Poll: Boycott Rage

[No_Remainders]

WE decide to put money down for a title they release.

Your entire argument, I feel, revolves around this. So I'd like to focus in on this, as it's one of the most retarded things I've ever seen in my life.

You're arguing against the DRM of Rage, in particular. So, let's look at it this way. This will ONLY affect you if you buy it second hand, and I'm sure we can all agree on this. Now, let's think about this for a second. If you buy it second hand, no money goes to the developers. At all. They get the money from the original sale, and then nothing else. You only give them money if you're buying it new.

Honestly, I think what id are doing is the right thing. No online passes, just restrict part of the content to people getting the game without giving the devs any money.

 

[WaruTaru]

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm't,_Inc.]You don't wanna go there.
[/link]Really, you don't.

 

[StBishop]

I choose to buy my games new.

I feel that as far as second hand sales go, it's no different from Piracy. Especially so in the eyes of a Developer/Publisher.

Why is me buying Command and Conquer at like age 7 and burning it for my friend any different to me selling it to him, or selling it to a store who then sell it on to him?

I don't see why you're against paying 5 dollars (or $10) more for a game that's new and comes with free DLC. It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to boycott something, make it intrusive DRM. Not project $10

They made a sale on the physical copy of the game. The second part only differs in that now what your doing is illegal because there are two people playing the game from one physical copy if you burn it. If you sold it it's still one player per copy.

I know that now. In 97 it wasn't common knowledge.

Well at least not in my primary school.

Obviously I see the difference but from a dev's/pub's perspective they're pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

No it doesn't have to be done. These underhanded techniques are publishers trying to get money they are not entitled to. If you tried it, it would be theft or fraud or something but corporations have different rules.

They would lose because it is legal (and shall remain legal) for consumers to resell what they buy. Imagine the economy if you could not resell things. Purchasing anything would become a much bigger risk and would result in less money being spent all around. Not sure about that stereo? Better not risk it because if it sucks, you're stuck with it. No more garage sales, flea markets, etc...

Oh btw, no matter how many people say it, the game industry is not special. You can sell Legend of Dragoon at a garage sale just like the TV made by the same manufacturer (Sony if you didn't know).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

That game has been on my mind recently, I have been playing FF7 on the PSP and thought it would be nice if they brought LOD to the PS Store. Tomorrow though, Breath of Fire IV comes out and I am looking forward to that. Never had a chance to play it on the PS1 and the used prices for that game are outrageous.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? I've kicked myself for selling LOD off, I must have been brain damaged that day or something. Is it really? I kinda forgot about that game, and I just looked at the prices for it used, and good God you weren't kidding. Hooray for that then.

Yeah, my nephew had the game and I played his copy, never finished it though. I do hope no one here calls me a pirate for playing the game without owning it...LOL

 

[Stall]

If you care about video games you'll protest this greed on the part of publishers before they destroy the entire industry. More and more people hate the publishers everytime some new BS DRM is introduced and doubly so when they are using that DRM to harm the used market because unlike piracy, the used market is legitimate and tied to consumer rights.

Nope. As someone else pointed out, you don't have rights as a consumer when you buy used since you are neither the customer of the publisher nor developer. You aren't their customer... they don't CARE about your rights. If you buy used, you are the customer of whoever you bought the game used from... not the publisher nor developer.

So your argument is pointless. The publisher isn't inclined to do ANYTHING for the used market since they aren't their customers. They don't give a shit about what rights you have since you aren't giving them money. How can you have consumer rights if you aren't even a consumer in their eyes?

So you are wrong on that account. The used market is pointless. If you want to support the industry, then buy new. When you buy new, then you are the customer of the publisher or developer, and they make sure you are rewarded for your patronage. If you don't give a shit about the industry and want to buy used, then why should publishers or developers care about you since you are NOT their customer?

 

[Inkidu]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

 

[Epona]

Why is the gaming industry the only industry that can throw a *****-fit and fuck with consumers, while having people whiteknight them? Where are the RIAA fanboys?

Indeed and no one seems to notice the disconnect between the industry growing and at the same time whining that piracy and used sales are killing them. DRM is all about greed. Digital Restrictions Management so they can sell you more.

 

[Rednog]

Snip

Snip 1

Snip

I'll be honest I actually read it wrong, I read it as 2 billion in profits. My line of thought was that thiosk was saying hey they only make 2 billion but you make it sound like they are making hundreds of billions (I think it was the whole gazillion thing). Thus my retort under my misconception was logically one of 2 billion is still more than 1 billion. My mistake, I admit I was wrong, but still my original point still stands that this is a very different set of transactions then ebay or a friend selling to another friend.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

The EULA is not a two way contract and an EULA can have anything in it. An EULA cannot take away consumer rights and the right to resell is a consumer rights.

