-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Digital Licenses" Sony's License Agreement: What do they mean for the consumer?
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
serversurfer
Member
Well, sweet. It was kind of a PITA on the PS3 without physical access.
Handy Fake
Member
I can see your point, although I'd argue that it can be read both ways.
Like I say though, my point is that it's really just legal bumf to cover their backs with no ramifications in the real world.
EDIT:
Just been having a bounce around google and found the US's First Sale Doctrine under the Copyright section on Wiki.
Scrolling down to the section marked "Limitations and exceptions to copyright", and all below it, I think you can understand why companies have to put such safeguards in place with regard to all the legal mumbo-jumbo in their T&Cs. *snort*
MMaRsu
Member
No. Learn to read dude. fking hell
Handy Fake
Member
In a nutshell. Ha.
Fess
Member
Hmm. Sounds like when my 360 broke and I had to transfer the licenses to the new console to get them to run offline, before that I only had trial versions when I wasn't online.
Only this time you're telling me I can't do this, they're always trial versions in offline mode? Can't be right.
Only this time you're telling me I can't do this, they're always trial versions in offline mode? Can't be right.
MMaRsu
Member
You're right, its not correct
El-Pistolero
Member
Well, contrary to a shirt or an apple, there is a clear distinction between the content (film, music, work of literature...) and the container (CD ROM, DVD, Book...). Dracula, the novel, is the abstract, the epistolary story...NOT the pages on which it is written, and I doubt you will ever be given license (nor should you) to own the ideas and concepts. Which is why you have something called plagiarism in the academic circles : The work of the author belongs to him, and him along.
I might be wrong, but that is how I see it...
I might be wrong, but that is how I see it...
Handy Fake
Member
Probably the worst example you could have chosen with regards to Copyright Law, but I get the gist.
You're completely right apart from Dracula being in the public domain.
Most people who are making kneejerk posts haven't even thought about it from this angle, they're just angrily responding to the idea that "owning" a piece of mass media like a game isn't as straightforward as owning other types of objects.
Which doesn't really change anything. You're buying a license to use the content that's built into a disc that has the content on it. The legal details are mostly the same.
if that happens do what has been repeated over and over again which is disconnect from internet. this online check is for digital games anyway not physical games. its a security measure put in place in case someone that is not you tries to play your games on another ps4 without purchasing the game. It is a feature that also protect the developer and a feature I am comfortable with.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
If you can play your physical games with no internet connection then it's definitely not the same as a digital product, as you're less restricted.
Perhaps this is why there's a push for always connected games. It's no secret publishers want full control over everything we buy.
El-Pistolero
Member
Probably the worst example you could have chosen with regards to Copyright Law, but I get the gist.
Haha, Oh yeah, definitely. I don't even know why I chose this novel since I am not, nor have I ever been that much of a fan...
Well, must be the fact that I spent the week-end watching the Masters of Horror anthology...
Probably the worst example you could have chosen with regards to Copyright Law, but I get the gist.
That's a whole nother can of worms. Patent, Copyright, and IP law was intended to protect inventions and IP reasonably so the people making these things would be fairly compensated and partake in the work to actually make these things in the first place (why make something if someone else will just steal or copy it).
But, reasonable is the key word there. After a period to make a tidy profit IP and inventions are supposed to go back into the public realm for the good of all.
At least here in the US, Corporations have captured the regulating agencies and have slowly been putting a stop to that. First extending the period after the author/inventors death, creating longer periods for incorporated entities, and now arguing that digital doesn't apply to those old rules.
Since a corporation can theoretically live forever, they want to make sure they can hold on to their IP forever.
