The lights are on
In a ruling filed on Saturday, March 30, 2013, U.S. District Court judge Richard Sullivan struck a blow to consumers hoping to assert ownership rights over their digital purchases. Weighing in on the case of Capitol Records and digital music reseller ReDigi, Sullivan stated that digital purchases can only be resold with permission from the license holder. ReDigi was by all accounts careful in its business practices. Their service only permits listing of files acquired from iTunes or other ReDigi users. Music acquired illegally or ripped from compact discs is ineligible.
Whether Sullivan's ruling will stand on appeal is unknown, especially since it seems to directly violate the United States Supreme Court's stand last month in the case of Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons. In that case, the Court cited the First Sale Doctrine, which grants a legal buyer the right to sell or otherwise dispose an equal number of copies as were legally purchased.
Additionally, the European courts ruled that, "An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences
allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet."
The discrepancy in interpretations is focused on the concept of the single, purchased copy. ReDigi's service deletes the file from the user's computer and places it in storage with the company. Judge Sullivan noted that the original copy is not being sold. Rather, a new copy is created, which is then made available for purchase by other ReDigi users. Other than selling the storage medium on which the file is located, there is no way to sell the specific version that was legally obtained in the original sale.
This conflict will ultimately need to be resolved in the courts, as the two United States rulings are at odds. Given the move toward digital purchases and the opposing interests of publisher and consumer, the question of ownership is becoming more pressing. Of course, even if there is a solution, getting platform holders to comply is another matter entirely. Just ask Valve (as PCGamesN did).
Email the author Mike Futter, or follow on Google+, Twitter, and Game Informer.
I like how Phoenix Wright is on the cover of this news.
As interesting as an article as this is, I don't see this being at odds with Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons decision. They address two different topics. Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons deals with resale of copyrighted goods from a foreign market to America for huge profits. While this one deals with the idea of reselling it online. I suppose if you look at foreign and digital as the same thing they are much more related, but I don't think that Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons will overturn this ruling.
I really don't think that system would work. Their super, privacy invading program isn't all-knowing. There's no way to be sure.
I do like this concept though. I could actually see something like this working on the Playstation 4. Sony has complete control over your licenses, and access to downloaded content. Even if you copied it to an external HDD, you wouldn't be able to play it without the license associated to your account.
So, what they could do, is have a 'used' digital store. You could put your license up for sale, and someone could buy it. It likely wouldn't be able to be to heavily discounted, as you wouldn't want to erase new game sales. The seller also would probably only get about half of the sell price back, as a credit. This way the other half could be sent to the developer/publisher/Sony, and they still get some revenue from the 'used' sale.
The thumbnail reminded me of Professor Layton vs. Ace Attorney and the fact we still don't have it yet ;_;
Well this can lead to some interesting arguments and cases in the future. Very intriguing results though.
I would have to say that I'm against reselling "used" downloadable games. That's one of the few places some developers can actually make money.
Allowing it paves the way for absolutely hellish DRM and an industry that risks self-destructing.
Well, he actually ruled that we can sell our mp3's, as we are the license holder of our mp3/game licenses.
music companies need to, eventually, license the rights of listeners to remember a song they have listened to from a digital download to the rate of a one-rememberence-per-listen. that way, every time a person wants to hear music NOT currently on the radio or MTV, they will have to put digital change into the digital-rights guitar case of the rights-holder for the song being listened to. then american righteousness and god-given goodness will be satisfied. *** pirates!
I wish there was a way to sell digital content on a game system!