PS3 News: Court Ruling May Have Big Impact On Used Game Sales - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Court Ruling May Have Big Impact On Used Game Sales

Publishers have been searching for ways to monetize the used game market this generation, but perhaps a recent court ruling will have a big impact on the entire situation.

As Gamasutra reports, "the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the right of software companies to deny consumers the right to resell their products." The decision came about due to a long-standing case pertaining to used computer software sales on eBay, but the ramifications of that result could be felt by the used video game market. The details of the case in question are as follows:

"The case involved the sale of copies of AutoCAD, software that defendant Timothy Vernor had picked up in an architect's office sale. Vernor then put the software up for sale on auction site eBay, complete with serial numbers and a reassurance that no versions were currently installed on any other machine.

However, AutoCAD's developer, Autodesk, claimed the End User License Agreement (EULA) that users agreed to before using the software stated that the program was merely licensed, not sold, and that the user's license was non-transferable."

So, Autodesk said the copies Vernor had should be destroyed (after Vernor had upgraded to a new version of the software), and the defendant stated that he had not agreed to any license, so was free to sell his copies. The court ruled in favor of Vernor in 2008 but Autodesk filed an appeal and got the decision reversed. The ruling wants to "distinguish between when a piece of software is sold and when it is merely licensed, with the user potentially unable to resell if it's the latter." Said the judge:

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

Now that this has been passed, the ripples could be felt in other forms of digital media subject to license agreements, which could prevent users from selling their used video games. In fact, EA's EULA states- "This software is licensed to you, not sold." The entire thing could get very complicated in the coming years, especially because there's one final gray area, when the court added that-

"...congress is free... to modify the first sale doctrine and the essential step defense if it deems these or other policy considerations to require a different approach."

Tags: used games, game industry, used game sales

9/14/2010 9:01:04 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (103 posts)

Jawknee
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 9:40:59 PM
Reply

I thought most software such as AutoCAD has license keys that were always non transferable. Once used, its no good anymore. Doesn't most none video game software function this way?

Goodness, i hated AutoCAD in high school. We used it on those crappy Macs from the 80's and early 90's in our architecture class. I'm sure the software has improved greatly since then but it was just so tedious using that program to build your blue prints.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:55:16 AM

I think that we too were using AutoCAD, this is three years ago now, and it still sucks. Honestly hated it with a passion.
That is all.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:41:09 AM

AutoCad reminds me of the horror that was IT GCSE... man my teachers effed my entire year group over in IT.

Anyway... that article was a little confusing, does this mean guys in the UK cant sell on eBay?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:07:43 PM

I used AutoCad in my last job. It was a good program but it's not easy to learn. It's not user friendly at all. Solidworks was a much better program.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 9:47:46 PM
Reply

Silly EA. Spending all that time coming up with a $10 online access fee for used games when all they had to do was sue their customers.

Agree with this comment 15 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

B-RadGfromOV
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:55:01 AM

And that would help the games industry? Seems you'd be hurting it even more by limiting sales of the game straight from the devs.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 3:20:36 AM

"And that would help the games industry?"

How is that even a relevant question? May I not buy/sell products without the well being of the game industry in mind?

I'll buy & resell anything I deem fit... unless it says ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PACKAGING this product may not be resold.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:22:13 PM

It's technically already illegal to play a pre-owned game, but it's completely un-enforceable the way the law is now. So, I wouldn't worry about it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

B-RadGfromOV
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:19:54 PM

Ohhh okay, I didn't catch your sarcasm. I wasn't aware the the industry was booming. haha

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 4:09:27 AM

"technically already illegal to play a pre-owned game"

It is actually not illegal to play a pre-owned game.

Please cite the LAW, and I mean LAW, not EULA, which you claim makes it illegal.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:23:47 AM

Very well, Bridgera. I will do just that.

Licensed software, is indeed, as you say, a contractual agreement governed in some instances by the EULA.

However, there is far more to this than you realize, obviously. First off, in the United States (and Canada, Britain, and Australia have something very similar to this) there IS a specific law!

In section 117 of the Copyright Act, users are entitled to use the pieces of software via licenses. The number of systems and copies that user holds varies from license to license. For example, Windows home version allows something like 5 computers to use the software, while a business agreement may allow 100.

This section of the law IS enforced by criminal law, hence the hefty fines for making illegal copies of movies, etc. then distributing them.

What section 117 does NOT cover, is the user-end agreement. But this is where the licenses come into play for video games and most computer software.

Software licenses fall under civil law through something called "Contract Law". Contract law is legally binding, but under civil law. Which means, it is not policed. The victim of a breech of civil law must be the one to initiate action and make a declaration to the courts.

Perhaps a term you may have heard of is "Binding Arbitration". In contract law, any agreement that contains the necessary elements of a valid legal agreement, may be enforced by law and the courts should the victim decide to take action.

You'll notice that every game words it's licensing differently, but what they all share in common is a clause (of varied phrasing) that essentially states you have all the rights of the licensing should you have purchased it from the 1st party. (Many people here don't look for that part. They just look for the permission of transfer, which is essentially moot for the person who now owns the second hand game)

What this essentially means, is that if you did not purchase the license from the original party (which you didn't if it's second hand), you do not have permission to obtain a license for the software. Software is NEVER in American law (or many other countries law), owned by anyone except the publisher of said software.

Now with end-sale agreements, you have every right to transfer the disk, book, and case (much like a car!) because it is physical property. You MAY own that. But the software is separate, as stated in Section 117 of Copyright Law.

So in other words, you may sell your games... and you may buy copies of used games... but you MAY NOT USE IT, according to the license agreements which are enforceable by contract law which is protected by copyright law in Section 117 of the Copyright Act.

