Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[Twilight_guy]

EA and Sony and putting in programs and many other other companies are discussing programs. Its clear that publishers are cracking down on used games sales. I don't have a problem with them but I understand why companies would want a cut of the sales from used games. Unfortunately that doesn't stop waves of unintelligible hate from flowing over it and in standard gamer format complaining while offering no way to combat it and no discussion of the issue. Gamers are like politicians, they like to tell you why they hate things but don't offer many plans to come up with alternatives.

 

[Timmibal]

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

 

[Chibz]

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

You realize that neither of those statements in the manual would have any legal weight right? Mostly because...

1. The user (you) never explicitly agreed to it. At all.
2. It's tacked on (almost sneaked in) after the sale & agreement is finalized.
3. Legally binding agreements don't work this way at all.

It wouldn't fly in court, unless your local laws are even more ungodly than the US'

The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so!

I don't care, said Pierre, I'm from FRANCE. As long as they try to deprive me of basic ownership rights, I don't care about their profits. Used game sales are old as dirt, and the industry should've had plenty of time to adapt to them.

Don't compare video games to books, film and music? Sorry, but from a sales & legal perspective video games are very comparable.

 

[Epona]

Let me just go read my License agreement for my copy of Fallout 3.

....

Oh wait, there ISN'T one. I bought a tangable copy of the game. This guy downloaded software and tried to sell it. That's far, FAR differnet then buying a game and selling it. No downloading OR license agreement was made.

Really? Cause mine most certainly did have a license agreement.

Ahem.

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

Page two of the manual, under the age rating. These same words come with every single copy of the game, and every other game sold with a manual.

And of course,

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

All there, black and white, clear as crystal. Good day sir.

...and yet you can resell the game. Shows you how much power the EULA has.

 

[Epona]

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

 

[Arehexes]

We can buy used Movies, Music, Books, and Cars, and Anything in between (look at ebay for gods sakes). I say this a lot and it applies here also, we need to treat video games like any other media. I don't see book publishers get in a fit when you sell used books on online places or book stores, I don't see movie companies get pissed when blockbuster sells there movies. So Why is it video games should get away with it, and lets consider this If I buy a online game like Socom then that's one spot already bought, if I sell it to someone then I transferred that spot to him also. This online pass stuff is full of crap because now it's making a knife point like issue where you might be felt you are forced to buy it new and not used. This trick is just a way to get more money.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

Yeah I mean look at Blockbuster and movie companies. Movie companies focus more on people pirating then buying their movies used. I have never heard of a book publisher freak the hell out over used book sales. And here is the big kicker, BUYING USED GAMES IS NOT SOME NEW THING. I remember owned a SNES and like 30% of my collection was used games from Blockbuster, from Donkey Kong Country 2 to Super Mario RPG. This is not a new feature it's just not that we have online checking companies can find a way to track their product we "own".

 

[viranimus]

Honestly... I would not mind them putting up a block for online content. If they would just do everyone the courtesy as to not automatically require system updates to play offline single player games.

Every game sold as a disc really needs to be accessible to play on any incarnation of the PS3 without internet connectivity regardless of forced firmware state. And Hardware devs like Sony by doing this are pissing all over ownership rights.

So, yeah, if they want to force people to buy codes to play online for used copies? Thats actually fairly justifiable considering the free internet gameplay, and server functions they provide. But considering they wont give up on forcing that network connectivity down the consumers throat, then No.. Do not approve and will not approve until the issue is fixed.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

Oh so now it's about Sony and not about Vernor vs Autodesk. How convenient.

Not to mention Vernor v. Autodesk seems to directly contradict a couple of precedents, most notably Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., where the court ruled that the first sale doctrine applied to a reseller of Novell's software, or SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc., where the court went on at quite a bit of length:

Section 202 of the Copyright Act recognizes a distinction between tangible property rights in copies of the work and intangible property rights in the creation itself.11 In this case, no claim is made that transfer of the copy involves transfer of the ownership of the intellectual property within. (See SoftMan's Suppl. Brief at 9-10) ("Adobe has ownership rights in the copyright of [its] software.").) What is at stake here is the right of the purchaser to dispose of that purchaser's particular copy of the software.

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.


The reality of the business environment also suggests that Adobe sells its software to distributors. Adobe transfers large amounts of merchandise to distributors. The distributors pay full value for the merchandise and accept the risk that the software may be damaged or lost. The distributors also accept the risk that they will be unable to resell the product. The distributors then resell the product to other distributors in the secondary market. The secondary market and the ultimate consumer also pay full value for the product, and accept the risk that the product may be lost or damaged. This evidence suggests a transfer of title in the good. The transfer of a product for consideration with a transfer of title and risk of loss generally constitutes a sale. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

 

[Zipa]

Jim Sterling (Jimquisition) covers the subject pretty well

http://www.destructoid.com/the-jimquisition-the-used-game-solution-182499.phtml

 

[Epona]

