrighted works after their commercial life-
span, by inter alia enabling the existence of libraries, used
bookstores, and hand-to-hand exchanges of copyrighted mate-
rials. The ALA further contends that judicial enforcement of
software license agreements, which are often contracts of
adhesion, could eliminate the software resale market, require
used computer sellers to delete legitimate software prior to
sale, and increase prices for consumers by reducing price
competition for software vendors. It contends that Autodesk’s
position (1) undermines 17 U.S.C. § 109(b)(2), which permits
non-profit libraries to lend software for non-commercial pur-
poses, and (2) would hamper efforts by non-profits to collect
and preserve out-of-print software. The ALA fears that the
software industry’s licensing practices could be adopted by
other copyright owners, including book publishers, record
labels, and movie studios.
These are serious contentions on both sides, but they do not
alter our conclusion that our precedent from Wise through the
MAI trio requires the result we reach. Congress is free, of
course, to modify the first sale doctrine and the essential step
defense if it deems these or other policy considerations to
require a different approach.

In other words they say yeah, there may be some serious economic consequences of this decision but that's not the court's problem and it will be up to Congress to fix it. This decision will only be controlling in the 9th Circuit, but it will be strong persuasive authority if the issue comes up in another circuit. So it's not going to immediately kill the used software market (like that dbag up there thought) except in the 9th Circuit but it's scary precedent for the rest of the country.
 
I second that :lol:. If this WAS true, Gamestop would be no more, plus it would make buying games way to expensive and annoying. Glad this isn't what I thought it was.

[quote name='blissskr']Oh no I just tried to go into GameStop and they had an out of business sign on the door lol.[/QUOTE]
 
The EULA in a $4,000 piece of software is incredibly different than that in a $60 video game.

They also say their ruling is "controlled by precedent", which means this isn't really anything new. You're reading way to much into this if you think this means the end of used game sales.
 
Change the thread title and maybe you wouldn't get replies like this. It's extremely misleading. This decision has absolutely next to nothing to do with the sale of used video games.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Change the thread title and maybe you wouldn't get replies like this. It's extremely misleading. This decision has absolutely next to nothing to do with the sale of used video games.[/QUOTE]

Used video games as of a few days ago? It has nothing to do with it because it wasn't stated in the EULA. Used video games with a different EULA after this ruling? Absolutely. I can see Activision or some schmucks going after Gamestop for accepting trade-ins for one of their games.
 
Source Link

A Federal Appeals court has ruled that software publishers can stop buyers from reselling software to customers.

It is no secret that game publishers are not in love with the idea of reselling used games. They typically do not see any money from those sales, and many gamers prefer to wait for a game they already plan on buying in order to save a few bucks. EA has already begun to institute a charge for gamers that buy their copies used and wish to play online, a tactic that many other companies are considering mimicking, but a new court ruling may make that a moot point.

The Dallas News is reporting that the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Vernor vs. Autodesk that software publishers have the authority to prohibit the resale of their software to another user. The ruling contradicts previous decisions have claimed that software could be resold under the “first sale doctrine.”

“The first sale doctrine has been a major bulwark in providing public access by facilitating the existence of used book and record stores, video rental stores, and, perhaps most significantly, public libraries,” R. Anthony Reese, a University of California law professor said in a 2003 statement.

Although the ruling is specifically related to computer software which has a license agreement specifically built in and spelled out in no uncertain terms, it could potentially include all electronic equipment that is sold second hand. In other words, everything from garage sales to GameStop could face shut down.

GameStop is a seller of used and new video games, but the company relies on the high margins of used game sales, which make up 31.4-percent of all the company’s sales per quarter, which equates to roughly $565.5 million. Thanks to the higher profit margins, GameStop’s used game sales make up 46-percent of the company’s gross profits, roughly $260 million per quarter.

“We hope people understand that when the game’s bought used, we get cheated,” Cory Ledesma, a creative director at THQ said in an interview with computerandvideogames.com, which was reprinted by the Dallas News.

The court case began when a seller named Timothy Vernor tried to sell copies of Autodesk’s AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed that the secondhand sale violated the software license and demanded that eBay remove the items. EBay complied, but also filed a brief on behalf of Vernor, claiming that the sale did not violate U.S. copyright laws, and that the sale of used items is vital to the economy.

“Two of the primary effects and public benefits of the first sale doctrine are increased access to, and affordability of, copyrighted works,” eBay said in its brief. “Secondary markets encourage economic efficiency by creating opportunities for buyers and sellers to exchange copies of copyrighted works at mutually satisfactory price points.”

GameStop agrees, and has claimed that the sale of used games has actually increased the purchase of new games as well, by as much as 14-percent, thanks to the in-store credit earned with the trade-ins of used games.

The ruling will face appeal, but as publisher continue to push to digital downloads that are non-transferrable, and additional fees for physical media to connect online and access all the game’s features, it may end up being something of a moot point.

Discuss.

