Can I sell The Orange Box?

[Stg-Flame]

I never understood selling good games. Then again, I keep damn near everything I buy but that is beside the point. I have seen several friends sell old (now rare) games for mere change by comparison to what they are worth now - not to mention the value of going back and playing through them again. I watched my friend sell Castlevania: SoTN, Valkyrie Profile, and Star Ocean 2: The Second Story for a total of $10 for all three. All were in near-mint condition and all are extremely valuable in contrast to their original purchase price. On a positive side, I have bought several rare games from Play-N-Trade because people don't know the value of games. Easy way to make a nice little profit if you are willing to try and resell them and not hoard them to yourself.

 

[MStele]

OMG are you for real?!


The idea of reselling games is actually kinda odd, considering your licensing the software directly from the developer.

I purchased the game. I did not rent it. The law of the land recognizes this and EULAs are publisher FUD. Same goes for the NFL saying I can't record or talk about a football game on TV without their permission. Lots of FUD and no laws to back it up with.


If I give you permission to drive a car I own, does that mean you have to right to sell or lend out that car to people I don't know?

You can't sell it without the title and you don't have the authority to lend it out to someone else because it's not your property. Software licensing compared to cars would be like a lease, not a purchase. Basically, you can use it for a time in exchange for money, but you have to return it at some point. I do not rent games, I buy them. Is there such a thing as a one-time payment for an eternal lease? Software publishers seem to thing there is.


I realize that selling games is legal, but its a problem because it completely cuts the developer out of a potential sale.

The developer cut themselves out of a sale by pricing themselves out of the market. Also, used games sold to Gamestop, etc. are often used to subsidize new game purchases.


One of the reasons console gamers pay $10 extra is to deal with losses due to piracy and to combat stores like Gamestop who consistantly screw developers by focusing on the used game market.

Publishers pay that $10 to Nintendo, Sony, and MS for a license to have their game on their closed platform. The PC is an open platform and thus the $10 licensing fee is not included in the game's price. Someone needs to tell Infinity Ward this so MW2 can come down in price on the PC.


If your so tapped that you need to sell games to make money then you should reevaluate whether you should be playing game in the first place.

You should reevaluate the value of the dollar IMO. Also, throwing away games is a wasteful use of resources and collecting them on a shelf is a monumental waste of space. A true value oriented gamer maximizes the number of gaming experiences he/she can have with the least expenditure of cash. I am thankfully in a place in my life where my monetary resources exceed the amount of actual time I have for gaming; however, IMO it is sinful to just throw away money at any consumer good. I expect my goods to devalue, but I like to extract any remaining value once I'm through using said good.[/quote]

I posted this in another thread but i'ma repost it here because it helps make my point.

"You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not. "

As far as the car analogy, you made my point. A software license is in fact a lease, and some have fixed expiration days (most corporate software) and many of open ended (games, etc). You might argue semantics, but law is law. You mentioned the NFL. All video displayed on televsion is licensed for home use, and those fees are usually paid for by you through your provider (cable, satellite). As for open air network television, sponsers tend to soak up the costs, which is why they are so important in live broadcasts. That license gives you the right to record and watch it in your home, but if you go outside, put up a big screen, and charge money for it then you can absolutely be arrested and sued for theft (assuming they would catch you). If you have rented a movie in the past 15 years, you would have seen the FBI warning on the front. The copyright law that protects movie producers is the same copyright law that protects game developers. Whether or not they enforce those laws is not the question. These aren't just nifty things put there to make people ask questions. Like I said in the other paragraph, you might have moral objections to this, or maybe you just think i'm wrong and thats that. But this stuff is not trivial and is taught in every freshman level economics class in the country. Copyright law forms the backbone of capitalism, and just because you throw money around doesn't mean you own the world.

 

[Nebor]

You got the enjoyment out of the game. I think that's really what you're paying for.

 

[KeithP]

Originally posted by: zagood
Gray market - create a new Steam account with every game you buy. Sell account when done with the game you purchased.

Damm, wish I had thought about that earlier. Mental note for future use.

-KeithP

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: MStele
OMG are you for real?!