We can buy used Movies, Music, Books, and Cars, and Anything in between (look at ebay for gods sakes). I say this a lot and it applies here also, we need to treat video games like any other media. I don't see book publishers get in a fit when you sell used books on online places or book stores, I don't see movie companies get pissed when blockbuster sells there movies. So Why is it video games should get away with it, and lets consider this If I buy a online game like Socom then that's one spot already bought, if I sell it to someone then I transferred that spot to him also. This online pass stuff is full of crap because now it's making a knife point like issue where you might be felt you are forced to buy it new and not used. This trick is just a way to get more money.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

Yeah I mean look at Blockbuster and movie companies. Movie companies focus more on people pirating then buying their movies used. I have never heard of a book publisher freak the hell out over used book sales. And here is the big kicker, BUYING USED GAMES IS NOT SOME NEW THING. I remember owned a SNES and like 30% of my collection was used games from Blockbuster, from Donkey Kong Country 2 to Super Mario RPG. This is not a new feature it's just not that we have online checking companies can find a way to track their product we "own".

Yes, as far as the First Sale Doctrine is concerned there is no difference between reselling cars, books, games, DVD's, microwaves, etc...

Those who say "you can't compare games to anything else". Yes you can. The game industry is not special.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/210243/Court-Says-First-Sale-Doctrine-Doesnt-Apply-To-Licensed-Software

Fortunately, we're seeing restrictions on the first sale doctrine.

Very good. However, last I checked, I didn't get a "liscense" on the physical game I purchased. Digital games should not be protected under FSD. But this ain't digital. Wasn't the whole PS3 jailbreak debacle based around Sony, in esense, saying "Yeh, you don't really "own" your system as much as you get a liscense for it"?

Are you really willing to line up to defend a publisher who, to get more money, is willing to say "Yeh, I know you bought that physical copy of game, but we really are just giving you a liscense to use it"? I want games to make money, yes. But this is NOT the best way to go about it.

In reality, you only own the physical product. You don't own the data even if you paid for it, like it or not.

Let me put it this way. Do I own a book? Yes. Do I own the words? No. And yet, I can STILL resell books, can't I?

Let me just go read my License agreement for my copy of Fallout 3.

....

Oh wait, there ISN'T one. I bought a tangable copy of the game. This guy downloaded software and tried to sell it. That's far, FAR differnet then buying a game and selling it. No downloading OR license agreement was made.

Really? Cause mine most certainly did have a license agreement.

Ahem.

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

Page two of the manual, under the age rating. These same words come with every single copy of the game, and every other game sold with a manual.

And of course,

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

All there, black and white, clear as crystal. Good day sir.

Really? Well I'll be. Lets loook where I signed that?

...

Oh wait. Yeah, if that's the case, the beter start suing people.

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

OK, why not? No, really. What good reasons do you have?

 

[RThaiRThai]

it would destroy the mediums especially music because most people would have to find other jobs to support their families. Copy write is the only thing that allows content creators to make their content because without copy write where would the incentive be to pay for a song or a story. the only reason writers and musicians made money before copy write is because it wasn't able to be reproduced as easily as it is today.


so copy write = good

I *used* to believe that this is the case. I no longer believe it. This is long, so I don't necessarily expect you to listen to it, but take a look if you're interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA

This article is longer than a typical internet article, but maybe it would be preferable to you over the video. They don't same the same things, but it's similar.
http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Most musicians don't make very much money today off of selling CDs; the record companies tend to get all the money except for cases in which the artist does exceptionally well. Money would come more from touring.

Writers are in a similar position. The video mentions a get together of writers discussing copyright law, and if I remember, the video's speaker proposed that copyright should only last 10 years. The writer said that anything more than 5 years would be horrible. The writer was pretty sure that the publisher has stopped distrubiting his book, but was prevented by the publisher from distributing it on his own because the publisher holds the copyright. If a writer wants their work published, they have to hand their copyright over to the publisher.

Personally, I don't know if I would change my view on something so fundamental to our society after hearing someone on an internet forum disagree with me; I'd probably have to find out on my own like I did. But it would be cool if these videos completely changed your view. *I'd* feel good.

Like I said, video games aren't really addressed in either source, and I'm not sure how well video games would do. I also *do* have more sources. It's not just 2 people saying this; it's a whole movement.

 

[Dalek Caan]

For beginner gamers I think they are essential, so they have a steady income to buy new games. I am all in favor of them. They can be a positive to devs as well. Trade in two or three games and buy a new game. Whats so bad about that?

 

[Arehexes]

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

One don't say "I recall figures" if you have NO PROOF BEHIND IT. Two selling used games is as old as I've been renting video games in '95. Three and this one gets me the most VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE OTHER MEDIUMS. This is why people think we can pass special laws on Video Games only and not movies (I don't see people making a push to restrict rated R movies like they are trying to with M rated games with all these laws). We can buy books used, movies used, cars used, almost anything we want used. WHY IS IT VIDEO GAMES ARE ANY DIFFERENT? Explain that, because I always see people say "Oh don't lump my video games with movies they are not the same" when they are. Why is it I can sell a stack of movies on ebay but it's not as ok to sell my video games? Don't you think movie makers spend a lot of money to make those over the top and awesome movies we all love? Oh but oh lord they must not matter, what about reselling books, I can go to barnesandnoble.com or amazon and buy used books no problem, and what about music I can buy that used. You are treating video games like the makers are on a high place then other makers of different mediums.

