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

[WaruTaru]

Sorry about the industry thing; I could have sworn you admitted to it earlier in the thread. As for the whole planned obsolescence thing, there's a product becoming obsolete, and a product that was designed so that certain features would only work for one person, who couldn't then sell on those features. If any other industry tried it, they would have been sued into oblivion. The games industry gets away with it, but it's blatantly an attack on the first sale doctrine. They only get away with it because they're able to lobby congress and weaken basic consumer rights -- kind of like the DMCA, when you think about it.

No need to apologize.

The first-hand buyer only has ownership over the physical product and the entitlement to enjoy whatever experience the physical product provides. Any and all content within that disc still belongs to the publisher/developer. What rights do the first-hand buyer have to "sell on the feature" within the game? He does not have that right. Its illegal. All he is allowed to do is sell the physical copy of the game which he owns. Thats it.

Have you seen these self-destructing E-books? That is worse. With games, you are retaining the physical copy at the very least, and you can still access a large part of the content. With these e-books, you can kiss the copy goodbye when you used up your quota. Restrictive use is slowly gaining popularity.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sorry about the industry thing; I could have sworn you admitted to it earlier in the thread. As for the whole planned obsolescence thing, there's a product becoming obsolete, and a product that was designed so that certain features would only work for one person, who couldn't then sell on those features. If any other industry tried it, they would have been sued into oblivion. The games industry gets away with it, but it's blatantly an attack on the first sale doctrine. They only get away with it because they're able to lobby congress and weaken basic consumer rights -- kind of like the DMCA, when you think about it.

No need to apologize.

The first-hand buyer only has ownership over the physical product and the entitlement to enjoy whatever experience the physical product provides. Any and all content within that disc still belongs to the publisher/developer. What rights do the first-hand buyer have to "sell on the feature" within the game? He does not have that right. Its illegal. All he is allowed to do is sell the physical copy of the game which he owns. Thats it.

Have you seen these self-destructing E-books? That is worse. With games, you are retaining the physical copy at the very least, and you can still access a large part of the content. With these e-books, you can kiss the copy goodbye when you used up your quota. Restrictive use is slowly gaining popularity.

There's a reason I don't have an e-reader. Physical books will never have DRM.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So that's $30 after a 25% markdown from amazon? That's a far cry from the MSRP being dropped to $30. As for supporting the developers, you aren't doing that by buying new. The developers were already paid; what do you think those multi-million dollar budgets go to? They pay the developer's salaries. Nearly every dime from sales goes to the publisher, who then uses the money to pay the next developer on the next piece of work for hire, and also takes a liberal amount in profit. The devs never see a penny of royalty money, and only ra,/i>rely receive a bonus, even for a game that sold exceptionally well (remember Modern Warfare 2?)

Being a thrifty shopper and taking advantage of sales is very evil of me. Also, who pays the developers money to make video games? Santa Claus?

The publisher pays them, as I pointed out. My point was that even in buying new, you aren't supporting the devs of that specific game. You're putting money into a general publishing fund, part of which will be used to fund another game, but not necessarily from another developer. And my point wasn't that you're evil for being thrifty; the point was that you were no better than me just because you go thrifty by buying new, and I do by buying used. At the end of the day, we're just doing what consumers are supposed to do: find the best deal they possibly can. The fortunes of the company that makes the product do not play into it from the consumer's end.

Edit: also, I don't exclusively buy used. I buy plenty of new games, they're just all $20 (what I consider to be the most a game is worth) or less. I'm doing what consumers are supposed to do: giving the industry feedback on how much we're willing to pay for their product. That's all I'm obligated to do.

Another straw-man from the king of straw-men.

ah well, here for your amusement:
publisher pays dev for the vidya => we buy the vidya => publisher pays the developer for more vidya.

And? It's still not your job, as a consumer, to pay the devs -- and besides, they've already been paid, on the profits from another game which was sold ages ago. The industry is not your friend; why should you try to be theirs?

Edit: Oh, and that should have read "but not necessarily from the same developer. My point was that you aren't directly paying the dev, not that you're probably paying for their next game.

So? the publisher is still a producer of content I enjoy.

So? You still aren't obligated to give them money directly. Purchasing their product through legal channels is all you have to do. I don't have a problem with you choosing to buy new, but don't defend them when they try to screw over the people who buy and sell used, despite having no right to do so. They are not your friends, stop defending them like they are.

