It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Survey says you should actually read up on past copyright decisions before demonstrating your woeful level of ignorance. A fairly recent one is UMG v. Augusto, where even though promo CDs were clearly marked that they could not be resold the court ruled that the person who legally possessed the CDs owned them and was free to resell them, and that UMG had no right to restrict such a sale. A similar recent decision involving patents is Quanta v. LG Electronics. Now if you want to go back to the very beginning of the first-sale doctrine you can read up on Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. This was also reaffirmed specifically in the case of DVDs in NEBG v Weinstein. So despite your uninformed assertions, the matter of ownership and right to resell copyrighted works is pretty clearly established for almost all copyrighted works. It's only in the specific case of software and EULAs that courts are having trouble making up their minds. So do you own and can you resell copyrighted works in general? Hell yes. For copyrighted software? It depends. On what? A whole shitload of things, and you have pretty much no chance of making an accurate prediction at the moment until your specific case ends up in court. That's from a legal perspective; from a practical perspective you own any software that's not tied to a service and you're perfectly free to resell it.
And now that that's finished with hopefully there will be no further need to discuss legal theory, as settled legal matters are boring and unsettled legal matters have little practical application in a general sense.

As many cases as you can cite I could probably find cases that go toward my point as well, like the digital millennium act or whatever the heck that thing was called.
I agree though that legal theory is only so important in the conversation... I agree EULAs have a lot of challenges to face in the future, and in many ways I am happy about that. I'm not completely pro-corporation, there are lots of things I do not like that companies would love to do, and are trying to do, like SecuROM and EA's new "always online for singleplayer" crap.
At the end of the day though, this debate is about what I would support and like to happen, more than what is legal and such now. I would in no way assert that used sales are illegal or even against EULAs in most cases, nor would I say I know more about these issues than you do.
This debate is about what I think should be the case, and I think uses sales of media should be ended. It turns game stores into pawn shops, it lets millions (in the case of popular console games) play the game without ever giving the developers or publishers a dime, and perhaps most important it makes no sense in the future digital market, where games are run from accounts and used sales would allow for sharing a game to the point no AAA game could be profitable.
That is my only point, really. We are headed toward an account-based future which will prohibit used sales, and I think that is one of the few benefits of that kind of system on our hobby.
avatar
StingingVelvet: That is my only point, really. We are headed toward an account-based future which will prohibit used sales, and I think that is one of the few benefits of that kind of system on our hobby.

Have fun in your Orwellian account-based future. I suspect there's quite a few of us who won't be joining you.
avatar
StingingVelvet: This debate is about what I think should be the case

*blink*
avatar
StingingVelvet: ... and I think uses sales of media should be ended. It turns game stores into pawn shops, it lets millions (in the case of popular console games) play the game without ever giving the developers or publishers a dime, and perhaps most important it makes no sense in the future digital market, where games are run from accounts and used sales would allow for sharing a game to the point no AAA game could be profitable.

You may see used game sales as a flaw in the market that is ripping off developers, but I see it as a flaw in the distribution system that is ripping off consumers.
If I have no ability to resell a game that I buy, I am not really buying it at all - I am leasing it, or renting it indefinitely.
If my rights are more restricted than they were when I bought software two years ago, I strongly believe I should be paying less money than usual - not more, as the price of AAA titles goes up. This is why all of my digital distribution titles have been on-sale purchases - I will not pay give up my rights and pay full price for the privilege.
Publishers should be looking at the market and thinking about how they can make money from actually providing service to their customers.
I'll re-link the quote from Stardock from my post on the last page, because it talks about work that they're doing to give publishers a cut on used game sales.
Gametap, with its subscription service (pioneered by StreamTheory and Yahoo! Games years and years ago), is also providing a new method to line publishers' pockets: my rights are restricted, but so is the premium I pay.
avatar
StingingVelvet: As many cases as you can cite I could probably find cases that go toward my point as well, like the digital millennium act or whatever the heck that thing was called.

I encourage you to actually look for such cases. It'll be educational for you, and if you manage to find key cases that I'm not aware of then I'll get to learn something as well. However, seeing as you're not willing to take the 3 minutes it would take to look up the difference between legislation and case law (what I cited is the latter, the DMCA is the former, each has their specific place in the legal system), or even take the 5 seconds required to Google the actual name of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I think we're both quite aware that the chance of you actually looking up any case law is pretty close to zero.
If you choose to surprise me, however, a couple of phrases that are a good place to start your search are "first-sale doctrine" (for US case law) and "exhaustion doctrine" or "exhaustion of rights" (for European case law). I'll also save you some time and let you know that the DMCA doesn't have anything in it directly relevant to ownership of resale of copyrighted works, and most focuses on liability and enforcement surrounding copyright infringement (as defined by existing statutes). It also allows boat hull designs to be copyrighted (if you care for useless trivia).
avatar
StingingVelvet: This debate is about what I think should be the case, and I think uses sales of media should be ended. It turns game stores into pawn shops, it lets millions (in the case of popular console games) play the game without ever giving the developers or publishers a dime, and perhaps most important it makes no sense in the future digital market, where games are run from accounts and used sales would allow for sharing a game to the point no AAA game could be profitable.