Lastly, you MUST remember, that although the copyright act itself is enforceable by police, the license agreement section is apart of "Binding Arbitration" which is only enforceable in Civil Court... so police will not be involved with that. (It's technically a contract, you see.) That means, if you play unlicensed software, the publisher must sue you, and no one else... for the value of the game ($60).

So for now, games are safe, since that would be impossible.




But there, Bridgera, is your lesson in law... which you could have easily learned in a google search or two yourself.

Next time, please do some research before trying to call me out. I promise you I will not go into anything guns ablazin' if I don't know what I'm talking about.

NEXT!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:26:23 AM

"It is actually not illegal to play a pre-owned game"

uh... yeah... it kinda is. lol

Please do some research before calling me out next time.

Don't freak out, man. Used game sales are safe. All that stuff I posted is pure fact with no emotion or opinion.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SpaceySatelite
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:47:56 AM

it's stupid to not let anyone sell used games but Bridgera got owned man
i get the law and all but i dont think its right
most of my games are preownned. am i a bad person?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 11:07:09 AM

The exception to what Underdog said it called the Doctrine of first sale and it modifies the copyright laws implementation regarding the control of distribution. First sale says that the copyright holder cannot prevent a person that has legally purchased a copy or a work from reselling that copy.

However that pertains only to physical, tangible copies. It does not apply to intangible things like digitally distributed games or music or video.

First sale also has no impact on the licenses that govern software. With respect to games and retail software many people consider the End User License Agreements used to be nearly unenforceable. However Business software (such as AutoCAD) is licensed and sold in a way that does not make excessive use of uninformed consent to a shrink wrapped EULA like a game does. The kind of user licenses sold with Business software are very much enforceable. the licenses are considered contracts between the buyer (licensee) and the seller (copyright rights holder and licensor).

Either way, First sale covers copyright works and the physical copies made and sold, but does not alter the laws or enforcement of Licenses. Shrink wrap licenses are on shaky legal ground because of the limited consent that is given. Generally breaking the wrapper is considered consent by the terms of most EULAs, however that can hardly be considered informed consent. So it's unclear how enforceable EULAs are.

Where a piece of software contains an explicit warning on the label that warns the user of the EULA and provides sufficient warning about the consequences of breaking the seal on the wrapper, there may be grounds for enforcing the EULA. It is, as I said, a gray area.

The difference between a DVD or CD with video or music and a computer or console game is that the game is a piece of software and can be governed by a software license. The content on a DVD or CD is not software, and therefore it's purely copyright. Since first sale only incorporates copyright law, it clearly covers DVD and CD (and BluRay) sales. But the software licensing element with games and other retail software makes the issue less clear cut.

Don't you just love the murky depths of the law? This is why we should periodically wipe the books clean, and start over.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 2:08:00 AM

"It is actually not illegal to play a pre-owned game"

"uh... yeah... it kinda is. lol"

"Doctrine of first sale and it modifies the copyright laws implementation regarding the control of distribution."

That is 100 % correct.

I maintain my original point.

It is actually not illegal to play a pre-owned game.

( So there is no confusion, I am refering to physical copies, not downloaded purchased games ).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 9:52:42 AM

Whatever, Bridgera. I don't know what else I can do to smack you in the fact with evidence. It's not really an opinion piece, and you obviously didn't read my post in conjunction with Highlanders.

Playing the game means you accessed software you do not own a license for or have permission to use. That's a breach of the agreement, which is protected by Binding Arbitration under Contract Law. It's a civil offense, and technically speaking, you could be sued $60 for each pre-owned game you've ever played.

But we all know that won't happen, so your precious pre-owned games are safe.

It is not illegal to resale the physical copies, nor is it illegal to buy the physical copies. But the second you access the software therein without a license, it becomes illegal. You're only half right.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/17/2010 9:54:30 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 10:56:43 AM

@Bridgera, (longish reply)

I'm not sure I would state it that strongly. It *may* not be illegal to play used games because the Doctrine of First Sale covers the sale of the copy. But, *if* the shrink wrap EULA was enforceable it might be illegal to play used games.

I'm not trying to avoid the issue. In the many times we have discussed this topic, I have done tons of research. I believe that my understanding has improved. Not as much as a law student of course.... I probably have to retract - or soften - some of the things I have said in the past, when I knew less than I do now about the murky exceptions to the Copyright laws.

The difficulty is that in many ways Underdog is correct - and you are correct. Everything Underdog has written about Copyright and Licenses is correct (as far as I can tell, not being a lawyer) - with the exception of the doctrine of first sale modifying the application of the copyright laws as they are written. This doctrine of first sale is enshrined in US legal practice, other countries have similar exemptions and limitations to their own copyright laws.

If we were only talking about used sales of books, tapes, Vinyl, VHS, CD, DVD or BluRay, then I think that both Underdog and I would have to agree that there was no problem. The sale of used books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc... is precisely why the doctrine of first sale exists. But, despite games being an entertainment product like a movie DVD or a music CD, it's also computer software and therefore covered by the licensing laws. The copyright office has extended the doctrine of first sale to cover game discs and cartridges. This means that despite it being technically illegal according to the written law, "first sale" provides shelter from the application of that law.

The Copyright office doesn't address the licensing element of the game being software. I don't think that they have jurisdiction over licenses, because licenses are contracts (as Underdog stated) and covered by contract law. So the enforceability of the shrink wrap EULAs is part of the question. As is how well the publisher alerts buyers to the license they implicitly accept by opening the software. Once again, it appears that technically, you may be breaking the license that you implicitly accept by opening the packaging. But, because of the limited consent you have given to the terms of the license, it may be impossible to fully enforce the license.

