A point of contraversy (part 1) - Buying a game used is as bad as pirating?

[targren]

Forget all this is it right or wrong or legal crap. What worries me is, what happens if (Note: this is a HUGE IF) the used industry gets destroyed? With no competition, how expensive might games get? Forget the $60 price tag now, they could charge $100, $200, $300, $10000, and so on. And we wouldn't be able to do shit about it. That's what scares me, gaming becoming a strictly mansion owner only luxury. Has anyone else thought about that? I'm not going to argue the morality, because no one can stop me buying used anyways, so arguing about it is pointless.

I wouldn't worry about that, honestly. The price will probably go up, but not to the point of being a fancy luxury item. The more the price goes up, the fewer sales they get, and 1 million sales at $100 is better than 100 sales at $1 million -- the revenue is the same, but the latter results in a much smaller market. With the common expectation of everything going online lately and selling the "community" as part of the deal (like the mess that is surrounding Diablo 3 lately), any company that did what you're worried about would be out of business faster than you can say "E.T. on the Atari 2600"

 

[The Human Torch]

Is stealing a car the same as buying it used?

When you steal a car, you steal the physical thing, when pirating a game, you are cloning said game.

But what if you download a car...?

I saw a chair once in a store. I liked it so much that I went home, pulled out a saw and used a hammer and nails and built one exactly like it. Then I sat in it. I'll bet you the creator of that chair is foaming at the mouth right now because of the lost sale he just got. All because I used my chair copying machine and created a copy out of thin air...

Because going to a hardware store to buy wood, nails, a saw, sanding paper, wood oil and whatever else you need, is the same like buying an owned game...
Let me know once you are ready to develop Diablo 3/whateverothergameyoulike on your own, and we will talk.

Much like going to the computer store to buy CDs, a CD burner, computer and parts, pay for monthly internet fees and other incidentals...
What you said means nothing to the topic at hand.

Same can be said for you. Coming up with painfully inappropriate analogies that I have to debunk with more weird analogies. A car has nothing to do with a game, and a chair has nothing to do with copying.
High time that we treated this subject as it is, game cloning and developers trying to deal with it.

I don't see anything inappropriate about the analogies. Both involve copyright and copying said material.

Right now everyone is listening to the horse trying to make an arguement against cars and paved roads. Technology has moved on, and either developers and publishers are going to change to follow the times to suit consumers' wants and needs, or they will disappear into obsolesence, much like the horse has changed from the major form of transportation and work vehicle.

Copyright and IP laws will change. Society won't stand for the current laws, nor the way that IP holders are trying to shape them for the future. The internet is the modern printing press. The printing press didn't kill writers, nor did the camera put painters out of a job, nor did burners and video cameras put cds and dvds out of production. Business will evolve to use the internet the way the consumer wants to use it (a convenient form of obtaining something quickly without taking away a consumer's freedoms) or that business will die. Fighting it will only make it take longer and be messier.

"Technology has moved on". Maybe, but the fight itself is as old as the tape cassette, when music labels were riling against it, because people were copying their music with tape recorders, and thus not selling.

This fight is not new, it's almost 30 years old. And again, you come up with painful analogies, there is nothing comparable with painters and photographers, which are two completely different fields for two completely different demographics. The printing press still needs writers, whether they type on an iBook or write with ink and paper. And burners and video camera's rely on CD's and DVD's, until the moment comes that everything is stored on pen-drive.

The only thing second hand games selling can be compared to is cassette duplicating and second hand music/movie business. The reason why game developers are finding out ways to go around it is because their game sales are the only thing they have to re-earn what they spent on game development (which goes in the hundreds of millions sometimes). This cannot be compared to music, which has other forms of income besides just their CD's (shirts, posters, concerts, DVD's, and other related paraphernalia). And movie studies which first have a run in movie theaters, and then the sale of DVD's and blu-ray, and of course also toys, posters, shirts, and what have you. Even though the music and movie industry is against second hand sales and piracy, for them it's not their only source of income.