The idea of reselling games is actually kinda odd, considering your licensing the software directly from the developer.

I purchased the game. I did not rent it. The law of the land recognizes this and EULAs are publisher FUD. Same goes for the NFL saying I can't record or talk about a football game on TV without their permission. Lots of FUD and no laws to back it up with.


If I give you permission to drive a car I own, does that mean you have to right to sell or lend out that car to people I don't know?

You can't sell it without the title and you don't have the authority to lend it out to someone else because it's not your property. Software licensing compared to cars would be like a lease, not a purchase. Basically, you can use it for a time in exchange for money, but you have to return it at some point. I do not rent games, I buy them. Is there such a thing as a one-time payment for an eternal lease? Software publishers seem to thing there is.


I realize that selling games is legal, but its a problem because it completely cuts the developer out of a potential sale.

The developer cut themselves out of a sale by pricing themselves out of the market. Also, used games sold to Gamestop, etc. are often used to subsidize new game purchases.


One of the reasons console gamers pay $10 extra is to deal with losses due to piracy and to combat stores like Gamestop who consistantly screw developers by focusing on the used game market.

Publishers pay that $10 to Nintendo, Sony, and MS for a license to have their game on their closed platform. The PC is an open platform and thus the $10 licensing fee is not included in the game's price. Someone needs to tell Infinity Ward this so MW2 can come down in price on the PC.


If your so tapped that you need to sell games to make money then you should reevaluate whether you should be playing game in the first place.

You should reevaluate the value of the dollar IMO. Also, throwing away games is a wasteful use of resources and collecting them on a shelf is a monumental waste of space. A true value oriented gamer maximizes the number of gaming experiences he/she can have with the least expenditure of cash. I am thankfully in a place in my life where my monetary resources exceed the amount of actual time I have for gaming; however, IMO it is sinful to just throw away money at any consumer good. I expect my goods to devalue, but I like to extract any remaining value once I'm through using said good.

I posted this in another thread but i'ma repost it here because it helps make my point.

"You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not. "

As far as the car analogy, you made my point. A software license is in fact a lease, and some have fixed expiration days (most corporate software) and many of open ended (games, etc). You might argue semantics, but law is law. You mentioned the NFL. All video displayed on televsion is licensed for home use, and those fees are usually paid for by you through your provider (cable, satellite). As for open air network television, sponsers tend to soak up the costs, which is why they are so important in live broadcasts. That license gives you the right to record and watch it in your home, but if you go outside, put up a big screen, and charge money for it then you can absolutely be arrested and sued for theft (assuming they would catch you). If you have rented a movie in the past 15 years, you would have seen the FBI warning on the front. The copyright law that protects movie producers is the same copyright law that protects game developers. Whether or not they enforce those laws is not the question. These aren't just nifty things put there to make people ask questions. Like I said in the other paragraph, you might have moral objections to this, or maybe you just think i'm wrong and thats that. But this stuff is not trivial and is taught in every freshman level economics class in the country. Copyright law forms the backbone of capitalism, and just because you throw money around doesn't mean you own the world.

Actually all games are protected by law to be transferred. Half Life 2 EULA gain:

4. Program Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this License Agreement, provided that: (a) the recipient agrees to the terms of this License Agreement, (b) you remove the Program from your computer and retain no copies of the Program, and (c) you transfer all of the Program (including all software components, the media and printed materials that accompany the Program, any code used to ?unlock? the Program (?CD Key?), any Program upgrades, and this License Agreement) to the recipient. Furthermore, you agree that you will not provide a CD Key to any third party except as part of the transfer of this License Agreement and the entire Program in accordance with the preceding sentence.

Notice it doesn't say anything about right to sell, which is handily covered by

C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own personal use, but you are not entitled to: (i) sell, grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of the Program to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Program to others without the prior written consent of Sierra or Valve;

This is guaranteed by US code title 17:117, first sale doctrine. Devs and publishers try to go around it by saying all software is leased and not sold so first sale doctrine does not apply, but it has been overturned (multiple times) by the supreme court.