So, you are both right. It is technically illegal under both copyright and contract law to sell or play used games. But first sale shelters consumers from the application of copyright law, and the questions of enforceability of EULAs provides a shroud of confusion about the legality of the license. So buyers/players of used games are not about to be taken to court because the court would dismiss the case before it even got close to a court room. Making it in a practical sense, 'legal' to buy and play a used game.

Seriously, could they make this any more confusing if they tried? When you do the research on this the laws are really clear, and you come away thinking one thing. If you read all about the practical exceptions to the enforcement of the laws, you come away thinking quite another thing. If you try to read both and somehow reconcile them, you get a headache. This is why I will never be a lawyer, my simple brain hates these gray areas. It becomes a bit of a lottery as to how a particular court will interpret the gray areas in a law.

Maybe it's a cop-out to say it, however, you are both right. It's illegal and it's not illegal.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:13:34 PM
Reply

I can't pretend I understood all that, all I know for certain is if I want to sell my games on ebay I ought to be able to. Once I buy something I consider it owned. I'd like to see them try to shut down ebay and craigslist sales.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:17:45 PM

This is a specific case that I don't see interfering with the sale of used video games.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:37:20 PM

Let's hope not, precedents can be a b*tch though.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:05:02 AM

If it is illegal to do so, you know eBay will delist any used game sales... easy peasy. eBay doesn't fool around with that stuff.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:06:17 AM

This isn't final. You can expect appeals. Let's hope so.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:17:47 PM
Reply

As a collector, this scares me!

I read another article about it this morning, & if it's becomes a enforcement for video games too, then as a collector, I'm seriously screwed.

There's just no way I could buy all the games I buy every year brand new(lots that I'll never play, & just trying to add into my collection).
And I already spent between $1500 to $2000 yearly on gaming as it is now, buying some games new that I really want when there's a great sale, but I still have to depend on buying mostly used for the more mediocre games & games I don't enjoy(sports, RTS, etc).

I just went into my collections of games & right now the count stands at 1,720 games, and there's just no way in freaking hell that I could even have attempted reaching even 300 games if I were to buy them all new.

And not it's just me, all serious gaming collectors will be screwed too, unless they just decide to say screw it, & just start collecting only the retro games.

Then of course, that too will also cause a bad ripple affect, as the price of older games will suddenly skyrocket due to the new demands for them.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:22:40 PM

I wouldn't get too upset about this Saint. It will never hold up down the line.


BTW I mailed out Just Cause 2 on Saturday the 11th. Let me know when you get it :)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:22:09 PM

This case will hold up down the line because it's not the software, but the license key that is the important element of this case. The guy selling his copy of AutoCAD could sell the discs, but not the license key. The license key is the protected element, the software is merely a physical copy which can be sold under the law.

I think that what is likely to happen is that there will be no change once case law tests this and you see that the only time this ruling will have an effect is when there is a definite licensing situation involving a license agreement and license key.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:28:38 PM

I was referring to its use in videogame resales.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:54:19 PM

Gotcha, I agree, this will have little to no effect on games - simply because of the whole license key/serial number deal.

When you buy AutoCAD (and I have in a past professional life) you are not buying the software, you are buying a license, the media with a copy of the software is supplied separately. It's totally different to games, and to be honest I am really surprised that the case got this far without being decided in favor of AutoCAD.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:08:09 AM

But doesn't that mean that games will now start coming with a licence key to access ANY of the content? This then places it in the category where it cannot be resold.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:12:19 AM

Maybe. I've speculated on this in the past, as has Highlander too... I believe.

It would be a simple thing for Sony or whomever to include a code you have to enter the first time you boot up the disc so you can play the SP game.

If that were the case, though, in my opinion, used game sales wouldn't disappear all together because I believe Sony and the like will just sell new activation keys as DLC, just like some now do for online gaming components.

Also, I hear you BikerSaint. I spend four times that annually on used games with some select new games thrown in; so if the used market were to disappear, I'd be lost.

Though, I don't expect it to disappear all together, however, because people will find ways to sell used games... privately to friends, on Craig's list, at yard sales or flea markets, or even on street corners or in dark alleys like crack.


Last edited by Orvisman on 9/15/2010 8:24:18 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:40:37 AM

I don't think that the game companies will sell activation keys to unlock the SP game content on a retail disk. I think that the Copyright office, courts and Congress would all see that as a way to circumvent the doctrine of first sale. The online pass concept and charging for DLC don't do that, so they are a much safer course for recovering some of the lost revenue from used game sales.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:15:44 PM

While I do support developers and their right to their IP's, I do think that there should be some sort of reasonable accommodation for collectors trying to acquire old games whose discs haven't been manufactured in years, are long gone from major retailers, and whose online multiplayer servers have been reassigned due to lack of use/interest.

Last edited by Simcoe on 9/15/2010 12:18:44 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:16:41 PM

Abandonware?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:16:42 PM

I agree Simcoe. In some cases, there are already instances where copyright is maintained, but the transfer restrictions wear off due to the publisher no longer maintaining activity in the licensing of software.

However, I do believe that if it became strictly monitored, there would HAVE to be a timeline given before resale becomes acceptable. Like, for example, if the publisher no longer produces copies.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:48:26 PM

Unfortunately the Copyright terms in the US are quite long, and I believe were extended even further.

I personally think that copyright law needs amended to shorten the duration of copyrights on software and require that publishers effectively use it or lose it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SixSpeedKing
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 4:04:53 PM

@Orvisman: Lol that's awesome. I can imagine seeing some creepy looking guy in a dark alley with a big trenchcoat being like Psst... You want some used video games??

Maybe not all that funny but made me laugh anyway.

Last edited by SixSpeedKing on 9/15/2010 4:06:58 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:24:32 PM
Reply

LV,
I sure hope you're right, but I foresee the day that they find a way to block "all content" on any used games, unless you pay them whatever they decide to charge you.