Yes all eShop sales are actually licenses. Nintendo doesn't do online account verification though so in a situation like this you wouldn't be denied access to your games and dlc. Since the license is tied to both account and hardware, other accounts can access those games on the system too.
serversurfer
Member
I do agree it would be nice if there were provisions for the transfer of licenses between users, but these provisions would likely need to be established by the legislature and judiciary, in much the same manner that the tying of the abstract license to the physical good was initially established. In other words, since it's always in the creator's best interest to retain as much control as possible over their creation, something like the allowance of inter-user license transfers would likely need to be legislated and carefully controlled, lest too much control be wrested away from the creator.
So, write your congressmen, kids.
So, write your congressmen, kids.
uuaschbaer
Banned
No, because I buy retail and my PS3 is not connected to the internet. The rest is irrelevant.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
A license is a form of ownership.
serversurfer
Member
It's more accurate to think of it as permission than ownership.
Fess
Member
Okay but the part below sounded very much like my situation on 360. It was basically the first taste of XB1 always online - trial versions when offline, full versions when online - but it was eventually fixed by a MS rep when I called in and complained about it. (Note: this was before the webpage license transfer was working, at the start of rrod situation)
OmegaDL50
Member
Yeah what does that even mean. What does being American have to do with this. I'm genuinely curious.
Even in the UK if you buy software you rights in owning the product are entirely on the premise that you own the physical product itself that you purchased. Not the actual copyrighted code contained on the disc.
Even with the laws in place that allows resale of both physical and digital games because they are treated as owned goods and not licenses or grants of usage. This being one distinction.
Version 3.0
Member
Not exactly. A license can, by law, be re-sold and all the other things that can be done with a physical product like a car or chair. The model of licensing a purchase was originally only intended to protect copyright and make clear the illegality of copying content. But the concept of ownership was not challenged - it was simply being made clear that you owned only a single copy.
Now it's being used by some (particularly in conjunction with DD sales) in an attempt to strip ownership rights from us.
Red Mage
Member
Might actually want to read what you quote next time...
KingJ2002
Member
Well this has been the key difference since the start of this generation OP.
This is the only way companies can combat the second hand market and ballooning game budgets.... this agreement forces the consumer to buy new titles as any buyer of pre-owned titles has no assurance the game will work... even if the physical disc / cartridge is in new or like-new condition.
Rules such as these are spun to say that this is the way the industry is going... but in reality it's just anti-Consumerism at it's finest.
the option to forgo physical media in the future will only cement this.
This is the only way companies can combat the second hand market and ballooning game budgets.... this agreement forces the consumer to buy new titles as any buyer of pre-owned titles has no assurance the game will work... even if the physical disc / cartridge is in new or like-new condition.
Rules such as these are spun to say that this is the way the industry is going... but in reality it's just anti-Consumerism at it's finest.
the option to forgo physical media in the future will only cement this.
serversurfer
Member
Sorry, I didn't meant to skip this one.
But even in this narrow circumstance where the licensee has some say in things, the new owner/licensee is still subject to the original licensing conditions as dictated by the creator. The only "power" granted to the book owner is the ability to cross out his name on the agreement and write in someone else's, and he only has this power in the first place because his book is considered crippled without it.
Without the physical good whose value must be preserved, there's no onus to transfer any additional power away from the licensor and to the licensee. Like I said, it'd be nice, especially since these days the license is about all we get, but that's likely gonna take governmental intervention to achieve.
This is all standard IP law though, and ignorance of the law isn't a legitimate defense.
Okay? Software is too. The only thing you have the right to sell is the physical good. The actual content is always licensed to you by the owner. The ability for you to transfer a license along with a physical good was a courtesy granted to you by the courts, because without the attending license, your item was rendered useless and unsellable. Your right to not have your property devalued was ruled to outweigh the creator's right to maintain control of their property, in this particular instance.
But even in this narrow circumstance where the licensee has some say in things, the new owner/licensee is still subject to the original licensing conditions as dictated by the creator. The only "power" granted to the book owner is the ability to cross out his name on the agreement and write in someone else's, and he only has this power in the first place because his book is considered crippled without it.