Even though the game industries might get some additional income from toys and the odd clothing item, it's not nearly as lucrative as music/movie paraphernalia, nor as grand. And the concert equivalent for gaming are conventions, which only cost money are done as more of a fan-service than anything else.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

they also seem to forget that game sold used, can get them profit from DLC, where as a game that stands on someone's shelf because they're not playing it and not selling it, does not.

Exactly, buy mass effect 3 pre-owned and well shit, your probably going to blow more money on the various DLC for it because y'know...you bought mass effect 2...your probably a fan and want the whole story.


Maybe some horse armor if you bought oblvion *snrk* did anyone ever buy that?

I did

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

If the retailer bought a game in bulk from the producer, the game copies they bought are now the retailers. When the retailers sell the game to a consumer it is now the consumers to do with as they please. When the consumer decides to sell the game back to the retailer he has every right to do so because the consumer bought the copy and the copy is therefore his or hers. Anyway, I don't exactly see the high profile DRMers being exactly strapped for cash from used game sales so why go and piss a bunch of people off. After all of this, I just want to pirate the game with full content out of spite.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Is stealing a car the same as buying it used?

When you steal a car, you steal the physical thing, when pirating a game, you are cloning said game.

But what if you download a car...?

I saw a chair once in a store. I liked it so much that I went home, pulled out a saw and used a hammer and nails and built one exactly like it. Then I sat in it. I'll bet you the creator of that chair is foaming at the mouth right now because of the lost sale he just got. All because I used my chair copying machine and created a copy out of thin air...

Because going to a hardware store to buy wood, nails, a saw, sanding paper, wood oil and whatever else you need, is the same like buying an owned game...
Let me know once you are ready to develop Diablo 3/whateverothergameyoulike on your own, and we will talk.

Much like going to the computer store to buy CDs, a CD burner, computer and parts, pay for monthly internet fees and other incidentals...
What you said means nothing to the topic at hand.

Same can be said for you. Coming up with painfully inappropriate analogies that I have to debunk with more weird analogies. A car has nothing to do with a game, and a chair has nothing to do with copying.
High time that we treated this subject as it is, game cloning and developers trying to deal with it.

I don't see anything inappropriate about the analogies. Both involve copyright and copying said material.

Right now everyone is listening to the horse trying to make an arguement against cars and paved roads. Technology has moved on, and either developers and publishers are going to change to follow the times to suit consumers' wants and needs, or they will disappear into obsolesence, much like the horse has changed from the major form of transportation and work vehicle.

Copyright and IP laws will change. Society won't stand for the current laws, nor the way that IP holders are trying to shape them for the future. The internet is the modern printing press. The printing press didn't kill writers, nor did the camera put painters out of a job, nor did burners and video cameras put cds and dvds out of production. Business will evolve to use the internet the way the consumer wants to use it (a convenient form of obtaining something quickly without taking away a consumer's freedoms) or that business will die. Fighting it will only make it take longer and be messier.

"Technology has moved on". Maybe, but the fight itself is as old as the tape cassette, when music labels were riling against it, because people were copying their music with tape recorders, and thus not selling.

This fight is not new, it's almost 30 years old. And again, you come up with painful analogies, there is nothing comparable with painters and photographers, which are two completely different fields for two completely different demographics. The printing press still needs writers, whether they type on an iBook or write with ink and paper. And burners and video camera's rely on CD's and DVD's, until the moment comes that everything is stored on pen-drive.

The only thing second hand games selling can be compared to is cassette duplicating and second hand music/movie business. The reason why game developers are finding out ways to go around it is because their game sales are the only thing they have to re-earn what they spent on game development (which goes in the hundreds of millions sometimes). This cannot be compared to music, which has other forms of income besides just their CD's (shirts, posters, concerts, DVD's, and other related paraphernalia). And movie studies which first have a run in movie theaters, and then the sale of DVD's and blu-ray, and of course also toys, posters, shirts, and what have you. Even though the music and movie industry is against second hand sales and piracy, for them it's not their only source of income.