 

[WaruTaru]

Sorry, I like to live in a place where I, as a consumer, am protected. Big business already finds ways to screw me over every chance it gets, and I'm going to defend the few rights I have to the death. If that's predatory of me, than what would you call what the industry is doing? On the scale of predators, I'm a house cat, and they're Galactus.

What of the creators' rights? Without them, you have nothing to enjoy in the first place. You owe it to the creative talents to keep them alive if you like the stuff they make.

They have the right to get paid for each copy the first time it's sold. Beyond that, it's neither my problem nor yours.

They also have the right to restrict enjoyment of their hard work, to the exclusivity of the few who paid them their dues. If you are enjoying my work and I don't get a single cent from you, why should I make it available to you? This is where piracy meets second-hand sales. People enjoying all their hard work without them getting paid.

It is my problem because I don't want them folding. I want them to keep making the things that I enjoy. Very much so. Their well-being is my well-being.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And yet you haven't given me an example of how they are materially different; you just keep claiming they are. Do you have anything at all to add to the argument at this point, or have I so thoroughly destroyed your position that this is what you're reduced to?

Mostly you're wearing me down with these pointless straw-man arguments.

here you go:

The economy is designed around the sale of used cars

Cars are an essential part of daily life

Cars are not part of any entertainment industry.

Cars are a lot more expensive than games

Cars depreciate over time, games do not. As in, once you drive the car off the lot, it's worth a lot less.

because of the price of cars and what it takes to buy one, used cars do not deprive the sales of new ones.

Okay, how is the entire economy designed around the sale of used cars? The car industry may be, but then so is the videogame industry -- which, incidentally, makes up a large chunk of the economy.

Cars are an essential part of daily life: True, but how does this make them incomparable to videogames in the sense of whether or not the manufacturer deserves a cut of second hand sales? You don't see people getting in trouble for buying bottled water and reselling it, despite the fact that water is a necessity, nor do you see the MPAA going after used DVDs, despite those being a luxury.

Cars are not part of the entertainment industry: so? They're part of the automotive industry. First sale applies to everything, regardless of what industry makes it.

Cars are a lot more expensive than games: and? This is a difference of degree, not kind. Games still cost money.

Cars depreciate over time while games do not: Have you been reading what I've been writing, or your own arguments, for that matter? We've already gone over the fact that both products do, in fact, depreciate, and games may even depreciate faster than cars.

because of the price of cars and what it takes to buy one, used cars do not deprive the sales of new ones: The exact same argument applies to videogames. I don't pay $60 for games because I can't afford it. It is literally not in my budget to pay that much. How does a videogame company lose a sale if I buy it used for less than that? Answer: they don't.

Have you got any more examples?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sorry, I like to live in a place where I, as a consumer, am protected. Big business already finds ways to screw me over every chance it gets, and I'm going to defend the few rights I have to the death. If that's predatory of me, than what would you call what the industry is doing? On the scale of predators, I'm a house cat, and they're Galactus.

What of the creators' rights? Without them, you have nothing to enjoy in the first place. You owe it to the creative talents to keep them alive if you like the stuff they make.

They have the right to get paid for each copy the first time it's sold. Beyond that, it's neither my problem nor yours.

They also have the right to restrict enjoyment of their hard work, to the exclusivity of the few who paid them their dues. If you are enjoying my work and I don't get a single cent from you, why should I make it available to you? This is where piracy meets second-hand sales. People enjoying all their hard work without them getting paid.

It is my problem because I don't want them folding. I want them to keep making the things that I enjoy. Very much so. Their well-being is my well-being.

They literally do not have that right. If their paying customer wants to sell the product they sold them, they have no right to tell the customer that he or she can't do that, and the customer has every legally protected right to sell it. If you want to try to keep them from folding, fine, buy new -- but don't support them when they tell other consumers that they can't buy or sell used. Ultimately, that's bad for you, too.

 

[WaruTaru]

There's a reason I don't have an e-reader. Physical books will never have DRM.

I don't have one either, but that doesn't stop them from trying. If the creator's livelihood is threatened, more likely than not they will be forced to turn to digital publishing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There's a reason I don't have an e-reader. Physical books will never have DRM.

I don't have one either, but that doesn't stop them from trying. If the creator's livelihood is threatened, more likely than not they will be forced to turn to digital publishing.

The thing about digital publishing is that the installed user base has to be big enough to make it worth publishing online in the first place. With the primary market of hard copies in place, this is true, but going e-reader only is not going to be a better move than just getting the thing published traditionally, for precisely the reason we're talking about in this thread -- neither of us have one, nor do the vast majority of readers. Right now, these things are toys for rich people. I'm pretty sure that even if most people do one day wind up with a device suited to reading e-books, it's going to be a tablet PC or something similar, not a dedicated e-reader. The things just don't give enough value for the money to get decent penetration.

