Europa Universalis IV announced

[Jaron]

Yay! I can't wait to rent this game from Johan.

[Habbaku]

The latest interview/preview-play blitz has me pretty excited.  Given that they're still six months from release, I expect that the game is just going through some serious bug-fixing and quality control processes.  A first for Paradox? 

[sbr]

Ck ii was pretty good out of the box.  Better than any other pi release at least. #lowbar

[Habbaku]

CKII was good out of the box, yes, but still had issues.  Hell, it still does, despite being a lot of fun.  Paradox taking their time with EUIV like this makes me a little eager.

[crazy canuck]

Hell has frozen over.  We are all going to break our vows to never again purchase a Paradox product on release (again ).

[Habbaku]

Hell has frozen over.  We are all going to break our vows to never again purchase a Paradox product on release (again ).

[Caliga]

I won't break mine.

[The Minsky Moment]

The difference between the painting and the computer game is that one is a physical object, and the other is pure intellectual property.  Intellectual property is almost never sold, it almost always licensed in some way.  That's the only way it can really be traded, the market would otherwise break down.  Johan is entirely in the right here, and it's not even close.

That's the dominant view under US law but not under EU law.
This is just an example of a difference in legal/commercial culture - the EU is emphasizing the rights of the consumer under what could be argued is a species of contract of adhesion, the US is emphasizing the ability of buyers and sellers to negotiate the scope of their rights by contract.

[frunk]

The difference between the painting and the computer game is that one is a physical object, and the other is pure intellectual property.  Intellectual property is almost never sold, it almost always licensed in some way.  That's the only way it can really be traded, the market would otherwise break down.  Johan is entirely in the right here, and it's not even close.

Why can't there be a market in selling/transferring licenses?  I don't see how that breaks anything.

[DGuller]

The difference between the painting and the computer game is that one is a physical object, and the other is pure intellectual property.  Intellectual property is almost never sold, it almost always licensed in some way.  That's the only way it can really be traded, the market would otherwise break down.  Johan is entirely in the right here, and it's not even close.

Why can't there be a market in selling/transferring licenses?  I don't see how that breaks anything.

Because that's the whole point of licensing, so that the owner of the intellectual property retains control.  Again, the whole reason intellectual property is licensed is because otherwise it becomes much more difficult for the creator of the intellectual property to profit from his creation, which then discourages the creation of intellectual property.

[frunk]

Because that's the whole point of licensing, so that the owner of the intellectual property retains control.  Again, the whole reason intellectual property is licensed is because otherwise it becomes much more difficult for the creator of the intellectual property to profit from his creation, which then discourages the creation of intellectual property.

The primary issue is unrestricted copying, not the re-selling of existing licenses.  If the transfer of a license allowed the new owner to use the item and stops the old owner from accessing it it would be the same as a physical item as far as possession.  I fail to see why an intellectual property owner should have the right to stop the current license owner from transferring that ownership.

In fact Paradox is a game company that shouldn't be concerned with this type of market.  Their games are one of the few that I still play several years after first purchase (admittedly because sometimes they are only fixed to a playable state a few years after release), and I would be least interested in reselling in this way.

[Martinus]

The painting analogy is not a good one as a painting is usually a unique object. A book would be a better example - if we can sell on a hard copy why can't we sell on an e-book (assuming of course we are no longer able to use it afterwards)?

And conversely, if permitted private use allows us to make a xero copy of a book to lend to our spouse, why can't we do the same with an e-book?

There is no qualitative difference between software license and a paper book contrary to what dguller claims - the difference is purely of a technical nature and it's the job of the regulator to make providers use technology that allows for the effective enforcement of rights of consumers.

[crazy canuck]

Because that's the whole point of licensing, so that the owner of the intellectual property retains control.  Again, the whole reason intellectual property is licensed is because otherwise it becomes much more difficult for the creator of the intellectual property to profit from his creation, which then discourages the creation of intellectual property.

The primary issue is unrestricted copying, not the re-selling of existing licenses.  If the transfer of a license allowed the new owner to use the item and stops the old owner from accessing it it would be the same as a physical item as far as possession.  I fail to see why an intellectual property owner should have the right to stop the current license owner from transferring that ownership.

In fact Paradox is a game company that shouldn't be concerned with this type of market.  Their games are one of the few that I still play several years after first purchase (admittedly because sometimes they are only fixed to a playable state a few years after release), and I would be least interested in reselling in this way.

A restriction on transfer of the license is boiler plate in licensing agreements.

[frunk]

A restriction on transfer of the license is boiler plate in licensing agreements.

As licenses have become more common, particularly for consumer oriented products, I think it's important that this isn't considered standard for the future.  It's one of the ways to discourage piracy.  If you give people the feeling that they own something that can be sold or given to someone else they'll be more interested in having it.  It's almost a tangible object. 

Taken the other way, it would be easy for a license to take away transferability from physical objects.  What if the software to run a car had a license that said it was non-transferable?  Effectively cars couldn't be sold without either replacing the software with a third party version (assuming it was available) or the car company getting a license fee from the new owner.  Potentially the car company could stop the sale entirely if the third party option isn't available, effectively making the car single owner.

This isn't likely to happen precisely because a large part of the value of a car is the ability to pass it on to others.  Things like movie dvds, music cds and books highlight the divide between the two.  I can buy a music cd, listen to it, and then sell or give it to someone else.  I can't do the same with music I buy from iTunes, even if it was the exact same set of bytes.  As we spend more of our money on software and digital information I'm not sure it's a good idea to just give up on the transferability of what we own.

[Zanza]

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

By its judgment delivered today, the Court explains that the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website.
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and  thus exhausts his exclusive  distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Moreover,  the exhaustion of the distribution right extends to the copy of  the computer program sold as corrected and updated by the copyright holder.

Customer of second-hand licenses also have a right to getting all patches.

I guess if Johan doesn't like that, Paradox will either have to switch to a monthly subscription fee model or stop doing business in the European Union.