Sort of like what EA does now, but they take it even further by coding, or some other way to eliminate you from even playing a used disc in SP mode, off-line on any console.

OK, thanks on the JC2. As of this moment I don't have anything on my club's calendar for this coming Monday or Tuesday, so I'll probably be able to drop that one you wanted off at my local PO on one of those days.
I'll email ya when I receive yours, and then again when I send mine out to ya.
Just let me know when you get mine, cause I hate thinking that my game is stuck somewhere in Limboland, in care of a Postal Hell Office.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 9/14/2010 10:33:07 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 10:53:21 PM
Reply

Yea, but the difference with the case above and the case of console games is the licensing or product key. Games like Warcraft I can understand since they ship with a one time product key, but console games don't. Like World, aka Worlds aka John (had to make a joke somehow), said, I won't even pretend to understand exactly what all the legal mumbo jumbo is about, but as far as i know, I didn't know of any end-user agreement.

UPDATE:
Went through a few of my games and read the fine Print.

-Activision states out right that you cannot sell, rent, lease, loan, or any other transfer w/o consent from Activision. **same agreement found in 3 Titles I own.

-EA. No End-User agreements found. **only 1 EA title checked

-Lucas Art's agreement was mind boggling seeing how Lucas is with his titles.
Actual Agreement Excerpt
"...permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files to deal in the software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge publish, distribute,sublicense, and/or sell copies of the software..." **1 title checked



Last edited by main_event05 on 9/14/2010 11:07:29 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:18:03 PM

Activision may list that you can't do this or that but it doesn't mean any of "demands" are legal and will hold up in court.

Thanks for listing them for us, I never read the fine print.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:06:55 AM

I forgot to mention about EA not including their terms with their games but are the most vocal about resells.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:19:23 PM
Reply

As at least one person has stated I think that this case will not have as much impact as you might think because of the difference between AutoCAD and a game.

With AutoCAD it is clearly stated and understood that you are buying a license not a copy of the software. Games are different in this context because you are buying a copy, albeit a licensed copy. I don't think you'll find the court so likely to extend this judgment to include software that doesn't require a unique key that is provided to the licensee to enable the software.

Now, when it comes to downloadable software that only runs if you have an activate key, this ruling would apply. But, I don't think that there will be a problem there because we all know that we are not buying a physical copy of the software when we buy from PSN or XBL.

I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:29:18 PM
Reply

The courts are dumb arses. If he never installed the software, he never agreed would have read and agreed to the license. Hence he can do whatever he wants with it. It's the equivalent of opening the box, saying "I don't want this" and selling it because you can't return it. This could never happen with video games because you can't stop it.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nerull
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:29:35 PM
Reply

Of course Activision games would try and fine print everyone into paying full price, and more whenever they possibly can, for their games so they can later try and BS their way to saying they're not actually bought, just rented so to speak.
I don't see why used game/software sales are somehow infinitely more evil and damaging to the industry when literally everything else in existence is sold used. Cars, books, dvds, hardware, bubblegum, condoms, etc.
Stop vilifying your audience.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:36:32 PM

I have NEVER purchased a second hand condom.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nerull
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:00:23 AM

But you've bought used bubblegum?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:04:25 AM

:( I've only leased it.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:27:01 AM

have you ever noticed second hand condoms are always the pre lubed kind.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:33:35 PM
Reply

It's amusing when companies think they can bite the hand that feeds them.

Don't worry guys, the used market isn't going anywhere.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 @ 11:57:21 PM
Reply

I don't think used game sales are going anywhere, but it definitely isn't a cut and dry resolution. In the end, it's too tough and much easier to just do what EA is doing.

It would be a long drawn out battle for video games if it ever did happen.

A couple things are relevant to remember about video games.

1) It's still a civil offense and not a criminal offense. So it can't be enforced. The publishers themselves still would have to take action.

2) Right now, the used game market is safe. As is, there is no direct transfer of licensing taking place. There are no keys, etc. So as is, it is impossible for publishers to go after used game sales right now. Gamestop et. al. does NOT deal licenses, and since there is no direct transfer, their hands are clean! It's not technically an offense until someone actually USES it without a license... So the publishers would have to go after every single person who plays used games and then prove that they play it and not simply keep it for a collection. Publishers would have to change first.

So what if Publishers DID try to follow suit? Lots more to follow!

3) Publishers would have to release license keys that are bound to a particular system. Then much like Windows, for example, there would be a limit to the number of systems you could use it on. But here's the problem: for security reasons, you WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DE-REGISTER THE KEYS LIKE YOU CAN NOW WITH DLC!

4) All things already released would still be eligible for re-sale. It would HAVE to be future focused.

5) Publishers would lose cash from rental companies. You could release temporary keys for rentals, but that's a huge security risk. So chances are, rental services would perish as well. (Not that it matters for Blockbuster, anyways!)

6) For the most part, used game companies would simply adapt. I doubt they'd go out of business. However, you'll see a huge mark-up in the cost of new games to help them off-set cost, which would give WalMart and other department stores an opportunity to seize a monopoly. They could undercut costs by a fair margin! The reason is: games at cost would stay pretty much the same since the different systems are in competition. But retailers can decide how much they want to net in the end.

7) From a legal perspective, yes, the publishers could do the same thing, but they'd have to ALL do it together at the same time. So it'd take time. It's too big of a risk for them to do it ASAP.

Basically, it would be a huge headache, and it isn't something that would happen overnight. To be honest, I don't know if it will happen or not. But I can guarantee it won't happen this generation.

Besides, it will only work if every publisher does it. So until everyone starts doing it, you won't see used game sales die. They want to compete with each other, still.