Reselling is impractical thanks to DRM but it is not illegal.

BTW, I am probably older than you and I know that just repeating something alot of times, does not make it true. Show me a precedent where a person was charged with a crime for selling a used PC game.

 

[Winthrop]

And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

This is long but I have a tldr. First off somebody already payed for the game, and when they sell it to a secondhand gamer, they lose their copy. As such no additional products are created and the same number of people have it. If the original gamer decides they want the game again, they can buy it new same number sold, same number played. Now I understand the counterpoint that they have already enjoyed the game once and may have no desire to play it again. Fair enough but it reminds me of used DVD sales.

Second part is that it has high potential for collateral damage. How often do systems break? My old HP caught fire twice from a faulty power supply and I know a lot of people who got the RROD on the xbox 360. So if the system breaks, I would need to pay another 10 dollars for the game if I decide to replace the system. Not a lot for one game but if they all made me do it the price would climb to ridiculous extremes.

Another example of harm to first hand buyers is a party type situation. I have a lot of friends who like COD:BlOps but I am not a fan so I didn't buy it. Sometimes my friend brings it over when we are having a lan party or just all gaming together and with this second hand buyer protection we couldn't.

Sometimes if one person in a family is in college and another is not they may have two of the same system. Sharing games between the two is reasonable. With this protection it would not be possible to share them.

Finally, what about folks who don't have internet? Sure you can argue that they shouldn't be gaming if they can't even afford internet but it can happen. When it blocks something in the single player, they are kind of screwed over. Same goes for people without wireless adapters. This does not matter for online multiplayer however.

I don't know if it checks with something on the system or with gamertag, the above are aimed more at on the system but if someone doesn't have the password to recover their gamertag they would still be a problem. If it is by gamertag, some games only allow one save (Dead Rising and such) and if you wanted to start a new game but still keep your endgame one should you ever want to just mess around, or be high leveled or for nostalgia or whatever you wouldn't be able to or would need to but another copy.

TLDR: It hurts first hand gamers as well and the same number of games are in circulation so no harm is done.

 

[StBishop]

I choose to buy my games new.

I feel that as far as second hand sales go, it's no different from Piracy. Especially so in the eyes of a Developer/Publisher.

Why is me buying Command and Conquer at like age 7 and burning it for my friend any different to me selling it to him, or selling it to a store who then sell it on to him?

I don't see why you're against paying 5 dollars (or $10) more for a game that's new and comes with free DLC. It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to boycott something, make it intrusive DRM. Not project $10

They made a sale on the physical copy of the game. The second part only differs in that now what your doing is illegal because there are two people playing the game from one physical copy if you burn it. If you sold it it's still one player per copy.

I know that now. In 97 it wasn't common knowledge.

Well at least not in my primary school.

Obviously I see the difference but from a dev's/pub's perspective they're pretty much the exact same thing.

And their view isn't the view that should be all-encompassing in a market system. If they honestly think that me buying a game then re-selling it is worse than me and the other person hitting up the public tracker and getting two copies of the game minus their annoying DRM, there is something wrong with that person/publisher/industry.

I was more thinking about 2 kids sharing a game that one of them bought. Not 5,000,000 nerd rage 20 somethings who're "row row fite teh powa!" sticking it to the man.

If you don't like the DRM either buy it and then find a mod/drm free version after paying for the product or go without.

You don't pay, you shouldn't play.

 

[esperandote]

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

I found some interesting articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

A software license agreement is a contract between the "licensor" and purchaser of the right to use software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

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."

...

Computer software

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Some software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related Supreme Court cases.

 

[Nudu]

You boycott it if you want. I'll buy it. I can understand why they do this and it's their right as a company to do so. Your right as a consumer is to buy or not buy what they're selling.

 

[Raso719]

I choose to buy my games new.

I feel that as far as second hand sales go, it's no different from Piracy. Especially so in the eyes of a Developer/Publisher.

Why is me buying Command and Conquer at like age 7 and burning it for my friend any different to me selling it to him, or selling it to a store who then sell it on to him?

I don't see why you're against paying 5 dollars (or $10) more for a game that's new and comes with free DLC. It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to boycott something, make it intrusive DRM. Not project $10

So then selling a used car to a friend should also be illegal. I mean poor Ford, they don't get a cut when when I sell my old Contour SVT.

While we're at it we should also make it illegal to sell used cloths. Stores like Goodwill and the Salvation Army should be taken apart for the malicious act of selling second had products with out giving Abercrombie and Fitch, Levi or Fruit of the Loom a piece of the action (not to mention other companies like Sony, Toshiba and IBM for all the used electronics they have.)

The game industry isn't special. There's this notion that just because the products are intangible they you can some how hold supreme control over them and give them special privileges.

