This sums up how I feel about this ruling. It's a bunch of BS and my conscience won't suffer a damn bit if I resell something I paid good money for.
If this ruling becomes commonplace, I guess people will just have to roam flea markets, cash only. That said, I have faith in the citizens to not let this become a precedent though.

Well - At least it will put Game Stop out of business ;-)

The vast majority of my games are used, as I refuse to pay 60 dollars for something I will in all likelyhood play until I beat it and never touch the thing again.
What if this changes for books as well.
Last semester, all of my textbooks new cost 700 dollars all together. So I bought them on Amazon and payed only 200 for everything. I traded in some and made 100 back. So 700 vs 100 made possible by second hand purchases.
So screw you Sonic the Hedgehog for Sega Genesis and your Not For Resale label (thats a throwback for those old enough to remember using cartridges)

Yes but companies get around that by allowing you to either view the EULA online prior to purchase or by mailing a copy to you upon request.

Well I hope this is overturned to stop the precedent from being there... I'd be willing to gamble taking it all the way to the supreme court actually, though I am not sure what the chances are there.
Even if this someday becomes the law of the land that doesn't make it right though, and you bet your ass I will still make backup copies of whatever games I own physically without DRM if it is at all possible. Just because it is a corporate law somewhere doesn't make it morally correct.
All that aside though, I do not agree with used media sales personally... other people should be able to do as they like though.

So does this means it's also illegal to give games to someone as a gift for Christmas or birthdays? Have we really started to reach the point where you can't even give someone a gift anymore?

marijuana is illegal and that doesn't stop pretty much everyone in Albany from doing it. In fact I took a cab 4:00 in the morning back to campus from downtown, and the driver was smoking the biggest joint I've ever seen.
The best part is he offered to smoke me up. I don't smoke though, gives me panic attacks. I will still buy used games from wherever I can get them, legally or not.
They can pass any law they want, how can they really stop all of the sources their are that distribute secondhand products.
As far as not giving gifts goes, I guess everyone will be disappointed when its my eleventy first birthday(lotr reference)

Something that should also be noted in this case is the specifics of the license agreement for the AutoCAD software the dispute was about. The company that had originally bought the software got a significant discount on an upgrade by agreeing to a license that stipulated that earlier versions that company had bought would be destroyed. Instead of the destroying them the company then sold them to Vernor, who then tried to sell them on eBay. One reason why this fact is important is that an important part of nearly all contracts (which licenses are a type of) is consideration, meaning that both parties bound by the license get something out of agreeing to it. This is pretty clearly present in the license in this case, but it's not so clear that any kind of consideration is present in the typical EULAs we normally come in contact with, so the courts may rule differently (even in the Ninth Circuit) on this basis if, say, EA now decides to take Gamestop to court over used game sales.

I think you're more in touch with what the laws are for the good old U.S.A than I am, but courts aren't supposed to make the law of the land with their rulings. Only Congress can make laws.

Yes, but in practice court intepretation of law is what counts day-to-day.

This is strictly true, but unfortunately (or fortunately in some cases) Courts basically make laws by defining rights which then directly influence laws. Not really the same thing, you're right, but I was speaking broadly.
This won't have any effect unless it is held up by further courts and then is reflected in new copyright standards in law, or as precedent in future law defining court cases.
We tend to speak dramatically of such things, don't we?

I would say that books and DVDs should be illegal as well because of this, but you can't compare games to art anymore. Except for a select few (hello, Deathspank).

Yeah, it helps ease some anger to speak dramatically of such things. It can be cathartic and helps keep people aware of what could happen.

Yes, it is not a bad ruling in that sense as he technically sold software he is still using... that is infringement pure and simple.
The reason people are worried about the ruling is not the specific instance, but the way the judge used license agreements as a way to get around the first-sale doctrine. It's a potential catastrophe waiting within a pretty common sense verdict, like most judicial changes.