okay, so i finally finished it (i have kids don’t hate me). haven’t watched the videos yet, but looked at all the text links. really interesting. i’d like to know who the poster is…
so having done(ing-kruger effect) a little reading around it, it doesn’t seem quite as cut and dry as that post makes out. i think they’re right about eulas being a way to protect the software rather than the license, but eulas also seem to talk about the licenses too, and with good reason:
———
Some software and digital content publishers claim in their end-user license agreements (EULA) that their software or content is licensed, not sold, and thus the first sale doctrine does not apply to their works. These publishers have had some success in contracting around first sale doctrine through various clickwrap, shrink wrap, and other license agreements.
For example, if someone buys MP3 songs from Amazon.com, the MP3 files are merely licensed to them and hence they may not be able to resell those MP3 files. However, MP3 songs bought through iTunes Store may be characterized as “sales” because of Apple’s language in its EULA and hence they may be resellable, if other requirements of first sale doctrine are met.
Courts have struggled and taken dramatically different approaches to sort out when only a license was granted to the end user as compared to ownership. Most of these cases involved software-licensing agreements. In general, courts look beneath the surface of the agreements to conclude whether the agreements create a licensing relationship or if they amount to, in substance, sales subject to first sale doctrine under §109(a). Thus, specifying that the agreement grants only a “license” is necessary to create the licensing relationship, but not sufficient. Other terms of the agreement should be consistent with such a licensing relationship.
————-
that seems to me to kind of blur the lines.
for instance, the importance the poster places on perpetual licenses, how they represent 90% of licenses sold, and how they come under first-sale doctrine underpins a lot of what they’re saying. the poster supports this with a link about the eu ruling you mentioned, which summarises it as:
bottom line rule (in the eu): if you buy software to use for an unlimited time in return for a one-off fee, you own it.
now, i took a look at one of the eulas for hitman (one from 2018, so it has certainly been updated since then) and it specifically states they are selling a limited license:
2. The License
2.1 Limited license. The Game is licensed, not sold. Subject to you agreeing to and continuing to be compliant with the Agreement, IOI hereby grants you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive license to (i) download and install the Game onto a personal computer owned by you, and (ii) use the Game in and its online game platform (the “Service”) for your non-commercial entertainment purposes only.
it also states:
(i) You may not sell, license or transfer the Game or any reproductions thereof to any person or entity;
with regards to ownership, it says:
4. Ownership
4.1 Game ownership. You agree that, between you and IOI, IOI owns and shall continue to own all rights, title and interest in and to the Game, all copies thereof, and all content therein.
additionally, there is a clause that says they can withdraw the license at any time and for any reason:
3.3 Our termination. IOI may terminate the Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason by providing notice to you, including without limitation email notice to the last email address provided by you. Upon termination of the Agreement, you must destroy all copies of the Game and related documentation in your possession, including without limitation any and all Games installed on computers under your custody or control
all of which seems to contradict a lot of what the poster points out, doesn’t it? io go to great pains to make sure that we know we are licensing and do not own anything, including the copy we bought.
like, sure, they could be taken to court over it (individually, not class-action) which could force io to change things, but as it stands right now, it looks like @schatenjager isn’t wrong: we have purchased a limited-use license that can - according to the eula terms we’ve agreed to - be revoked at anytime. that isn’t corporate propaganda; that’s in the eula.
again, im not a lawyer, so i could well be misreading all of this. i would like to hear your thoughts on the above.
it’s scummy and it plays all kinds of silly buggers, but it seems like that is the state of things as of now (unless the hitman 3 eula is drastically different).
