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

[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.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

[...He said he ruled in Ms Rowling's favour because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide"...]

How is that a lost?

Prove that I lost. I used your own example and showed you it results in the same thing.

Edit: I'm still waiting for that 7 Harry Potter IPs.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Slaanesh]

Sorry, I didn't read all of the damn pages so forgive me if I'm only repeating something posted earlier.

When you buy a game used, you aren't supporting the developers who put much time and effort into making the game. So why should they care about/support you?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And you know what? Rowling lost that case, as she should have. That falls under the commentary exclusion in fair use.

And as for the novel thing, quit it. You're just too dogged to admit you lost quite a while ago.

[...He said he ruled in Ms Rowling's favour because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide"...]

How is that a lost?

Prove that I lost. I used your own example and showed you it results in the same thing.

Edit: I'm still waiting for that 7 Harry Potter IPs.

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.

[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.[/edit]

Copyright and First Sale Doctrine are diametrically opposed to each other.

I kind of stopped reading there. Of course they're diametrically opposed; the First Sale Doctrine is one of those exceptions to copyright you were talking about. You may as well say that fair use is diametrically opposed to copyright.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The book is a book, but it's no longer a novel; just like the disc is a disc, but it's no longer a game. As for derivative works, a list of every word in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone isn't a derivative work. It's just a list of random words.

Spoiler: A Very Potter Musical is a derivative work.

It will be a novel when I put the words into it, in any arrangement I prefer. A disc is a game when the content is put into it. There are two ways to say it is a derivative work. My way, which is to number those words and give them instructions, is a derivative work. Just like translated versions of it. The other way is claiming it as a work related to the original fiction.[/link] JK Rowling sued the person who tried to release his Harry Potter lexicon as his own work. The lexicon has no story so to speak of. They are a a bunch of random words sorted alphabetically. Courts said no to the man and upheld JK Rowling's rights because the lexicon IS derived from the "Harry Potter" IP even though the lexicon is a list of words relating to the Harry Potter world.

The musical falls under fair use so long as he is not making money from it and there is no reason for JK Rowling to make him stop. The musical is not doing any harm to JK Rowling's IP.

Edit: Show me 7 "Harry Potter" IPs.

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.

 

[viranimus]

This is so simple. Yes, After market is infinitely worse than pirating because there is no legal protection against piracy. Your completely free to try and prosecute pirates in any way your able to. Used is horrific abomination and is basically publisher rape that is such a tragedy we must encourage any means at our disposal in order to eliminate it as a possibility, especially means that remove any concept of ownership at all.

You ungrateful and entitled gamers, without us, who is going to entertain you? You need us more than we will ever need you.

:eyeroll

 

[orangeban]

Sorry, I didn't read all of the damn pages so forgive me if I'm only repeating something posted earlier.

When you buy a game used, you aren't supporting the developers who put much time and effort into making the game. So why should they care about/support you?

Because not caring about me is an excellent way to get me to stop buying your stuff? This is like politics, those people who buy the stuff new, they are safe. Just don't do something too stupid (or too revolutionary, or too expensive, or take too long... okay, they aren't that safe but that's besides the point really) and most will be alright, since they obviously like your stuff.
The ones you want to convert are the used game buyers. Those are the guys who like your game, but don't like you enough to give you money, so try and win them round. Say to them, here look how nice and friendly we are, don't you want to support us? (this is why I buy Valve's games new, I like the company.) The way to lose these people is for the game company to give them the middle finger and go, "Not giving us money? Well fuck you dude." That right there is not good marketing. Imagine a political campaign which centered around pissing off the floating voters. 'twould be ridiculous.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I kind of stopped reading there. Of course they're diametrically opposed; the First Sale Doctrine is one of those exceptions to copyright you were talking about. You may as well say that fair use is diametrically opposed to copyright.

Uh, yeah. That post was a recap of this topic. I even flat out said so.
So your comment here is completely pointless.

