The trouble is there is difference between assuming someone is actively versus passively honest/dishonest and many laws are written with respect to that. Many of the laws you refer to were also written with respect to physical goods that were not so easily copyable. In other words, GOG's DRM-free but no resell policy assumes that you are not actively dishonest, but not that you are actively honest - i.e. They do trust that you won't go uploading your game for everyone to have and there's no way to do that but deliberately, but also that they don't rely on you to hunt down all copies you ever made of the game for yourself and destroy them if you resell. For something that's DRM-free, that's actually quite reasonable. In order to have something that mimics the re-sell of physical good you need, sadly, some form of DRM to ensure that one copy is all that remains after a resell. After all with the sale of something physical, you've sold it and it's gone without you doing anything - you have to be actively dishonest to still have it. With a DRM-free digital product, you've sold it and all you have to do is ... nothing and the copy remains with you as well. If on the other hand you have a single-copy-but-transferable license, then that is something that can be sold and there would remain one valid copy - the digital equivalent of a physical good since you'd have to be actively dishonest to still have a copy.

So while I dislike DRM in things I wish to own and keep, if I wanted to resell something I actually take the companies' side on this one. In my perfect system, rentals and re-sellable copies have DRM to keep the honest man honest, while copies that you wish to own and keep have no DRM, and lastly you have free demos to know which are which. :) That maintains the consistency of assuming active vs. passive honesty/dishonesty amongst consumers across all types of goods and commercial transactions.

And how should you determine which should be which, what if I purchase a game with the intent to keep it, but then I want to sell it due to money troubles, what if I get a non-resellable game as a gift and I want to sell it? DRM treats the user as a criminal when they haven't done anything illegal with their product.

It's a trade off you make. If you want to be able to sell in the future then you're stuck with DRM of some sort. If you want to be free of DRM then you're going to have to agree to a physical media or not being allowed to sell it.

What you're pushing for is pretty extreme, the ability to have DRM free downloads that you can resell is way beyond what any reasonable copyright law would allow.

Yes there are always corner cases, though the gift is easily mitigated by when redeeming the gift, the service asking you if you want to redeem with a re-sellable or DRM-free version. Treating someone as a criminal is when you have DRM, aren't allowed to resell, and have no DRM-free option.

Here you have the options presented to you. It's more about maintaining consistency across goods. You can always in fact buy it with the license and migrate licensed version to the DRM-free version if you decide your never going to resell it. You're right you can't go back once you do that and that's true that is a flaw. That said, keeping the honest man honest is the basis of a good amount of law and regulation. Far from being worse than what you can do with physical goods, this is actually more flexible! With a physical good you only get 1 copy when you buy it. With the DRM-free version you can make (for yourself) as many copies as you want! With the DRM version, you only get the one copy, but you then can sell that copy like you would a physical copy.

Was I pushing for it? All I said was you can't say it doesn't have DRM if it has some physical means to stop you from selling it. Well, other than my pointing out the flaws in crazy_dave's argument. Either a game should have DRM or it shouldn't.

I probably misunderstood you in terms of pushing it.

But, as far as DRM goes, what people are generally talking about is things which prevent you from installing something as many times as you like on as many systems as you like. Basically DRM free is a sort of honor system where they won't know who is and isn't living up to their end without an audit.

Personally, I would prefer DRMless physical media where possible if I've any thought whatsoever of selling or trading it.

Except in Canada. Our copyright act doesn't assume guilt. It makes it quite clear that ownership is transferrable so long as the original owner destroys all backup copies when he or she ceases to be the owner. It's that simple, really.

It is just chowderheaded for GOG to be so concerned—on the one hand—that someone might not resell a game properly, all the while not caring about all the torrenting discussed several threads recently.

The only "logical" justification I can conceive is that it's a contractual stipulation made by some or all of the publishers.

I suspect that what happened there is that Mr. Gog isn't paying to provide us the right to redistribute the games, hence why it's in there. Legally it's not any different than if you're giving the copy to a friend. Even if morally it's completely different.

The right to redistribute is inherent in out copyright act and not to be mistaken with any right to duplication.

That's problematic, we have that as well, for physical media, extending it into the realm of downloads gets really ridiculous, really quickly. It's been an odd situation since the DMCA was passed because we do still have that right, as well as to back up our media, but in practice it's difficult to actually exercise.

We don't have a DMCA equivalent (yet (thankfully.)) All I am really trying to say is that—like sodomy laws—enforcing such a policy is invasive and—in fact— it's insulting that anyone would even object to baseline rights in the first place.


P.S. I'm not suggesting parity of those issues. I am far more involved in GLBT activism. That is just how I make sense of it in my own mind.

Basically the way it works around here is that it doesn't get enforced unless they see it. So sort of like sodomy laws which were, eventually overturned for violating our constitution, nobody is likely to know or care so long as nobody sees it.

It's ridiculous that we have it and that we're pushing it on other countries, but as the world's leading exporter of various copyright materials we're in a bit of a bind about letting countries use our materials without paying.

Not that it makes it OK to go to the lengths we've been going to.
No worries about the analogy.

Well I would say you were pushing for it. You said:

So you are asking for the right to resell GOG games which are DRM-free and really are DRM-free. However, DRM-free does not equate with right-of-resell.

So yes, perhaps my use of "perfect" was an exaggeration for my system since no system is perfect, but "best" still applies quite nicely. :) DRM-free is DRM-free, but that does not mean right of resell. And no it doesn't sound like either of the games mentioned in the OP are truly DRM-free.

Actually it's quite logical for GOG to be so concerned. For one, not every country has the same copyright laws of Canada and GOG has to comply with all of them. Secondly, uploading a game requires an active amount of dishonesty. Simply not destroying copies requires you to do ... nothing. You don't have to be actively dishonest. Could you put up a link to Canada's copyright law?

Yes, they have to uphold all of them, which they currently aren't.

Also, it was a hypothetical situation, it is DRM because it restricts a legal right through digital means, in this case by tying them to an account.

The legal right you quote were written for physical goods only, especially in the US, and GOG goes with the more restrictive copyright laws because it does not change its policies from country to country - their other policy is to treat all countries the same. Right of resell does not necessarily apply to digital goods that are copyable.