Unfair/Illeagal ban of used software sales

geordieracer

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Please point to where I have referenced anything about buying or selling software?

How many more times do I have to write it? Just because something is in the terms and conditions, doesn't automatically make it enforceable.

That is true with regards to UNFAIR terms and conditions. In this instance these are not unfair as they are protecting the rights of the creator of the product to prevent piracy which is against the law is it not?

shaun_from_Africa

Shoot me down if I am wrong or it has been said before but doesn't the Sale of Goods act's implied terms state that the seller must be authorised to sell the goods? And does this not apply to private sellers too?

That's correct, but the seller did have the right to sell the disk (the hardware), but they didn't have the right to transfer the licence agreement.
When buying most DVD's, CD's or software, you are buying the disk but not the data stored on it.

Dave_C_2

This buying a licence stuff is just so much BS and perpetuating a myth from the games companies. If you buy a game from Amazon, where is the blurb that warns you that you are only buying a single licence?

For example, all it says on my copy of Bioshock is "Internet connection is required to activate the game" (OK I did buy it after the DRM was removed)

Finding out about excessive restrictions at installation time is no good because Amazon won't accept returns of games etc. that have been opened. This makes the SOGA interesting as conditions are being imposed after the sale.

As for the CD and DVD licence bit, there is nothing to stop the legal second-hand market of CDs DVDs, yet the record and movie companies don't try and stop this.

The words "corporate" and "greed" spring to mind.

geordieracer

Dave_C wrote: »

This buying a licence stuff is just so much BS and perpetuating a myth from the games companies. If you buy a game from Amazon, where is the blurb that warns you that you are only buying a single licence?

For example, all it says on my copy of Bioshock is "Internet connection is required to activate the game" (OK I did buy it after the DRM was removed)

Finding out about excessive restrictions at installation time is no good because Amazon won't accept returns of games etc. that have been opened. This makes the SOGA interesting as conditions are being imposed after the sale.

As for the CD and DVD licence bit, there is nothing to stop the legal second-hand market of CDs DVDs, yet the record and movie companies don't try and stop this.

The words "corporate" and "greed" spring to mind.

But it goes for all software you buy. You cant just buy windows 7 install it and then sell it on to someone else with the same key whilst still using the product yourself.Games are no different.

DeeMarie89

Just because certain industries choose not to protect themselves in the same way as Steam etc, doesn't mean it's unfair when a company does protect themselves. In theory, the selling on of any second hand software can be considered as piracy, so before you buy ANY game, you should be prepared to accept that there is a good chance you will not be able to sell it on.

Corporate greed? Or consumer greed?

Corporation: "I don't want what is legally my intellectual property being pirated"

Consumer: "I don't want to pay full price for something, so I will buy it second hand and then complain when it doesn't have the functionality of a brand new full priced game"

crittertog

DeeMarie89 wrote: »

Just because certain industries choose not to protect themselves in the same way as Steam etc, doesn't mean it's unfair when a company does protect themselves. In theory, the selling on of any second hand software can be considered as piracy, so before you buy ANY game, you should be prepared to accept that there is a good chance you will not be able to sell it on.

When discussing EULAs, my law professor, and the author of the course text (I mean, they are 2 different people), were of the opinion that EULAs were of dubious validity (within the consumer domain), due to them not being visible at purchase time. As far as I am aware, the OFT is still investigating this.

Obviously, one should not confuse the terms of a EULA not being valid with the unauthorised copying ("piracy") of an item, which is covered by something else.

George_Michael

This buying a licence stuff is just so much BS and perpetuating a myth from the games companies.

It must be really heartbreaking for all those people who have been prosecuted and found guilty of producing or selling counterfeit software, DVDs and music to suddenly realise that the judge was misinformed and it was only a myth that they were breaking the law.

esuhl

geordieracer wrote: »

But it goes for all software you buy. You cant just buy windows 7 install it and then sell it on to someone else with the same key whilst still using the product yourself.

But can you buy a copy of Windows 7, install it, uninstall it, and then sell it on (without breaching the licensing contract)?

What about if you sell it without installing it at all, but you did tear off the plastic wrapping that was marked "breaking this seal denotes acceptance of the licensing terms"? Or what if you just buy a sealed copy and sell that on?

geordieracer wrote: »

Games are no different.

Doesn't it just depend on the licensing terms that you agree to when purchasing/opening/installing the game? In which case Windows 7 is probably quite different to a particular game, and all games are different...? Unless they use boilerplate license terms, of course...

esuhl

crittertog wrote: »

When discussing EULAs, my law professor, and the author of the course text (I mean, they are 2 different people), were of the opinion that EULAs were of dubious validity (within the consumer domain), due to them not being visible at purchase time. As far as I am aware, the OFT is still investigating this.

That reminds me - I vaguely remember reading about someone who bought a new computer and operating system (OS). When he got it home he read the licensing terms (which were inside the sealed box) which said that installing the software constituted acceptance of the terms and that if he did not agree he could return his purchase to the shop where he would receive a full refund.

He decided not to accept the terms and return the PC/software, but the shop told him that he had no rights as the items he was sold were "as advertised", not faulty, and conformed to the relevant consumer legislation. I think he then wrote to the software company saying that his right to a refund (as guaranteed by the terms) had not been honoured and asked them to refund the purchase price, but they refused saying that the sales contract was between him and the shop.

Unfortunately I can't quite remember all the details or the outcome, but I thought it was an interesting case...

DCodd

esuhl wrote: »

But can you buy a copy of Windows 7, install it, uninstall it, and then sell it on (without breaching the licensing contract)?

What about if you sell it without installing it at all, but you did tear off the plastic wrapping that was marked "breaking this seal denotes acceptance of the licensing terms"? Or what if you just buy a sealed copy and sell that on?

...

Unlikely if you have installed it and registered it as it only has a licence for one computer unless it is a family pack where multi use is licenced.

If you don't install it, I don't know if you are legally allowed to sell it (not being an authorised retailer and all that) but it would work as the licence key has not been used.