And in the likely chance you reply with a "you're right, selling used cars should be illegal and Goodwill is destroying the revenue of clothing companies" I shall say this, unto you. What does is mean to own something? what is ownership? We we can only ever own that which me make from scratch than none of us actually own anything, we're all just surfs and slaves renting everything we have from those above us. I refuse to live in a world where nothing I own is actually my own. I wouldn't even be totally against discussing the idea that I had to give a VERY modest percentage of my sales to the product's original manufacture except that I know that would be taken way to far and, frankly, I think these companies are already well enough to do can can suck it.

You know what? If want people to stop buying used games make the games you sell so good people keep them. Maybe we should examine why people sell their games in the first place and reexamine who we make our games and what kind of games we make. Maybe we could get incentives towards selling the game back to the publisher or developer rather than a 3rd party. There are all sorts of ways to go about this that don't screw the consumer over it's just more profitable to screw the consumer and treat them as a lesser party than it is to have a mutual respect for each other.

 

[Ghengis John]

The condition of the game is not an issue. As an example, sometimes you'll buy a used game and it will be in perfect condition, complete with the box, manual and other inserts. Other times you will get a disc only with a generic box and the disc may be a little worn. In both cases, the price is the same. For example, I recently bought a used copy of GOW: COO for $12.99 at Gamestop. The box on the shelf was one of those generic one but the one they gave me was the original box with a manual. It could have gone either way and they price would not have changed.

You are not paying for the box or the manual. You are paying for the game. So far (with some exceptions) you have been getting the exact same experience buying a game used as someone who buys a game new. It was sweet while it lasted. All good things must come to an end.

Nor does the condition change consumer rights or the publishers not being entitled to be paid multiple times.

What consumer rights are being violated? How are they being paid multiple times? You want one copy of the game, you pay them for one copy of the game. If you want to buy it used, you can, you simply accept the consequences. What's so hard to understand?

Likewise, I could buy a car used that is in perfect condition with very few miles on it because it was owned by a grandmother who only drove it once it in a while or I could buy one that is falling apart.

What the fuck is this? You're telling me "But I could buy a really nice used car." Ridiculous. Good for you, I guess? The only thing I can say is one will cost more and one will cost less. I wouldn't be surprised if this dropped the price of used copies of Rage faster than other games.

Both are still used and GM gets no money either way.

Yup, and you can buy a used copy of Rage still and GM won't get any money from it. Or Bethesda. What changed?

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Probably because you feel entitled to have the same experience as someone who pays twice what you do and waiting is incomprehensible to you for reasons many people can not fathom.

 

[M920CAIN]

Developers are making games & then they're cutting & slicing up their games up into pieces to sell them to consumers. It's like giving bits of food to a hungry dog. If you guys like this method... fine... your money... not mine .

 

[Epona]

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

I found some interesting articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

A software license agreement is a contract between the "licensor" and purchaser of the right to use software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

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."

...

Computer software

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Some software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related Supreme Court cases.

You must have missed this part:

No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

So, in general EULA's have no legal binding until challenged in a court of law and found to be legally binding and this is on a PER basis.

I win.

 

[goldendriger]

I agree, im boycotting. I would normally buy it, but this "If you dont buy it new the GTFO" thing is stupid, i havnt got money to piss away, hence pre owned games are perfect for me (Even 1 week after release they drop by £10ish) But if you want my money make a damn good game, one i say "Well screw it i CANT miss this game".

Maybe they can say...have DLC which is free new or if its pre owned and you want me you can buy the DLC pack, but dont cut stuff out of the main game.

Imagine if you bought FF7 from a friend, you play it and it wont read Disk 2 because "You didnt buy it new" i for one, would be outraged.



EDIT:

Well another way to approach this-

I tried to get Persona 3 Portable, it wasnt avalible in the UK, I (By chance) found it pre-owned, so i bought it. You know why? because Atlus DIDNT RELEASE IT in the UK, they have no right to get my money if they never intended to have it.

Oh but they DID release it, like 18 months later, without news or anything special, just Meh you can have it now.

 

[Inkidu]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

The EULA is not a two way contract and an EULA can have anything in it. An EULA cannot take away consumer rights and the right to resell is a consumer rights.

Reselling is impractical thanks to DRM but it is not illegal.

BTW, I am probably older than you and I know that just repeating something alot of times, does not make it true. Show me a precedent where a person was charged with a crime for selling a used PC game.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

 

[esperandote]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers.

that they can do this to us, as consumers

The moment you don't buy a game from retail (as in new), you stop being their consumer. Sorry. They have no obligations towards you, they can freely ban you from any service they provide, and it just happens, that playing a game, even single-player, offline game, is a service a developer provides. In the end you end up owning a plastic disc with data on it, nothing else.

Selling a used good is a ownership change (I just read that) the second buyer should be transfered the first buyer rights.