It'd be interesting to see the battle between Sony, MS, and Nintendo if this did happen.

And by the way... if everything turns digital in the future, this won't even be an issue.

In the end, I just don't see this ever working out. It's far to complicated, and much easier just to do what EA is doing.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/15/2010 12:06:05 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:10:23 AM

P.s. Publishers could already release keys and limit their softeware. This news isn't that revolutionary. We're already moving towards publishers limiting content.

But really... if publishers were going to outright kill used game sales, they would have started to by now. Perhaps examples like EA means they are already beginning!

But I dunno... if they haven't done it yet, it's hard to believe they'll do it in the future.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:55:11 AM

Publishers will be very careful. The last thing they want to do is attract scrutiny by congress. At the moment the Digital distribution of software to users is not covered by first sale, it's all treated as licensed software. But if the industry starts pushing too hard, they could provoke Congress into an action that could be disastrous for the industry. It's a difficult balance to strike.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:24:18 AM
Reply

i wouldn't lose any sleep over this just yet for two reasons. the 9th circuit court only has jurisdiction in the western part of the country and is considered the most liberal of courts around. two, this case will most likely go to the supreme court, who will probably take a look at it because this court spoke of a long standing doctrine as part of its decision. also, the legal language of licenses are only as strong as the ability to enforce them.

Last edited by jaybiv on 9/15/2010 12:25:27 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:56:42 AM

The thing is that this case isn't about the sale of the software, it's about the sale of the license key, which is not covered by first sale. Which is why AutoDesk won, and why the Supreme won't change the verdict. It doesn't really impinge on the doctrine of first sale.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:02:50 PM

i beg to differ. a license is used to circumvent the first doctrine, so it is very likely the supreme court may look at this. there is plenty of ambiguity in this issue and it depends on which side of the coin your opinion falls. consumers are bombarded with terms and conditions for practically evrything we buy now, so any company could sneak something in the t&c or eula and try to hold a customer to it. that in and of itself does not make these documents binding, i.e. licenses are not instantly bulletproof. it is the court's job to determine this.

all i'm saying is since two different courts have come to conflicting conclusions, and the higher of the two mentioned a long standing legal principle, it may have to go to the highest court for fleshing out. and i hope they rule on the side of the consumer, especially like in this case where they do not have the software installed on their system and wishes to sale their copy.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:32:02 PM

In the strangest scenario, you might see them allow the resale of software, but not the key.

AutoCAD does this very trickily. I read Highlander say further down, that the software is included in the purchase agreement as $0, but the license is the full cost. In other words, they get around it because you literally buy the license, which by definition, cannot transfer.

That being said, it's a fair bit different from how games are handled, and it is not related to copyright. So games should be fairly unaffected by this.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:21:20 PM

That's exactly the point Underdog. Business Software is not sold, it is licensed. And the licenses are non-transferable. the software media is typically sold to the licensee at a negligible cost. It's not circumventing first sale, because the software is explicitly not being sold.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:58:57 PM

@Jaybiv,

One last thing, you can beg to differ if you like, but the entire business software industry from Mainframe to PC runs on the basis that users license the software and do not own it. That's not going to change, and congress isn't going to change it. Too many US companies are prominent in that industry.

You also need to understand that licenses are not ways to circumvent first sale, licenses pre-date the first sale doctrine and stand separately.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Knightedrik
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:57:19 AM
Reply

This is BS. And an insult to all gamers. They need to realize that video games, as well as movies, are a "disposable" medium.

What was the first dvd you ever bought? Ok.. where the hell is it now? That's right, 95% of you have no clue where it is. Same thing with video games. After you play a game 50 times all the way thru.. then just what the hell do they expect you to do with it? Make a windchime? Give them to the homeless people so they can use them as mirrors?

Where does this damn stupidity end? I'm sorry.. but every single day things like this seem to just get me enraged.

They try like hell to combat piracy, then go and do some stupid crap like this... when all this is going to do is cause people to NOT buy anything. They will just steal it.

How would you feel if it was a car or a boat?

You buy something like that, and then it's basically worthless.. due to the fact that it cannot be re-sold.

I swear to god, the more money they make.. the greedier they get. It's sickening.

Sorry, for the rant. But I get extremely angry when people unchain stupidity.

Last edited by Knightedrik on 9/15/2010 12:59:59 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:49:29 AM

Nice rant, shame it's completely off target.

BTW, games are not disposable, which is why a used game market exists in the first place.
And for the umpteen millionth time, software is not comparable to a physical asset like a car or boat, so stop making the comparison.

Go back and read the article. This case isn't about games. Sure, there is a legal precedent set. That might impact some kinds of software resale. But the impact and scope is limited, and will probably not alter used game sales very much - if at all.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Knightedrik
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:01:59 AM
Reply

Wow, sorry Mods for my last comment. Had to tone it down. PG-13 style. I was very mad. lol.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:57:19 AM

It's usually best to think before posting, especially when the subject is a complex matter of law, and not a cut and dried thing.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:37:46 AM

thinking before posting is for chumps

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:13:15 AM
Reply

If it's the licence key which is the issue then I can see game publishers adding one to each of their games. bye bye 2nd hand market.

If this has 1 positive effect it will be that new game prices would need to plummet as they would lose all those sales to customers who are taking a risk dropping $60, but knowing they might claw $30 of that back as a trade in.

Would the rental market disappear as well if licence keys were introduced to games? I would presume so.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:59:19 AM

No, I don't think they will do that. If they did Congress and the Copyright office would see it as an attempt to circumvent the doctrine of first sale, and re-evaluate that doctrine with respect to all modes of software. The industry really does not want that. If anything, the industry would be delighted to keep used game sales if it means that the copyright office continues to recommend that digitally distributed software is exempted from first sale.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 11:24:00 AM

Ah right. I'm not up on US specific law so your contribution is valued.

