InstantAction CEO: Retailers Are "Parasites and Thieves"

[Anstrup]

The reason for used games being so popular is because the price for new games is very high, often you can get a game half off. New games won't be able to match that, but they could move closer to the marker.

I buy alot of used games, mainly because if i was to buy all new, i would be able to buy a game once a month maybe, and im finished with most games (if we don't count the major online pvp games) in less than a week.

 

[squid5580]

I wonder how long it will take to kill retail. I remember trading in my NES games at stores just like GS and yet 20 years later here we are.

Also how did I get the game to trade in in the first place if I didn't buy it? You logic is confused. Why am I going to steal something when I don't want to steal it? What is your fasination with associating used games to piracy? I mean Gamefly is a fuck of a lot closer to piracy than GS is. I also don't see how GS is fucking people over but a pawn shop isn't? They pay the same price as GS does (in terms of value vs how much they pay).

You seem to be misunderstanding where I am coming from. Whenever possible I buy new. If there is a game for 5 bucks less sitting next to a nicely wrapped game (with that new game smell) I will pay the extra 5. It is when I get it home and pop it in to find a big bouncing ball of disappointment that the game goes into the used game biz. The better the game the further it stays away from GS. So riddle me this. Why should I have to pay all that money for a product I am not satisfied with and then have to eat the entire cost? Not like anyone is going to give me a refund because I wasn't satisfied are they? So GS is my only way of getting some form of refund. Which goes back to my point. Make better games and you won't see so many used game sales because people are going to hoard them. Half ass it and enjoy the bed you made. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

Ah.

You see, if not for the used game bullshit, you'd be able to return crap games for a full refund. Instead, if you trade-in a bad game (for $3-$7, naturally), the retailer just sticks it on the shelf for 9 to 6 times the trade-in value. Which means every time a customer trades in a bad game, the retailers almost triple their profit.

Publishers commission dull games because they lack confidence in the market, the market responds by rewarding the retailers for not carrying very many new copies. Its a catch 22 because retailers aren't going to let publishers see any real money for their work and publishers aren't going to suddenly start taking risks.

As far as used games vs piracy, for a long time, piracy was the boogeyman. It was going to steal all the money and games and movies and music and destroy the entire entertainment industry, yadayadayada. The reason its relevant here is at one time, people thought in terms of every pirated copy was a lost sale. Then studies found people who pirate actually buy more of what they like, never would've bought a good deal of what they pirated, and a good portion aren't even in places viewed as viable markets by ... well, anyone.

During the peak of the piracy debate, publishers were losing money and blaming piracy while retailers quietly started posting record profits and experiencing unprecedented growth. Games were "selling" millions of copies but publishers were acting like they weren't getting any money from it. The peanut gallery just dismissed the publisher's claims as greed, overextension, idiocy, etc.

The reality is the used games business model is siphoning money away from people who matter, by using a legal loophole to essentially become extremely high profit rental chains. Difference being, first sale doctrine doesn't protect rentals. Blockbuster and such must turn over proceeds or buy "rental licenses" from copyright holders. So while publishers actually get money from rentals, they're being fucked by used "sales." They should be more openly pissed, but there isn't anything they can do. No legal recourse and retailers would defend the existence of that legal loophole to their very last dollar.

Ok first off your first paragraph is utter nonsense. They don't charge you 9 to 6 times the price they gave you for it. I deal with GS on a regular basis. I see what the used games I brought in sell for and they give me a fair deal. Not to mention all the specials that they offer. Please try to keep it in the realm of reality. Getting 30 bucks and them selling it for 54.99 is not 9 or 6 times the amount.

And you wanna know the real reason I can't get a full refund? It isn't because of used games because even places that don't deal with used games don't give refunds on games. It is because of piracy that I can't get a full refund because they don't know if I already made a copy of the disc.

And you still haven't answered the loophole question. Why is it so wrong to do what I want with MY property (the disc)? Why is it such a huge loophole that I am allowed to do what I want with MY property. Why am I not allowed to sell MY property to whoever I want no matter if it a game or a car or a dog or a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the Virgin Mary? And why is it such a legal loophole that someone realized there is a market for it and decided to cash in? That legal loophole you speak of is called freedom.

