Online Pass Required to Play as Arkham City's Catwoman

[Chrono212]

What happens if I rent it legitimately from LoveFilm?

Crap...this is how I play most of my console games...i never even thought of this

Before, I was indifferent, as i have never bought a used game...now I am wholly against this kind of thing

But what happens?
Does everyone who rents now have to pay for an additional service even after the copy of the game has been bought full price (probably at a slight discount due to bulk buying) but not sold on?

Its a great question and perhaps its one that rental companies need to address, key codes are becoming part of the industry and it could mean the value of renting a product over buying it changes, hence a change in the service they provide

In all honesty, the way that this industry treats its customers, i wouldnt be suprised if we get burned

pc gaming ftw!

But my pc suxs
And the whole reason I rent is because I can't afford new games or a graphics upgrade :c
So if I loose content in a game because I rent isn't fair.

 

[The Human Torch]

They can take my personal bank card and PIN code, I don't care, I want this game and I am getting it at the first day.

 

[ezeroast]

Meh, just buy it new $50 on Amazon.
I'm playing it for Batman anyway, less lame 1 liners hopefully

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Derogatory comment about online passes.

Big deal.

 

[viranimus]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

I still don't see why this is such a problem.

Well if you cannot see why this is a problem while quoting the answer there is little or nothing I can do or say to make it more apparent.

Oh I am sorry I was unaware you owned Arkham City... when did you buy it? Oh you dont own that? Oh

Spoiler: Arkham city

IMAGE REMOVED

Ok now what? Im curious to see where you intended to go with the argument on already having Arkham city.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yes english is my second language but I know as much as that I am right.

Here's a rule of debate: Saying "I know I'm right" on its own generally means you lose.

I understand as much that first sales doctrine doesn't say "You have to sell your product".

No, but it says you CAN sell your product, that's what I'm talking about

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

That's WORD FOR WORD what it says really.

You are against the idea of idea of ownership when it doesn't benefit you. If you call it into play when then stick with it overall. Dont be pro ownership when its about about you selling, but not them selling.

I'm not saying they legally CAN'T do what they're doing. When have I said that? I'm saying it's foolish. There are other ways they can "combat" used sales if they want to, without doing this.

They have every right to cut their product into pieces and sell 90% of it just so they can make the last 10% a 1 time service.

If you dont like it. Walk away. And buy something else. But dont cry snot over them treating their product the way they will get he most money from it.

Don't you see what's going on here? They're trying to make gamers think they don't own games any more. That's not good, amigo, not good. If we let this slide, they will walk all over us in the future.

"Oh, you wanna fight the final boss. Sorry, that's 800 MS points"


Oh, well, it's a moot [http://www.destructoid.com/gamestop-to-put-arkham-city-catwoman-pass-in-used-copies-213711.phtml] point anyways, dear reader

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yes english is my second language but I know as much as that I am right.

Here's a rule of debate: Saying "I know I'm right" on its own generally means you lose.

I understand as much that first sales doctrine doesn't say "You have to sell your product".

No, but it says you CAN sell your product, that's what I'm talking about

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

That's WORD FOR WORD what it says really.

You are against the idea of idea of ownership when it doesn't benefit you. If you call it into play when then stick with it overall. Dont be pro ownership when its about about you selling, but not them selling.

I'm not saying they legally CAN'T do what they're doing. When have I said that? I'm saying it's foolish. There are other ways they can "combat" used sales if they want to, without doing this.

They have every right to cut their product into pieces and sell 90% of it just so they can make the last 10% a 1 time service.

If you dont like it. Walk away. And buy something else. But dont cry snot over them treating their product the way they will get he most money from it.

Don't you see what's going on here? They're trying to make gamers think they don't own games any more. That's not good, amigo, not good. If we let this slide, they will walk all over us in the future.

"Oh, you wanna fight the final boss. Sorry, that's 800 MS points"


Oh, well, it's a moot [http://www.destructoid.com/gamestop-to-put-arkham-city-catwoman-pass-in-used-copies-213711.phtml] point anyways, dear reader

So the best you can come up with is a slippery slope argument?

That is what it all boils down to. "If they get away not selling us they can make it worse". I am sorry thats not god enough. Call me when its worse. I wont be buying the last boss fight for 800 MS point. As it is right now. I buy my games new and dont sell them. And they please customers like me. This market is big enough to support it.

You got a problem with the used copies being de valued? take it up with those you buy them from. Once they have been sold they are not the publishers property anymore. "First sales doctrine".

Now I may have seen to much in your words but

these online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership.

I read as them attacking your right of ownership. I can only assume you insist that you have a right to own and therefore buy the game. That is why I point out that right of ownership extends to them as well.

At this point, I think we are debating past each other. I'm saying that used sales have a right to exist. This move is trying to undermine the idea of ownership for the consumer. That's what I'm saying. Also, you don't need to go to bat for the publishers. They're big boys. They can take care of themselves.