Without the physical good whose value must be preserved, there's no onus to transfer any additional power away from the licensor and to the licensee. Like I said, it'd be nice, especially since these days the license is about all we get, but that's likely gonna take governmental intervention to achieve.
ersocaster
Member
Licenses are commonplace. I think the issue with them in a 100% connected society is that consumers have to have faith in the licensor to not revoke that license since they hold the right to revoke for any reason they can come up with. With the state of connected devices they can revoke them anytime they want as well.
It's not the most ideal situation for consumers, but it's what we have to deal with for now.
It's not the most ideal situation for consumers, but it's what we have to deal with for now.
Version 3.0
Member
That's not what it says here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
Hopefully, that intervention comes soon. There have been a few cases dealing with this sort of thing, but not many yet.
serversurfer
Member
I'm not sure where Wiki got that, but as I read it, Section 117 doesn't say anything of the sort. Sec. 117 just relates to copy-making, and the only thing it mentions about re-selling is that any copies/backups/etc you've made of a piece of software can be transferred to the new owner "only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program." (emphasis mine) The section also dictates that any archival backups be destroyed (or transferred to the new licensee) when possession of the software in question "should cease to be rightful."
To me, that reads exactly as my interpretation of the law; when you transfer the container, the license for the contents is transferred along with it. It certainly doesn't seem to say that once a copy changes hands, the new owner is no longer bound by the license and free to do as they please, or that they're now operating without a license, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it specifically mentions "a transfer of rights" along with the transfer of property being described.
It's been like this since at least the 80's OP. I remember opening a copy of MS Flight Sim and they put the floppy disk in the user agreement, opening the folder the disk was in meant you agreed to the terms. One of those terms specifically said you didn't own the software (understood this even as a kid).
It's mainly to keep people from copying the software and then trying to sell it, claiming they bought it so it is theirs to distribute how they wish. It's basically saying the coding/programming is owned by the company and you only get the rights to use that copy of it.
It's mainly to keep people from copying the software and then trying to sell it, claiming they bought it so it is theirs to distribute how they wish. It's basically saying the coding/programming is owned by the company and you only get the rights to use that copy of it.
Im afraid that this will happen on consoles, because everything is pretty much controlled by either Microsoft or Sony. PC is not a closed system, so if Steam shuts down, I will always be able to locate the same game somewhere else. I really don`t get why people go all digital on consoles when PC`s are a far better option. And yeah, I know consoles have a few exclusives that PC don`t have, but still.
serversurfer
Member
Here's a thought.
The courts have already ruled that the license is endemic to the value of the good, which is why it's vital to transfer the license along with the licensed good. Therefore, it can be argued the license itself has inherent value to the possessor, and as such, should be transferable in its own right.
If an "unlicensable book" is considered unduly burdensome to the consumer, then it seems that an "unbooked license" would be equally burdensome. The argument, "This is worthless without the ability to transfer it to someone else," would seem to apply equally to both the book and the license.
So it could then be argued that "book-less licensing" serves as little more than a circumvention of the consumer's right to trade their valuable possessions; in this case, their access to valuable content.
The courts have already ruled that the license is endemic to the value of the good, which is why it's vital to transfer the license along with the licensed good. Therefore, it can be argued the license itself has inherent value to the possessor, and as such, should be transferable in its own right.
If an "unlicensable book" is considered unduly burdensome to the consumer, then it seems that an "unbooked license" would be equally burdensome. The argument, "This is worthless without the ability to transfer it to someone else," would seem to apply equally to both the book and the license.
So it could then be argued that "book-less licensing" serves as little more than a circumvention of the consumer's right to trade their valuable possessions; in this case, their access to valuable content.
CambriaRising
Member
Oh brother.
OmegaDL50
Member
Are you sure you clearly thought out this post when you made it.
I'm just making sure you actually read the post you are quoting.
soul creator
Member
This is also one of the reasons why I was really curious to see how the Xbox One "approved retailer" trade-in system was gonna work. It was basically going to be one of the few (only?) examples of digital license transfers that are directly tied in with both a physical object and a "digital account" object.