And you want to know the absolute best part of this whole thing? How much developers support GameStop/EB/Amazon while they don't support the Walmarts and Zellers who don't sell used games. When was the last time Walmart gave you an Imp figurine or a woooden hourglass or a shiny new in game weapon or armor code for shopping there instead of the evil used game stores? How many times have you read on this site alone that preordering from GS will get you this special code while preordering from Amazon will give you something else? Is it because they figure by sending you to the used game store's site or store is going to encourage new game sales? Or possibly this guy is exxagerating the situation because like the other article about this a few months back said that used games were good for new game sales. Because people use the credit they get for new games.

There is one thing that I do feel is wrong. The whole a new game not even a week old being sold side by side with the used game for 5 bucks less. There should be a couple weeks at least before they should be allowed to sell them like that. Then again if you see a brand new game sitting in the used game section then there might be a reason for it.

Oh and you know what a clusterfuck it would be if a place like Blockbuster tried to give royalties for every rental. They pay a bit more for a game than you would see at Wal mart but it isn't that much. Which hardly comes close to if every rental was a new game sale.

 

[superbatranger]

Why is it only the gaming industry, one of the most profitable industries in the world, bitches about used sales?

I don't hear ANY of this moaning from used car dealerships, used DVD sales, used books, nothing. Someone had to have bought the game new in order for used to exist; you already made your money.

I don't understand it either. Hell, is it me, or is all their bitching relatively recent? What happened to the good old days when one could get a new game for 30 bucks? Nowadays I'm lucky if I can find a game for less than 100 dollars.

 

[squid5580]

Since the quote function has stopped working for me (*kicks browser*), this is addressing the above post (140) by Corroded Sin.

The Salvation Army comment by Squid was likely not the most apt comparison, but while it's true that game production teams put a lot of money and personnel into their products... well, the local used place has BluRay and DVD copies of Avatar, Iron Man, the Twilight movies, and the like. If used movies have been sold for decades without anyone raising an eyebrow and the film production companies have yet survived on their new DVD sales, why should such a thing break gaming companies? True, they may not have the initial box office take a film does, but these days they have something even better... DLC. For a minimal amount of production cost they can put a cosmetic item online, charge $2-$5 dollars for it, and rake in a buttload of cash. Just from the Sony side of things, look no further than Little Big Planet or Mod Nation Racers for proof of this. They release a tweak that makes your character look a little different and the fans buy like crazy. And this is income that, in theory, multiplies with used sales. Some completist buys Dragon Age and its DLC expansions, finishes the game and decides they don't want to keep a game they won't play again. They sell the disc to GameStop where it's bought by someone who needed that $10 off the new price before they could commit to the game... and then over the course of the next few weeks they also buy the DLC expansions. It's an infinite loop that shows that the smart money right now isn't in the game disc, it's in making compelling downloadable content that will be seen as a must have for anyone who owns the game.

You sir are 100% correct (although I was using the Salvation Army thing as an extreme example). I bought all the Fallout DLC. Being Canadian we get 1400 cards for 20 bucks. That means I spent 60 bucks on top of the $100 for the CE. 60 bucks that I can't get back, and GS or anyone else will never see. Although they keep fucking things up by putting out GOTY editions. I think the industry is trying to fail some days, I really do.

 

[pneuma08]

Spoiler

I wonder how long it will take to kill retail. I remember trading in my NES games at stores just like GS and yet 20 years later here we are.

Also how did I get the game to trade in in the first place if I didn't buy it? You logic is confused. Why am I going to steal something when I don't want to steal it? What is your fasination with associating used games to piracy? I mean Gamefly is a fuck of a lot closer to piracy than GS is. I also don't see how GS is fucking people over but a pawn shop isn't? They pay the same price as GS does (in terms of value vs how much they pay).

