So up yourself it's unreal.
I'm mentioning how MMO's could easily be included in this ruling, since it's still a serial key that can easily be revoked,
You're confusing a bunch of things.
First, this court ruling has nothing to do with serial keys. Serial keys are simply one way publishers identify a purchaser; they are used by MMOs, and they are also used by some retail games - but not all.
Some games and software don't have a serial key but are covered by this ruling. MMOs do use a serial key, but are NOT covered by this ruling (I'll explain why below).
Second, yes, it would be very easy for an MMO publisher to revoke a license and transfer it on to someone else. This is possible. But just because it is is possible, doesn't mean its likely.
On the the real issue:
This ruling does NOT apply to subscription services. It applies ONLY to software you pay an initial cost for, and then nothing more. After you pay the initial cost, you then own that software.
Now, you might say that software EULAs often say the buyer is not getting ownership of the software itself, but is just buying a license to that software.
This is what they
say, but saying it doesn't make it true. The courts have to rule on whether that is legitimate, and roughly speaking, this court has said that is not legitimate, and the buyer does effectively own his copy of the software regardless of the claims made in the EULA.
So, you buy a piece of software for a set fee, you own it, and can sell it on.
MMOs on the other hand
are rentals, also known as subscription services. You pay a recurring fee, then when you stop paying it, you lose access to the software.
Now, you can make a case that maybe MMOs publishers [/i]should[/i] allow people to sell their accounts (it's technically possible, and easy to implement), and others can make a case why this wouldn't happen (possibly diminish the quality of the game, if people can just jump in with max level characters - it would force devs to make their games stay interesting even when everyone is max level, I think, or find ways to eliminate the concept of a max level). But that's for a later court to decide:
this ruling does not cover subscription services at all.
Also, people said that games publishers would simply call their services subscriptions, and say you lose access after x amount of years.
Courts do not look at what the publishes
call their software. They look at what it actually
is. If a publisher calls a piece of software a subscription service, but requires you to pay a flat fee to buy it and its yours for 10 years or 20 years, the courts have two likely rulings:
* First, they;ll probably declare that this is not a subscription (even if there is a recurring fee, if its too low, the courts will recognise it is a token attempt to get around the law, and rule it out).
* They'll then have to decide: since it is a sale, is the seller justified in removing access to the bought games after X amount of years? That could go either way. If people bought the software while those terms were public, then it's likely to rule in favour of the publisher. If a publisher tries to retroactivaley change the terms for people who have already bought games, they are likely to rule against the publisher.