Even though the game industries might get some additional income from toys and the odd clothing item, it's not nearly as lucrative as music/movie paraphernalia, nor as grand. And the concert equivalent for gaming are conventions, which only cost money are done as more of a fan-service than anything else.

You say it's as old as the tape cassette, which itself is a form of copying. Did this illegal "downloading" of a song off the radio station kill the industry? Did the sharing of mixed tapes between people do it? Did Napster? No. The music industry is still strong, just different. They broadened their horizons to include new markets.

You say the markets are nothing new. Do games not still need programmers, much like books need writers and pictures need painters? The internet is more like the printing press and photography and less like cassette recording in my mind. Both of the former involve "mass-reproduction" on a cheapened scale, just like the internet.

The industry needs to broaden its horizons, much like music and movies to gain additional sources of income than the games themselves. DLC is an attempt at that, but it doesn't work, at least not to the extent we're talking about. DLC still involves the game proper. Expand to include concerts, art shows, t-shirts and pens. promote them more. Do something unique that a game itself can't offer. Sell promotions to win a chance to design something for a game. You're selling the brand, not the game. The game becomes an accessory, much like your latest hoodie or backpack.

Give different options for games, different purchasing options (like being able to download each game in small bite-sized chunks or have a retail package), different price points. Not every game is a ferrarri, don't price them all the same. Some can command a premium, but not every game is a $60 game. There are many that cause people to feel ripped off when they buy it, but if it were initially purchased at a cheaper price...? (which is the arguement of the used game market). CDs and movies don't have this problem because they have priced themselves accordingly. When you buy them, you may get a dud, but $10-20 is an easier pill to swallow then $60, and again, you can re-sell it if you really don't want to keep it (more people are inclined to or even throw them out just due to the pittence they will get back from them...)

There are many things that the industry can do, but just refuses to. They would rather blame the consumer for the industries' faults, and make the customer pay for their terrible business practices. You mention conventions...I'll bet Blizzcon makes them money. I'll bet the Minecraft con will make money. There are ways to do it. The industry just needs to stop being lazy about it and take off their blinders.

Developers will still make games. It's in their blood, as artists. They will learn to make money a different way and sell "the experience" beyond the game (look no further than Minecraft for a good example of this). The people who will suffer are the people that are making money off the developers' labour: The publishers and marketers and retailers. These are the people who need to change the way they do business and find a way to fit into the industry in a way the consumer will accept them. Or else they will be out of a job.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I think this is a good thing, but only because so much time and effort has been put into RAGE that it seems only fair that the developer's get something back.

Many of you are saying that it's just greed that drives publishers and developers to this, and while this is definitely the case for some (Looking at you EA), there are some developers that do care about what they're working on and do deserve our money. If you don't have the money then buy it at a later date.

What they are getting back is all the revenue they get from retailers buying their game in bulk and the sales from digital distribution. I have no doubt that Rage will have no problem making a profit and that's a shame because it will encourage companies to pull more shit like this.

 

[WaruTaru]

Oh, you're right; she won the case, but it was a very narrow ruling, and the author was able to make some slight modifications and still get the book published. Fair use; it works.

[...In December, 2008, a modified (and shorter) version of Vander Ark's Lexicon was approved for publication...]

Need I say more?

[edit]As for how you lost, you used my own example to prove that there is no difference between books and videogames, thereby proving my point, not yours. In what moon-logic filled world does a new medium that is essentially identical to an old one not fall under the same laws as the old one? You keep trying to say that the new one should get new laws because it's new, and then the old one should fall under those laws. Face it, you argued so hard that you won my side of the argument for me.

I said the law should be applied equally across the board with regards to all entertainment media. I said that you are paying for the content, not the physical goods. Accordingly, all laws that say books/films/music are goods is as bad as saying software is goods. They are NOT goods. If you interpreted me saying that as "there is no difference between books and videogames", then I agree. Which is why the laws that applied to videogames should similarly be applied to books/films/music too.