 

[viranimus]

You own them go ahead and sell them. Unless ofc there are more than meets the eye when "buying games over steam"
Whats that it says over the top
Licences and subscribtions?

Nope, your exactly right on that point there marty. And the fact that steam is another example of dangerous precedents being set by companies who are proactively working around ownership rights is also relevant. See this is the problem being created here. The ignorant are allowing things that were once protected as products to be converted into licenses and services which have no such legal protections.

Thats essentially what people are getting up in arms about. It is not that the company breaks the game up with the intention to sell parts of it separate. Its the concept that these organizations are purposely doing so by instantly devaluing the worth of a product. Its essentially no different than selling a used car, and the original manufacturer having the ability to come in at the point of that resell and remove the airconditioner and mandating if you want it, you have to buy it from us. That is a dangerous and shifty practice because it is one that cannot be justified, and one that can only exist in a world of digital distribution. However its being justified as "used games are killing us, so we have no choice but to do that" Except there IS a choice.

The choice is for the publishers to not proactively stomp on ownership rights in order to eliminate lawful competition.

Heres what I want to see. This unmitigated level of bullshit has to stop, and actually this is an instance where gamestop can do the public some good. Its simple. Organizational policy. Every game that has any form of online pass attached to it with the intention to eliminate a used sale, will be automatically reduced on new price equal to the amount of the online pass. Sure it would be a hit in gamestops profits, but as your earlier link pointed out they can handle that burden for quite a while until the publishers quit with this unreasonable and anti competitive attack.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You own them go ahead and sell them. Unless ofc there are more than meets the eye when "buying games over steam"
Whats that it says over the top
Licences and subscribtions?

Nope, your exactly right on that point there marty. And the fact that steam is another example of dangerous precedents being set by companies who are proactively working around ownership rights is also relevant. See this is the problem being created here. The ignorant are allowing things that were once protected as products to be converted into licenses and services which have no such legal protections.

Thats essentially what people are getting up in arms about. It is not that the company breaks the game up with the intention to sell parts of it separate. Its the concept that these organizations are purposely doing so by instantly devaluing the worth of a product. Its essentially no different than selling a used car, and the original manufacturer having the ability to come in at the point of that resell and remove the airconditioner and mandating if you want it, you have to buy it from us. That is a dangerous and shifty practice because it is one that cannot be justified, and one that can only exist in a world of digital distribution. However its being justified as "used games are killing us, so we have no choice but to do that" Except there IS a choice.

The choice is for the publishers to not proactively stomp on ownership rights in order to eliminate lawful competition.

Heres what I want to see. This unmitigated level of bullshit has to stop, and actually this is an instance where gamestop can do the public some good. Its simple. Organizational policy. Every game that has any form of online pass attached to it with the intention to eliminate a used sale, will be automatically reduced on new price equal to the amount of the online pass. Sure it would be a hit in gamestops profits, but as your earlier link pointed out they can handle that burden for quite a while until the publishers quit with this unreasonable and anti competitive attack.

Yes. This is what I was trying to say. But you put it in better words than I could. It's the idea behind it that bothers people

 

[Epona]

You own them go ahead and sell them. Unless ofc there are more than meets the eye when "buying games over steam"
Whats that it says over the top
Licences and subscribtions?

Nope, your exactly right on that point there marty. And the fact that steam is another example of dangerous precedents being set by companies who are proactively working around ownership rights is also relevant. See this is the problem being created here. The ignorant are allowing things that were once protected as products to be converted into licenses and services which have no such legal protections.

Thats essentially what people are getting up in arms about. It is not that the company breaks the game up with the intention to sell parts of it separate. Its the concept that these organizations are purposely doing so by instantly devaluing the worth of a product. Its essentially no different than selling a used car, and the original manufacturer having the ability to come in at the point of that resell and remove the airconditioner and mandating if you want it, you have to buy it from us. That is a dangerous and shifty practice because it is one that cannot be justified, and one that can only exist in a world of digital distribution. However its being justified as "used games are killing us, so we have no choice but to do that" Except there IS a choice.

The choice is for the publishers to not proactively stomp on ownership rights in order to eliminate lawful competition.

Heres what I want to see. This unmitigated level of bullshit has to stop, and actually this is an instance where gamestop can do the public some good. Its simple. Organizational policy. Every game that has any form of online pass attached to it with the intention to eliminate a used sale, will be automatically reduced on new price equal to the amount of the online pass. Sure it would be a hit in gamestops profits, but as your earlier link pointed out they can handle that burden for quite a while until the publishers quit with this unreasonable and anti competitive attack.

