Valve is sentenced in France for banning the resale of dematerialized games

Well Brexit is a mess for sure😔. But soon it will be the UK only problem.
I think the main problem is unfair and brutal politicians and in this case it is the problem of a lot of countries.
I cross fingers for my country and the others countries aswell🤞

Ruling says sale will have to include everything, so taking features out would be unacceptable.

Yeah it's not same case obviously. If you read reasoning part, most of those would apply to games too.
We already know games are also not considered computer programs in legal sense (eg. Nintendo vs PC Box).

Arguments against:

In the first place, as I have already mentioned, dematerialised digital copies do not deteriorate with use, and used copies are therefore perfect substitutes for new copies. To that must be added the ease of exchanging such copies, which requires neither additional effort nor additional cost. The parallel second-hand market is thus likely to affect the interests of the copyright holders much more than the market for second-hand tangible objects.

This applies to exactly games.

The case in the main proceedings is an excellent illustration of that situation. As its representative acknowledged at the hearing, Tom Kabinet may resell e-books at a lower price than the price for which it purchased them. The profitability of such a procedure relates to the fact that the users of its website are encouraged to resell to Tom Kabinet, after reading them, the e-books which they have purchased from it, and it may then offer them to other customers. A string of several resale and purchase operations thus enables Tom Kabinet to make a profit from its activity, the only cost of which is incurred in the first acquisition of the e-book

I'm sure someone would replicate this model with games if it's legality were proven.

That results in two risks for the copyright holders. The first is the risk of competition from copies of the same quality offered at a fraction of the original market price and the second is the risk of an uncontrolled multiplication of the copies in circulation. Multiple exchanges, over a brief period, of a digital copy of the work are equivalent in practice to a multiplication of copies. That is especially true when, as is often the case for books, the user’s needs are satisfied after a single reading. (61)

Applies to games if you equal single reading = single playthrough. which would apply to single player games.

In the second place, there is a risk of multiplication, this time genuine multiplication, owing to the fact that downloading consists in a reproduction of the copy on the receiving computer. Although, in principle, after the content has been downloaded by the purchaser, the seller is under an obligation to delete his own copy, compliance with that obligation is difficult to verify, especially among individuals.

Applies to games.

Admittedly, that problem is more closely linked to digitisation than to downloading online. A digital copy on a tangible medium may be reproduced by its owner (a perfectly lawful act under the ‘private copy’ exception), that user subsequently selling the material copy under the exhaustion rule. Although such behaviour is not very honest, it would nonetheless be difficult to declare it unlawful. In addition, its prohibition would be difficult to implement without intruding into the private sphere of the user. However, that does not apply to all categories of works, especially not to books, (63) and in order to resell a material copy it is necessary to bear a cost (for example postage) that does not exist in the case of dematerialised exchanges.

Applies to games for parts at least

In the third place, it is not certain that, once exchanges of second-hand digital copies are authorised, it will always be easy or possible to distinguish legal copies, that is to say, those legally acquired and resold in accordance with the rules, from counterfeit copies. Admittedly, commercial platforms may use technical means to ensure that those rules are complied with, as, according to the information in the request for a preliminary ruling, Tom Kabinet does. It is nevertheless doubtful that individuals will make the same efforts. Thus, recognition of the rule of exhaustion of the right to distribute dematerialised copies might contribute to the development of piracy and make it more difficult to implement the measures intended to combat it.

Applies to games unless we ban DRM-free games.

Last, it must be borne in mind that downloading with a permanent right of use as a mode of supplying online content is in the process of being relegated to the past. New modes of access like ‘streaming’ or subscription access have emerged and are widely approved, not only by copyright holders and distributors but also by users. These new modes of access ensure higher revenues for the former and provide the latter with more flexible access to a much greater ranger of content. It is true that these new modes of access do not initially concern e-books: it is difficult to imagine streaming a book. Nonetheless, solutions already exist whereby, for the price of a monthly or annual subscription, the user obtains access to an entire library of e-books. Although that access still requires the downloading of the book, there is no payment for each object downloaded and it would therefore be difficult to speak in that case of a ‘sale’. However, the sale of a copy of the work is the condition of the exhaustion of the distribution right.