Do me a favor and open any copy of the Harry Potter books you might have handy. You'll notice that each one of them has its own copyright, with a date next to it that is different for each book in the series. They are each copyrighted separately. Also, see my post above: he still got it published, he just had to make some minor changes. Finally, the musical does not fall under fair use, at all. They got away with it because it was a college production, and it's generally in bad taste to shut those down. One C&D letter would have done it, and any court would have sided with Rowling on that one.

It all says (c)J.K. Rowling [Year]. Sure, seeing as I have no idea why they put a year after the author's name, I will concede that point until someone says otherwise. If I created a new book by simply re-arranging the words, I'll happily copyright that and sell it at a lower price than the perfect-wording version. You still get to choose how much you want to pay for it. Point is, what does it matter? It is still MY IP either ways.

Again, I repeat: The modified book was approved. That means they got permission. Contrary to their first one, which they do not have permission.

Fair Use. The production team for that musical (and the courts) will say she is wrong, and will not side with her. Unlike the Lexicon that copied a lot of content from JK Rowling's works and tried to make a profit out of it, the musical only used a small part of her work, and they are not doing it for profit. Fair use applies.

 

[WaruTaru]

Quick question, and this might have already been brought up in your debate...

But if you do something like re-arranging the words in the novel in random orders, or numbering them, or whatever, wouldn't said novel never sell? No one would want to buy it and thus the point is moot. Same thing with a game. If I play a game with no music, inverted colored graphics, upside down and plays backwards in a non-linear timeline, I'd return it immediately. It would never sell. Isn't a good only a good when it has use/worth?

I dunno, this might not have anything to do with the debate, but I figured it'd be worth bringing up.

Goods is something physical. Tables, chairs, house, cars, etc.

Books/Games/Music/Movies are information.

I've asked it in my previous posts, but I'll ask again for your benefit: Are you paying to buy a game for the disc and box and whatnot, or are you paying to buy a game for the data inside? This applies to all other entertainment media as well.

Since you agree that it IS worthless if the content inside is messed up, that means you are buying the information, not the piece of thing that the information is recorded on. See where I am going?

Edit: Oh, Goosebumps did do that to some extent with their series. They jumbled up their content and make you flip pages backward and forward to get the entire content.

 

[Teh Jammah]

I read 7 pages of this... can't be arsed to read the rest, since it's essentially the same thing over and over again.

As far as I can tell the used games = piracy arguement is summed up as: Oh noes! The EVIL game company is reselling a game and nto cutting the poor developers in on it. That EVIL game retailer is making huge profits at their expense... profits that will be subject to tax, which translates into money the government can use to (theoretically) improve the country by creating public sector jobs, funding education or health or etc.

Profits that will be used to expand the business, opening more stores, creating new jobs, which puts money (EVIL MONEY!!!) in the pockets of those it employs OR use those profits to increase the wages of its workforce. Profits that may well be spent on other new games.

Long story short, reselling second hand games still creates a chash-flow that spills back into the economy, and people who have more money are more likely to consider making a big, luxury purchase.

Piracy is either all-but reveueless (in the case of free torrenting), or going to a small group of people, who don't pay tax on it, in all likelihood don't contribute to society.

If the devs/pubs REALLY think they deserve a cut of resale profits, then IMO they should pay an equivilent percentage to the store they take it from who bought the game for resale in the first place.

Like say if they wanted a 25% share of the profit then they should contribute 25% of what the store paid to buy the game back off the customer. Because as it is they're effectively the ones doing the robbery.

 

[WaruTaru]

Like say if they wanted a 25% share of the profit then they should contribute 25% of what the store paid to buy the game back off the customer. Because as it is they're effectively the ones doing the robbery.

Or I can choose to sell one copy to each game shop for XX million dollars. For that XX million dollars, each game shop have unlimited rights to make as many copies of the game as they want. I promise I won't sue them for piracy. They can even set the price for each copy as high or as low as they want. Sounds fair?