You seem to be misunderstanding where I am coming from. Whenever possible I buy new. If there is a game for 5 bucks less sitting next to a nicely wrapped game (with that new game smell) I will pay the extra 5. It is when I get it home and pop it in to find a big bouncing ball of disappointment that the game goes into the used game biz. The better the game the further it stays away from GS. So riddle me this. Why should I have to pay all that money for a product I am not satisfied with and then have to eat the entire cost? Not like anyone is going to give me a refund because I wasn't satisfied are they? So GS is my only way of getting some form of refund. Which goes back to my point. Make better games and you won't see so many used game sales because people are going to hoard them. Half ass it and enjoy the bed you made. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

Ah.

You see, if not for the used game bullshit, you'd be able to return crap games for a full refund. Instead, if you trade-in a bad game (for $3-$7, naturally), the retailer just sticks it on the shelf for 9 to 6 times the trade-in value. Which means every time a customer trades in a bad game, the retailers almost triple their profit.

Publishers commission dull games because they lack confidence in the market, the market responds by rewarding the retailers for not carrying very many new copies. Its a catch 22 because retailers aren't going to let publishers see any real money for their work and publishers aren't going to suddenly start taking risks.

As far as used games vs piracy, for a long time, piracy was the boogeyman. It was going to steal all the money and games and movies and music and destroy the entire entertainment industry, yadayadayada. The reason its relevant here is at one time, people thought in terms of every pirated copy was a lost sale. Then studies found people who pirate actually buy more of what they like, never would've bought a good deal of what they pirated, and a good portion aren't even in places viewed as viable markets by ... well, anyone.

During the peak of the piracy debate, publishers were losing money and blaming piracy while retailers quietly started posting record profits and experiencing unprecedented growth. Games were "selling" millions of copies but publishers were acting like they weren't getting any money from it. The peanut gallery just dismissed the publisher's claims as greed, overextension, idiocy, etc.

The reality is the used games business model is siphoning money away from people who matter, by using a legal loophole to essentially become extremely high profit rental chains. Difference being, first sale doctrine doesn't protect rentals. Blockbuster and such must turn over proceeds or buy "rental licenses" from copyright holders. So while publishers actually get money from rentals, they're being fucked by used "sales." They should be more openly pissed, but there isn't anything they can do. No legal recourse and retailers would defend the existence of that legal loophole to their very last dollar.

Well, squid5580 addressed most of my concerns, but I still feel the need to add a few things.

Firstly, a good rule of thumb when dealing with Gamestop is that they buy games around 1/5 of the price they are actively selling it at. This number can fluctuate depending on a lot of things (such as in preparation for a price drop, and consoles tend to go for more), but typically you can get a better deal by exploiting whatever specials are going on. I've seen a similar model around a few places actually, where they compete with special deals rather than a flat, nonfluctuating, moderate price. Perfectly reasonable.

I do feel the need to point out that the difference between the buy price and the active selling price is not necessarily the margin. For instance, I'm sure Gamestop bought quite a few Mass Effect 2s at ~25-30, which isn't terribly far off their $35 asking price nowadays. I'm not meaning to imply that all sales are like this, merely stating that it isn't as cut and dry as it is on first glance.

Also, "not carrying many new copies"? I don't know what you're referring to but it usually takes a while before used supply overtakes new supply. New supply is typically a lot more hidden than used supply, that's all. It doesn't matter if it's a quirky, offbeat (read: risky) new game or the next AAA blockbuster-wannabe - the used supply is dependent on the new supply, so it takes a while before the used bubbles back and overtakes the new.

Not that the gaming market is without its flaws, but it certainly isn't that, "retailers aren't going to let publishers see any real money for their work" - if anything, secondhand retailers want new games out there so they can come back and sell them used (at greater margin). Seriously, every time a Gamestop employee asks you to preorder something, they're driving new sales - and they are insatiable for these things. Why would they do that if it's not to their benefit?

Lastly, I don't know about wherever you're at, but rentals certainly don't garner royalties here in the 'states. And Blockbuster and other brick-and-mortar rental stores aren't doing so hot, either.

 

[pneuma08]

Why is it only the gaming industry, one of the most profitable industries in the world, bitches about used sales?

I don't hear ANY of this moaning from used car dealerships, used DVD sales, used books, nothing. Someone had to have bought the game new in order for used to exist; you already made your money.