If this is a repost, fuck, just delete it.
 
it's already been explained that Autodesk is enormously different from video games and that this ruling is going to have basically zero impact on selling used games
 
If these publishers some how some way ever get rid of the used game market, then they better sell games for 39.99 (or lower) at release.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']If these publishers some how some way ever get rid of the used game market, then they better sell games for 39.99 (or lower) at release.[/QUOTE]

Why? Because they "owe" it to customers to sell games at lower prices?
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']Why? Because they "owe" it to customers to sell games at lower prices?[/QUOTE]

Because he doesn't want to get raped unless it feels good.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']Why? Because they "owe" it to customers to sell games at lower prices?[/QUOTE]


Or maybe people aren't rich and can't afford to buy $60 games all the time and then can not get rid of them if they finish a game and have no other use for it.

It's ridiculous how video game companies are now all of a sudden all whiny pants over used games like they just suddenly appeared in the last five years. What's next? Car companies going after used car lots, because they want people to buy only new cars?
 
lol @ thread title.

[quote name='DarkNessBear']I was hoping this would be a real law forbidding GS from gutting "NEW" games. But you failed me...[/QUOTE]


wait, what? what are gutted games, I've never heard of this.
 
[quote name='ninja dog']
wait, what? what are gutted games, I've never heard of this.[/QUOTE]

GameStop generally takes at least one new copy of each game and removes the disc and manual in order to use the empty case on their shelves for display. Nothing wrong with that.

The problems arise when the only new copy of the game which is left in the store is that gutted display copy which they then proceed to sell as brand new and at full price.
 
[quote name='Fell Open Ian']GameStop generally takes at least one new copy of each game and removes the disc and manual in order to use the empty case on their shelves for display. Nothing wrong with that.

The problems arise when the only new copy of the game which is left in the store is that gutted display copy which they then proceed to sell as brand new and at full price.[/QUOTE]


they sell opened new games at new prices?? That sounds a lot like aggravated illegal robbery fraud. Somebody should contact the Better Business Bureau and have them place a citizen's arrest on all gamestop employees.
 
[quote name='KingofOldSchool']Or maybe people aren't rich and can't afford to buy $60 games all the time and then can not get rid of them if they finish a game and have no other use for it.

It's ridiculous how video game companies are now all of a sudden all whiny pants over used games like they just suddenly appeared in the last five years. What's next? Car companies going after used car lots, because they want people to buy only new cars?[/QUOTE]

Or, you could wait for price drops after a year or so and get your games then! Imagine that, waiting for things. Seems quaint nowadays, I know, but you can adjust!

And the video game companies have always hated used games. I think they simply made a judgment call now that it's worth the potential bad publicity to try to kill the used games industry, instead of stomaching vultures like Gamestop piggybacking on their profits, since the economy sucks so damn much.
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']Bingo.

The only thing here is if it sets a precedent that other industries could try and follow. But this was really a licensing issue where some guy went to buy copies of AutoCAD that should never have been sold under the agreement.[/QUOTE]

All it takes is one though then it will follow suit.

Granted this has nothing to do with used game sales (I dont think atleast) but if this goes through for high end software then all it takes now is for one other company to win a aggrement or a lawsuit and then its all downhill from there.

At this point its probablly a matter of time before it ends up trickling down to used game sales. Might be a year or 5 but Im willing to bet at some point someone will find the right situation in order to get it passed citing this case in paticullar as reasoning and it will pass.

[quote name='Fell Open Ian']GameStop generally takes at least one new copy of each game and removes the disc and manual in order to use the empty case on their shelves for display. Nothing wrong with that.

The problems arise when the only new copy of the game which is left in the store is that gutted display copy which they then proceed to sell as brand new and at full price.[/QUOTE]

Well when I questioned the store manager once about that he said its new because it wasnt put into a game system and turned on. Plus they put a little clear sticker on the side of the box that makes it new also.

And there is something wrong with gutting games if your not going to give a open box discount. A company as big as lamestop should be able to figure out how to have demo boxes for games on the shelves. I never liked the idea of someone gutting a game, throwing its contents in a drawer and then putting labels on the game box itself to put on a shelf so a couple hundred people can pick it up with their dirty hands, drop it, and drop it back on the shelf. To me, thats not new. I mean if I bought a new game, left the store and opened it, took all the stuff out, man handled the box for a little bit and took it back they wouldnt give me my money back despite me never actually playing it. Even if I did put a little clear sticker on the box after I shoved everything back in it.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']The EULA in a $4,000 piece of software is incredibly different than that in a $60 video game.

They also say their ruling is "controlled by precedent", which means this isn't really anything new. You're reading way to much into this if you think this means the end of used game sales.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they're really just talking about stuff like Pro Tools and really high end CAD stuff.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']it's already been explained that Autodesk is enormously different from video games and that this ruling is going to have basically zero impact on selling used games[/QUOTE]

EULAs THAT WILL BE CREATED AND SOLD WITH VIDEO GAMES IN THE FUTURE, MOTHERfuckER. DO YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT THEM?

It doesn't matter how much a piece of software costs. If it's in the EULA, it's in the EULA.
 
[quote name='nasum']Yeah, they're really just talking about stuff like Pro Tools and really high end CAD stuff.[/QUOTE]

You are what's wrong with America. And if you're in Canada, you are what's wrong with Canada. And if you're in Britain, that country's already wrong. And if you're an Aussie, :lol: the prisoners created a police state.
 
bread's done
Back
Top