 

[mrdude2010]

the way game developers are treating this, they still own the game that the first person bought. it's like claiming that the car that the first person bought still belongs to GM, so they're perfectly within their rights to charge you to reset the scanner/ replace the compressor/ whatever you want to use. the implications of project $10 is that gamers don't own the game they purchased. they didn't buy the game, they rented it. it's not like this with any other product out there. it's like saying you bought a set of speakers, or whatever, and when you sell them on ebay, the next person who buys them has to pay logitech $10 to reactivate the interpreting chip. it's a blatant violation of a consumer's rights to do what they want with a product they purchased.

i don't see why developers think this is a good idea- they should want people to play their games, whether they get a cut of it or not. if i can't afford a new game, and the used one costs as much as the new one because of their stupid $10 activation fee, then i'm not going to buy the game. the community who plays the game will be smaller. the people who are exposed to their work will be smaller, and people will dislike the company for it.

and there's also the simple fact of convenience. it's much easier to just buy the game than it is to buy the game, then go put 800 microsoft points on your account so you can buy the online pass.

people keep bringing up the auto-industry, even though they are two completely different mediums with two completely different industries. No comparison. Developers want to get paid for the work they put into a game. I'm sure a lot of artists would love it if they could just share their work with the world for everyone to enjoy. But giving away shit for free never put food on the table.

that's a perfectly legitimate comparison in some ways- an engineer designed the car; a factory worker put it together; a janitor swept up the dev room- are you saying those people don't want to get paid for the work they put into cars, or speakers, or a music CD, or any other product? because that's what games are. a product.

and yeaaaa, EA sports REALLLY needs an extra $10 from me or they will fail. true story.

Cars depreciate in value over time, quite quickly in fact. Games, and to a larger part entertainment in general, do not.

as soon as a game is opened it loses 17% if its value. within a few months it will probably have lost 20-30% of its value (although this happens slower with AAA titles like COD, which continue being overpriced long after they're actually worth $60) Reach is currently about $35 on amazon- that's nearly a 50% loss in value in less than a year. a 2 year old honda accord will drop from $19,000 new to $10-12,000

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh, you're right; she won the case, but it was a very narrow ruling, and the author was able to make some slight modifications and still get the book published. Fair use; it works.

[...In December, 2008, a modified (and shorter) version of Vander Ark's Lexicon was approved for publication...]

Need I say more?

[edit]As for how you lost, you used my own example to prove that there is no difference between books and videogames, thereby proving my point, not yours. In what moon-logic filled world does a new medium that is essentially identical to an old one not fall under the same laws as the old one? You keep trying to say that the new one should get new laws because it's new, and then the old one should fall under those laws. Face it, you argued so hard that you won my side of the argument for me.

I said the law should be applied equally across the board with regards to all entertainment media. I said that you are paying for the content, not the physical goods. Accordingly, all laws that say books/films/music are goods is as bad as saying software is goods. They are NOT goods. If you interpreted me saying that as "there is no difference between books and videogames", then I agree. Which is why the laws that applied to videogames should similarly be applied to books/films/music too.

Do me a favor and open any copy of the Harry Potter books you might have handy. You'll notice that each one of them has its own copyright, with a date next to it that is different for each book in the series. They are each copyrighted separately. Also, see my post above: he still got it published, he just had to make some minor changes. Finally, the musical does not fall under fair use, at all. They got away with it because it was a college production, and it's generally in bad taste to shut those down. One C&D letter would have done it, and any court would have sided with Rowling on that one.

It all says (c)J.K. Rowling [Year]. Sure, seeing as I have no idea why they put a year after the author's name, I will concede that point until someone says otherwise. If I created a new book by simply re-arranging the words, I'll happily copyright that and sell it at a lower price than the perfect-wording version. You still get to choose how much you want to pay for it. Point is, what does it matter? It is still MY IP either ways.

Again, I repeat: The modified book was approved. That means they got permission. Contrary to their first one, which they do not have permission.

Fair Use. The production team for that musical (and the courts) will say she is wrong, and will not side with her. Unlike the Lexicon that copied a lot of content from JK Rowling's works and tried to make a profit out of it, the musical only used a small part of her work, and they are not doing it for profit. Fair use applies.

