Looks like you don't get to own your games anymore.

[wanderer27]

Take textbooks for example. A couple of big textbook companies (of which there really isn't many of them) all decide that they don't want college textbooks to be resold since it is eating into their profits. Well, what the hell do poor college kids do? Break the law and try to resell their books? There isn't a whole of choices that college kids can make when it comes to textbook offerings for their classes. They are sort of "captive" consumer by definition. Sure many college student will break the law if this were to happen, but any more would have their lives ruined over it. All because we lost a freedom we all once had.

This ruling is bat shit insane to use a meme.

College Textbooks - prime example of a Monopoly.

My eldest stepson just had to pay over $400 for a single book for one class - that's just criminal.

For all of the people who are worrying about this:

I think Valve said, in the event that Steam has to shut down (which, based on it's success, I'm not sure why it would... thermonuclear war maybe?), all of your games will become unlocked so the steam client is no longer necessary for running them. I would imagine they'd become 100% copyable too although I'm not so sure about that part.

I'm too lazy to find a source, but if someone can back me up or correct me then go ahead.

Thing is, if this sticks it's not really up to Valve, Steam, Impulse, D2D, or whoever - it's the game publishers that will have the final say, they have the game rights.
If Valve (or whoever) were to do this, they could be legally liable for "damages"

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yes, what is with the "think of the software makers" mentality? They are selling a product, nothing more. Do they deserve special privileges? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making a buck for your hard work, but if someone bought my item, should I be mad when that person sells it to his buddy when he's done with it? Did I just lose a sale? Or did that used sale possibly just get me a new customer with my next product? Chances are his buddy may never have bought it to begin with.

If you do away with the used market, you are basically saying, screw you if it's shite, we got your money and there's nothing you can do about it. Maybe they could implement a lemon law(hah). Demos are like trailers, just cause 10 minutes of it is decent, doesn't mean it's worth it.

I think the problem is over the interpretation of "right to use" licenses. I'm not a legal expert - but wasn't this originally in place to prevent people from creating and or selling like products (or in case of games) creating something using likeness/images of someone elses creation and making a profit from it? and/or making a copy and selling it?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Its a good thing I am morally flexible.

 

[pmv]

I would hope that the market will adjust. That is, that when people know they can't resell an item, they will therefore not be prepared to pay so much in the first place, so the prices the makers can charge for the new items will drop by about the same that they are getting in fees for the second hand sales.

At present the makers _do_ get money from second hand sales, contrary to their claims, because when people buy the item in the first place the potential second-hand value is already factored into their calculations about how much they are willing to pay.

I'm not an expert on economics, but does anyone have an argument as to why that would not happen? Am I missing something? Seems to me the publishers are kidding themselves if they think this will actually increase their income in the long run. All they are doing is moving from a simple system of factoring in second-hand sales to a far more complicated one with more overheads. It actually seems a bit irrational of them.

As it is I only ever buy Steam items when they are massively reduced on sale, I am prepared to spend more on a physical disk than a Steam download (unless the disk also has awful DRM).

 

[pmv]

You have an ignorant, irresponsible attitude. Creating games costs money, and they need to be compensated to make them. Don't compensate them - your approach - no games.

I'd feel bad about buying a used game, in that I'm enjoying a game and want to support it being made, and buying it used gives zero directly to those who made it.

The fact you say you will pirate makes you a thief, it's simple, who would hurt the industry.

I find your middle paragraph there to be completely nuts, I'm afraid. Just crazy [note I don't disagree with your last point].

Do you also feel bad about buying a used car? A used house? Second hand land? If not, please explain why not. Heck, you drink second-hand water (gross as that sounds!), as the water company probably wasn't the first owner of those molecules.

When you buy a 'new' game on cd, that cd is made with 'second hand' plastic and metals. The maker of that cd bought those materials from someone else, then resold them to you. Do you feel bad about that? Do you feel obliged to seek out the miners who dug the raw materials out of the ground to make that cd so you can pay them again?

Do you feel you should find the burger bar that fed the programmers who wrote the game you just bought, so you can pay the burger maker again, because you have the 'second hand' results of their labour embodied in the game you bought?

Feeling 'guilt' about second hand purchases is simply ridiculous.

Just as the cost of those plastics in the cd when you buy a new game have already been paid for, so has the cost of the game itself when you buy it second hand.

 

[Nik]

This will never stick and I absolutely refuse to abide by something like this. I'll resell my games at my leisure, thank you.

 

[wanderer27]

I would hope that the market will adjust. That is, that when people know they can't resell an item, they will therefore not be prepared to pay so much in the first place, so the prices the makers can charge for the new items will drop by about the same that they are getting in fees for the second hand sales.