Of course all this goes out the window when you click I agree when installing the game, which means you (most of the time with most EULAs) agree to waive your legal rights. Technically, the software devs can stop you, but that's only really by using legal loopholes to prevent fair use and your basic rights.


This is what the law you sign away with these EULAs.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

 

[zerocool84]

I love Steam but yes I can see why other's wouldn't like it. I never sell my PC games since I'm always very picky about the games I buy. I never buy anything rated lower than an 80 unless it's a super cheap deal.

 

[MStele]

Etc.

This is what the law you sign away with these EULAs.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

[/quote]

Your only repeating what i've already said. 1 ) reselling (transfer of license) games is legal. 2 ) The Fair Use Act allows a backup of the original media, and when you sell the game it is required to go with it. Notice how it says things like "without the prior written consent of" and "only with the authorizaion of the copyright owner". Btw the EULA doesn't sign anything away because the EULA is merely informational and it is not 100 percent applicable in all states. Also Federal law trumps Eula. The Fair Use Act in this case overrides it. They legally cannot stop you from making your copy. They can put obsticals in your path, but they can't take legal action against you.

If your still trying to argue that you own the software, i'm going to let it be, because obviously i'm getting nowhere. This is a straightforward issue. You go ahead and reproduce a few copies of some of your games and try to sell them as if they were your own property because they came from something that was "rightfully yours to sell", and we'll see which side of the bars you end up on. Your right to sell doesn't imply ownership. It just means that the license its portable. Have a good day.

 

[1LordEmperor1]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Damn it. Thanks for the help. Us pc gamers are getting screwed.

you played it, what are u complaining about.

Here's where you are wrong. He bought this game, therefore he owns this particular copy and should be free to resell it to get some of his money back. Yes, I am well aware that some game companies have these retarded draconian rules to prevent piracy, but that doesn't mean I should care or respect that. :|

Read the EULA sometime, you, the consumer hasn't "owned" a piece of software in years now. What you actually do is lease the license to use a piece of software for an unspecified duration as long as you follow the rules.

Half Life 2 for example

1. Limited Use License. Sierra Entertainment, Inc. (?Sierra?) and Valve
(collectively referred to herein as ?Licensor?) hereby grants, and by installing
the Program you thereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license and right to
install and use one (1) copy of the Program for your own personal use on a
computer. In addition, the Program has a multi-player capability that allows
users to utilize portions of the Program over the Internet. Use of the Program
over the Internet may be subject to your acceptance of Valve?s, or other
licensed game hosts?, separate terms of use agreement. Valve and other licensed
game hosts reserve the right to update, modify or change any such terms of use
agreement at any time. The Program is licensed, not sold. Your license confers
no title or ownership in the Program.

What you're doing is begging them to let you use their software. It's actually amazingly fucked up how the system works against the consumer.

It's a good thing that EULAs and TOAs do not supercede the law.

I hope more cases like this start happening:

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421
http://www.out-law.com/page-9151

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well mainly the problem is why would they allow you to enjoy their work and then make money back by reselling it. its not in their interest at all. anyways to complain at this point is a bit silly, does anyone really feel ripped off by orange box? it was seriously good content and value.

walk into a gamestop and tell me what you see; then perhaps you wouldn't sound so clueless.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Damn it. Thanks for the help. Us pc gamers are getting screwed.

you played it, what are u complaining about.

Here's where you are wrong. He bought this game, therefore he owns this particular copy and should be free to resell it to get some of his money back. Yes, I am well aware that some game companies have these retarded draconian rules to prevent piracy, but that doesn't mean I should care or respect that. :|

Read the EULA sometime, you, the consumer hasn't "owned" a piece of software in years now. What you actually do is lease the license to use a piece of software for an unspecified duration as long as you follow the rules.

Half Life 2 for example

1. Limited Use License. Sierra Entertainment, Inc. (?Sierra?) and Valve
(collectively referred to herein as ?Licensor?) hereby grants, and by installing
the Program you thereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license and right to
install and use one (1) copy of the Program for your own personal use on a
computer. In addition, the Program has a multi-player capability that allows
users to utilize portions of the Program over the Internet. Use of the Program
over the Internet may be subject to your acceptance of Valve?s, or other
licensed game hosts?, separate terms of use agreement. Valve and other licensed
game hosts reserve the right to update, modify or change any such terms of use
agreement at any time. The Program is licensed, not sold. Your license confers
no title or ownership in the Program.