I was just looking at it from the perspective of the games publishers getting a sniff of a way to make a lot more money from it's cash strapped customers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:59:32 AM
Reply

This better not start a trend with adding license numbers for console games. Not only will that be very inconvenient for the consumer, but it will also be very hard on the gaming industry on the ones who decide to use that route. Imagine all the people who end up losing that serial that would come with it, and if the serial was printed onto the disc itself, then it wouldn't make any difference. It would just make you spend a few more minutes having to deal with putting in a string of random numbers and letters just to play a damn game.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

spiderboi
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:27:13 AM
Reply

Just a question: what's the difference (with respect to the devs and publishers) in terms of used game sales, and rentals? I would think both would have no returns for the devs and publishers (100% sure for the former, not so sure on the latter). Your thoughts?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 11:27:16 AM

I get the impression that businesses purchasing games for rental purposes pay vastly more than your normal retail customer. Which is why there are 'not for resale' and 'not for rental' versions. I'm sure that's how it works with movies anyway and no reason games would be different.

Last edited by Gabriel013 on 9/15/2010 11:27:51 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 12:27:13 PM

Rental companies buy licensing rights to rent out media. I'm unsure of the cost, but you're right. It is far more than the cost of buying a game new.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 3:26:29 AM
Reply

I think the whole idea of not being able to resell any type of consumer product is absurd.

In my mind it is the equivalent of a chair manufacturer putting "you will not be able to resell this chair, and no one else may sit on it" in a EULA.

I don't see what makes software licenses so special that they may not be resold with the original disks, as long as there is no one else using the license.

Last edited by bridgera on 9/15/2010 3:27:58 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:07:22 AM

They are different because they are licenses, not physical copies of the software. But that's the thing, this case is about the license, not the software. It's not about copyright, it's about breaking the terms of license that are explicitly stated and agreed to during the purchase of the software. It's completely different from consumer software.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 4:12:02 AM

It is every bit as absurd in my mind to sell a non-transferable license to use a chair.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:32:58 AM

You COULD do some research, Bridgera. But you aren't backing anything you say with fact.

Up at the top, I gave you that specific law you were looking for.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 2:45:58 AM

"You COULD do some research, Bridgera. But you aren't backing anything you say with fact."

In this post, I was actually stating my opinion.

"I think X is absurd".

That statement IS NOT a fact, and does not require fact backing.

As Highlander said, it is legal to play physical copies of games under First Sale laws.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 9:56:14 AM

I guarantee you that is not what Highlander said.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, September 17, 2010 @ 11:01:58 AM

@Bridgera & Underdog,

Bridgera, Underdog is right, that's not quite what I said.

As I say in a longer response above... It *may* not be illegal to play used games because the Doctrine of First Sale covers the sale of the copy. But, *if* the shrink wrap EULA was enforceable it might be illegal to play used games.

In many ways Underdog is correct - and you are correct. Everything Underdog has written about Copyright and Licenses is correct - with the exception of the doctrine of first sale modifying the application of the copyright laws as they are written.

The copyright office has extended the doctrine of first sale to cover game discs and cartridges. This means that despite it being technically illegal according to the written law, "first sale" provides shelter from the application of that law.

Games are also computer software and therefore covered by the licensing laws. The Copyright office doesn't address the licensing element of the game being software. Licenses are contracts and covered by contract law. So the enforceability of the shrink wrap EULAs is part of the question. Technically, you may be breaking the license that you accept by opening the packaging. But, because of the limited consent you have given, it may be impossible to fully enforce the license.

So, you are both right. It's illegal and it's not illegal. But, it is complicated.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 3:49:54 AM
Reply

this is just silly!
you can sell cars used, car manufactures never see anything from said sale and are they complaining?
you can buy electronics used, electronic manufactures never see anything from said sale, are they complaining?
this is what i hate about the industry these days, almost every developer has turned into a selfish greedy bobby kotic!

i just read a article of a dev complaining that development costs are too high, o boo frikady hoo!
honestly!
games cost what 30 - 40M to make?
most cost less but lets take a average lets say 35M per game. add on 10M for advertising and retail costs that takes it to 45M bucks.
almost every game these days sells a easy 2M units during its life time, so, most of them are sold in the US and there normally 60 bucks so 2M times 60 well it does not take a brain surgeon to figure out thats 120M bucks made off those 2M units sold.
so that means even if the game cost a ridiculous amount to make, even if it cost say 80M to make, there still making 40M on that.
im sorry 40M is not enough for you greedy f*cks?

i would, as allot of people would be over the moon to even see 1M dollars rolling in per job complete let alone f*cking 40!
id be interesting to see how much publishers make per year, guys like EA, antivision, 2K, im willing to bet that their yearly paychecks are at least 60% more than the average joe!
thats not enough for ya?
try busting your a$$ working as a refrigeration mechanic carrying 50KG+ refrigeration units up ladders in a thunderstorm, working on a tin roof on a 40 degree angle in a thunderstorm, one slip and well YOUR DEAD!
and all that for a measly 1K a week, if your lucky! my boss owns his own company and he barley rakes in 1K per week in busy weeks, quiet ones hes lucky to make 500 bucks!

yea you guys sitting on a nice comfy office chair, in a air conditioned room with free drinks and lunch provided have such a hard life!
getting paid what im willing to bet is a dam side better than 1K per week!
not to mention your not risking your life everyday, not to mention your not in the freezing cold rain, not to mention your not sweating like a pig, not to mention your not straining carrying such heavy objects!
oh, you poor babies how do you survive!
come work in my world, and 50 bucks says these guys wont even last a week!

