Law of the Game on Joystiq: RIP Consumer Rights

by Mark Methenitis { Apr 16th 2008 at 8:00PM }

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

Last week, Sean Bersell of the EMA directed me to a lawsuit out of California that had him concerned. Once I had a chance to read over the suit, I didn't just share Sean's concern, I was actually cringing at the potential of this suit to bring about the death of consumer rights as we know them. If you have ever bought a DVD, CD, or video game, then this suit could affect you. I sincerely hope that the courts will, in their wisdom, not side with Universal Music Group's expansive view of the copyright law. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The suit in question is UMG Recordings Inc. v. Augusto. (The EFF has many of the court documents available at that link, if you would like to read the filings.)

To summarize the lawsuit, UMG puts out early release promo CDs, which go to radio stations and reviewers. Augusto runs an eBay business selling music, and one of his big focuses is re-selling these 'rare' promo CDs. UMG claims that re-selling these CDs is a violation of its copyright, and Augusto obviously doesn't agree. The case turns on interpretation of what is commonly known as the 'first sale doctrine,' even though it isn't as tied to a sale as the name would suggest. To put the gravity of this into perspective: UMG's claim, essentially, is that a copyright owner can control what the consumer can do with a product once it is in the marketplace. In other words, the copyright owner can prevent you from reselling a game you bought, or even throwing it away. That level of control, besides being wholly impractical, should sound as crazy to you as it does to me.

Amazingly, this is UMG's contention: that it control these items in the public perpetually under the license. Simply put, UMG thinks a sticker can negate the entire first sale doctrine in copyright law. Their promo CDs state they are not for distribution, even though UMG makes no attempt to secure return of the CDs or track the owners of the CDs. I've dropped the name a few times now, and since the first sale doctrine is the center of this case, I will do my best to explain it. The first sale doctrine is in the Copyright Act of 1976, our basic copyright law, at 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine is a limitation on what would otherwise be rights allocated to the copyright owner. Specifically, it gives someone who lawfully obtained a legal copy of a copyrighted work the ability to transfer that work without permission from the copyright holder.

Practically, the first sale doctrine means that if you buy a music CD, you can re-sell that CD to someone else without getting permission from the musician. If you buy Halo 3 at a local store, you can sell or give that copy to anyone else without getting permission from Bungie or Microsoft. If you buy a copy of the complete Red vs. Blue series box set, it means you can give away any or all of those DVDs without begging Burnie for permission. It doesn't mean you can make a copy of the CD or game or movie and give it to someone else, only that you have the right to transfer what you bought.

There is, of course, an exception. The first sale doctrine hasn't been completely applied or resolved with respect to computer software. In fact, there isn't even a consistent rule with regard to the software under the first sale doctrine. Some courts have allowed first sale to be applied, others have negated it on the basis of the End User License Agreement. The Supreme Court has yet to resolve the issue in full with respect to computer software and the EULA specifically. (Wikipedia has a slightly more detailed account of the status of first sale doctrine and computer software.)

So, what does this have to do with games? Perusing the used section in GameStop, you may stumble across a game labeled 'not for resale.' Under UMG's theory, these games would be treated exactly as a promo CD would be. While this is a minor point on a small percentage of product in the market, the potential expansion of a ruling for UMG would include the ability to extend this protectionism to all media, given that the proper language appears on the packaging. Imagine a world where you have no right to re-sell a game you purchase without permission from the publisher.

Of course, this is the point of the first sale doctrine, and why I believe the court wouldn't want to negate that concept. The idea that the copyright holder can so closely control something that is in the marketplace is impractical. This also depends on your particular view of 'copyright.' Most people would expect that any right that is extended can be transferred, unless that right is specifically addressed in a contract. UMG is arguing that their language performs that same function, but in general, this is a contractual provision that would have to be explicitly waived in a negotiated, signed agreement. In short, a license agreement can control transfers, but it would be impractical to apply that to all licensed products for sale in the general marketplace. Thus, the first sale doctrine exists.