Stadia, gamepass exist. So applies to games.

And arguments for:

First, the existence of second-hand markets strengthens competition, brings prices down and helps to make assets more accessible, with clear benefits for consumers. As dematerialised digital copies, unlike material copies, are perfect substitutes for new copies, that competition is even stronger.

Applies to games.

Second, the accessibility, at modest prices, of second-hand copies of works promotes innovation, both on the side of copyright holders (in order to compete with the second-hand supply: see preceding point) and on that of users and third parties, such as online market platforms.

Applies to games.

Third, the absence of control on the part of copyright holders over the use and the destination of the copy of the work owing to the exhaustion of the right of distribution enhances the protection of the private life of users. The supply of works by downloading allows distributors not only to know the identity of each purchaser, but also to gather information about the way in which he uses the work. The distributors of e-books can know, in particular, whether the reader has read the book to the end or if he has made annotations. The control which distributors have over the downloaded copies also allows them to cancel the contract, making the copy allegedly ‘bought’ by the user unusable.

Doesn't apply to this case, since it's specifically selling games tied to Steam already and arguably things like achievements are part of game. Could apply if they were forcing to games not to be tied to services, which would be whole another case (if their plan is to allow resale of Steam games - using case to kill Steam at same time probably not wise lol)

Fourth, and last, the exhaustion of the right of distribution makes it possible to prevent anti-competitive practices consisting in tying users to distributors by increasing the cost of changing distributor. Those practices are once again being seen, in particular, on the market for e-books when the purchase and use of such a book are dependent, for example, on opening an account with the distributor and having a reader distributed by that undertaking.

Same as above.

However, some of those arguments relate to aspects of general economic policy (price levels, competition, innovation) which may, admittedly, be taken into consideration by the legislature but which in my view should not guide decisions of a judicial nature.

Yeah, so let's not take those into account.

Conversely, other arguments relate not to the conduct of the beneficiaries of the copyright but to that of the distributors of the works. To recognise the exhaustion of the right of distribution in order to counteract that conduct would then mean limiting authors’ rights for reasons extraneous to the balance between those rights and users’ rights. In other words, copyright would serve as a corrective factor of the alleged dysfunctions of the market for the supply of works.

(Steam would be distributor)

I also doubt that the rule of the exhaustion of the right of distribution is in itself capable of providing a remedy for the problems mentioned above. If, under that rule, the purchaser of a dematerialised copy of a work were in a position to resell that copy, that would not automatically have the consequence of cancelling all the contractual terms governing the use of that copy. (60) Nor is it by any means certain that users would always wish to be released from those terms. In fact, the distributors accompany those limitations and intrusions into private life with advantages for users, who may choose to put up with the limitations and intrusions in order to benefit from the advantages.

Yeah. Steam wouldn't suddenly die if resale was allowed. And I'm sure many here actually prefer Steam games and not DRM-free (or Epic) for example.

Nintendo vs PC Box: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=146686&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=167153

It depends on the EULA. A college law professor once said that many of them won't stand up in an EU court, and that they are a very grey area. A company can put anything into an EULA that they want, but it doesn't mean that all of their terms are legally binding. Under copyright laws, the companies are definitely protected, but not necessarily under their EULA.

Some EULAs have been known to make ridiculous demands like "you will not publicly criticize this product" to stop reviewers from having a go. Things like that can really mess with the consumer's right to know what they are buying. Most people don't even read them, myself included (all that mind-numbing legalese) they just click through and hope for the best. Sometimes I think it's smarter not to read them :P. If some company like that comes after someone for writing a well-deserved and objective negative review, there is no way it would stand up in any sane court of law. Even EU countries have free speech laws (that don't involve inciting hatred), even if some Americans think we don't. An EULA like that would be infringing on a person's basic right to free speech.