 

[orangeban]

Snipped for politeness

I reported you if that helps, hope you get help for your illness.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I kind of stopped reading there. Of course they're diametrically opposed; the First Sale Doctrine is one of those exceptions to copyright you were talking about. You may as well say that fair use is diametrically opposed to copyright.

Uh, yeah. That post was a recap of this topic. I even flat out said so.
So your comment here is completely pointless.

I just read the whole thing, and I didn't see anything stating that it was a recap -- and it wasn't clear that it was a recap until about two thirds of the way through the post. I've seen so many people arguing so many, to borrow a British term, mental things about copyright and first sale on this site, that it really gets on my nerves when people start doing it. The entire reason I stopped lurking here and signed up for an account was to post in a thread on this very topic, over a year ago. Unfortunately, the people who were just starting to buy into the industry's rhetoric at the time have converted into true believers, and the problem is just getting worse.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I want the fuck out of this hellhole. If mods won't fucking delete my fucking cunted account, then maybe gunning for a ban by acting like a complete **** for days and weeks and making this site even less enjoyable than it already is MIGHT JUST CLUE THEM IN TO WHY MY REQUEST IS FUCKING REASONABLE. I HAVE A SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS THAT DOES NOT COPE WELL WITH FUCKHEADED MODS, AND THIS PLACE HAS FUCKHEADS FOR MODS. SO FUCKING DELETE MY ACCOUNT ALREADY YOU STUPID CUNTS!!!

Getting banned won't get your account deleted. It'll just get it locked, and set up where anyone who knows to look for it can see it. The system literally does not allow for accounts to be deleted, but rest assured, you'll get banned simply enough.

 

[Tufty94]

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.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I just read the whole thing, and I didn't see anything stating that it was a recap -- and it wasn't clear that it was a recap until about two thirds of the way through the post.

I do hate quoting myself:

"Ten pages of circular arguments about a topic that started over a century ago. I guess things never really change do they?

So, I'll try to explain the topic and recap as best as I can:
*snip*"

It's right there in the first two lines. But I'll stop harping it on now.

I've seen so many people arguing so many, to borrow a British term, mental things about copyright and first sale on this site, that it really gets on my nerves when people start doing it. The entire reason I stopped lurking here and signed up for an account was to post in a thread on this very topic, over a year ago. Unfortunately, the people who were just starting to buy into the industry's rhetoric at the time have converted into true believers, and the problem is just getting worse.

Well, I'm stating the facts as I know them. But the heart of the topic is one of possible change and "fairness" for the consumer vs "fairness" for the producer.

Given the direction the gaming industry is going in, I'm wary about people giving into the publishers' demands so quickly. They are trying to move the ENTIRE mainstream industry into a "service only" business where (paradoxically) you have no rights but to either accept or reject the product from the very start.

It's such a strange thing: The publishers want the benefits of both a service-like market to protect their IP, but a product-like market for selling and marketing their goods. And in reality, these two things do not share the same rules. But they're going to try to force them to anyway, and completely at the expense of the paying customer.

Their attempt at eliminating the First Sale Doctrine is a big part of that change.

 

[Magicman10893]

Do you see Chevrolet getting all pissed off and pulling dirty tricks when people resell their old Chevy? Do you see them trying to screw over used car dealerships when they sell a car and don't mail the money back to them? Do you see Chevrolet going after their customers because they sold their old car to someone else and pocketed all the money themselves? Then why the hell is it different and "acceptable" for game publishers to do the same thing?

 

[lordofthenight]

I've seen people earlier saying that when you buy a game, you're just buying a license to play that game. That you're buying the experience, rather than actually owning the game. So when my copy of Halo 3 (that I bought new when I bought my 360) broke, every developer would clearly have been happy to send me out a new copy? After all, the disc is apparently irrelevant, I own the license to play it after all, so Microsoft/Bungie would have sent me a new one if I'd asked.

I wish I'd know that, rather than going out to Game and buying a preowned copy for about £20, I would've saved myself the cash, and apparently been supporting the developer too by doing it that way.

 

[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.

 

[Racecarlock]

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.