Federal Ruling Challenges Validity of Used Software Sales
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well... if you want a completely free market, you'd have to get rid of all copyright law, network neutrality, every ethical guideline...TheMaddestHatter said:
Basically, market freedom is not good for the consumer. Anyone who's tried to convince you otherwise is lying.
But... yea, this can only be good. Publishers already competed with each other. Then gamestop treating used games like they're competing with new copies fucked up everything. If gamestop ended, so would project ten dollar, DLC, and planned trilogies. If used sales dropped to the level of piracy, games would be longer, better, and things like communities would be encouraged, rather than feared.
Not for many, many, MANY years. If at all. You aren't going to be seeing the PS4, 360 successor, and Wii successor (damn Nintendo and Microsoft for going with different names each time, make it easy like Sony please), that's for sure. Just because some people have access to good internet doesn't mean everyone does, and companies aren't dumb enough to cut out huge chunks of their consumer base by going download only at this point in time.mattttherman3 said:
Meanwhile, this ruling is right here, right now. So yes, it does matter. It does matter a lot. This issue is in our face now, we have to deal with it now and not wait who knows how many years to make digital distribution to completely take over and render selling games once you're done impossible.
What upsets me isn't the effect of this on the used market, but rather on the primary market.
I collect games. I consider them valuable works that I want to be able to show my children someday. The licensing system endangers being able to do that, and it'll be horrible if someday, my collection just.. stops at Suikoden V.
What about Portal? Rise of Legends? Mass Effect? The company's are also selling themselves short, using systems that undermine their creations' longevity. At this rate we're at best going to have a whole period missing from our artistic history, and it'll be the fault of rulings like this encouraging the license-over-ownership habit.
And if it becomes widespread in videogames, well, just wait, other publishers'll want in on the ;not having to actually sell anyone ownership of anything' pie. Probably first music, then movies, and finally books..
I know I'm exaggerating a bit - it's a worse case scenario. But still, this is a bloody insidious threat, all considered.
I collect games. I consider them valuable works that I want to be able to show my children someday. The licensing system endangers being able to do that, and it'll be horrible if someday, my collection just.. stops at Suikoden V.
What about Portal? Rise of Legends? Mass Effect? The company's are also selling themselves short, using systems that undermine their creations' longevity. At this rate we're at best going to have a whole period missing from our artistic history, and it'll be the fault of rulings like this encouraging the license-over-ownership habit.
And if it becomes widespread in videogames, well, just wait, other publishers'll want in on the ;not having to actually sell anyone ownership of anything' pie. Probably first music, then movies, and finally books..
I know I'm exaggerating a bit - it's a worse case scenario. But still, this is a bloody insidious threat, all considered.
But you will, if these sorts of rulings stand. Everyone will try and "license" their product rather than sell it to prevent the used-market sales. Books? No, you bought a non-transferable license to that block of paper - you're not allowed to resell it. Your friend will have to buy a brand new copy. Of course, your license doesn't entitle you to any sort of support or warranty, either.Serris said:
The only things that will be sold under that plan are pure consumables - food, electricity, that sorta thing.
This software came in a physical form. So there had to be a sale. Someone should inform the Supreme Court and Autodesk, that they have just failed to remember the definitions of the words they are using
Any attempt to limit the aftermarket redistribution of books will be bitchslapped with the fact libraries exist, are government entities, are a staple of civilization, etc.anyGould said:
Not to mention, every read of a book damages it. How much depending on the person. Libraries typically sink thousands into repair, maintenance, and occasionally, digitization of books. Paper rots, ink fades, bindings break, glue breaks down. Meaning used books are worth less than even what used book stores charge for them.
While video games... are not damaged by plays, are subject to a very limited number of rare denigration issues (DVD rot being more a symptom of improper storage or weird chemical reactions in the glue). They are consumable products not affected in any real way by the act of consumption. Which makes them utterly unique and entitled different treatment than any other product in existence.
Without the used aftermarket, its in the best interest of developers/publishers to re-release games the same way print publishers commission multiple printings of books.Fensfield said:
I have a question perhaps someone can answer?
I can see this having an effect on american resale markets, but when exactly did laws in one country suddenly become "global law?"
The way people talk, this ruling could effect the ENTIRE GAME MARKET of the WORLD.
Even if this stands in America, it wouldn't necessarily mean the same thing in Britain, France, South Africa, South Korea, or any other gaming market.
I can see this having an effect on american resale markets, but when exactly did laws in one country suddenly become "global law?"
The way people talk, this ruling could effect the ENTIRE GAME MARKET of the WORLD.
Even if this stands in America, it wouldn't necessarily mean the same thing in Britain, France, South Africa, South Korea, or any other gaming market.
Here's the thing; if I understand it right; if something flies legally in one country more often than not other countries that hold similar sets of laws and government systems will attempt to do the same thing. There's also the fact that there are treaties between countries and all one country needs to do to place pressure on the other is to play the "you're violating our treaty" card.HyenaThePirate said:
Thus it's reasonably safe to assume that should something of this magnitude occur in one country (specifically the country who has more guns than it does sane people) other countries will begin to follow suite as the industry puts pressure on politicians and the politicians in turn place pressure on global leaders.
At first I was mad at this, but then I realized that it was implied that this would only apply to retailers. In that case, I could care less if GameStop can't sell used games anymore.
This is stupid... people can resell movie and music disks, it should apply to software too. Damn lobbyists. Those corporate bastards are going to get what they want because the courts and lawyers are in their pockets and people won't do anything because it would involve getting away from in front of the computer
My local library carries video games - the only thing preventing them from being affected is jurisdiction. Also, it would be a trivial matter for publishers to give libraries a separate license, anyhow.Cynical skeptic said:
Of course, that hasn't stopped a lively business in both used books, and highly-priced rare antiques. And DVDs *do* degrade eventually, so they're not some magical "perfect item" that justifies special treatment - they're just usually obsolete first (if only because there's no hardware left to run them).Cynical skeptic said:
But let's ignore books: why couldn't the licensing stunt work for your computer monitor? Your stereo system? Your desk? Being able to force people to buy new every time is a wet dream to any supplier.