Legality and Morality of 3rd party key sellers

[greenhawk]

If you buy a game for $25 when you wouldn't have otherwise bought it at all, you're putting money into the publishing executives' wallets, not taking it away.

To the publishers, that is all 100% a good thing.

Down side is how to you then deal with the people that would have paid $50 seeing their mates paying $25 for it? No one is dumb enough to want to pay $50 when they can get it for $25. The CD key is from a legit copy, the store/shop is valid (ie: pays taxes, buyes stock from approached wholesalers, is registered in the country they are located in) ect.

It is like driving to the next state (or coutry if on is near by) and buying over the counter what you want cheaper than back home. Now though, with the internet, everyone is next to a border and so the numbers of people doing it increases, which does draw the attention of publishers and makes them want to do something to stop it (be it ethical or legal). Region restrictions or price fixing is, at it's core, wrong. But it is why they say the price difference is based on different operating costs in each country and the spending power of the general population. Of course, no business is going to open their books to the public to allow them to decide if that is a fair call on the businesses side.

Chasing the lowest price, both for businesses and customers is not a long term sustainable path. But how to change it in a way that will work and not let some middle man become fat on giving false promises is beyond me. All I can do is make my life easier by spending money smartly and not artifically restricting myself to a belief system where I open myself to abuse. ie: do not think spending money on "green" items will lead to a better future. Do not buy items that look like they will break after a weeks use ect.

It takes a massive change at the customer level to make businesses change or for governements to enforce new policies for the better of the people, but they all cost, and someone needs to pay for it. Either willingly or by force. Free Trade is nice on paper, but bad when taken with a unbalanced playing field (ie: crop subsidies, forced labour, strip mining ect).

 

[greenhawk]

I mean, people have been buying an item that is cheap in one area and selling it in an area where it is expensive probably before currency existed, but if they do it with a video game with a EULA all of sudden they're suppose to be thieves?

+1

People get the economics basics of "buy low, sell high" and understand that as the basic building stones of a business / making money / surviving. Then when they do it themselves (shop around for a better price), get called names for succeding if not getting into legal issues (grey imports ect).

3rd party key sellers are just one part of a large issue of the global economy and how local / country based ideas do not scale up to a global level very well. And the temp fixes put in place (region restrictions / tarrifs ect) can do nothing to effect the real issue of differences between markets.

The way things are going globally, I would not be surprised if for the first time in recent history (ever?), one country can gain land in another country via BUYING (bailing it out) instead of fighting over it. Not small scale like moving the border a few thousand feet/meters, but the whole thing.

 

[greenhawk]

At the end of the day though it doesn't seem like it would be worth the hassle or risk just to get a discount on the 2 or 3 new titles I buy per year.

yep, great free global market when you end up making a decision based on risks and not just "me customer, you seller, trade me". Having the seller being able to, a few days or a few years later on down the track going "I did not like that trade, I am going to undo it and stuff the customer's rights to a fair go/deal".

A physical item is so much easier to deal with than the virtual items like software were you never legally own it. (ie: if you read the EULA ect, you are purchasing a limited useof said product IIRC. In short hand, you are hiring the product that you paid for with a one off payment and no on going fees, but even that is changing as publishers want more money).

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

I don't think there should be anything legally wrong with it and I definitely don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. When Valve or EA ban a key because of this, that should be illegal and they should be called out on it and held responsible from a legal standpoint for unreasonably revoking a legitimate product bought in good faith.

If they have an issue with companies selling out-of-country keys to customers, they should go after the companies, not the consumers. In the end, they're only alienating people who would have potentially bought their next game that won't now.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Especially since PC games have essentially cut out all the middle man of distributers, physical boxes, etc and yet still raised prices to match console games.

 

[thespyder]

Ah, gotta love situational ethics 101. "It's OK because the other guy did something bad first."

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Ah, gotta love situational ethics 101. "It's OK because the other guy did something bad first."

Whats so bad about it? Would you say its bad that I buy cheap cell phone accessories from Chinese sellers on ebay instead of spending $30 on a charger at the store? Its cutting profits from someone right?

 

[Elfear]

I don't think there should be anything legally wrong with it and I definitely don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. When Valve or EA ban a key because of this, that should be illegal and they should be called out on it and held responsible from a legal standpoint for unreasonably revoking a legitimate product bought in good faith.

If they have an issue with companies selling out-of-country keys to customers, they should go after the companies, not the consumers. In the end, they're only alienating people who would have potentially bought their next game that won't now.

Righttt. I'm sure most people who buy CD keys from overseas sellers for half the price of what it costs in the States never thought there might be something fishy about it. Like buying a TV late at night from the back of a van. Good faith not found.

Grey market games are better than outright piracy IMO, but they certainly go against the intent of offering low-cost solutions to third-world countries.

 

[greenhawk]

Ah, gotta love situational ethics 101. "It's OK because the other guy did something bad first."

on the surface that is a poor reason to do something.

In business, if Company A did something that resulted in them getting more customers or lowering costs (say outsourcing something), Company B has the choice of following or possibly closing shop.

If Company B can not stop A price wise, service wise (ie:being better) and they can not use some law (ie: dob them in), what other options does Company B have but to follow suit or close?

The "its ok as the other guy did it" is only the end result of the process summeried into one scentance.

 

[thespyder]

on the surface that is a poor reason to do something.

In business, if Company A did something that resulted in them getting more customers or lowering costs (say outsourcing something), Company B has the choice of following or possibly closing shop.

If Company B can not stop A price wise, service wise (ie:being better) and they can not use some law (ie: dob them in), what other options does Company B have but to follow suit or close?

The "its ok as the other guy did it" is only the end result of the process summeried into one scentance.

So this isn't "Do it or go out of business". This is "The company selling something that i want is doing something that I preceive as underhanded, so therefore by extention I can use situational ethics to allow me to do something underhanded to get my way."

And even if it were, the result is the same. Someone is using a given situation as justification to do something wrong in response. Just because the end result may or may not be harmful, the action to reach that end is still morally suspect at best.

Whats so bad about it? Would you say its bad that I buy cheap cell phone accessories from Chinese sellers on ebay instead of spending $30 on a charger at the store? Its cutting profits from someone right?

Again you are creating a "Situation" and using it as a justification for your Ethics. hence the term "Situational Ethics".

Besides that, your premises are inequal. this is the same product sold at different prices, not different (but similar) products sold by different entities but where one is undercutting the other's price.