I don't understand it either. Hell, is it me, or is all their bitching relatively recent? What happened to the good old days when one could get a new game for 30 bucks? Nowadays I'm lucky if I can find a game for less than 100 dollars.

1. Games cost exponentially more to make then they did "back in the day". Compare staffers alone to get a glimpse at what I mean.
2. Games used to cost the the same price or even more than nowadays, actually. SNES games weren't cheap. :\

 

[playinthedark]

I'm no economic strategist, but I'd hypothesize that if one person can afford a game for $100, then at least two people could afford it for $50, four for $25 dollars, probably ten people for $10. And companies still make the same profit (if they scale back a bit on packaging), and people would have less motivation to buy used games because the new product is more widely affordable.

While the theory is sound, the math is unrealistic. Furthermore, if it costs $1 to print a disk and ship it out, the company is making $99 on the first scenario and only $90 in the last. (And if they can cut costs by scaling back something like packaging, they can do that in the most former scenario and make a larger profit.)

Lowering the price of a product practically guarantees more sales but it does not by any stretch guarantee more profit.

Lastly, I don't think the financial wings of gaming companies are stupid, and that they make a decision with all the numbers in front of them. They don't want their game to be overpriced, because "overpriced" that means that by lowering the cost they can make more money. I think what is going on is that (with a few exceptions) no one knows what the value of a game is until after it's released, which is why we see dramatic price dropoffs a month or two after the release of a game.

Well I certainly can't argue with that logic =)

 

[felixader]

Oh Shut Up!

This is the Deal: You develop something interesting i pay 60 Bucks.

But you are like Vader, altering the deal all the time.
First you let us pay for maps wich was once without further cost, HELL even small DLC like extra Weapons were free, ALSO ON CONSOLES (as an Example Dreamcasts Skies of Arcadia had several islands, Weapons and more for download for no extra costs).

Then you start leaving parts of the Game out of the final release to sell them as DLC (like the Jedi-Tempel Level of The Force Unleashed wich fits just fine into the games overall story, or the 2008 Prince of Persias REAL ENDING! WTF?).
And you keep on altering it even while i write this down.

When it comes to importance in Life GAMES are one of the least things, still they are pretty expensive, especially when new released.
A CAR brings you to your job and helps you ogrnicing your family life.
A healt insurance (should) helps you staying healty.
FOOD keeps you alive.

SO WHERE COMES YOUR FUCKING ENTITLEMENT FROM, the notion that you have the rigth to get more money from something that we already paid, THAT YOU ALREADY SOLD, for?

 

[Digital_Utopia]

Ah.

You see, if not for the used game bullshit, you'd be able to return crap games for a full refund. Instead, if you trade-in a bad game (for $3-$7, naturally), the retailer just sticks it on the shelf for 9 to 6 times the trade-in value. Which means every time a customer trades in a bad game, the retailers almost triple their profit.

Publishers commission dull games because they lack confidence in the market, the market responds by rewarding the retailers for not carrying very many new copies. Its a catch 22 because retailers aren't going to let publishers see any real money for their work and publishers aren't going to suddenly start taking risks.

As far as used games vs piracy, for a long time, piracy was the boogeyman. It was going to steal all the money and games and movies and music and destroy the entire entertainment industry, yadayadayada. The reason its relevant here is at one time, people thought in terms of every pirated copy was a lost sale. Then studies found people who pirate actually buy more of what they like, never would've bought a good deal of what they pirated, and a good portion aren't even in places viewed as viable markets by ... well, anyone.

During the peak of the piracy debate, publishers were losing money and blaming piracy while retailers quietly started posting record profits and experiencing unprecedented growth. Games were "selling" millions of copies but publishers were acting like they weren't getting any money from it. The peanut gallery just dismissed the publisher's claims as greed, overextension, idiocy, etc.

The reality is the used games business model is siphoning money away from people who matter, by using a legal loophole to essentially become extremely high profit rental chains. Difference being, first sale doctrine doesn't protect rentals. Blockbuster and such must turn over proceeds or buy "rental licenses" from copyright holders. So while publishers actually get money from rentals, they're being fucked by used "sales." They should be more openly pissed, but there isn't anything they can do. No legal recourse and retailers would defend the existence of that legal loophole to their very last dollar.