If UMG is successful, it could have a chilling effect on all industries that work in copyrighted entertainment material. It would certainly set a dangerous precedent that could easily move well past the realm of promotional CDs. And ultimately, I'm not sure there is any harm in allowing the resale of those CDs. The fans love them, and those driven to collect the promos likely already own the material in another form they purchased from the copyright holder, in this case that would generally be the actual retail album. This is certainly a case worth watching, as it could impact all of us.

Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.

The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Tags: columns, copyright, law, law-of-the-game

Related From Joystiq

LGJ: Read the fine print!
4 days ago
LGJ: Revenge of the Regulators
18 days ago
Nintendo, Capcom, friends file suit over DS piracy-enabling R4 sales
26 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

WiiFTW @ Apr 16th 2008 8:09PM

Fuck the RIAA
Fuck the MPAA
Fuck UMG Recordings

It's fine how it is now, quit furthering the stereotype of random litigation

/obligatory

Bryan @ Apr 16th 2008 8:22PM

This guy said it right.

andrew @ Apr 16th 2008 8:13PM

so if it would become illegal to sell a game you previously purchased, what would that do to a store like gamestop, where when you trade in a game they are essentially buying the game from you? Also, what would happen to used games?

Mal F4cti0n @ Apr 16th 2008 10:06PM

That is kind of the point, it would make selling and buying used games only under approval of the copyright holder. That is how it may affect us who love videogames. I don't know if a company would want to rake in a percentage of the resale of such used items or to completely not allow it.

Also, what could that mean for other copyrighted material like books? There are stores out there that buy and sell used books.

Also, what would that mean for libraries, who do not own any of the copyrighted material they let consumers borrow.

I say that should this be found in UMG's favor, then Big Brother might as well implant chips in our heads, and if we, as consumers, were anyplace that was playing a song we had not previously purchased, this chip would not allow us to even hear the music.

Can you imagine being at a club and you can't hear the music that the bar is playing because you don't own the song? Heck, the library should only loan you books, music and movies that you already own.

J @ Apr 17th 2008 11:53AM

Where can I get one of those chips? I hate the music that they play at clubs ;)

vannyx @ Apr 16th 2008 8:15PM

Everyday i wake up i feel that some corporation has purchased another one of my freedoms.

Fish @ Apr 16th 2008 8:21PM

That's crap. They have no right to tell you what to do with something once you've purchased it.

That's like Volkswagen telling me I'm not allowed to resell my car.

Volomon @ Apr 16th 2008 8:32PM

These were not purchased these were given to people to promote a CD. So there not telling you what you can do with what you bought there telling these people they can't sell what UMG gave to them for FREE.

Nushio (NDF - Blue) @ Apr 16th 2008 8:55PM

Volomon:
In that case, I'm going to give you a FREE Piece of Shit. A turd, if you will. It'll have a sticker that'll say "Not for Sale" and "Do Not Discard", which means that by adding random stickers to GIFTS, I am forbidding you to do as you please with what you get.

If they want control, they should be forced to sign a contract, nda, or anything like it. A random sticker that says "Actual Size" does not make it actual size.

stoik @ Apr 16th 2008 11:46PM

I'll add: you can put any shit on it but it's no longer under your control when you give it away. That's a risk you take if you want to promote it.

OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Apr 16th 2008 8:27PM

This particular case? 100% in UMG's favor.

Put it this way. Say I'm a game company. I develop a game, but I don't have a publisher. I send out demo ROMs to publishers. They then sell my ROMs on eBay. WTF.

If it's a product demo, demo CD, review copy, whatever...if it's not for resale, it's NOT for resale.

However, that's it. It's not for RESALE. I can toss it out, I can shred it, I can give it to my neighbor who has different tastes than I do. The moment someone tries to sell it, that's where the line should be drawn.

KeenCommander @ Apr 16th 2008 8:33PM

That's not how it works in the game industry. Prospective publishers are shown the game as it stands and given concept pitches - not the actual code so they wouldn't even have something to sell. A more accurate analogy would be, "I make a demo CD, I give you that CD to listen to, you sell it on eBay." Sure, you might be pissed that the SOB sold it cause that probably means he thinks you suck, but the person who sold it certainly did nothing wrong.

