HalfPriceDigi

If you have some used video games you can sell them for Bitcoin on my site halfpricedigital.com It's an easy way to get BTC fast. You just need a free Coinbase account.

My .com domain actually redirects to a .co.uk for the very reason that you mention :) And I made sure to host the site on servers in the UK as well!

Adobe has moved to a subscription based model, which makes the UsedSoft v Oracle ruling irrelevant. Microsoft may actually let you resell your used software, many companies do. In fact Adobe actually used to let you resell your used software so long as you didn't keep a copy of it.

The main companies that don't let you resell your used software are Valve (Steam), Apple (App Store), Google (Google Play) and Autodesk. I think that all of these companies are violating the UsedSoft v Oracle ruling by not allowing EU users to resell their apps, games and software, which is why I started halfpricedigital.com

Hi deeths, my site leaves it up to the seller (or buyer) to comply with restrictions on the usage of software. This seems to be how ebay deals with this issue as well. For example, there is a lot of used software on ebay that has restrictions regarding where software can be used (only in N. America, etc.)

The difference between my site and ebay is that because my company is based exclusively in Europe, my site isn't bound by the Vernor v Autodesk ruling and instead relies on the UsedSoft v Oracle ruling, at least when it comes to EU citizens. This is what allows my site to let EU citizens resell their used iOS apps or even their used Steam games. Other than the UsedSoft v Oracle issue, my site operates pretty much like ebay regarding software usage restrictions.

Thanks philiphodgen, I did not know about form 5471 and I've formed a few startup companies in the UK already - yikes! I should probably talk to a good, low-cost international tax lawyer...if you know of any... admin[at]halfpricedigital.co.uk

Hey dobbsbob, thanks for your comment! Great info! I did try getting a Latvian bank account but even their banks seem to have clamped down on opening accounts for non-EU residents due to money laundering laws - at least in my experience.

As for payment gateways, I wanted to stick to well-known gateways like PayPal and Skrill that consumers would already have accounts with.

I'm sure that walking into a bank in Europe probably would have quickly resulted in the opening of an account, but getting to Europe posed a problem for me as I'm based in the US and didn't have the funds to make the trip. Thus, Bitcoin!

You have to keep in mind that a company is its own entity and since my startup was formed in the UK, it is a UK company that is governed by UK laws. The UK has no problem with non-resident company directors, but setting up a bank account for a company with a non-resident director is another story.

I'm not sure that this would be a problem though because the scenario would be for an American citizen that is forming a company in the EU. So the US bitcoin laws should be bypassed and you'd just be dealing with EU laws regarding Bitcoin, since your company is based in the EU.

Thanks! I'm not sure if the law would cover in-app purchases by themselves. However, you should be able to sell your used app which could probably include all the in-app purchases.

I don't know if the law requires a mechanism for transfer as much as it requires the software maker not to prevent transfers. So the process could be manual (via email), as long as a process exists. But a mechanism in the software or marketplace would make everyone's lives easier.

Hey atmosx, the site is an MVP, but yes I agree the design needs work. The site itself and its revenue is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Any US citizen (or non-EU citizen) who wants to form a company in Europe is going to run into the same banking problems I ran into. Bitcoin can provide some relief for this issue.

It seems that your argument then is that no one should ever be able to resell or give away anything that they buy ever. So when you buy something, anything at all, you would have to own it yourself until you throw it away. Obviously that would have a huge negative impact on the environment with items like cars, computers, clothes, etc. Also, the lack of a second-hand market would have a negative impact on low-income people who need to buy used goods for the lower prices. So it seems to me that your argument against the existence of any second-hand market would have disastrous effects and cannot exist in the real world.

You have avoided the issue of whether or not second-hand markets positively impact the primary market. For example, if people weren't able to sell their used cars, would they be more or less likely to buy new cars. I think that the answer is pretty obvious. If people couldn't resell their used cars ever, they would buy new cars less often. Mainly because people often partially pay for new cars by trading in or selling their old cars.

I agree with namlem's comment "Why does incurring the costs associated with resale on the industry in any way morally gray? It's the manufacture's right to price items accordingly. They can just raise it to compensate." The manufacture should simply price the existence of a resale market into their product. That's what ever merchant other than Steam already does.

Steam is breaking the law in the EU and their illegal business model (not allowing resales) is what allows them to undercut the prices of their competitors. Don't you find that to be a moral grey zone?

The problem with making the argument, as I suspect you are, that because games are intellectual property that they shouldn't be able to be resold when you are done with them, is that almost everything is intellectual property. Think of how many parts of your car are patented. Those patents are intellectual property. If you let Steam say that you don't own the games that you buy then you opening the floodgates to a world where you don't own anything that you buy - you are just "licensing" it. As I've stated above a world like that isn't practical and I don't believe it is morally correct either. It restricts the rights of consumers for no reason other than to further enrich the producers of goods, who many doing just fine as is. Valve is worth 2.5 Billion dollars. Aren't they doing well enough without having to step all over consumer's rights?

Do you find the selling of used cars to be a moral grey zone? If you weren't able to sell your used car ever, would you be more or less likely to buy another car? Do you think that people who resell their used games buy more or less new games?

When you buy something you buy a license to use that item for as long as you own it. If you sell it you no longer have the right or ability to continue to use that item anymore. I think that the argument that you are making is that a game is an experience and that once you have played a game once you have reaped the full benefit of ownership from that game. However, I believe that you are mistaken. The full benefit of owning something is that you can reuse it as often as you like. You can read the same book as many times as you want for as long as you own that book. The same is true for a game. The benefit of owning a game or any software is that you can use it as much as you want for as long as you own it. When you sell it you are giving up your right to continue to experience that game until you buy it again.