Interesting leap in logic - unfortunately, in order for that scenario to ring true, every retailer must buy used music/movies/games. See all retailers have a policy that they will not give refunds on open media, requiring the customer to trade it for another copy of the item(s) they are trying to return. This actually is to prevent piracy, because if they did allow you to receive a full refund for returning media, you could easily just make the entire store your own personal Pirate Bay, and depending on your internet connection - a lot more efficient at that.

As far as siphoning money from those who matter, that's just completely insane. Used games can only be considered rentals if the game is continuously returned to the store. All it takes is one person deciding to hold onto it, or selling it on ebay or through Amazon and the "rental" cycle is broken. Furthermore, the developers/publishers already got their money from that unit. It was sold, someone bought it - their part of the deal is over. There is no rule stating - in any situation, that the creator of a product is eligible to continue making profits off of said product after the initial sale. If this were true, could you imagine how absolutely cumbersome setting up a garage sale would be? Could you imagine how absolutely annoying it would be to put something up for sale on eBay?

No, once a copy of a game is initially sold, the developer/publisher gets the money from it, and the owner of that game has every right to sell it to whomever they wish to for as much as they wish. The next owner has the same rights and the next, and the next etc. It isn't unfair, it isn't thievery, and it certainly isn't siphoning money way from anybody - it's just generating additional income.

 

[oppp7]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

Because it's the same problem with piracy, how someone else is making money off of the game designers' ideas while the designers get nothing.

Not really sure if it's the same scale, though.

 

[manaman]

it's in making compelling downloadable content that will be seen as a must have for anyone who owns the game.

I don't see how they can make it a must have without taking something away from the game itself. Not that any of the big publishers (looking at you EA) seem to give a rat's ass if they remove chunks of a finished game so they can "give" you shiny DLC two days after the game is launched.

 

[xDarc]

How arrogant the world has become when people wholeheartedly believe media, i.e. video games, should not be able to be legally resold.

And the Libraries put all the writers out of business.
And recording songs to cassette killed the music industry.
And video rentals killed hollywood.

This industry needs to get over itself. If you can't sell your game new, then obviously people don't want to play it that badly, and you're doing it wrong.

 

[Mromson]

Buying a game Used is the equivalent of piracy. In either case, the developer doesn't get paid.

...Doctrine of First Sale, much? Once the person buys it, it is their property to do with as they please, to sell or dispose of it at their own leisure. As long as GameStop isn't making duplicate copies in a backroom somewhere, they're free to do as they wish with the property once they acquire it. Same as you. Or are you under the impression garage sales are an illegal and immoral act?

No, I'm merely pointing out that in either case - you use the product, but the developer get nothing from it.

Buying a game Used is the equivalent of piracy. In either case, the developer doesn't get paid.

Wrong, the game has to have been bought before for it to be "used". The Developer gets paid but they don't get a second $60 cause said person bought the game used.

Besides what if that "used" game they buy gets them so into the series that they buy the collecters edition of the sequels, i know this is a what if case but it is possible.

The same can be applied to piracy - if you like, you buy it, or you buy the sequel.

 

[JeanLuc761]

The point is, basically, the game is being sold without the publisher getting money for the sale of it. It's like free inventory for Gamestop. I agree with you that it seems the same as thrift stores and whatnot, but since when does it take a $100 million investment and 100+ people with college degrees in animation, engineering, and programming to make a pair of blue jeans?

Well yeah, but a used book/dvd/etc is being sold without the publisher getting money either. In order for something to be used, it had to be bought new. When the game was bought new, the publisher/developer already made their money. Gamestop wouldn't exist were it not for used games as that's where all of their profits come from. The new sales go straight back to the publisher and developer.

 

[squid5580]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

Because it's the same problem with piracy, how someone else is making money off of the game designers' ideas while the designers get nothing.

Not really sure if it's the same scale, though.

No it really isn't. Piracy involves taking what you don't own and giving it away. Reselling a game or trading it in to GS is not. You are doing what you want with your property which is the disc. That is what you bought. And just like everything else you own and sell the manufacturers don't see a dime. Yet you don't hear them complain about it.