It does not mean they got permission. It means they edited it down so that the infringing stuff was no longer there. Rowling didn't want anyone but her writing commentary on the series, and she managed to shut down the original version of the book because it had a bit too much copied text and not enough original material (i.e., commentary.) The author pared things down a bit so it wasn't infringing on anything, and got it released. It was approved by the court, not Rowling, who would have absolutely refused to get it published if she could. Her lawsuit claimed a monopoly on commentary for pete's sake -- if that were included in copyright, can you say goodbye, cliffs notes?

As for AVPM being fair use, it might be, but only under a parody defense; in every other possible way, it's infringing, and any ruling would not be a forgone conclusion. The courts would have to decide whether it really counted as a parody or not (I'll grant that it probably would). Regardless, it's still a textbook derivative work, just one that might be protected as a parody. Also, because the definition you gave didn't explain what the four parts of the test actually meant, <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>here's a wikipedia article which explains at length how the test is applied.

Edit: As for your argument about books, music, and movies counting as goods under the law: That's the way it always has been. This issue was decided over 100 years ago, and nobody started claiming that IP was licensed instead of copies (you know, under copyright?) of that IP being sold until software companies started trying it in the 70's. Face it, your own argument defeats you, because the law needs to be applied equally to equivalent things, not differently to equivalent things because one of them happens to be the new kid on the block -- nor do new laws need to be written because a new product comes on the market that is in every essential way the same thing as the old products.

 

[samaugsch]

Actually the discs will not be in the same condition as when new since every time they are used they will be slightly scratched. Add to that the fact that the data will deteroriate over time it is only fair that used are sold cheaper, just like any other used goods.

I hope you are trying to troll me here.

Used games cannot be sold unless the disc is readable. Once the disc is readable you have the product: The Game. Data. Does. Not. Deteriorate. Data will stay data, unless you are a complete knob-head, install the game, break the disc and then delete the game on your HD.

The only argument you could make is that it is an old game (graphics and technology have moved on), in which case sales knock the price down considerably without having to fall back to "used".

But the issue aren't the old games, the issue in my opinion are new titles (within one year) that get thrown back to the shelves by quick gamers (or bored gamers - or well, the gamers that burn the thing on their own discs and keep them anyway).

Again. I hope you are trolling here. There are only a few things in life that do not lose quality, and data happens to be one of them. If you wish to argue this, take it to PMs. If you wonder why you shouldn't, I work with it everyday.

So... bit rot is a myth?

OT: Can't really add much other than what other users have said already.

 

[Saelune]

When companies complain about used games, their corperate greed shines through. How about this...a used game that is bought is a used game BEING USED. I fail to see how a game sitting unplayed in some kids pile is as bad as someone who might not have gotten it otherwise playing it and perhaps becoming a fan and thus in other ways promoting the game?
The war against used games is a very narrow thinking war.

 

[WaruTaru]

It does not mean they got permission. It means they edited it down so that the infringing stuff was no longer there. Rowling didn't want anyone but her writing commentary on the series, and she managed to shut down the original version of the book because it had a bit too much copied text and not enough original material (i.e., commentary.) The author pared things down a bit so it wasn't infringing on anything, and got it released. It was approved by the court, not Rowling, who would have absolutely refused to get it published if she could. Her lawsuit claimed a monopoly on commentary for pete's sake -- if that were included in copyright, can you say goodbye, cliffs notes?

As for AVPM being fair use, it might be, but only under a parody defense; in every other possible way, it's infringing, and any ruling would not be a forgone conclusion. The courts would have to decide whether it really counted as a parody or not (I'll grant that it probably would). Regardless, it's still a textbook derivative work, just one that might be protected as a parody. Also, because the definition you gave didn't explain what the four parts of the test actually meant, <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>here's a wikipedia article which explains at length how the test is applied.

Edit: As for your argument about books, music, and movies counting as goods under the law: That's the way it always has been. This issue was decided over 100 years ago, and nobody started claiming that IP was licensed instead of copies (you know, under copyright?) of that IP being sold until software companies started trying it in the 70's. Face it, your own argument defeats you, because the law needs to be applied equally to equivalent things, not differently to equivalent things because one of them happens to be the new kid on the block -- nor do new laws need to be written because a new product comes on the market that is in every essential way the same thing as the old products.

