We are focusing on meeting the strong demand for our 3rd generation AMD Ryzen processors in the market

Good. I'm still waiting for my 3900x

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlHm, according to this. EU already allowed it before. So what's new in this ruling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Application_to_digital_copies [External Link]

In Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled, on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[5][6][7] The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first-sale doctrine is in force.[8][9] The ruling applies to the European Union, but could indirectly find its way to North America; moreover the situation could entice publishers to offer platforms for a secondary market.

It's not "new" because it's not a new law, it's a ruling. Valve's EULA contains illegal clauses, the ruling confirms it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Avehicle7887DRM-Free stores would have to stop selling games to french customers otherwise they risk a serious issue.

I don't see how it affects them at all.

Quoting: Avehicle7887This is a very bad call, and it shows clearly that the people making these decisions have no clue about games and of the challenges devs face every day. They're just paper pushers who didn't think of the consequences, which outweigh the benefits here.

Being able to resell what you own used to be possible. What's so horrible about getting that right back ?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fagnerlnIf steam doesn't allow the user resell games from their library, is up to the user agree with it.

The users already voiced their opinion through the EU parliament : it is illegal to prevent a user from reselling.

If steam doesn't want to allow user to resell game, it can leave the EU market.

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: chancho_zombiewell you can sell your games ... you could sell all your account.

Pretty sure that's currently prohibited and can get the account banned if Valve found out.

Yes that's part of the ruling, tying the game to the account (and every services) is illegal. The game should be resellable by itself.

Quoting: MalNedless to say that releasing an untested and badly optimized game would quickly become a suicidal move and nobody would do it.

How horrible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleI can understand some of the points made in the OP, but this doesn't change the fact that preventing people from re-selling goods they legally BOUGHT is fundamentally wrong. It's just businesses abusing technology (DRM in this case) to enforce despicable business practices that wouldn't stand for 5 mins in court if we were talking about physical goods. Why it took the courts so long to toss out that ridiculous claim that buying games on Steam would be a "subscription" when it's clearly not, is beyond me.

Yes. Steam and other stores, and major publishers use the free market to their advantage (tax avoidance), but when it's our turn to profit from it, they set fences up to restrict our rights (zoning inside EU, fighting east european key resellers, ...). They've been using DRM to prevent us from reselling for more than a decade now, there's no reason to accept it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: subWhy doesn't this automatically affect other digital game stores in France immediately?
Someone hast to go to court against Epic, GOG, ... separately, one by one?

Hard to believe, as the concepts of the stores are basically the same, when it comes to DRM and not being able to resell the purchases made.

Only Valve was being sued for its EULA, but the ruling makes it clear for other stores that they have to change theirs, as anyone can use this judgment against them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Reported by the French website Next Inpact, the French consumers group UFC Que Choisir had a victory against Valve as French courts have ruled against them on the topic of reselling digital content. From what I've read and tried to understand, the courts have basically said that when you buy something on Steam it is indeed a proper purchase and not a subscription.

Valve has been ordered to pay damages at €20K euros plus €10K euros to cover some costs. On top of that, they will also have to publish the judgement on Steam's home page (presumably only for users in France) and for it to remain visible for three months. If they don't, they will get a fine for each day of €3K. To Valve though, that's likely pocket change. The bigger issue though, is how other countries in the EU could follow it.

It's important to note that the ruling is based on EU laws (EU Copyright Directive [External Link], EU Computer Programs Directive [External Link] and past ruling from EU court : UsedSoft ECJ ruling [External Link].

Also important is it's probably not final, as Valve is likely to appeal.

Implications are potentially huge, but more than welcome. We have been stripped off our right to resell for a long time now.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MayeulCCan't we just have nice things? Why does it always have to be political, and not based only on technical merit?

Welcome to the world of code of conduct.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: spayder26Actually he was not defending Epstein (he called him rapist), but declaring his opinion against laws against consented paedophilia, which is somewhat much more controversial.

You seem to have information differing from mine.

I read that he found the "most plausible scenario" that the girls have been "entirely willing".

Does anybody find it appropriate to do such talk about possible severe crimes without any knowledge of what actually has happened?

You fell into the misinformation trap laid by some SJW.

What RMS said :

We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

What Selam Jie Gano concluded :

he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

What Vice wrote :

Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.

What the headlines are

Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT

This is absolute bullshit. RMS is very clear on the gullibility of Epstein in his emails (calls him a rapist). He barely defended the use of the appropriate wording when speaking about Minsky affair. Which is that from his (Minksy) POV, the girl was consenting, even if she was in fact coerced by Epstein.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

best game

View this comment - View article - View full comments