It's actually EU rules, not french rules, France is just the first (AFAIK) to issue a ruling vs Steam.

The rules apply for any company doing business in Europe. And we are actually paying on the steam store in euros, so Steam is definitely doing business in Europe. If I were to buy the games with dollars on a site based in the US, then things might be different (IANAL)

to answer your second question, the answer is no.

The jurisdictional issue is complicated. I don't know the EU rule, but in the US, it requires "minimum contacts", which generally requires one of the following:
note: in the U.S., most laws are at the state level, and most trials are at the state level. Kinda like the E.U. - New York courts deal with New York laws and controversies, and cannot deal with California controversies. The below is how a state gets jurisdiction over matters and/or people/companies that are not in that state. Federal courts deal with issues of federal law, OR controversies between states. The rules below also apply for a U.S. court (state or federal) getting jurisdiction over matters pertaining to foreign countries

1) have direct contact with the state;
2) have a contract with a resident of the state;
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state
5) "Calder Test". This is a bit more complicated, but, if you go out of your way to do wrong in the forum state, you're subjecting yourself to that state's jurisdiction.
6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state;

Courts distinguish websites into three categories:
A) Passive: these merely provide information. With some exception, these are not subject to another state's jurisdiction
B) Interactive: permitting exchange of information between visitors (such as this forum). These may be subject to another state's jurisdiction, depending on the level of interactivity, number of interactions, and commerciality of the website.
C) Commercial: these clearly do substantial business over the internet and where customers from any jurisdiction can do business with them. These are subject to jurisdiction in any state.

that's.... more complicated.

Courts generally don't "make new laws apply retroactively". BUT, prosecutors do try to make existing laws apply to new issues, and courts may interpret laws narrowly or broadly.
As an example, an out-dated law may say that (a) copying a floppy disc is illegal, but (b) reselling an original is legal. Transposing that into the digital age can be quite difficult - if I buy the original software, I should be allowed to resell under (B), but I cannot copy the software to another computer under (A). Ideally, legislators will write a new law to resolve the issue. But if they don't, the court needs to figure out what the right answer is.

When it comes to interpreting a law and how it should apply to a new situation, some judges will only look at the letter of the law, whereas other judges will look to the spirit of the law, and there may be judges who will look at the legislative intent. None of those methods of interpreting a law is flawless, and the result can be awkward, but they're not trying to make new laws, because that's not a judge's job.

Digital cartridges! (unsure if happy or not, interesting idea)

Pretty much, but they'd have to handle gifts and library items separately imo. They couldn't charge extra for games gifted across from multibuys (2-4 packs). Those still become items in your inventory even now. Some games give you an extra free copy when you activate a key. That would be a little shitty since the purpose of an honest person buying multipacks is to gift to their friends. A few small grey areas in there, but wouldn't be a big deal if they handled it properly. Having a separate and marketable library items inventory might probably solve that issue and leave the gifts the way they are.

I wonder what the potential for abuse is for that one. XD. I mean, would Valve then limit the number of times that you can activate the same game on your account?

I don't think it's necessary though. Think about it. If you're a pirate, you get your games illegally anyway. Games are hacked to work without DRM and all that malarkey, so that part will never change.

If you own a legal copy of a game, it is currently tied to your library forever. Whether that game has a DRM or not doesn't really matter. It still works the same way, being tied to those libraries means that you own a license. Now, if you're allowed to sell that license, ownership changes. You no longer own the game and it is removed from your library and is now in the buyer's library. Why would anyone need to keep a record of who logs in? Your game has basically been revoked.

I don't think it will change how DRM-free games work. Afterall, if people want to be a dick and share those around, they can do it even today, it's illegal now and would be illegal then, so it makes no difference. You are either the license holder (have it in your library), or you're not. If France tries to lift rules on how downloadable games are currently tied to a store/library, they'll lose that battle because it's the only protection that digital content has regardless of whether it has a DRM or not. =)