 

[WaruTaru]

They literally do not have that right. If their paying customer wants to sell the product they sold them, they have no right to tell the customer that he or she can't do that, and the customer has every legally protected right to sell it. If you want to try to keep them from folding, fine, buy new -- but don't support them when they tell other consumers that they can't buy or sell used. Ultimately, that's bad for you, too.

Oh yes they do. Sort of. Two cases popped up within this thread saying software is licensed to the buyer, and EULAs being binding. They have no right to resell it. One of the cases is still deciding whether it infringes on copyright if a buyer resells it.

Source: "Vernor v Autodesk" and "Blizzard vs Glider."

Educational thread, this one. And I thought I hated law.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

They literally do not have that right. If their paying customer wants to sell the product they sold them, they have no right to tell the customer that he or she can't do that, and the customer has every legally protected right to sell it. If you want to try to keep them from folding, fine, buy new -- but don't support them when they tell other consumers that they can't buy or sell used. Ultimately, that's bad for you, too.

Oh yes they do. Sort of. Two cases popped up within this thread saying software is licensed to the buyer, and EULAs being binding. They have no right to resell it. One of the cases is still deciding whether it infringes on copyright if a buyer resells it.

Source: "Vernor v Autodesk" and "Blizzard vs Glider."

Educational thread, this one. And I thought I hated law.

Those were bad rulings, and at least one of them is still going through the courts -- and the current anti-consumer version was what a court ruled after they overturned a pro-consumer version. A sale is a sale, even if you call it a license. This is just a legal way of doing something that is very much illegal. The law already has things to cover this; the game companies just happen to have a PR arm so talented that they're getting some already pro-business courts to buy into their lies that somehow software is different.

Edit: It looks like they're both going through the courts, and are both at the same point: just past the court of appeal, with a pretty good chance of going to the supreme court. Hopefully, the justices on the highest court of the land are smart enough to understand that clickwrap licenses are BS.

Edit Edit: Ooh, and they were both through the same court of appeals, too (9th circuit.) I'd say there's at least an even chance that the supreme court won't side with them; it sounds like there's just a bunch of pro-business, anti-consumer justices on the 9th circuit.

 

[Poster1234]

The main reason why I find the publishers's rant on this subject to be 100% bullshit, is that they claim the have a right to own something they don't :they have to learn to accept that once they SOLD a copy of the game, it isn't theirs anymore : once you paid for it, it doesn't matter where you bought it : it's yours.

That is why there is nothing in common between piracy and used sales :
that is the differance, in a furniture store, between actually stealing a chair, and buying it , and then later selling it at a garage sale : how would you react if a lawyer from the store, nay a guy from where they MADE the chair, came to you and asked you for a part of the money's sale ?

Easy : you'd tell him to fuck off.
Well, same story here.

 

[WaruTaru]

There's a reason I don't have an e-reader. Physical books will never have DRM.

I don't have one either, but that doesn't stop them from trying. If the creator's livelihood is threatened, more likely than not they will be forced to turn to digital publishing.

The thing about digital publishing is that the installed user base has to be big enough to make it worth publishing online in the first place. With the primary market of hard copies in place, this is true, but going e-reader only is not going to be a better move than just getting the thing published traditionally, for precisely the reason we're talking about in this thread -- neither of us have one, nor do the vast majority of readers. Right now, these things are toys for rich people. I'm pretty sure that even if most people do one day wind up with a device suited to reading e-books, it's going to be a tablet PC or something similar, not a dedicated e-reader. The things just don't give enough value for the money to get decent penetration.

Yes, I agree. I have no idea how many people uses e-readers, so I won't go there. However, games are doing well in that respect. Steam/Origin/PSN/XBL and so on. They force you to install the damn thing on your first use. I do like having a physical copy of the game, but if they turn digital and stop selling physical copies altogether, then so be it. If all those games that I support turn digital completely, I won't be missing the game shop at all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There's a reason I don't have an e-reader. Physical books will never have DRM.

I don't have one either, but that doesn't stop them from trying. If the creator's livelihood is threatened, more likely than not they will be forced to turn to digital publishing.