What you're doing is begging them to let you use their software. It's actually amazingly fucked up how the system works against the consumer.

It's a good thing that EULAs and TOAs do not supercede the law.

I hope more cases like this start happening:

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421
http://www.out-law.com/page-9151

This only applies before you install/click I agree to the EULA. Afterwards, the law states that the EULA becomes binding and the law is superseded.

In Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004).

The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement. Parties may waive their statutory rights under law in a contract.

It applies to a reverse engineering of Bnet which was legally justified before the EULA, but banned by clicking the I agree to the EULA contract, same with game sales.

You know that joke you're signing your life away? It's not a joke.

In this case from my interpretation, you have right to resale, as long as you've never installed and clicked I agree to the EULA or the EULA does not expressly prohibit you from doing so. You might be able to bend a decision your way with a very good lawyer and solid defense, but I would doubt it since precedent has been set.

I guess all I'm trying to say is the Steam DRM is not taking any rights from you per se. Valve already took all those rights away from you a long time ago.

 

[MStele]

This only applies before you install/click I agree to the EULA. Afterwards, the law states that the EULA becomes binding and the law is superseded.

In Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004).

The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement. Parties may waive their statutory rights under law in a contract.

It applies to a reverse engineering of Bnet which was legally justified before the EULA, but banned by clicking the I agree to the EULA contract, same with game sales.

You know that joke you're signing your life away? It's not a joke.

In this case from my interpretation, you have right to resale, as long as you've never installed and clicked I agree to the EULA or the EULA does not expressly prohibit you from doing so. You might be able to bend a decision your way with a very good lawyer and solid defense, but I would doubt it since precedent has been set.

I guess all I'm trying to say is the Steam DRM is not taking any rights from you per se. Valve already took all those rights away from you a long time ago.[/quote]


Your really trying here but you can't handpick your evidence by citing incomplete information. You forget to mention that Blizzard won that lawsuit against the bnetd developers. You only mentioned the initial 2002 lawsuit where Blizzard lost and not the following appeals.

"In September 2004, the court disagreed and granted summary judgement to Blizzard. On appeal, defendants argued that federal copyright law, which permits reverse engineering, preempts California state contract law, upon which the EULA's prohibition on reverse engineering is grounded."

"In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision. "Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception [of the DMCA]. The district court properly granted summary judgement in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the operability exception." The appeals court further ruled that bnetd circumvents copy protection in violation of the DMCA."

You can interpret the EULA to mean whatever you want it to mean, but ultimately federal copyright law will supersede. That is why they have lawyers

If your merely trying to tell us that we have to right to resale software, you went the long way considering "First Sale Doctrine".

"The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell 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 end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule.""

No need to interpret the EULA for this. Its part of copyright law and thus trumps EULA. I've just made your case for you. It also states that the original copyright holder still holds the copyright, i.e. the developer.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: MStele

This only applies before you install/click I agree to the EULA. Afterwards, the law states that the EULA becomes binding and the law is superseded.

In Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004).

The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement. Parties may waive their statutory rights under law in a contract.

It applies to a reverse engineering of Bnet which was legally justified before the EULA, but banned by clicking the I agree to the EULA contract, same with game sales.

You know that joke you're signing your life away? It's not a joke.

In this case from my interpretation, you have right to resale, as long as you've never installed and clicked I agree to the EULA or the EULA does not expressly prohibit you from doing so. You might be able to bend a decision your way with a very good lawyer and solid defense, but I would doubt it since precedent has been set.

I guess all I'm trying to say is the Steam DRM is not taking any rights from you per se. Valve already took all those rights away from you a long time ago.

Your really trying here but you can't handpick your evidence by citing incomplete information. You forget to mention that Blizzard won that lawsuit against the bnetd developers. You only mentioned the initial 2002 lawsuit where Blizzard lost and not the following appeals.