You say there shouldn't be a "used game market" but there has been one for two decades, either it be renting games or buying them used IT IS LEGAL IN THE US. It's just now that we have the digital age tracking what people do devs can use new tricks to make us follow there rules they want to impose.

I can't take what you said with any salt to be honest, because say games are different from movies/music and say we don't get it yet don't bother to explain it.

 

[Chibz]

Basically, you need permission to resell it, you don't ever tart with that permission.

Wait. What. WHAT? You're joking, right? What's the law against reselling games now?

Dealing heroin (trafficking a controlled substance) and running someone over with my car (vehicular manslaughter) are... well crimes that actually exist and you can be punished for. Please cite what law I'd be breaking by selling a game to someone second-hand. Until then, I'll... I'll just BRB.

*Walks out room, a loud, repetitive banging noise is heard*

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

You realize that neither of those statements in the manual would have any legal weight right? Mostly because...

1. The user (you) never explicitly agreed to it. At all.
2. It's tacked on (almost sneaked in) after the sale & agreement is finalized.
3. Legally binding agreements don't work this way at all.

It wouldn't fly in court, unless your local laws are even more ungodly than the US'

Oh, yeah, try and convince a judge that just cause you don't sign anything that doesn't make it completely legally binding. Tell him you never signed an agreement to not run people over or deal heroin, so you can get off free for doing that.

Not reselling the game isn't some sort of deal made on a case by case basis, its a law for all of them. Basically, you need permission to resell it, you don't ever tart with that permission.

Its up front, and its your responsibility to be aware. Your ignorance is no excuse.

Hyperbole much? Those things are illegal because they deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Also, I would you please look up a "unconscionable contract" for me? I can't sell you a book, and inculde a little thing in the side of it saying "Buy buying this book, you agree to give me $50 if you lend this book to anyone". It breaks the FSD, first of all. And second, the agreement is one sided and you didn't give the person a chance to say no until AFTER they got it.

And further, do I need "permission" to resell a car? Do I need "permission" to resell a DVD? Do I need "permission" to resell my computer? No.

We just won a court case saying we get the same First Amendment protection that other media has. So why should we sudendly say "Wait! Treat us different than movies, TV, and books!".

 

[Arehexes]

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

You realize that neither of those statements in the manual would have any legal weight right? Mostly because...

1. The user (you) never explicitly agreed to it. At all.
2. It's tacked on (almost sneaked in) after the sale & agreement is finalized.
3. Legally binding agreements don't work this way at all.

It wouldn't fly in court, unless your local laws are even more ungodly than the US'

Oh, yeah, try and convince a judge that just cause you don't sign anything that doesn't make it completely legally binding. Tell him you never signed an agreement to not run people over or deal heroin, so you can get off free for doing that.

Not reselling the game isn't some sort of deal made on a case by case basis, its a law for all of them. Basically, you need permission to resell it, you don't ever tart with that permission.

Its up front, and its your responsibility to be aware. Your ignorance is no excuse.

Hyperbole much? Those things are illegal because they deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Also, I would you please look up a "unconscionable contract" for me? I can't sell you a book, and inculde a little thing in the side of it saying "Buy buying this book, you agree to give me $50 if you lend this book to anyone". It breaks the FSD, first of all. And second, the agreement is one sided and you didn't give the person a chance to say no until AFTER they got it.

And further, do I need "permission" to resell a car? Do I need "permission" to resell a DVD? Do I need "permission" to resell my computer? No.

We just won a court case saying we get the same First Amendment protection that other media has. So why should we suddenly say "Wait! Treat us different than movies, TV, and books!".

We don't. In the slightest. Try and give away an old tape of a baseball game and see how legally protected you are then. There's a licensing agreement of usage of content between producers and consumers in entertainment. The producers are fully free to lay out the exact defined proper usages of all their content, while the consumer has the right to reject these defined usages, and reject the product. But it is the consumers responsibility in all cases to actually check what the proper usage is. Buying the game is entering into the agreement - you can read the agreement and return the game, but if you keep it, you are expected to know whats admissible use.

You ever bothered to read one of those FBI warnings that come before a movie?

Yeah...you don't really think do ya

One:You mention a tape of a baseball game, if I remember right your not even suppose to record a tape of a baseball game so how can you give said tape away (wouldn't that be more akin to piracy).

Two:Yeah I read those FBI warnings and it's mostly if not completely referring to making copies and giving them away or showing them off too a set of people

And before you say "well what about the distribution part" let me say this. Go into a blockbuster and look around, you will see pre owned movies for sell, and they have been around for years so it must be legal to sell used movies not copy them.

 

[Arehexes]

please delete my broswer was acted stupid with this and reposted this