The thing about digital publishing is that the installed user base has to be big enough to make it worth publishing online in the first place. With the primary market of hard copies in place, this is true, but going e-reader only is not going to be a better move than just getting the thing published traditionally, for precisely the reason we're talking about in this thread -- neither of us have one, nor do the vast majority of readers. Right now, these things are toys for rich people. I'm pretty sure that even if most people do one day wind up with a device suited to reading e-books, it's going to be a tablet PC or something similar, not a dedicated e-reader. The things just don't give enough value for the money to get decent penetration.

Yes, I agree. I have no idea how many people uses e-readers, so I won't go there. However, games are doing well in that respect. Steam/Origin/PSN/XBL and so on. They force you to install the damn thing on your first use. I do like having a physical copy of the game, but if they turn digital and stop selling physical copies altogether, then so be it. If all those games that I support turn digital completely, I won't be missing the game shop at all.

That's a problem, actually. I'm guilty of having a fairly large Steam account (mainly because the sales are even cheaper than buying used, and I don't mind getting a rental when I'm clearly paying for one anyway), but it occasionally gives me problems, even though I live in a part of the country that gets relatively good internet. Every time I go on vacation or otherwise wind up out of reach of the internet, Steam gives me tons of problems. Even offline mode only works when it wants to -- half the time it tells me it can't connect to the network, so I can't play my offline game in offline mode. I'm one of the lucky ones; there are huge swaths of this country -- one of the biggest first world countries in existence -- that still can't get high speed internet. Heck, there are portions of the country (mainly out west) that have a hard time even getting phone lines, let alone decent internet. We're still a very long way off from digital distribution being a viable release method on its own, without support from hard copies.

 

[WaruTaru]

Those were bad rulings, and at least one of them is still going through the courts -- and the current anti-consumer version was what a court ruled after they overturned a pro-consumer version. A sale is a sale, even if you call it a license. This is just a legal way of doing something that is very much illegal. The law already has things to cover this; the game companies just happen to have a PR arm so talented that they're getting some already pro-business courts to buy into their lies that somehow software is different.

Based on what do you call these bad rulings?

Entertainment media (namely music, books, films, games) are not goods.

If I, as an author, re-arrange the words in my book and sort them by alphabetical order instead of the story form you normally get, are you still reading a book?

If I, as a film director, were to cut up the sequence and randomly re-connect them, and play it in reverse, are you still watching a movie?

If I, as a musician, separate the lyrics from the tune, and record them separately, are you still listening to music?

If I, as a game developer, cut half a code line and attach it to the next code line for every single line of code in the game, turn all the art upside down so that the characters are walking on their head, and play all the sound bits and music only at the intro and end credits, are you still playing a game?

What makes all these things different from how they normally are? You are still paying for whatever I put inside the book/movie/music/game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Those were bad rulings, and at least one of them is still going through the courts -- and the current anti-consumer version was what a court ruled after they overturned a pro-consumer version. A sale is a sale, even if you call it a license. This is just a legal way of doing something that is very much illegal. The law already has things to cover this; the game companies just happen to have a PR arm so talented that they're getting some already pro-business courts to buy into their lies that somehow software is different.

Based on what do you call these bad rulings?

Entertainment media (namely music, books, films, games) are not goods.

If I, as an author, re-arrange the words in my book and sort them by alphabetical order instead of the story form you normally get, are you still reading a book?

If I, as a film director, were to cut up the sequence and randomly re-connect them, and play it in reverse, are you still watching a movie?

If I, as a musician, separate the lyrics from the tune, and record them separately, are you still listening to music?

If I, as a game developer, cut half a code line and attach it to the next code line for every single line of code in the game, turn all the art upside down so that the characters are walking on their head, and play all the sound bits and music only at the intro and end credits, are you still playing a game?

What makes all these things different from how they normally are? You are still paying for whatever I put inside the book/movie/music/game.

The answer is that they are goods, just like books are. The original ruling of Vernor V. Autodesk clearly said that, claiming (rightfully) that selling a hard copy of a piece of software represented selling a hard copy of a piece of software, not transferring a license. Digital distribution has a logical leg to stand on when claiming that they're only selling a license. Companies that sell their products through brick and mortar stores do not, and the district court recognized that; the 9th circuit seems to like businesses more than consumers for some reason, at least when it comes to shrink wrap contracts. Also, the supreme court has a tendency to overturn decisions that specifically come from that court: <link=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718/2>source.

Edit: Huh, it's weird. The 9th circuit has a reputation as a highly liberal court (meaning they should be highly pro-consumer, not pro-business), but going back through the decisions on shrink wrap contracts, just about all of the ones that were in favor of shrink wrap contracts went through the 9th circuit, while the ones that were against it were either at the district level, or in another circuit. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when these cases make it to the supreme court.

