• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 个月前

    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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 个月前

      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.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 个月前

        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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 个月前

          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”.