At present the makers _do_ get money from second hand sales, contrary to their claims, because when people buy the item in the first place the potential second-hand value is already factored into their calculations about how much they are willing to pay.

I'm not an expert on economics, but does anyone have an argument as to why that would not happen? Am I missing something? Seems to me the publishers are kidding themselves if they think this will actually increase their income in the long run. All they are doing is moving from a simple system of factoring in second-hand sales to a far more complicated one with more overheads. It actually seems a bit irrational of them.

As it is I only ever buy Steam items when they are massively reduced on sale, I am prepared to spend more on a physical disk than a Steam download (unless the disk also has awful DRM).

While I'm not an Economist, I easily can see the potential Economic impact of this.

Just limiting to Software, Games, Music, and Movies:

* Hundreds to Thousands of Second hand businesses closed.
* Several Thousand people in the Second hand stores out of work.
* Ebay, Gamestop, etc. are going to take a hit.
* Target and Best Buy are/were looking at purchasing used games - probably not now.
* Pay per View, Video Rentals, maybe even Radio Station Royalty fees.

Now there's a nice (negative) Economic Stimulus package for you.
Yeah, all that Cash flow through the Economy disappears, just what we need right about now.

If this expands to Books, Appliances, or Autos (because they have Software) - is this what we really want or need?

 

[pmv]

The difference between software & your used car, solid property, etc., is that software does not have depreciation.

When a consumer sees a new car, and a used car, there is incentive to buy new.

When a consumer is faced with the choice of identical software, he is going to pick the cheapest.

People, software companies need to make money, too.

Didn't see this before I posted my post above.

But its entirely wrong anyway - for one thing, software clearly _does_ depreciate. How much would you get for an Amiga game now? How much would you pay for Janes USAF, which doesn't work on any modern OS and can't be fixed by third-parties because of copyright and DRM issues.?

Besides, your point has nothing to do with the moral or legal situation, its just moaning about the facts of reality. The software manufacturers have a huge advantage over car makers because their marginal cost of production is zero. For a car maker to make another car they have to spend considerable expense in actually making one (though it gets less the more they make, it still remains significant), for a software maker to produce another copy costs them nothing.

The flip-side of that is that the items don't age as quickly. They have to take the rough with the smooth.

If they want to try and get round that with licence agreements I sincerely hope people will vote with their wallets and just refuse to pay as much in the first place, as a licence is worth less than an actual product.

My biggest gripe though is that the length of copyright is simply too long. It's been increased repeatedly during its history as 'IP' owners try to get a bigger slice of the pie. It's now typically well over a century, which is nuts for a software product that may become unusably obsolete within a decade. Personally I wonder whether copyright terms should not simply be reduced to 10 or 20 years, I just don't see what the moral argument is for having it as long as it is today. Why should your great-grandchildren get paid for something you made in your 20's?

 

[pmv]

While I'm not an Economist, I easily can see the potential Economic impact of this.

Just limiting to Software, Games, Music, and Movies:

* Hundreds to Thousands of Second hand businesses closed.
* Several Thousand people in the Second hand stores out of work.
* Ebay, Gamestop, etc. are going to take a hit.
* Target and Best Buy are/were looking at purchasing used games - probably not now.
* Pay per View, Video Rentals, maybe even Radio Station Royalty fees.

Now there's a nice (negative) Economic Stimulus package for you.
Yeah, all that Cash flow through the Economy disappears, just what we need right about now.

If this expands to Books, Appliances, or Autos (because they have Software) - is this what we really want or need?

You do have a point, in practical terms, though I would have thought that the effect would take quite a while to reach that scale and hopefully the current economic conditions would have improved long before then. However I was thinking more of the long-term impact - over the long term certain jobs always disappear, the loss of the second-hand market would not objectively make everyone poorer. And I would have thought that non-restrictive licence products would still be sold because they could sell for a higher original price.

True though that it would be nasty if it happened very rapidly.

 

[wanderer27]

You do have a point, in practical terms, though I would have thought that the effect would take quite a while to reach that scale and hopefully the current economic conditions would have improved long before then. However I was thinking more of the long-term impact - over the long term certain jobs always disappear, the loss of the second-hand market would not objectively make everyone poorer. And I would have thought that non-restrictive licence products would still be sold because they could sell for a higher original price.

True though that it would be nasty if it happened very rapidly.

The real problem I see here is that with less competition I foresee the prices rising.
Top that off with the fact that the lack of cheaper software/items will force legitimate users to either buy new or do without.

While I very rarely resell games I do on occasion resell movies.
At 1/3 to 1/4 the cost, for the most part I primarily buy used movies these days, and once in a while maybe a used game.

Never under estimate the power of Corporate greed.
Just look at the recent trends for DLC.