If anything, I'd love to talk to the developers behind that system to see what kinda challenges they had to deal with. For example, I get the feeling that the 24hr check (or some type of periodic internet check) was the easiest way to prevent abuse of that type of system, but I always wonder if it was possible to somehow still embed the license into the disc itself as a backup. In addition, what would have been the pros/cons of both approaches, how was the 24hr limit decided, etc...
Obviously, the ideal situation would be to get updated legal systems setup to handle stuff like this (so places like Steam would by law be forced to approve of license transfers, for example, and not having it depend on the whims of individual corporations), but I've always been really curious about any type of experimentation with it.
If anything, I'd love to talk to the developers behind that system to see what kinda challenges they had to deal with. For example, I get the feeling that the 24hr check (or some type of periodic internet check) was the easiest way to prevent abuse of that type of system, but I always wonder if it was possible to somehow still embed the license into the disc itself as a backup. In addition, what would have been the pros/cons of both approaches, how was the 24hr limit decided, etc...
Obviously, the ideal situation would be to get updated legal systems setup to handle stuff like this (so places like Steam would by law be forced to approve of license transfers, for example, and not having it depend on the whims of individual corporations), but I've always been really curious about any type of experimentation with it.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Perhaps, but they have a harder time taking it away.
I think so.
serversurfer
Member
Certainly, a central authority to facilitate license transfers will be required, but that seems like a solved problem, as we already have central authorities like Steam and PSN issuing the initial license. It seems trivial enough to allow serversurfer to transfer his right to play Entwined over to soul_creator.
With regard to online checkins, apart from communicating the license authorization itself, Sony proved last generation that robust IP protection can be achieved without periodic checkins. Their system used device-specific hardware keys, and once the key to unlock content for a given account had been transferred to the system, the key could be used freely to unlock content with no additional communication with the licensing server required.
Yeah, like I was saying earlier, the courts have already ruled that a book has little value without the attending license, which is why it's considered unfair to attempt to treat them as distinct. With the advent of the ability to deliver content without a purpose-built container, I think it can now be argued that it's always been the license which has held the true value, with the book itself serving as little more than proof of legal possession.
So restricting our ability to transfer a license devalues it just as effectively as restricting our ability to transfer the book that may have once contained it in years past. If uncoupling the license from the book is unfair because it eliminates the customer's ability to trade his valuable good after-market, how is uncoupling the book from the license functionally any different? The transfer of proper rights to said content has always been the central issue; the true "thing of value" being traded.
NO it was not. As I stated I lost access to all my purchased digital games during the outage despite having declared the PS4 as my primary console. But that is not even what this thread is about. It's about the idea of licensing and what that means for the consumer going forward in the new era of digital and internet connected content.
Instead of this pointless talk about licensing (tl;dr: you never owned software to begin with, welcome to 30 years ago), why not try and find out why you lost access to your content on your primary PS4 instead? That's not supposed to happen (primary console doesn't need Internet access to play purchased content), and it would be useful to understand why it happened, so people may avoid getting hit by this again in the future.
Has the same thing actually happened to anybody else?
soul creator
Member
I think the difference from other digital distribution services was that Microsoft's proposal had sellable discs being involved as well. So if I take my disc to Gamestop, I've "initiated" a digital license transfer, without actually initiating it online. Gamestop can obviously do an online check to deactivate the license, but if my Xbox One at home is offline, it technically now has no idea that you no longer "own" the license.