Counterpoint: Sales of used goods allow for societal resources to be used more efficiently, resulting in billions of dollars worth of goods to continue to circulate in the economy, and allowing the money that might otherwise go towards purchasing new versions of those used goods (which would otherwise become wasted resources) to be put to more productive uses (from an economic standpoint). So we've got billions of dollars of society's resources being used more efficiently balanced against game companies wanted to milk customers for more money. Show of hands on which one should win out. Yeeaahhh, that's pretty much what I thought.
But don't fret, because all of this is irrelevant. Why? Because game companies currently don't have anyone dictating to them whether or not used sales must be allowed. If they want to distribute games in a way that used sales are neither permitted nor reasonably possible there's already plenty of options available to them. Yet those morons don't seem to be clued into this fact as they're still selling copies that can be resold. And to top that, there are even folks like those mouth-breathers at Stardock who are trying to make resale possible with downloaded games. It's like they think consumers actually place value on being able to resell games. Idiots. Wait, what? Many customers do place value on being able to resell games? And many wouldn't be willing to pay as much if they weren't able to recoup some of the cost by reselling? Whoa, I guess that changes things a bit.
Alright, I think I'm done burying the needle on sarcasm meters. But, to be serious, game companies are indeed perfectly capable of preventing resales if they want to, but they're also quite aware that this will result in many customers not willing to pay as much if this fact is presented upfront, and if it's hidden then customers tend to get pretty mad about being dicked-over with a bait-and-switch. Now, for some genres and games resale isn't as much of a point of value for customers, and in these cases you do indeed see companies moving to distribution models that prevent resale. While with other genres and games the companies realize that preventing resales would be suicide for them, and thus resales happily carry on. Of course, this doesn't prevent some of these companies from whining and posturing about used sales, but company heads being pissed that the market doesn't give them a license to print money is nothing new.
If I'm just 'licensing' the games, why do I always see this kind of message in Steam?: "Buy Alpha Protocol now and receive a free copy of Space Siege to play right away."
If I'm not buying the game, that would be false advertising.
avatar
Danda: If I'm just 'licensing' the games, why do I always see this kind of message in Steam?: "Buy Alpha Protocol now and receive a free copy of Space Siege to play right away."
If I'm not buying the game, that would be false advertising.

You're buying the license to play it, of course.
I'm all over the place on this issue. I feel like dealing with this "owning, not owning" stuff is a byproduct of not wanting anymore physical media. This is the infancy of getting all your games digitally distributed, and we can't expect Steam, with it's new release and big budget games, to go the way of Stardock or GOG. Stardock is the ideal case for steam, in my point of view, because you can install the game from the disk and not worry about disk checks or anything. The alternative is their Impulse software, where you can use that to download, manage and play your games.
The thing is, there's nothing stopping me from giving everyone I know my copy of Dark Avatar or Sins to install and play, and they could all play it at the same time, since there's no disk. I am aware that this didn't hurt the games any, as they both made tons and tons of money, but you can't deny if Steam had a service similar to this that the story would be different.
Personally, I'm not too bothered by this need to play my games without a client in the back and the ownership debate on it. The games I have retail boxes and CDs for, I simply don't play. That may say whatever it says about my character, but when I install windows fresh on my desktop or laptop (might as well be weekly), I fire up Steam and install all the games I want on it overnight. Those games I can play when I have a few minutes before a class, or i'm waiting for someone at the library to study. Am I gonna bust out my cd-wallet and pop in Crysis: Warhead or Civilization 4: Colonization (assuming I don't have a no-cd crack)? No, i'm not.
Am I upset that I can't sell any of these games (Steam, GoG, Stardock)? No, especially in this day and age, with PC gaming overshadowed by consoles. If I like a game, I want to make sure the publishers can keep making it. This is more effective with games like Braid, The Path, Mr. Robot and World of Goo, rather than Half-Life or Dawn of War. However, it's still a point I want to make.
This thread reminds me, I've a spare copy of half life 2 to gift to somebody. Anyone here not played it and fancy a freebie? You'll have to sign up to steam tho...
edit - gone to catshade now, soz.
Post edited August 21, 2009 by arghstupid
avatar
arghstupid: This thread reminds me, I've a spare copy of half life 2 to gift to somebody. Anyone here not played it and fancy a freebie? You'll have to sign up to steam tho...

Could you gift it for me? Played HL1, Opfor, and Blue Shift... but didn't get HL2 due to my shitty laptop back then. My steam username is the same as my GOG username here.
Edit: If you need my e-mail, it is catshade (at) gmail.com.
Post edited August 20, 2009 by Catshade
Done. Have fun.
avatar
StingingVelvet: PC games have always, always required you to look at the box and examine the requirements.
avatar
Andy_Panthro: As consumers, we PC gamers get treated very badly.
Restricted or no return policy, no guarantee that the specs on the box will be realistic or not (minimum spec can mean anything from just about loads up, to perfectly playable but worse graphics).
On the subject of Steam, I've had to avoid buying Empire: Total War and Dawn of War 2, both which I would have liked to play. But they both would require Steam, and I really don't want to use it. AFAIK, there's no alternative (legally).

Actually the biggest issue I had with DOW2 was that it also requires Games for Windows Live. Unfortunately South Africa is not supported (by GFWL) so I'm SOL for multiplayer.
avatar
arghstupid: Done. Have fun.

I got 4 emails from steam, and when I tried to click the redeem link in any of them..."The gift you have attempted to accept is no longer valid." Could you resend it again?
Grinja, create account for country that officialy have GfWL. I had to do same way, because Poland isn't on the list. I created account for US and it works fine, even leaded it with MS Points and bought DLC for Fallout 3 PC, 800 points each.
Post edited August 21, 2009 by igor8472
avatar
arghstupid: Done. Have fun.
avatar
Catshade: I got 4 emails from steam, and when I tried to click the redeem link in any of them..."The gift you have attempted to accept is no longer valid." Could you resend it again?

Weird. Have tried again, let me know if it screws up this time too + I'll get onto steam support about it.
avatar
Catshade: I got 4 emails from steam, and when I tried to click the redeem link in any of them..."The gift you have attempted to accept is no longer valid." Could you resend it again?
avatar
arghstupid: Weird. Have tried again, let me know if it screws up this time too + I'll get onto steam support about it.

Ah, it works now. Thanks, man. :)