You can sell your copy and simply not make use of the re-download service on GOG. Fair use has always dictated that you can make copies as necessary for normal use of the item or transfer of said item. Having a service such as GOG doesn't magically make your Fair Use rights go poof in the US. This is why libraries are winning the few cases involving lending digital items or making archival copies, as well.

Look, you can argue for how you think it should be, or how you want it to be until you're blue in the face. I'm just informing you that this is how it currently is in the US (to the best of my knowledge). Things could change in the future, but right now this is how it is. It may very well work just as you like it in the EU, but in the US mondo84 is right (even if he did piss you off in saying so).

I think the article makes an interesting point. On a parallel, I've felt the same about music for years. I value each album I buy, I do not own an iPod, nor do I trade libraries, and I'm consistently put off by people who like to gush about how many thousands of songs they have on an iPod. To me, each album I buy is special. To many other people, it appears to me music is become meaningless clutter, with a new flavor every week.

If I would own a license which I could freely resell or pass on and if I can archive the installer of the game of which I have purchased a license, then this would be as good as owning in the traditional way.

I just to say that even when we are talking only about licenses one could make them basically in all characteristics equivalent to what the conventional understanding of ownership is. There is no principal reason why licenses have to be different. Only they allow to be different, but they don't have to.

I support GOG because they simply have the best terms out there and digital is so convenient. But I will break the law and pass all my games on - that much I can say for sure.

Um, I was asking because I'm curious since yes, I have no idea what the legal situation in the US is.
Am I using some kind of emoticons or emphatical signs that I'm not aware of? Why do people keep implying certain emotions here?

So basically if you download it, once. (or delete any previous versions). And then vow never to download it from the service again (doubt many people will hold to this realistically), then you can legally sell it. Interesting, if seemingly a somewhat strange situation. There's no control whatsoever. There's no way to know how many copies you made/sold. There's also no distinction whatsoever between the person who bought it off you and the person who torrented it. There's no license, no receipt. I'll concede it may be an EU view though, although i won't say I'm that aware of legal precedents here either.

Allright. So I see your point that it's legally possible. Now back to my point then. How likely it is that it'll happen. Do you see people here selling their GOG games any time soon? Do you think people will buy it? What if GOG finds out, and they take away your account privileges (which they may have a right to), yet there's other games on there you didn't sell?

The point of legality, although an important one, is not the whole issue here. Whether it's legal to sell the copy is irrelevant if this option has already undermined the existence of a market supporting it. Unless a market evolves around trading digital games, like from GOG that *is* something that has been lost in the transition to GOG.

Also, since my preference for Steam seems to mess up people's perspectives of my arguments here I'm just reiterating that I'm arguing for curiosity here since you're not opposing my previous statements by saying that in the US "the courts have always held that if it looks like a sale of property, it is a sale of property with all attendant rights." because that makes Steam games as much owned as GOG games.

The ease of "cheating" isn't really a criteria for whether you can resell your property or not in the US. After all, you can rip a DVD or music CD (or even a game CD/DVD) before reselling them too. The fact that one can cheat by violating the copyright holder's rights doesn't preclude you exercising your rights.

I would imagine a certain percentage of people do rip their music CDs and their movie DVDs before reselling or trading them. Certainly many rent these items and rip them. You can rip music right off of Youtube as well, with one click in many cases.

Basically it would be up to congress, in the US, to change this. Copyright is granted, so all other rights are presumed to rest with "the people", i.e. everyone as a whole. That's why fair use exists at all as a legal concept.

So yes, you can resell a digital item, there's currently at least one mp3 reselling service active in the US (yes, there's a lawsuit over their existence, last I heard they were weathering it okay).
As far as the US case law is concerned that is beside the point. GOG (or any other digital service) may be within its rights to terminate their service to you, but if they "sold" you an item (the button is labeled "Buy" after all) then it will be held to be a sale in the US.

I don't care for Steam, but I understand why people use it. Personally, I believe someone with deep enough pockets could probably bend Steam/Valve over in court in the US, but it would be a long, grueling trek and not without considerable risk. I for one don't care that Steam exists, I do somewhat care when businesses imply consumers do not have rights that they do actually have in the US. I consider it malicious misdirection in order to further their own selfish interests. Steam is hardly the only company to do this, though, and video games is hardly the only industry with this problem. I'm convinced if libraries hadn't already existed for centuries already people would scream bloody murder and the general populace in the US would think the evil libraries were "stealing" from artists. Thankfully they have existed long enough to be an established tradition.

Just because reselling digital goods doesn't happen a lot right now doesn't mean it won't become more common as the purchase of said goods does. I do not think selling "accounts" is as clear cut of an issue, though, at least not legally (morally I suppose they should either both be "okay" or "not okay", hand in hand). But selling the items one can get from said accounts, should that be possible, is actually legal in the US.

I tend to think that developers should be incentiviced to make good games by fair return to their Intellectual Property.

Meaning that it is piracy or lack of quality assurance, rather than discounting for yield management that might be an issue for developers putting forth the investment in resources that is required for a good game.

As to statemebt of Guillaume R. - I really do not think that gamers are so simple minded as to think that poorly games are the only ones that are out there based on price alone, and if price is their only criterion then, well, those discount consumers simply would not buy fairly priced games where quality is reflected in prices. Such irrational consumers are hardly a loss, are they?

Heavy discounts tend to imply that either game is rather poor (and should sell at low price) or at beyond mature stage of commercial cycle, where real enthusiasts would have bought the game at better price anyway.

The developers, meanwhile, have interst to bring their older offerings at low price to attract duly impressed consumers to their newer game... like, let us say, Baldurs's Gate vs Dragon Age. Even if in this case, those appreciating BG's magnificence would be probably dissapointed... but they would have spen their money anyways.

Here in the Netherlands, we actually already pay a percentage on the purchase of blank CD/DVD's simply on the premise that they might be used to backup copyrighted material, so yeah we're actually presumed guilty in that sense over here :) I can see the sales of Digital goods picking up (although I guess that's when they'll start to tax it probably ...). Although I imagine Publishers will probably adapt to it and start changing the product they deliver in to something that simply can't be traded. (ie by linking it to accounts like supposedly the PS3 would be doing , and similar things.)

Thanks for the insight. I don't mean to be stubborn, I just don't always agree it's quite as clear cut as some people seem to put it. That and I'm genuinely curious about these things :)

Fair enough, have a good weekend:)