Worst Review Ever @ Apr 16th 2008 8:36PM

Okay, what if they started printing "Not for Resale" on every single video game disc?

OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Apr 16th 2008 8:39PM

Sorry, KC, but devs don't just send pitches out. They send out working ROMs, too.

In any case, why do you think someone selling a Demo CD to review on eBay is an acceptable thing?

kchenisp @ Apr 16th 2008 10:52PM

Silly man. If you could sell copies of your game on ebay (that is, you could self-publish), why didn't you do that to begin with instead of giving it to a publisher? If you don't want publishers to do whatever they want with the gift that you gave them, then you shouldn't have given it to them in the first place. By the way, you can't reply to this post. I'm only giving you permission to read my work, not reply to it. Also, Joystiq isn't allowed to make copies of this so make sure you exclude this post from your site backups.*

*Just kidding, I grant Joystiq permission to do whatever they want with this post, not that you would actually need permission.

Once you have given someone something, they own it, and they can do what they want with it. If that bothers you, then again, don't give it to them. The only way you would have a say in what they do with it is by contract. If you send a publisher a demo disc unsolicited, then yes they can put it on ebay though most likely they'll just lose the listing fee when it doesn't sell. Now, if someone breaches the contract, you can sue them for THAT, you can't sue someone down the line simply because they ended up in possession of the property and wanted to sell it. As it turns out, you know that car you drive? It was actually a showroom model sent to the dealer and was not supposed to be sold. Now, who is responsible to the manufacturer for covering the loss? The person who actually has a contract with them for the cars they receive, or you?

Also note, this case isn't about copyright and should not be confused as such. The demo discs in question are originals, not copies. They are not stealing the author's work, they are simply selling the medium on which it was distributed, just as you would with a used copy.

busydoingnothing @ Apr 16th 2008 11:32PM

That's not a 1:1 analogy. A radio station is not a publisher nor a distributor. It's closer to an advertising medium than anything. This would be akin to sending a demo/beta of your game to a magazine, say, PC Gamer, and they in turn sell it on eBay. This is why magazines typically go to the developer's office to play, because they don't want their game getting out there. They won't distribute a demo until it's ready to go out, and at that point, there's no need to sell it, since people can download it free anyway.

These fucking dinosaur corporations are fighting tooth and nail to survive in a market they know they cannot, and are attempting to sue for every possible dime they can squeeze out of honest consumers. It's a sad sight.

Volomon @ Apr 16th 2008 8:28PM

I don't know I think they actually have a case these were marked Promotional Use Only, meaning nonpersonal use as in personal gain. These were released to promote those CDs the people who accepted them took them with the knowledge that they were meant to be used that way. So if you sell them for personal profit I think they do have a lawsuit on hand. Now thats not saying that there should be a law that says that eventually statements such as "for promotional use only" should desolve down the line say when the CD actually comes out. Its just like a beta for a game you can't take it and sell it. There are certain agreements in place. With promotional CDs its not a contract but sense that tells you what their usage is for.

Johnny Lasley @ Apr 16th 2008 9:18PM

I used to spin platters as a DJ. I have a ton of old and some obscure records that say:

LENT FOR PROMOTIONAL USE ONLY. ANY SALE OR UNAUTHORIZED TRANSFER IS PROHIBITED AND VOID. SUBJECT TO RETURN ON DEMAND BY OWNER. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS RECORDS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THE ABOVE.

Just some words. You can sue a Mack truck for dropping rocks on your windshield, even they have a sign on those trucks saying you can't.

Still...radio stations wouldn't get music without such an agreement. I say it is fair.

Benny @ Apr 16th 2008 8:33PM

It's easy to side with the little guy, but I'm *kind of* with UMG on this. I imagine these promos are put out there for free - they aren't being sold and they aren't intended for the consumption of the masses. I personally don't think they should be allowed to be sold on, at least at the pre-release stage.