"In September 2004, the court disagreed and granted summary judgement to Blizzard. On appeal, defendants argued that federal copyright law, which permits reverse engineering, preempts California state contract law, upon which the EULA's prohibition on reverse engineering is grounded."

"In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision. "Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception [of the DMCA]. The district court properly granted summary judgement in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the operability exception." The appeals court further ruled that bnetd circumvents copy protection in violation of the DMCA."

You can interpret the EULA to mean whatever you want it to mean, but ultimately federal copyright law will supersede. That is why they have lawyers/

I didn't cherry pick, even in your link, the 8th circuit appeals court upheld all of the original ruling, there is nothing to be debated. Blizzard won the 2nd (and final) appeal

http://www.patentarcade.com/20...-internet-gateway.html

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all judgments in favor of Blizzard. The Eighth Circuit rejected the defendant?s argument that federal copyright law, which permits reverse engineering, preempts state contract law in which the EULA and TOU was grounded

The decision was made... EULA preempts federal law because contract law>federal law

You do understand that the final appeal is what matters right? When looking for what is law and what in't the 2005 appeal ruling is the definitive answer, the one that supported all the original rulings and that the appeal in between was overruled?

The court made a decision, that WAS the decision, there's nothing to discuss and that was the COMPLETE information.

 

[MStele]

The court made a decision, that WAS the decision, there's nothing to discuss and that was the COMPLETE information.[/quote]

Are we arguing the same side then? I was under the impression you were saying that bnetd was right and Blizzard was wrong. Maybe i was mistaken. Anyways i edited my post.

What specifically is your side in this. My side is simple, resell of software is legal and the courts ruled that reverse engineering Battle.net was illegal, because just because the bnetd acquired a Battle.net client, they did not own the rights to the software and thus were busted for working around the DRM. Resell is only legal because of a specific copyright law which adds an exception. Without that law, it would in fact be illegal to resell software.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: MStele
Are we arguing the same side then? I was under the impression you were saying that bnetd was right and Blizzard was wrong. Maybe i was mistaken. Anyways i edited my post.

What specifically is your side in this. My side is simple, resell of software is legal and the courts ruled that reverse engineering Battle.net was illegal, because just because the bnetd acquired a Battle.net client, they did not own the rights to the software and thus were busted for working around the DRM. Resell is only legal because of a specific copyright law which adds an exception. Without that law, it would in fact be illegal to resell software.

I'm not a fan of the EULA and what a mess of patent law it has turned into when you have old men with no background legislating about unfamiliar (to them) ideas.

I believe current precedent sets legal issues too far in favor of corporations. To be productive in the modern world, you have to sign away some of your basic federally rights and I believe that's wrong on so many levels.

People can argue that you don't "need" entertainment and you could just not buy video games, but this also applies to necessities. I "need" to use Windows, Pro/E Wildfire and Autocad for work and I should not have to sign away my rights to do so.

If another facet of life treated us like this, there would be an uproar, but unfortunately, nobody really reads or pays attention to the EULA contracts. This would be like if accepting a job and signing an employment contract would forfeit your right to sue them if something goes horrifically wrong. It's not something you think about now, and there's a chance you'll never need it, but it's also a real bitch move when it really gets down to it. Of course I'm not comparing not being able to sell or own your game to her unfortunate situation, but the legal defense between the two are actually the same in the case of the law. Contracts can be incredibly twisted, especially when the person holding the said contract is in a position of power in the first place and has no reason to make sure the little guy is being looked after.

I think I'm just bitter, I always hear people espouse about how awesome Valve is and how they care about their customers. No, Valve doesn't give half a shit about any single person buying their games, they value your dollars, there's a big difference there.

 

[MStele]

You make a good point but I think your blowing it out of proportion a little. While I do agree with you that the EULA is overbearing, in truth its merely just a huge anti-liability statement. In truth you can use your software in any fashion you want as long as you don't :

A. Use it in such a way as to take away potential profits from the developer
B. Use it in such a way as to make the developer liable for any damages
C. Use it in such a way as to bring public criticism onto the developer
D. When in doubt, see A

In regards to games, A is pinnacle. With MMOs, if what your doing potentially harms another persons experience and they quit, then it matters. Hacking, cheating, breaking the game, PIRACY, private servers...in the long run it reduces profits.

