Digital Only Distribution

[brokenergy]

Auto manufacturers don't get a cut when I sell a used car. When I have a yard sale, I don't send a portion of the proceeds to the manufacturers of anything I sell. (although, I DO use some of the proceeds to purchase new products, that may or may not be from the same manufacturer....) Why should a software company get a cut of a game they have already gotten the initial profit from? I fail to see the logic in that.

 

But that's the reason why they are doing it silly. They aren't getting the cuts and it's hurting them more than the dreaded p. Why should someone sell a product which they didn't make? It's also should be noted that most people are selling games that they bought recently and more people are buying used. People don't sell their cars that often because they don't like the handling. Honestly the difference is in the details.

[HeyYou]

Auto manufacturers don't get a cut when I sell a used car. When I have a yard sale, I don't send a portion of the proceeds to the manufacturers of anything I sell. (although, I DO use some of the proceeds to purchase new products, that may or may not be from the same manufacturer....) Why should a software company get a cut of a game they have already gotten the initial profit from? I fail to see the logic in that.

 

But that's the reason why they are doing it silly. They aren't getting the cuts and it's hurting them more than the dreaded p. Why should someone sell a product which they didn't make? It's also should be noted that most people are selling games that they bought recently and more people are buying used. People don't sell their cars that often because they don't like the handling. Honestly the difference is in the details.

 

Software companies are the ONLY companies that want a cut of the secondhand market. Or, eliminate it completely. Either way would make them happy. What makes that disk any different from a car? A kitchen appliance? A board game? or any of a host of other products?

[draconix]

I'll play devil's advocate here for a second,

There are a couple of differences. The first one is that digital media doesn't degrade with use, discs can have a lifespan that would long outlast a car or appliance if well taken care of, with absolutely no degradation in performance or increase in maintenance. In addition, legally, when you buy a disc, you are not buying "the game" on the disc, rather you are buying the rights to play the game on the disc, like a license or lease without expiration. It's a peculiar distinction, but it's a card that has been played by several software companies, including Microsoft, Sony, EA, and any other software company that sells "licenses" or product keys for their products.

 

Other companies that operate on this presumption are other IP holders, like books, music, and videos. This is why I can't use music from a CD I bought in a YouTube video without it getting taken down. It's the domain of Copyright, and in all honesty, even as an artist, I'm actually against the idea because copyright serves to limit property rights.

[Ghogiel]

when you buy software you own the disk and everything on it. It's just that copyright transfer hasn't happened. You don't own it in that sense. It's the reason why actually selling your CDs and software is perfectly legal.

 

What you see are attempts to circumvent your ability to do so, if they don't take steps to f*** you over, then it's your right to flog it if you don't want that DVD or piece of software.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

I'll play devil's advocate here for a second,

There are a couple of differences. The first one is that digital media doesn't degrade with use, discs can have a lifespan that would long outlast a car or appliance if well taken care of, with absolutely no degradation in performance or increase in maintenance. In addition, legally, when you buy a disc, you are not buying "the game" on the disc, rather you are buying the rights to play the game on the disc, like a license or lease without expiration. It's a peculiar distinction, but it's a card that has been played by several software companies, including Microsoft, Sony, EA, and any other software company that sells "licenses" or product keys for their products.

 

Other companies that operate on this presumption are other IP holders, like books, music, and videos. This is why I can't use music from a CD I bought in a YouTube video without it getting taken down. It's the domain of Copyright, and in all honesty, even as an artist, I'm actually against the idea because copyright serves to limit property rights.

 

I can sell a book. I don't pay the author. I can sell a music CD. I don't pay the record company, or the original artist. Now, tell me again, why is software any different?

[lukertin]

I can sell a book. I don't pay the author. I can sell a music CD. I don't pay the record company, or the original artist. Now, tell me again, why is software any different?

Because the LAW says so. Problem?

 

By the way your examples are off point. Book and music owners could implement resale restrictions if they wanted to. Problem is, it's impossible to regulate resale for physical items like a book, or a CD.

 

You know what ebooks are? Napster [current, not the old napster] music? iTunes music? Loaded with licensing galore, because the copyright owner has the right to impose contract terms on you, and you are legally obligated to comply.

Edited November 5, 2011 by lukertin

[HeyYou]

I can sell a book. I don't pay the author. I can sell a music CD. I don't pay the record company, or the original artist. Now, tell me again, why is software any different?

Because the LAW says so. Problem?

 

By the way your examples are off point. Book and music owners could implement resale restrictions if they wanted to. Problem is, it's impossible to regulate resale for physical items like a book, or a CD.

 

You know what ebooks are? Napster [current, not the old napster] music? iTunes music? Loaded with licensing galore, because the copyright owner has the right to impose contract terms on you, and you are legally obligated to comply.

 

And just when did this law pass? Used to be, (and not all that long ago), I could take older games into the Game store, trade in the old ones, and get a new one. (or, several other old ones, that someone else had traded in.)

 

I don't think any laws changed, I think the software industry simply changed tactics.

[lukertin]

And just when did this law pass? Used to be, (and not all that long ago), I could take older games into the Game store, trade in the old ones, and get a new one. (or, several other old ones, that someone else had traded in.)

 

I don't think any laws changed, I think the software industry simply changed tactics.

 

Vernor v. AutoDesk is the most recent manifestation of the law, decided about a year ago by the 9th Circuit, you might want to educate yourself on the law. Currently being certified to the Supreme Court, so it's something to keep track of.

nvm, the Supreme Court denied review of the case.

 

The majority of console games do not have EULAs like computer software to begin with, what you do with Gamestop is irrelevant to this consideration.

Edited November 5, 2011 by lukertin

[HeyYou]

Wasn't that one just about upholding their license agreement, or some such?

 

Trading in PC games used to be common practice. EVERY place that was primarily directed at various games (be it PC, XBox, PS3, Nintendo, whathaveyou) would have a "used games" section. That has only changed recently. Why did it change? Not because of changes in laws, but, changes in licensing for said software. I do not agree with it, current legal precedent notwithstanding. If I pay for a product, what I do with it after I am "done" with it shouldn't be dictated by some corporate beancounter and his lawyers.

[lukertin]

Yes it was upholding a licensing agreement for software sales that effected only a licensing of said software, rather than a sale of a copy of the software. This licensing agreement effectively preempts the first sale doctrine if it so chooses, which you believe should apply in any situation. So it's more important than you think.

 

That has only changed recently. Why did it change? Not because of changes in laws, but, changes in licensing for said software. I do not agree with it, current legal precedent notwithstanding. If I pay for a product, what I do with it after I am "done" with it shouldn't be dictated by some corporate beancounter and his lawyers.

And why not? Every time you buy something you are essentially contracting with the seller. If you don't like the contract terms find ones you do like.

Edited November 5, 2011 by lukertin