Having said that, if the law were to be changed to the extent the article (in quite a scare-mongering way) suggests, it would be a sad day indeed. Corporations do have too much power, and sadly they don't give a shit how what they do affects us... as long as we keep buying their crap.

Jeff @ Apr 16th 2008 8:37PM

I doubt this will fly in court. UMG technically has no right to tell anyone what to do with the CDs after they send them out, they just slap the "promo" stickers on them and hope no one sells them. Now, if UMG had made all the recipients of these promos sign contracts to not distribute them, they might have a case, but it doesn't work that way.

I've seen tons and tons of these promo CDs. I used to work at CDepot, which is like Record and Tape (only better), and people sold us those things all the time. They usually have big ugly gold stamped writing on the cover saying that they're promo copies and aren't for resale, and then they usually have an ugly white rectangle with the same message on the CD itself.

It all comes down to whether or not the people UMG sends the promos to have to sign a contract to get them, and even then, this Augusto person wouldn't be the one they should (or would) be suing. Suing this guy doesn't make any sense at all and I really can't figure out why they're doing it.

I think UMG is saying that the promo CDs are like the gas meter and cable box in your house: They're there, but they belong to the gas/cable company, and you can't touch them. But the gas and cable companies make you sign a contract that tells you this stuff. UMG (and others like them, if there are any) just send these CDs out everywhere to drum up interest.

This is a little like if GM stamped "For sit-in radio use only" and then sued anyone who tried to drive their cars.

John McPoop @ Apr 16th 2008 8:51PM

Its a slippery slope and here in America our individual rights have already been stripped away for the most part ... People talk about a possible socialist regime if the democrats get in office but I say to them that we already live in a Socialist Republic and not a democracy ... America is not a free countries with civil liberties anymore ... Its sad but true that the Republicans and Democrats have essentially swithced positions as to what they have traditionally been known for ... Its now the Republicans with wasteful spending and promoting big business as well as stripping us of our civil liberties ... Its a sad state of affairs when this November we will be choosing between who will fuck us over less ... I I love the place I live but I hate the people in charge and the powers that be ...

BigD145 @ Apr 16th 2008 8:52PM

We don't have anything close to Socialism. What we have is Totalitarianism. HYUGE difference there, bub.

John McPoop @ Apr 16th 2008 11:09PM

Sorry bub but I have to disagree with you there ...

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

I don't know if you have any idea about Imminent Domain. It was created so the Government could take a landowners land who was not willing to sell if it was in the "benefit of the public". Traditionally this was used to take empty land or a land with a house to widen highways or build new infrastructure like an interstate. The Government always has to pay the land owner fair market value for the property. Recently, there is a big uproar over this law of ID because the Government has taken low income housing projects and instead of using it to benefit the public (bridges, roads etc) they are actually selling the property to commercial developers to put high rise condominiums. Now, the reason the Government is getting away with this is because they say that it increases the amount of tax revenue they can collect thus it will benefit the public. Tell me that is anything but socialist and I will slap you silly. Not to mention all of the state & federal run programs we already pay into like Medicaid, Welfare, Medicare & Social Security. I am not saying these programs are bad things but wake up and smell the roses. This country treads closer and closer to a full blown socialist republic everyday and the Government keeps getting bigger and bigger. It seems the needs of the many outweigh that of the few and thats an exact policy of a socialist government.

Capitalism and Democracy are not synonymous. We are closer to the brink of destruction and bankruptcy. When you hear this figure of a 7 trillion dollar debt our nation has its actually referring to the interest we owe on our actual debt which is somewhere around 57 trillion dollars. I said trillion with a T by the way. The only option this country has to avoid financial collapse is for the government to cut its wasteful spending and this means cutting a lot of social programs in addition to paying our debts instead of continuing to borrow against them. It was not that long ago we had a national surplus. There are many issues we could explore but I will avoid that as this is a gaming blog.

The bottom line is our country is fucked up and going to hell in a hand basket. All the politicians that say they are for change and less government spending are just talking that shit to get you elected. Our country is getting smoked in a bong by a democrat-republican cheech and chong. The only person alive today that gives me hope as a possible fiscal conservative is Dr Ron Paul. I know a lot of his ideas are to radical especially in a country that hates change but necessary if we wish to change our destiny. We are the modern day ancient Rome.