Edit: Oh, also, in the specific examples you gave, what you are claiming is significantly changing the product, and if a company did that after someone had already purchased their product, there would be hell to pay. Even if you were to sell them like that, they would be a different product than the initial one, and would have to be sold differently. But they would still be products, not services.

 

[SamuelT]

Edit: Yeah guys ok. No need for more quotes.

sorry, but there is a fault in your logic.

Edit: Yeah guys ok. No need for more quotes.

sorry, but

Edit: Yeah guys ok. No need for more quotes.

Edit: Yeah guys ok. No need for more quotes.

Thanks for replyíng, but I got it already.

 

[Gunner 51]

In a word, no.

Pirated games are stolen, second hand games are not.

As I've said in another post before - here's the life cycle of a game...

Developer makes a game and sells it to the publishers. (The developer has now been paid.)
Publishers sell the game to the retailers. (The publisher has now been paid)
Retailers sell the game to the gamer. (The retailer has been paid)
Gamer gets bored of the game and sells it back to the retailer because

Now here's the rub - when money changes hands, the game is then the sole property of whoever paid for it. The developers should know that the minute they sell their products to the publishers, the game is no longer their property. When the publishers sell to the retailers - the game is the property of the retailer and so forth.

There are a number of things which can break the second hand cycle.

1.) Make the game damned good, make it so good - the gamer wouldn't part with it. (A steady stream of good DLC can do this.)
2.) The developer's last duty should be to sure they get a fair deal from the publishers which they are happy with.
3.) Publishers should stop being greedy and screwing the developers in the name of short term profit. Furthermore, they have to accept that once they sell to the retailer, the game is no longer their property.

If Digital Distribution were easier and more convenient for the gamer - the publishers will find themselves in a LOT of trouble. The middleman - which they are - will be cut out of the deal. (Along with the retailers.)

But if Digital Distribution worked both ways - the gamer could buy and sell the game back to the developer. But until then, The Publisher will continue being greedy and exploit everyone and blame everyone but themselves.

Perhaps Extra Credits will elaborate on this in the future, unless they already have.

 

[WaruTaru]

Funny stuff.

"Reversal rates have no meaning whatsoever," said Chemerinsky. "If the Supreme Court overrules the 9th Circuit, it doesn't mean that the 9th Circuit was wrong and the Supreme Court was right. It means the Supreme Court had the last word."

The answer is that they are goods, just like books are. The original ruling of Vernor V. Autodesk clearly said that, claiming (rightfully) that selling a hard copy of a piece of software represented selling a hard copy of a piece of software, not transferring a license. Digital distribution has a logical leg to stand on when claiming that they're only selling a license. Companies that sell their products through brick and mortar stores do not, and the district court recognized that; the 9th circuit seems to like businesses more than consumers for some reason, at least when it comes to shrink wrap contracts. Also, the supreme court has a tendency to overturn decisions that specifically come from that court: <link=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718/2>source.

Edit: Huh, it's weird. The 9th circuit has a reputation as a highly liberal court (meaning they should be highly pro-consumer, not pro-business), but going back through the decisions on shrink wrap contracts, just about all of the ones that were in favor of shrink wrap contracts went through the 9th circuit, while the ones that were against it were either at the district level, or in another circuit. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when these cases make it to the supreme court.

Edit: Oh, also, in the specific examples you gave, what you are claiming is significantly changing the product, and if a company did that after someone had already purchased their product, there would be hell to pay. Even if you were to sell them like that, they would be a different product than the initial one, and would have to be sold differently. But they would still be products, not services.

OT: Which brings the case to the 9th Circuit. The reversals are mostly criminals cases, which the 9th Circuit are being way too lenient (Or so the Supreme Courts say). The Supreme Court usually support large corporations in corporate cases, which means they are pro-corporations. The ruling of Vernor v Autodesk by the 9th Circuit would have been upheld in the Supreme Court if the case went up there. What they are doing is following precedent of previous cases. If the law is decided, there is no reason for them to mess it up until some major law points come around forcing them to reconsider.

How am I significantly changing the product? A book is "words printed on paper", music is "something you listen to", movies "something you watch" and games "codes and arts and sound on a disc". You are still getting the content that you paid for. Just like IKEA furniture, you are buying a chair, but the chair doesn't come in chair-shapes. They come in a box, broken down into pieces. Same principle, no?