In regards to applications, its about A,B, & C. Basically what it means is that you can do whatever you want behind closed doors. MS doesn't care if you hack, reverse engineer, or make the next "Hello Kitty Island Adventure" out of MS word 2007. But if you try to sell it or release it on the internet, A,B and C are all involved.

We live in a capitalist society, and copyright laws are what allow people to profit off of their ideas. My whole point earlier on was that when push comes to shove the EULA doesn't have much power in the courtroom. All it provides is a blanket of scenarios in which the developer has the right to retract your license, and since its their software that's there prerogative.

This is why people ignore the EULA..because in the grand scheme of things its no more important to the average person than the FBI warning in front of movies. Just use the software, respect the owners, and move on. Its really that simple.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
No. Orange Box is protected by an extraordinarily effective and restrictive form of DRM called "Steam". This software prevents the resale of games.

One alternative might be for them to implement a way to disassociate a game with the account and to transfer it to another one.

I can imagine that part of the reason they do it the way they do is because it would be a nightmare to try to combat the problem of fraud. The overhead increase of having to trace between accounts to eliminate copies of games that were stolen and then sold to others(through credit card fraud or otherwise) would probably create whole new set of complaints by users. Imagine if the game had bounced between 10 different accounts and then it was found to be fraudulent..The people involved would be a huge chain of frustrated individuals.

I have one copy of HL2 that I can "gift" - and when I do so, it'll be gone from my account. I think they'd be able to set something up very easily - but why bother, when they make more money by not doing it?

I wish they would just let you gift games you own by having to pay some minimal (maybe $2) "transfer fee." Then they make a few bucks that they would otherwise not make, and everyone can be happy selling their games. Just consider the transfer fee in lieu of shipping costs.

 

[zerocool84]

This thread went horribly off topic.

 

[Sureshot324]

Now that we are fully in the age of digital distribution, the idea of selling used games just doesn't work. Suppose Valve let you sell your steam copy of TF2 to someone else (disassociate from your Steam account, add to their Steam account). People would start selling their Steam games on ebay, craigslist, etc.. Once the initial sales rush dies down after the game is released, Valve wouldn't sell a single copy. There will always be enough used copies floating around the internet. Without the need to transfer a physical copy of the game to the buyer, buying/selling used games is just too easy.

This doesn't excuse the blocking of used boxed retail copies of course, but if Valve allows the sale of used boxed copies and blocks it for digital copies, that would make a lot of people buy the boxed game instead. This is a bad thing because manufacturing and distributing a boxed copy is a waste these days. Digital distribution means more money for the game devs which means better games for us.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

All I know is MStele needs to pony up some free iPods or learn how to fucking use quotes.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Now that we are fully in the age of digital distribution, the idea of selling used games just doesn't work. Suppose Valve let you sell your steam copy of TF2 to someone else (disassociate from your Steam account, add to their Steam account). People would start selling their Steam games on ebay, craigslist, etc.. Once the initial sales rush dies down after the game is released, Valve wouldn't sell a single copy. There will always be enough used copies floating around the internet. Without the need to transfer a physical copy of the game to the buyer, buying/selling used games is just too easy.

Durr, how is this any different than selling a boxed copy? Those are available on eBay and Craiglist, you know. Digital transfer of ownership is quicker, and that's all. Your assumptions make no sense.

The whole idea of "licensing" as opposed to owning a copy is there solely to fuck the consumer, end of story. Preventing resale doesn't "protect" the developer or publisher, it just pads their pockets through a ridiculous legal loophole.

 

[1LordEmperor1]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Damn it. Thanks for the help. Us pc gamers are getting screwed.

you played it, what are u complaining about.

Here's where you are wrong. He bought this game, therefore he owns this particular copy and should be free to resell it to get some of his money back. Yes, I am well aware that some game companies have these retarded draconian rules to prevent piracy, but that doesn't mean I should care or respect that. :|

Read the EULA sometime, you, the consumer hasn't "owned" a piece of software in years now. What you actually do is lease the license to use a piece of software for an unspecified duration as long as you follow the rules.