Do you know how much they edited? It went from something similar to this to something like this. That is a lot of editing. That bit about the courts approved it? I would love to see a source for that. As far as I know, it is Rowling's LAWYER that approved the edited version, which means she had a hand behind the approval.

You just said it is fair use, and the courts would rule it so. End of story.

I said over and over that the recording media is the goods. I said over and over that the content within is something entirely different (I.E. NOT GOODS).

You do not buy "copies of IP" when you are buying a book. That is just stupid. If everyone who bought a book has a "copy of the IP", they can just do whatever they want with that IP, which is certainly not the case. The law applied on software and games is the right law to apply because it places a value on the content, not the physical media which it is recorded on. I have said over and over (and you agreed to it) that a book without a story is worthless. You do not own the story, you own the book. You can dispose of the book anyway you like, but you cannot do the same with the story. The story is not yours to dispose of.

Oh, about never changing laws? Marital rape was all good until the courts changed it. If laws do not change to reflect the current situation, they are bad law. The situation is changing, the law needs to follow the change.

How did my argument defeat myself again? It didn't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It does not mean they got permission. It means they edited it down so that the infringing stuff was no longer there. Rowling didn't want anyone but her writing commentary on the series, and she managed to shut down the original version of the book because it had a bit too much copied text and not enough original material (i.e., commentary.) The author pared things down a bit so it wasn't infringing on anything, and got it released. It was approved by the court, not Rowling, who would have absolutely refused to get it published if she could. Her lawsuit claimed a monopoly on commentary for pete's sake -- if that were included in copyright, can you say goodbye, cliffs notes?

As for AVPM being fair use, it might be, but only under a parody defense; in every other possible way, it's infringing, and any ruling would not be a forgone conclusion. The courts would have to decide whether it really counted as a parody or not (I'll grant that it probably would). Regardless, it's still a textbook derivative work, just one that might be protected as a parody. Also, because the definition you gave didn't explain what the four parts of the test actually meant, <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>here's a wikipedia article which explains at length how the test is applied.

Edit: As for your argument about books, music, and movies counting as goods under the law: That's the way it always has been. This issue was decided over 100 years ago, and nobody started claiming that IP was licensed instead of copies (you know, under copyright?) of that IP being sold until software companies started trying it in the 70's. Face it, your own argument defeats you, because the law needs to be applied equally to equivalent things, not differently to equivalent things because one of them happens to be the new kid on the block -- nor do new laws need to be written because a new product comes on the market that is in every essential way the same thing as the old products.

Do you know how much they edited? It went from something similar to this to something like this. That is a lot of editing. That bit about the courts approved it? I would love to see a source for that. As far as I know, it is Rowling's LAWYER that approved the edited version, which means she had a hand behind the approval.

You just said it is fair use, and the courts would rule it so. End of story.

I said over and over that the recording media is the goods. I said over and over that the content within is something entirely different (I.E. NOT GOODS).

You do not buy "copies of IP" when you are buying a book. That is just stupid. If everyone who bought a book has a "copy of the IP", they can just do whatever they want with that IP, which is certainly not the case. The law applied on software and games is the right law to apply because it places a value on the content, not the physical media which it is recorded on. I have said over and over (and you agreed to it) that a book without a story is worthless. You do not own the story, you own the book. You can dispose of the book anyway you like, but you cannot do the same with the story. The story is not yours to dispose of.

Oh, about never changing laws? Marital rape was all good until the courts changed it. If laws do not change to reflect the current situation, they are bad law. The situation is changing, the law needs to follow the change.

How did my argument defeat myself again? It didn't.

Did you just compare copyright law to rape? That's effectively Godwin's law. The situation has not changed, except for the fact that the industry's PR team has managed to convince a lot of people of some truly ridiculous lies. We've both established that software is nothing new in the world of IP, so I fail to see how you can argue that the situation has changed on that front.