John @ Apr 17th 2008 4:38PM

You know, here I was going to post something along the lines of how the people here are all up in arms about reselling a video game, but when it comes to the government telling them how they can use their land and property, none of you believe in personal property rights, and you go and put it so well I don't even have to bother.

BigD145 @ Apr 16th 2008 8:51PM

Sooooooooo, you'll basically be fined for littering inside the garbage can?

Lone Starr @ Apr 16th 2008 8:51PM

"To put the gravity of this into perspective: UMG's claim, essentially, is that a copyright owner can control what the consumer can do with a product once it is in the marketplace."

This assertion makes zero sense. It only enters the marketplace by will of the producer and is only sold by will of the produer. Thus the marketplace is the exchange between producer and consumer. In other words, as I've said before, your argument assumes the consumer owns the product before he buys it.

"In other words, the copyright owner can prevent you from reselling a game you bought, or even throwing it away. That level of control, besides being wholly impractical, should sound as crazy to you as it does to me."

This is not control when you have the choice in the first place to decide whether or not to buy the product. If the product says "not for resale," you have entered an implicit contract.

Which brings us to this:

"UMG is arguing that their language performs that same function, but in general, this is a contractual provision that would have to be explicitly waived in a negotiated, signed agreement."

Or not. So when it says "do not make illegal copies of this disc," I do not have to abide by that because I haven't explicitly agreed to contract? What about a movie theater? I can't yell fire or bring in my own food or drinks because I enter into an implicit contract with the theater owners. In the case of fire, it is certainly *not* a free speech issue.

This is the problem with the sort of argument you present. The language is meaningless without the prior exchange of money, which is a contract.

And this is tied to anti-trust, of course, which like copyright law is in major need of overhaul.

Basically, this is a *bad* thing for consumers.

Catprog @ Apr 17th 2008 9:31AM

Or not. So when it says "do not make illegal copies of this disc," I do not have to abide by that because I haven't explicitly agreed to contract?

You have to abide by it by law not by contract.

Burn2 @ Apr 16th 2008 9:15PM

People are just getting out of hand when it comes to this.
http://www.burnedbytheman.com/politics/the-gamestop-conspiracy-the-final-solution/

Lilinka @ Apr 16th 2008 9:41PM

If this goes through, I'm never buying a movie, song, or videogame again. I'm dead serious.

Benny @ Apr 16th 2008 9:50PM

There's always BitTorrent.

joystiq @ Apr 16th 2008 9:48PM

Oh, I see, so I guess Joystiq will be selling all those pre-release demos the publishers send them because you know, they have to right to tell you what to do with them after they've given them to you.

Except for that fact that you probably agreed up front and signed a contract saying you wouldn't give them away.

grrargghh @ Apr 17th 2008 4:07AM

Thank you.

And great job joystiq blowing this WAY out of proportion. "OMG teh world is over for teh consumerr!!!1" Come on be serious.

Christopher Grant @ Apr 17th 2008 9:20AM

You mean the demos that only run on special hardware you don't have access to?

Every retail-ready item they send over for demo purposes we do give away.

Altairio @ Apr 17th 2008 10:26AM

The first sale doctrine does not apply since these are promotional cd's and he never purchased them or the inherent right to resale. You guys are reading too much into this.

moominsean @ Apr 16th 2008 10:21PM

this is an old fight. media moguls have long been against resale of purchased music, because they don't make any money from the second purchase. i remember this was a big deal in the early 90s, and a lot of the local used record stores were worried at the time. didn't fly then and i doubt it will fly now. resale industry is huge. and if it applies to cds and games, what's to stop it from applying to the resale of a house or car. the original builder is losing theoretical money when a person buys a used house. they could be spending that money on a new house.

mccomber @ Apr 16th 2008 10:23PM

It basically comes down to who owns these promo copies, and whether a line of copy is enough to keep ownership from being transferred when they are sent out. Thing is, a lot of products that you "own" are, according to a single line of text, not your property. Look at the credit cards in your wallet; chances are most, if not all of them, have a line saying they are the property of the bank, and that you must return it to the bank if they request you do so.