Half Life 2 for example

1. Limited Use License. Sierra Entertainment, Inc. (?Sierra?) and Valve
(collectively referred to herein as ?Licensor?) hereby grants, and by installing
the Program you thereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license and right to
install and use one (1) copy of the Program for your own personal use on a
computer. In addition, the Program has a multi-player capability that allows
users to utilize portions of the Program over the Internet. Use of the Program
over the Internet may be subject to your acceptance of Valve?s, or other
licensed game hosts?, separate terms of use agreement. Valve and other licensed
game hosts reserve the right to update, modify or change any such terms of use
agreement at any time. The Program is licensed, not sold. Your license confers
no title or ownership in the Program.

What you're doing is begging them to let you use their software. It's actually amazingly fucked up how the system works against the consumer.

It's a good thing that EULAs and TOAs do not supercede the law.

I hope more cases like this start happening:

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421
http://www.out-law.com/page-9151

This only applies before you install/click I agree to the EULA. Afterwards, the law states that the EULA becomes binding and the law is superseded.

In Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004).

The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement. Parties may waive their statutory rights under law in a contract.

It applies to a reverse engineering of Bnet which was legally justified before the EULA, but banned by clicking the I agree to the EULA contract, same with game sales.

You know that joke you're signing your life away? It's not a joke.

In this case from my interpretation, you have right to resale, as long as you've never installed and clicked I agree to the EULA or the EULA does not expressly prohibit you from doing so. You might be able to bend a decision your way with a very good lawyer and solid defense, but I would doubt it since precedent has been set.

I guess all I'm trying to say is the Steam DRM is not taking any rights from you per se. Valve already took all those rights away from you a long time ago.

So let's say in theory, before I agree not to do so, I modify some registry key such that the EULA is never displayed?

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
All I know is MStele needs to pony up some free iPods or learn how to fucking use quotes.

lmao what? Sorry if it takes me a couple posts to get to your level of blog experience.

Licensing is not there to fuck the consumer, its there to protect the owner. All media is licensed (music, movies, games etc) because if you owned what you bought you would legally be able to rip it apart, change stuff around, open a shop, and sell it as your own. In this country, when you come up with a great idea, you are allowed to make a living off of it. Do you even know the theory behind copyright law? The reason this stuff is protected is because it doesn't exist anywhere in the natural world. It is a collection of ideas. A dvd is nothing but plastic and metal...that is what you own. The thoughts written as software, video, music, whatever, belong to someone else. You take away copyright law, and soon you'll have 10 people selling their own version of "Enter Sandman", each claiming that they came up with it first. Alot of smart people realized awhile back that ideas are important and that its just as important to protect those ideas from people who want to steal them and call them their own. Without copyright law, Disney, Microsoft, Apple, Google..insert any outlit of great ideas from the last 100 years...none of these would be what they are if their ideas weren't protected on some level. It is the one facet of capitalism where monopoly (absolute control over a particular product) is necessary.

Saying licensing is solely there to fuck the consumer is about as ignorant as a person can get in regards to business and you should seriously think about taking an economics class before you make another post.

Oh, wait.. "Here's your quotation marks"

 

[GullyFoyle]

If you never played it (registered it with Steam), you can sell the whole thing.

Otherwise, you can only sell the orange box. Not the software inside it.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Now that we are fully in the age of digital distribution, the idea of selling used games just doesn't work. Suppose Valve let you sell your steam copy of TF2 to someone else (disassociate from your Steam account, add to their Steam account). People would start selling their Steam games on ebay, craigslist, etc.. Once the initial sales rush dies down after the game is released, Valve wouldn't sell a single copy. There will always be enough used copies floating around the internet. Without the need to transfer a physical copy of the game to the buyer, buying/selling used games is just too easy.

Durr, how is this any different than selling a boxed copy? Those are available on eBay and Craiglist, you know. Digital transfer of ownership is quicker, and that's all. Your assumptions make no sense.