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 10:05:07 AM

Slow down, all the used car analogies in the world will not work here at all, and there's no reason to get all wadded up anyway.

This case is about AutoCAD, not a more mainstream software application, nor a game. AutoDesk sell licenses to use AutoCAD, they do not ever sell the software. When you purchase AutoCAD, you are explicitly entering a license agreement with AutoDesk. You are licensing the software and you are paying for the license in the form of a limited use key that they send you. The software media is shipped as a separate item and has a negligible cost on the invoice. They never, ever sell you the software, so when you 'buy' AutoCAD, you are not buying the software, you are buying licenses. This is extremely well known and accepted within the industry. I have worked on a purchase of AutoCAD a couple of times in my dim and distant past, and know from personal experience that AutoDesk do not sell their software, they license it.

So, in this case the guy trying to sell the software is not being entirely honest or truthful. AutoDesk is not complaining about the sale of the software disks, they are complaining about the sale of the license key, because the license that the user purchased is explicitly non-transferable.

AutoCAD used to ship with a dongle, an adapter that you had to plug into a computer in order for AutoCAD to run. They moved from that practice to using unique license key numbers that the user would enter to enable the software. But when you buy AutoCAD you know that you are not buying the software, but licensing it. It's explicit in the contracts and implicit in the way you install and enable the software.

Honestly I don't think that this case really hits game software, unless you are talking about game software that you buy a license key to run. As far as I know, no retail console games use this kind of licensing, so there is no issue.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 8:11:00 AM

but thats the thing, with those as you said your not buying the product your buying a license.
i did the same with windows 7, since im a student digital river sent me a email offering me windows 7 pro for 100 bucks, to buy it from the shops id be looking at a easy 700.
with games im not buying a license to use that product, i am buying the product itself.
if publishers want to go down the licensing route, than fine but people will make their purchase decisions accordingly.
there would be a massive retail backlash if that happened because retail shops like EB would loose a massive amount of cash.

point being if i buy a product i should be able to do whatever the hell i want with it, be it for personal or for profit.
if im buying the license for a product than that is a whole other kettle of fish, because legally you do not own the product the manufacture does.
its like when you rent something, you dont own it till you finish payments and buy it out.
so if im buying a product i should be able to trade it in and put said credit to something else.
if im buying a license than obviously you cant since it is not yours to trade in.


Last edited by ___________ on 9/16/2010 8:14:25 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:35:34 AM

You aren't 100% wrong, _____. But software can never be owned by anyone other than the publisher. There's a long string of laws that don't allow what you say to be true. I already wrote it all out once higher up, so I won't do it again.

It's definitely tricky stuff, but with enough research, it makes sense. (Legally, anyways. We're all entitled to what should or shouldn't be in law.)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:38:27 AM

That's why this case doesn't have much if any impact on used game sales. It's not about retails sales of copies of games, it's about the transfer of a license. Games sold at retail do theoretically contain a license, but are covered (at least in the US) by that wonderful thing that was quoted at me so many times - the doctrine of first sale.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:31:32 AM
Reply

I feel like this is the beginning to the end of the current version of the used game sales model. In the grand scheme of things, greed is the driving factor here. It seems that the retailers want all the used game sales money and the pub/dev's want all the used game sales money. Instead of them striking a 50/50 deal on used game revenues, they each seek to get 100%. They are both greedy. I'll tell you what, if new games eventually cannot be resold then they have to lower the price in my opinion. Especially on games with single player only. Somethings gotta give. No resellability would be adverse to the gamer no matter how you look at it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:32:37 AM
Reply

I buy all my games new, but I think this could make me an even more stingy consumer. If I buy something that I really don't like, and I can't even get a few bucks for trading it in afterwards, I'd be doubly sure not to buy anything even vaguely questionable, or else wait for the price to go way down.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 11:35:10 AM

Exactly.

In my mind, one easy way to pretty much kill off used games sales would be to make your new release price $20-$30, rather than $60. Most people would then hang on to games they buy as they'd get no resale value and therefore there would be no used games market. Bestbuy/target/whoever would get out of that business if they ended up selling their trade-ins for $10 a piece max as it would no longer be as profitable.

This means your $60 2mil copy release could easily be $30 4mil copy release not losing you a dime. I'd expect the number to be great than that meaning revenue would increase!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:35:40 AM
Reply

@________ - LOL at the poor refridgerator guy on the ladder at the 40 degree slope in a thunderstorm. Damn, he needs to find a new job, go back to school or something!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 1:53:09 PM
Reply

Yet, there are many poor Joe's with no disposable income out there in the real-life reality-land who have to what they can to survive. That's what I'd call truly call some real "Amazingskillz"

"An honest dollar for an honest work"

And morally, it sure beats being one of those aimless, purse-snatching, street-corner, punks out there, anytime.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 2:11:33 PM
Reply

The guys problem is that he went and bought a used copy of old software...If he had of been thinking, he would have just went and illegally downloaded the torrent like the rest of the world and not had to have dealt with any of these legal ramifications...;P.

Not that I promote illegal d/ls but it would have saved him a lot of hassle..lol

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 4:40:43 PM
Reply

Next up license agreements for automobiles. Isn't this S%$@ wonderful.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

DjEezzy
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 5:08:22 PM
Reply

Once again. Greed is in front of the pack again. Well i guess I'll be buying a lot less games. LOL. I'm not going to pay $60 + dollars to rent a game with cover art. Forget that. The day that I can't sell/trade/buy used games that i spent my hard earned money on is the day i stop giving these huge publishers my money period. It would be truly awesome if more people had that mentality. Maybe, if the masses were NOT buying everything new on release date, and swallowing everything they throw at us, it would adjust their way of thinking a bit. Just maybe it would give these huge profiting companies a wake up call. LOL.
It's that type of greed in other areas of our lives that have put our country (US) in the mess it's in now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 9:38:07 PM

Take a second gander of the article. There's a lot of variables unrelated to video games.