Obviously, Microsoft's approach was to make the 24hr check so that it could check once a day to see if you still had that license, or if you "gave" your license to someone else in the non-internet world (in this case, the disc going to Gamestop)
I wonder if the actual best approach would've just been to eat the loss, and accept that someone could potentially play a game they don't "own" if they never go online with their Xbox. Most people are probably not gonna keep their Xbox One permanently offline forever, just for the sake of getting "free" games. In this case, you get goodwill from people who still want an offline mode, and their losses from people abusing it may not be that much, since who the hell uses an Xbox One without ever wanting to connect to the internet?
serversurfer
Member
Sony's system avoided those concerns by limiting the total number of consoles a given account could authorize, and requiring a system to be brought online for the de-authorization process. So the authorization token can't be passed to a new holder until the old holder gives it up. Similarly, I would need to sign in to PSN and transfer my claim to the license to you, and then you would need to sign in to authorize your devices to make use of it.
So all of the license management can be done this way, it seems. If you want to decouple the license from the disc, you can do it in exactly the same way. It won't require periodic checkins, but it will require a connection for license (de)authorization, which still puts it out of the reach of a significant number of console customers, I suspect. So I don't know if we're quite ready to completely decouple like PC has done, but we're probably getting close.
In the mean time, I don't see any significant obstacles to the transfer of digital-only licenses, apart from the creators' understandable reluctance to allow it.
The process of activating and deactivating a PS4 is not like the PS3, going by your post, it seems you are under the impression that it takes more than a login to the site, and deactivate/activate system button.
PS3 was horrible, and made you have to call in for deactivation. PS4 allows you to deactivate from there site with just a few clicks.
You are using the PS3 as your standard, but the system is not setup the same, and works much better in primary, while still allowing download and play at friends houses.
soul creator
Member
Yeah, I agree that if we're talking strictly person to person, or digital-only license transfers, there's no need for periodic checks. It just gets a little weird when a 3rd party intermediary that you visit in the real world, and not on the internet (like a retailer you trade your disc into) has to get involved.
If Person A trades a disc to Gamestop, and Person B buys that disc, Person B is obviously gonna expect that disc to work when they get home. Gamestop connects to Microsoft at the time of the trade-in, deauthorizes the license, and then Person B connects to the internet once to gain authorization when they get home. Person A is out of the picture, and they can abuse the system and keep playing the game by never connecting. If Person B got a message saying "sorry, Person A needs to deauthorize this, until then your game can't work", that'd kinda suck, lol.
But then it'd be funny if Person B goes back to Gamestop, gets a refund for the "used" game, and then Gamestop gets the license deauthorized. Now as long as both Person A and Person B never go online with their console again, they both technically still have a working copy of the game without actually paying for it, lol. Some friends could probably work out a scheme to abuse this system (though like I said, I wonder how many people would actually try to do all this just for the sake of free games)
As I'm typing all this out, the funny thing to me is that for all the talk of "MS wanted to kill used games!" the sole purpose of the 24hr check was just to appease used game/trade-in retailers like Gamestop. If they avoided that whole scenario (like all the other "fully digital" ecosystems), they would've never needed the 24hr check. But then Gamestop and publishers would probably be pissed, like you implied.
Also under this model (no periodic checks, closer to Steam), the mainstream console consumer would probably be weirded out by the fact they couldn't trade in their game to Gamestop anymore.
Dean Takahashi needs to write a book about all the negotiations and shit that went into this, heh.
It's as if the whole thread didn't happen. FWIW it's 'saw', not 'seen' in this context.
For those having difficulty wrapping their heads around how the physical licence works, esp. when it comes to books:
If I wish to resell my book, I can.
If I photocopy or scan the book, and them attempt to sell or otherwise distribute that, I can't. Well I can but I'm breaking the law in doing so.
Same applies to software - I can't copy the software and resell it, but I can resell the physical item the original is contained on.
Digital anything presents issues here, because it is far easier to copy non-physical content than physical (think back to the days before cassette tapes - you try copying a piece of vinyl; or a book before photocopiers), and this worries pretty much anyone with content. Once someone works out an effective way of digital reselling that protects creators/owners AND consumers (and this includes how to verify the source as original, and that it hasn't been modified to include malware or indeed the original content doesn't contain any unadvertised nasties) we're stuck with things as they are.