The whole idea of "licensing" as opposed to owning a copy is there solely to fuck the consumer, end of story. Preventing resale doesn't "protect" the developer or publisher, it just pads their pockets through a ridiculous legal loophole.

If you buy a boxed copy on ebay, you have to pay shipping, wait for it to arrive, take a chance that it's in poor condition or damaged/scratched. If you were to buy a Steam copy, you just click the mouse a few times and it's in your Steam list, and identical to a brand new copy. The transfer of the game from one person to another is easier, faster, safer, and cheaper. Also a digital game lasts forever. It doesn't deteriorate like a physical object does. If this were allowed, the popularity of the used games market would explode.

There are 2 ways you can look at this. You can look at it legally and say the same laws or rights should apply to digital and boxed copies. Or, you can look at it practically, in which case it's obvious this wouldn't work. Lets say a game sells 200k copies in the first two weeks. After that initial popularity rush dies down, they won't sell a single copy. People will pass around those same 200k copies for eternity. A lot of people won't even get the game on release knowing they just have to wait for cheap used digital copies to start turning up on ebay (won't take long).

I don't see how the idea of 'licensing' is fucking the consumer. It's not like they're trying to trick you. They're being pretty up front about it. That's the deal they're offering and if you don't like it you have the right not to take it. It would be the same if they decided to increase the price from $50 to $70. It's their game and they can set whatever price they want. That doesn't mean they're fucking you.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
All I know is MStele needs to pony up some free iPods or learn how to fucking use quotes.

lmao what? Sorry if it takes me a couple posts to get to your level of blog experience.

Didn't you say something condescending about taking an economics class before posting? Maybe you should take a little class on forum usage by clicking the help button at the top right. It's not hard to hit QUOTE, buddy. Just saying, it would help make your posts actually readable.

Licensing is not there to fuck the consumer, its there to protect the owner. All media is licensed (music, movies, games etc) because if you owned what you bought you would legally be able to rip it apart, change stuff around, open a shop, and sell it as your own. In this country, when you come up with a great idea, you are allowed to make a living off of it. Do you even know the theory behind copyright law? The reason this stuff is protected is because it doesn't exist anywhere in the natural world. It is a collection of ideas. A dvd is nothing but plastic and metal...that is what you own. The thoughts written as software, video, music, whatever, belong to someone else.

I'm not arguing against copyright and the idea of licensing. I'm arguing about how the software industry has run with it as a way to prevent resale. Guess what? You can resell a DVD movie. That's not the same as ripping the movie and selling copies, or trying to say you made it. That's bootlegging and copyright infringement.

Why should software be different? Ridiculous EULAs and highly restrictive DRM throw up roadblocks to legal resale, and loopholes like this "licensing" business are there to, I reiterate, fuck the consumer. The company that produced the software owns the code, but when I purchase a copy, common sense says I own that copy and should be able to resell it, regardless of its medium; the terms of an EULA might say otherwise even though it's unlike just about any other product on the market. I wouldn't even care about the semantic fuckery if it wasn't used to prohibit the resale of the license and therefore the product in its entirety.

It's like telling me I can't sell my used lawnmower to someone because I don't actually own it, I'm just licensing the design. It makes no sense, but somehow this works for software because it's become more abstract (thanks partly to an increase in the popularity of digital distribution) and consumers don't read EULAs before hitting the AGREE button.

Your strange example would be analogous to me taking apart my lawnmower, reverse engineering the whole thing, and selling replicas. That's not what we're talking about.

You take away copyright law, and soon you'll have 10 people selling their own version of "Enter Sandman", each claiming that they came up with it first. Alot of smart people realized awhile back that ideas are important and that its just as important to protect those ideas from people who want to steal them and call them their own. Without copyright law, Disney, Microsoft, Apple, Google..insert any outlit of great ideas from the last 100 years...none of these would be what they are if their ideas weren't protected on some level. It is the one facet of capitalism where monopoly (absolute control over a particular product) is necessary.

Thanks for the pointless history lesson. I'm all for a reasonable application of copyright law.

Do you work for a software publisher?