Online passes don't hurt Gamestop, they simply give the seller $10 less and sell the game for $10 less or they buy the pass to give to the used buyer. In the end, the only people hurt by online passes are those who buy new.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

At this point, I think we are debating past each other. I'm saying that used sales have a right to exist. This move is trying to undermine the idea of ownership for the consumer. That's what I'm saying. Also, you don't need to go to bat for the publishers. They're big boys. They can take care of themselves.

Now we are changing the subject, but no matter because I think all that can be said has been said.

And we do fundamentally differ on the "Used games have a right to exist".
Now every game has a right be sold. If its yours then its yours. Do with it what you want.

However I apply this universally. That mean Used games doesn't have a right to exists, because that would mean "You have a right to buy" and that means going against the right of ownership. If I am going to have principals I want them to be universal.

Same goes for when talking about Publishers.
They dont like me. They only like my money. I dont like them. I only like their games. I ow them nothing and they ow me nothing.

I simply see them as no different than the rest of us. I only work because I get paid, and I would try to get more if I could. Why should I judge myself with a different standard than the publisher?

I am not batting for them. I am batting against those who wont be consistent.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding how I'm being inconsistent. I said used games legally have a right to exist because you have the right to sell a product you own. They can sell the product they own, yes. But legally, they cannot require that you keep that product you bought. Consumer rights law and all that.

Look, if you can't sell a product, then really, you don't own it. I'm not at allllll being inconsistent.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

At this point, I think we are debating past each other. I'm saying that used sales have a right to exist. This move is trying to undermine the idea of ownership for the consumer. That's what I'm saying. Also, you don't need to go to bat for the publishers. They're big boys. They can take care of themselves.

Now we are changing the subject, but no matter because I think all that can be said has been said.

And we do fundamentally differ on the "Used games have a right to exist".
Now every game has a right be sold. If its yours then its yours. Do with it what you want.

However I apply this universally. That mean Used games doesn't have a right to exists, because that would mean "You have a right to buy" and that means going against the right of ownership. If I am going to have principals I want them to be universal.

Same goes for when talking about Publishers.
They dont like me. They only like my money. I dont like them. I only like their games. I ow them nothing and they ow me nothing.

I simply see them as no different than the rest of us. I only work because I get paid, and I would try to get more if I could. Why should I judge myself with a different standard than the publisher?

I am not batting for them. I am batting against those who wont be consistent.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding how I'm being inconsistent. I said used games legally have a right to exist because you have the right to sell a product you own. They can sell the product they own, yes. But legally, they cannot require that you keep that product you bought. Consumer rights law and all that.

Look, if you can't sell a product, then really, you don't own it. I'm not at allllll being inconsistent.

You are being inconsistent because you expect they have to sell it to you. They dont have to sell it. They made it to a product + service. Their right of ownership.

How many bloody times must I say that they are not legally required to sell it to me?

I'm aware of that. Besides, this is not relevant to weather used games have a right to exist. Consumer rights law is VERY clear about the fact that they do.

So I'm going to say enjoy living in "Tu mundo delirante", as my Spanish friend put it.

Tata!

 

[viranimus]

First things first.

I dont apprisiate being called ignorant. Now you might say you didn't call me ignorant, but you did call the group of people who allow this to happen. I am in that group. I am ok with not being able to sell my games, because I have never wanted to do so. I get the amount of entertainment I want for the 60$ (its more like 100$ here, but we use the "common" number for better comparison). I got a good deal. That you need to be able to resell to make it it a good deal for you, has no effect on me. It does not make me ignorant.

Now on the right on ownership I already made a post here

Well look, I didn't call you ignorant, much as you said. I am referring to those who simply have no clue on the negative impact of their actions with my cited examples. You clearly are not ignorant because you have been made abundantly aware of the negative impacts of the choices your defending and such is your right to do so.

If you happen to be one who does not feel effected by this does not mean that defending it is any less defending the publishers ability to eliminate lawful competition because despite claims made to the contrary used games DO have a right to exist as do all forms of second hand sales. That is why laws exist to protect that because NO organization likes having to compete for profits.

This has been approached from too many angles now To continue to explain it further would be a fruitless task. You've been presented with the explanations. You will either modify your line of thinking or you will reject those notions presented.
______________________________________________________

Online passes don't hurt Gamestop, they simply give the seller $10 less and sell the game for $10 less or they buy the pass to give to the used buyer. In the end, the only people hurt by online passes are those who buy new.

Well see Online passes only exist so as to hurt and eliminate used sales all together. So Im not certain on how it can be seen that Online passes don't hurt gamestop as the online passes are currently structured to mirror the specific difference in value between a new and used copy. Without that benefit for buying used, there is no reason to buy used and no reason to sell a game.

I bring up gamestop only because they truly have the ability to eliminate this. All they have to do is exactly the same thing the publishers are attempting to do. Devalue the opposing product. Granted in gamestops instance they CAN do it. However in order to do it they would have to take a temporary financial hit until the message has been made clear and the online pass thing is eliminated.