And yeah, you buy copies of an IP -- that is why it's called copyright law. You have the right to do whatever you want with that specific copy, but you cannot make do not have the right -- the other half of copyright -- to make any more from it, aside from some very specific exceptions things like software backups, as well as fair use. If you can't understand that much, I'm done with you -- you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[LokiArchetype]

It's kinda ridiculous how much this issue is played up.

Any non-perishable product will have a market for selling it used. Stores like Gamestop are just ulta-specialized pawn shops. It'd be a challenge to find something on Amazon that you can't buy used.

Once you own something you have every right to sell it once the money you could get from it exceeds the value it has to you.

If video game developers want to diminish used game sales maybe they should do something to make us want to keep our games. Does replay value sound familiar to anyone?

If anything is underhanded its deliberately designing products to fail in some way if resold.

What about situations where the game is no longer being manufactured and the only way to buy it is to buy it used?

 

[WaruTaru]

Did you just compare copyright law to rape? That's effectively Godwin's law. The situation has not changed, except for the fact that the industry's PR team has managed to convince a lot of people of some truly ridiculous lies. We've both established that software is nothing new in the world of IP, so I fail to see how you can argue that the situation has changed on that front.

And yeah, you buy copies of an IP -- that is why it's called copyright law. You have the right to do whatever you want with that specific copy, but you cannot make do not have the right -- the other half of copyright -- to make any more from it, aside from some very specific exceptions things like software backups, as well as fair use. If you can't understand that much, I'm done with you -- you are being willfully ignorant.

No, the situation has changed. If the situation did not change, why did they change the law? Men are still men, women are still women. Whats the difference?

Internet changed the situation. And so did software. The rest of the entertainment media should change accordingly too. Piracy has been easier with the Internet, and creators should have a way to safeguard their personal interest in their own IP.

No, you do not buy "copies of IP" when you buy the recording media. You bought a LICENSE. The law says you are wrong. You've read it yourself. You cannot re-sell your copy of software. You are the one being willfully ignorant.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Did you just compare copyright law to rape? That's effectively Godwin's law. The situation has not changed, except for the fact that the industry's PR team has managed to convince a lot of people of some truly ridiculous lies. We've both established that software is nothing new in the world of IP, so I fail to see how you can argue that the situation has changed on that front.

And yeah, you buy copies of an IP -- that is why it's called copyright law. You have the right to do whatever you want with that specific copy, but you cannot make do not have the right -- the other half of copyright -- to make any more from it, aside from some very specific exceptions things like software backups, as well as fair use. If you can't understand that much, I'm done with you -- you are being willfully ignorant.

No, the situation has changed. If the situation did not change, why did they change the law? Men are still men, women are still women. Whats the difference?

Internet changed the situation. And so did software. The rest of the entertainment media should change accordingly too. Piracy has been easier with the Internet, and creators should have a way to safeguard their personal interest in their own IP.

No, you do not buy "copies of IP" when you buy the recording media. You bought a LICENSE. The law says you are wrong. You've read it yourself. You cannot re-sell your copy of software. You are the one being willfully ignorant.

*sigh* The law does not say you bought a license. The EULA, which doesn't even come into play until after the sale has occurred, says that. Further, the law on the matter hasn't changed since the 70's. This isn't something congress did; it's something the lawyers of software companies are trying to get the courts to do. Seriously, man, if you're going to argue this stuff, do yourself a favor and do the research.

 

[GeorgW]

I would never pirate a game, that's just against my personal beliefs.
However, if I dislike something about a game and want to protest, but still want to play the game, I love buying used. To use the OPs example: I dislike how Rage combats used sales, so I won't buy the game. If however, for some reason all my friends are playing rage and saying it's fantastic, or it gets a perfect 100 on metacritic, I will probably reconsider. However, I still dislike how they handled Rage, so in protest I'll buy it used. I don't think that's as bad as piracy, cuz if I like it then maybe I'll pay the fee or buy DLC.
Also, I don't trade in games, if I don't like them I give them away.