DaJoW said:
I love how virtually every argument ever made in favour of piracy is also made in favour of second-hand sales, with the only difference being that the majority of the forum seems to approve of them in the latter case but not the former. "They were never going to buy it [at full price] anyway, so it's not a lost sale", "Make better games worth the sale price", "suck it up and accept it"...
How about "It's the customer's right to buy/sell used. If Ford was to throw the same sort of tantrum as game publishers every time someone bought a used Mustang, they'd be laughed off the face of the planet."
Dear gods, it's like some sort of corporate Stockholm Syndrome around here... I know Gamestop are one of the scummiest bastards around, but all the apologists are arguing for removing their
own frigging rights for the benefit of some big corp.
imperialreign said:
Well, technically you don't own that property, all you've paid for is the license to use said IP based on the restrictions and regulations outlined in the EULA, which you agree to by installing/playing said game.
Technically, the license to play said copy of title isn't exactly trasnferable by the EULA either . . . never has been. The used games market has simply been left alone when publishers and devs could've really decided to drop the hammer on it years ago.
False. The individual copy of the DVD IS personal property. Copyright applies to the data on the DVD. (Video games don't come with binding EULAs, since printing it in the manual neither proves that it was read, much less accepted.)
Two different things, and the only reason that, theoretically, EULAs have any weight at all is because of a stupid court decision that said that loading the data into memory
might constitute 'making a copy.' AFAIK, no legal case has pushed that point further yet.
Once you sell the DVD, you're not loading said data into memory anymore, so copyright doesn't apply. It dictates whether you can MAKE copies, not what you can do with your OWN copy.