Used VG sales are safe.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/15/2010 9:39:33 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 7:16:05 PM
Reply

All this license "right to use" BS seriously needs to be looked at by the superior court. Forget video games for a second, and look at this guy trying to sell a piece of software he's no longer using. AutoCAD is an insanely expensive program, as in thousands of dollars expensive!! And they're seriously trying to deny the customer the right to get back even a tiny bit of his investment by selling the old version after having purchased the NEW version of the same program, that is just beyond ridiculous.

If I purchased the retail version of Adobe Photoshop 6, and then purchase the retail version of Photoshop 8, it should bloody well be my right to sell or trade my old copy, that I no longer have any need or use for. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to pay twice for the same program, with no way of recouping some of my losses.

Looking at the gaming world, license keys have been used for a long, long time on PC games, and recently systems like Steam and similar have been trying to accomplish the same thing with 'one time use' license keys that are non-transferable, and the digital distribution future they're trying to force down our throats is again, trying to accomplish the same thing: Denying the customer the right to sell, trade or give away a game he/she no longer wants, needs or uses.

Well, I will just say this: The day they stop me from being able to sell or trade my old games or software's I no longer want or have any use for, that's the day I stop buying new games/software all together, that's what their greed will get them.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 11:04:36 PM

Sorry to be so blunt, but with respect to software licensing and business software, you have no idea what you are talking about. The sale of end user licenses is the way in which business software is acquired.

If you purchased Photoshop 6 as a license with maintenance they you would have Photoshop 8 because you paid your maintenance and received the upgrades. Buying version 6 retail does not convey unlimited access to future versions. Retail licenses are limited because of the whole doctrine of first sale thing. So when you buy a copy of version 6, you are buying only a copy of version 6 and nothing else. No maintenance, no upgrades, nothing. If you license the software and pay your maintenance fees, you will receive maintenance updates and upgrades and will be using version 8 when it arrives. There is a huge difference between retail software and games, and business software sold by the license.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 2:18:21 AM

Highlander, sorry to be so blunt with you, but seriously which software company are you working for? I believe I've seen you posting the software industry's jargon in every single article concerning licensing/selling/trading games and similar.

Also, I don't think you know enough about me to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, and I can tell you that I have actually worked for several years as a PC administrator handling purchases of software and licenses for servers and client workstations, so telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about tells me more about you then it does about me to be honest.

I agree with you on several other topics, and you obviously have a lot of tech knowledge, so I usually respect your opinion, but when you blurt out stuff like this I lose a lot of my respect for you, and it seems quite obvious to me you have an agenda of some kind here...

Regarding Photoshop, what are you talking about? When did I say anything about that you should get free upgrades to future versions of Photoshop?! You apparently need to read my post again, because you obviously did not understand what I wrote. Pretty much every single computer software (including games) has some kind of EULA license agreement you have to agree to in order to install it, and they can pretty much put whatever they want in terms of restrictions of use or sale in that, like it or not.

Whether that would hold up in court vs first sale or fair use is a completely different question.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:24:29 AM

Go near the top and read my description of the law in response to Bridgera!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:37:20 AM

Tangent time! Speaking of insanely expensive software, what's the most expensive software anyone here's used?
I've heavily used FLUENT in the past (graduate work), annual licence for 4 users plus 8 processors (for parallel processing) $30000! Although as it was an "educational licence", we got a $27000 discount! lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:45:36 AM

@Crabba you said "There is absolutely no reason why I should have to pay twice for the same program"

That was the though which I was replying to. The point I was clumsily making was that with Business software you pay maintenance to obtain upgrades from version top version.

With retail software you buy a version, and then have to buy another version to upgrade (or pay the upgrade fee if there is one). I was talking about non-retail software. I have plenty of admin history with software licensing as well. All I want to get across to folks here is that this case is not about games sold at retail (nor things like Photoshop that are sold retail). It's a bout licensed business software, and the transfer of the license. It doesn't have a major impact on games or retail software.

My apologies for being so blunt in my previous response, I was getting very fed up with the number of people who instantly adopted the "sky is falling" mentality about this case and the issue of used games. I did not read your comment thoroughly enough, and my earlier reply reflects that. I do apologize for that, I do try not to fire from the hip, but obviously sometimes it happens.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 6:22:16 PM

Apology accepted Highlander, I appreciate it! It very rarely happens on these types of comments sections with mostly everyone 'shooting from the hip' like you said.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 7:27:17 PM
Reply

@Highlander,
You made remark that there is no console games doing this, that is true but look to the future my friend this could happen.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 11:05:09 PM

Don't think so. It's easier for them to concentrate on charging for downloadable content and online passes.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 2:21:12 AM

It's already happening: it's called PSN & Xbox Live.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 16, 2010 @ 10:48:08 AM

I'll clarify, No console games sold on disc at retail will use licenses and activation keys. Content sold digitally is different because there is no physical media. But that's another discussion entirely. I don't think that console game companies will sell retail versions of games on disc that require non-transferable license keys. I think that they will combat the issue of revenue lost to used game sales using the online-pass and DLC.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:30:31 PM

got spam?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DjEezzy
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 @ 8:58:09 PM
Reply

ever heard of dots? lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

firesoul453
Saturday, September 18, 2010 @ 10:58:44 PM
Reply

This might be very bad....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Are you getting Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor?
Yup, I'm nabbing this one now.
Yes, but I'm waiting for a while.
Maybe...not sure yet.
No, not interested.

Previous Poll Results