 

[Xanthious]

You know how much money I gave to Ashley Furniture when I sold my bedroom outfit a few years back? Nothing. You know how much money I gave to Apple when I sold my iPhone earlier this year? Yep, nothing once again. Video Game makers REALLY need to stop opening their mouths when other people are within earshot. It's pretty ironic that they call pirates and second hand retailers greedy and entitled when they seem to think they should be immune to the First Sale Doctrine unlike every other company that makes and sells goods.

Oh well off to Demonoid. . . . . .

 

[Fetzenfisch]

yeah sure, why shouldnt they get some part of the reselling price, that would be the perfect money machine they are looking for. Getting money for doing nothing! They got their money for a product, more than enough of it. And now they want even more ? With what kind of justification? They left the deal with selling it. Full stop.

 

[oppp7]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

Because it's the same problem with piracy, how someone else is making money off of the game designers' ideas while the designers get nothing.

Not really sure if it's the same scale, though.

No it really isn't. Piracy involves taking what you don't own and giving it away. Reselling a game or trading it in to GS is not. You are doing what you want with your property which is the disc. That is what you bought. And just like everything else you own and sell the manufacturers don't see a dime. Yet you don't hear them complain about it.

But it's hurting the game designers, apparently. If the system is flawed it has to be changed.
Edit: Also, you own the CD, not the information.

 

[Omnific One]

Like Bethesda's Todd Howard said in a recent interview: How do you combat used games sales? Make a better game.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

Once, again. We are not talking about you. You can do whatever the hell you want with your games. Talking about "freedom" is just playing into the retailer's hands and taking it up the ass. We're talking about massive corporations exploiting the video game industry and you for excessive profit.

Also, not sure what jewel encrusted copies of games you're getting $30 for, but all but brand-new high demand games have a trade-in value of under $7. Most falling in the $2-$4 range. Games which are then stuck back on the shelf for $50. I haven't seen pricing like you're talking about since gamestop bought out the local video game retailer (funcoland it was called). If you still have one of those, you're clearly not talking about the same thing everyone else is.

preorder

No, preorders are not driving new sales, they're driving used sales. Preorders exist to give retailers a harder quantification of demand for an unreleased title months/weeks before actual distribution negotiations begin. They'll buy just enough new copies to fill their preorders plus another 2-3 per store for first-day walk-ins. They know most copies will come back, thus driving their business model. They don't worry about digital distribution because their primary stable of revolving doors think they're expressing their freedom and getting a good deal by getting fucked over.

-snip-

Okay dude, that was mostly gibberish. Its nothing even resembling a leap in logic to say every used sale is a lost sale of a new copy (unless you're confusing trade-ins for "used sales,").

The used game model is only viable because used games are slightly cheaper than new copies. The problem is used games will always be cheaper than new copies. If publishers start asking for a smaller cut of the proceeds from new copies in hopes of driving down the retail cost and driving up sales, theres no guarantee retailers would even pass on the price cut and its absolutely certain used copies would still be cheaper than new copies. Enter project $10, day one dlc, and other such crap, and publishers are actually driving up used sales by making each copy seem less valuable.

Publishers/developers are greedy pricks for wanting money for their works. Retailers are saintly angels providing games to the downtrodden masses for slightly less than the cost of new games.

Then you have this, which is just baffling. Retailers aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They're doing this because first sale doctrine doesn't differentiate between individuals and massive corporations. Allowing them to sell each copy multiple times for exponential increase in margin. I don't know how or why a large corporation selling one copy multiple times is okay in your minds...

There just seems to be a ton of confusion here. One says "used games are killing the industry," another says, "YEAH, WELL, ITS MY GAME I CAN GIVE IT TO BILLY IF I WANT THEY JUST GREEDY," and someone else just gives up pushing this particular rock of knowledge up the mountain of ignorance. Also pretty sure some people are confusing "trade-ins" with "used sales." They're certainly part of the model, but publishers/developers really only care about (and are entitled to) money when a copy is sold to a new person.