this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
489 points (98.2% liked)

Games

16810 readers
995 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO
489
“if you can obtain a copy of a court order...we’ll do our best to make it happen" Unlike Steam, Good Old Games claims they are willing to transfer accounts to entitled parties after a user's death (x.com)
submitted 5 months ago by nanoUFO to c/games
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ricecake 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Licences are different than physical goods.
With a physical good you're transferring ownership of that "thing", and the new owner can do as they like, except for the exceptions made for copyright.

With a licensed thing, it's closer to a rental. Just because you rented the tool doesn't mean you can sell it, and it doesn't mean that the rental company is obligated to let your next of kin keep using it.
This goes double for things like digital media, because the rental company is also the one who has actual possession of the thing. They're not taking anything, they're just not giving someone they never did business with access to it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Sounds like something the FTC should make illegal. Someone should start revoking licenses of politicians. See how fast that law changes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”,

A use-right is also a thing that can be sold and for which stuff like the first sale doctrine applies. Possession and property of the use right is all yours, even if it does not include the right to make additional copies, that is, to sublicense.

At least that's how it works over here, always has. You can get perfectly valid Windows Pro keys here on the cheap, there's a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and the like and unbundling them. If Microsoft can't stop that then Valve won't, either.

[–] ricecake 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure someone will challenge it in the EU then at some point.

In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like "accounts".

Valve and gog have the same policy. I'm fairly confident that both of them didn't decide to violate the law in the same way that's also consistent with how other digital licensing arrangements work without consulting with some lawyers on their user agreements.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.

That's maybe a service that you can't transfer but it's still holding property of the account holder. More like escrow.

As to lawyers, well, they aren't hiring lawyers to follow the intent of the law but to write terms that they think they might get away with, at least for a while, and if not, not be nailed for fraud or such. Corporate lawyers are just as slimy in the EU as they are elsewhere.

[–] ricecake 1 points 5 months ago

I don't know what to tell you beyond "in the US, not all licenses are transferable". Different countries have different laws.

It's a pretty well trod area of law, so it's not really contentious that it's a legal license term in the US.
https://www.shadesofgraylaw.com/2009/12/14/cant-transfer-this/ is an example. It's less tested for consumers.

The lawyers are definitely there to protect the company. No lawyer is ever there to follow the intent of the law, because it's the letter that matters in almost every circumstance.
Knowingly adding an illegal term to the terms of the agreement is a great way to not only fail to protect the company, because the entire thing might get tossed out, but to risk professional consequences.

Even the Microsoft terms of service say "non-transferable unless you're in Germany or other EU jurisdiction where such clauses are unenforceable".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Licences are different than physical goods.

But isn't piracy exactly identical to stealing? I'm sure I have seen advertising saying so.