Unfair/Illeagal ban of used software sales

Equaliser123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Just because something is stated in terms and conditions, doesn't make legal. I could sell you a balloon and insist in the terms and conditions that you let it go down, is that legal?

Slightly different for the licensing of intellectual property rights (which is what you buy when purchasing a game - a licence to use).

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act deals with the "exclusive" rights of the copyright owner including the right to sell, copy, distribute.

Generally they won't grant any other right than the right to use in a licence.

Flyboy152

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Slightly different for the licensing of intellectual property rights (which is what you buy when purchasing a game - a licence to use).

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act deals with the "exclusive" rights of the copyright owner including the right to sell, copy, distribute.

Generally they won't grant any other right than the right to use in a licence.

I didn't mention anything about copyright, only that just because something appears in someones terms and conditions doesn't make it legal.

Equaliser123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about copyright, only that just because something appears in someones terms and conditions doesn't make it legal.

Sure, but copyrighted work is what is being dealt with here.

If Steam permitted the use of copyrighted work in contravention of the licence terms, they could be liable for "secondary infringement" under the CDPA.

Flyboy152

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Sure, but copyrighted work is what is being dealt with here.

If Steam permitted the use of copyrighted work in contravention of the licence terms, they could be liable for "secondary infringement" under the CDPA.

I have no idea whether it would or wouldn't. :huh:

My entire remark was centred on someones assumption that just because something appears in the terms and conditions, it has to be accepted as legally enforceable.

moonrakerz

Bazman wrote: »

I cant see how preventing you from selling your own property could not be a breach of your consumer rights?

It ISN'T your property though ! You buy a licence to use that software, nothing else.

Mrs_Arcanum

And the games companies wonder why piracy is so rife. :undecided

arcon5

Bazman wrote: »

It has a key yes, which they would like you to think is just to let you use the game.

But I really doubt whether this is legal? Its like I could draw up a contract for you to kill someone but it would not be enforeceable in a court of law as they contract itself is illeagal.

Killing somebody is illegal. You forming a contract to commit crime. Ithink this would be voided by the proceeds of crime act (or whatever it is). You would also be an accessory to murder.

Selling somebody a license which permits them to play/use a game/product you designed is not illegal -- its business.

Bazman wrote: »

But how is it copyright theft? The original owner is giving up the game so there is only one copy of the game (a legitimate one) being used at any one time?

If the developers hope to sell more games this way I think they will be disappointed.

I only ever buy a new game when I know I can resell it later. If this option is taken away it just means I will buy far fewer games and none that require steam.

The game in question is Call of Duty Black ops. Based on the previous games it will take about 6 hours max to complete given an RRP of £54! That's circa £9 per hour not all that cheap when you look at the alternatives.

I mean going back to your music example. Does that mean it's illeagal for me to sell a record/tape or DVD?

But they are not, they are not giving up the game. They are giving YOU rights to use THEIR game which is protected by the copyright, designs and patent act.

By buying the game, you are buying a personal license to use the game.

What you are NOT buying is the right to distribute the game or the license you have purchased.

Bazman wrote: »

Hey DeeMarie,

I realise why they want to do it but you say it is perfectly legal. Can you point me to the stature concerned?

What?
Laws are not designed to legalise activities, they are designed to illegalise activities.
The law does not contains a long list of things you can do, it contains a list of things you CANT do.

For example, you cannot take life, you cannot take other peoples property, you cannot...ect...ect.

So its not about proving this is legal, its about proving they are doing something illegal. So what stature would the act is selling a license to use your product fall into to make this illegal?


I don't think this is in anyway affects your statutory rights. This is simply the business model games companies choose to operate. They choose to create the game then license their customers, and quite simply it works for them (otherwise they wouldn't be in business) -- if you don't like the way they operate their business, you as a consumer have the right to not use their services -- this also means you won't be able to use the product they own.
In this case you want to use the product they are offering, in which case you have to stick to the terms & conditions they place on the sale.

If their terms affect your statutory rights then breach of that term is not enforcable -- but where in this are they breaching your statutory rights?

DeeMarie89

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Just because something is stated in terms and conditions, doesn't make legal. I could sell you a balloon and insist in the terms and conditions that you let it go down, is that legal?

No, you're missing the point. I was saying that as the original buyer is pre warned in the T&C's that they cannot sell etc this license, and the fact that they have done so has negatively impacted the OP. But it's not the company that is acting illegally, it's the reseller.

Also, if your T&C's stated the balloon must be let down, and the original buyer agrees to the T&C's, then sure, it's perfectly legal.

As long as the T&C's don't encourage illegal activity, and a person agrees to them, they are bound by those T&C's.

It seems to me that the OP is just being a little sore that Steam have thwarted his attempts to buy cheap software and deprive them of their profits

paddyrg

Just to muddy the waters here, business had this problem decades ago - company A buys several server licenses for a databasing system then goes bust, liquidators needed to sell that license (not the data, but the right to run the server software that holds the data), but the system vendor objected. All tried and tested in court, and you can now trade in secondhand software licenses for most business systems quite easily.

As long as the original owner relinquishes their license (actively does so contacting the vendor and getting the key re-enabled, not just stopping using the software), you can buy it secondhand "as new". Adobe, Avid, Oracle and many others will do this. Even MS.

Now sometimes software is sold under different, non-retail licenses (academic, OEM, etc) and these licenses specifically exclude license transfer.

Now, in this case, did the vendor actually *try* getting the product key unregistered? Was the game a retail license or a limited license? If it was a retail license, they should press for the key to be unregistered to be resold. If it was a limited license (maybe a single-use lease or something), then the vendor owes you your money back, the game was never theirs to sell in the first place.

esuhl

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Slightly different for the licensing of intellectual property rights (which is what you buy when purchasing a game - a licence to use).

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act deals with the "exclusive" rights of the copyright owner including the right to sell, copy, distribute.

Generally they won't grant any other right than the right to use in a licence.

Books, CDs and paintings are defined as intellectual property rules, aren't they? So does that mean that second-hand bookshops are breaking copyright law, and that selling used CDs on eBay is unlawful?