Europa Universalis IV announced

[Cecil]

If the only result from this is Johan nerdraging on the forum I´d say it has been worth it. 

[Syt]

Meh, Johan always gets super-pissy when he thinks someone is playing his games without paying the fair share. Used to be pirates, now it's re-sellers.

[Razgovory]

I can understand the Piracy thing, but the resellers seem to have the law on their side.

[Martinus]

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.

Yes and when it comes to consumer copies such boiler plate is illegal in the EU.

[crazy canuck]

I can understand the Piracy thing, but the resellers seem to have the law on their side.

Depends on which jursidiction you are talking about.

[Martinus]

Considering that IP regulations are essentially a convention that is aimed at balancing the interests of authors and consumers (so there is nothing "natural" about them), I have to say I fail to see any reason whatsoever why laws should allow the IP license holders to prohibit reselling of a license.

You can have a debate about unrestricted copying but if the license stays the same, such ban seems to have no purpose other than protecting the monopoly of the IP holder.

[Zanza]

If the only result from this is Johan nerdraging on the forum I´d say it has been worth it. 

That won't be the only result. I am sure it will take some time until this is fully implemented and the specific detailed cases have been decided by lower level courts, but in the end, European consumers will be able to resell software they bought with an unrestricted use license. The only way around that is always online games that have a monthly fee. I guess software producers will eventually switch to those. Unless of course the market doesn't accept them, which I find reasonably likely.

[crazy canuck]

Considering that IP regulations are essentially a convention that is aimed at balancing the interests of authors and consumers (so there is nothing "natural" about them), I have to say I fail to see any reason whatsoever why laws should allow the IP license holders to prohibit reselling of a license.

You can have a debate about unrestricted copying but if the license stays the same, such ban seems to have no purpose other than protecting the monopoly of the IP holder.

It is trite to say that the price at which a thing is sold depends on what is being sold.  If an IP holder is forced to allow license holders to resell then the price for that thing will likely increase because the bundle of rights being sold increases.

[Warspite]

Having just come into this thread, it sounds to me like EUIV will have a very detailed intellectual property legislation simulator. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

[dps]

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.

Couldn't they just switch to charging everyone, including the original purchasers, for patches?  Or just stop patching the games at all.

If you look at how many times EUII was patched and compare that to the number of patches vs "expansions" of EUIII, it could be argued that they've already gone over to charging for patches.

[garbon]

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.

Couldn't they just switch to charging everyone, including the original purchasers, for patches?  Or just stop patching the games at all.

If you look at how many times EUII was patched and compare that to the number of patches vs "expansions" of EUIII, it could be argued that they've already gone over to charging for patches.

I'm not sure that argument works so well with CK2. A lot of the major content changed was in the free patches.

[Syt]

Licensing issues aside, I'm rather curious how EU4 will turn out.

CK2 has set the bar very high, and I'm not sure if it wasn't a bit of an accident. I recall that for years P'dox said a sequel for CK1 was not in the cards because it hadn't performed too well in sales. I don't know if CK2 has outsold any of the HoI titles, but it put P'dox on the map for a much wider audience and got widespread attention.

It will be interesting to see what lessons they've learned from CK2. And let's keep in mind that as a publisher they still put out turds like Sword of the Stars 2 or Gettysburg: Armored Warfare.

[Martinus]

Considering that IP regulations are essentially a convention that is aimed at balancing the interests of authors and consumers (so there is nothing "natural" about them), I have to say I fail to see any reason whatsoever why laws should allow the IP license holders to prohibit reselling of a license.

You can have a debate about unrestricted copying but if the license stays the same, such ban seems to have no purpose other than protecting the monopoly of the IP holder.

It is trite to say that the price at which a thing is sold depends on what is being sold.  If an IP holder is forced to allow license holders to resell then the price for that thing will likely increase because the bundle of rights being sold increases.

Meh, any monopolist will tell you what you just said - that if he is allowed to keep his monopoly, prices will go down, due to economies of scale and not having to compete with others etc. But that is, empirically, almost never the case.

[crazy canuck]

Considering that IP regulations are essentially a convention that is aimed at balancing the interests of authors and consumers (so there is nothing "natural" about them), I have to say I fail to see any reason whatsoever why laws should allow the IP license holders to prohibit reselling of a license.

You can have a debate about unrestricted copying but if the license stays the same, such ban seems to have no purpose other than protecting the monopoly of the IP holder.

It is trite to say that the price at which a thing is sold depends on what is being sold.  If an IP holder is forced to allow license holders to resell then the price for that thing will likely increase because the bundle of rights being sold increases.

Meh, any monopolist will tell you what you just said - that if he is allowed to keep his monopoly, prices will go down, due to economies of scale and not having to compete with others etc.

if that is what monopolists say in your country it can only be because they believe that Poles are not sophisticated enough to recognize bs when they hear it.

The alternative is that nobody actually says that and you simply made up a strawman in place of any real argument.

Based on past experience I wonder which one it could be.

[The Minsky Moment]

Considering that IP regulations are essentially a convention that is aimed at balancing the interests of authors and consumers (so there is nothing "natural" about them), I have to say I fail to see any reason whatsoever why laws should allow the IP license holders to prohibit reselling of a license.

Freedom of contract.
If the seller/IP holder wishes to license only on terms that prohibit re-transfer, and the licensee agrees, why should the government step in to block the transaction on those agreed terms?

The "monopoly" argument is a red herring in this context.  Johan doesn't have a monopoly on historical real-team strat games, and there is considerable ease of entry.   There is no competition issue of significance here.