I think what may be key here is whether these discs are sent to people who solicit them or not. If you requested a copy of one of these CDs, or agreed to receive discs from UMG, you would likely be subject to their terms as part of an agreement. If they just send them out on a random mailing list, UMG is probably out of luck, as they may be in this particular case if he wasn't the person who originally received the disc from UMG.

ILPC @ Apr 16th 2008 10:23PM

It would mean no one would be able to buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Legend-of-Zelda-Collectors-Edition/dp/B000BRULV0/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1208398920&sr=8-5

Joe @ Apr 16th 2008 10:26PM

Uh, isn't digital distribution pretty much killing first sale doctrine already.

I mean, if I buy Uno on Xbox Live, can I later sell it to you? Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank at the very suggestion.

And wasn't digital distribution supposed to kill those baddies at Gamestop? I'm so confused.

I wonder if Penny Arcades new Greenhouse will support resale...

jrhawk42 @ Apr 16th 2008 10:41PM

EULA (end-user license agreement) has pretty much been doing this for the past 5 years as far as PC gaming goes. Almost every game you buy now has an EULA that states the game cannot be resold. This is why gamestop, and several other major used retailers stopped carrying used PC games. Basically an EULA has little to no power in the courts, but it does give the software company the right to refuse any services to you (ie patches, online play, ect). As digital distribution becomes the norm these EULA become more powerful, and buying second hand, or transferring accounts is a much higher risk.

Jeff @ Apr 16th 2008 10:56PM

Here's the way I see it. When you purchase a CD, or game, or movie, you have paid for ownership of that particular COPY of the the game, and as the owner of that copy you can do with it as you wish. Sell it, destroy it, give it to a friend, whatever. I have the right to do any of those things, because I own that copy. This doesn't mean that I own the intellectual property, or the copyright, because that would be silly. And expensive.

But this case is a slightly different situation, as the material in question is promotional CDs sent out to radio stations and the like. Now, while I can understand UMG's side of the story, there are a few things not taken into account. Where did Augusto obtain these 'rare' CDs? If he was an employee of one of these radio stations, then there's a chance that he 'liberated' them with or without permission. However, since the court documents say that he obtained these CDs from various sources, such as used record stores, other music collectors, and stores such as Goodwill or the Salvation Army, then UMG really has no case.

The reason? It seems that if UMG had really cared from the get-go, they would have implemented some sort of system to track these CDs. It wouldn't be too difficult to mark them with an individual bar code, and cross reference each bar code with a specific station, so that they could keep track of which CDs went where, and who would have been 'responsible' for them hitting the streets. In that case, UMG would be able to legally sue the guilty party for breach of silent contract, or something to that effect. A few years ago, that wouldn't have been possible, but now it's something that can definitely be done. Right now, if UMG is upset about their promotional Cds being resold by collectors then it's their own fault for being lazy from the start. I mean, they could have included a SASE to return the Cd once the official release hit. Mix that and my CD marking idea, and problem solved.

Basically, because of all this, they have a really weak case, in my opinion. If they had sent the CDs directly to Augusto, then they might have had a good case, but because the media in question changed hands so many times there's really no point, other than to try and make an example of some random guy.

If UMG really wants to retain control of copyright and usage rights for their media, then any and all media they want to control must be made free to the consumer. Why? The whole, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away" argument. If I get something for free, then I can't complain when I'm told what to do with it. But if I pay MY MONEY for something, I should have the right to do with it as I wish.

In short: UMG -- open mouth, insert foot.

John McPoop @ Apr 16th 2008 11:34PM

GET RID OF THIS F-ING SPAMMER

BAN STICK PLEEEEEASE

Durandel @ Apr 16th 2008 11:51PM

This would kill certain businesses.

For example, used car dealerships would be a lost cause, and Game Stop and EB would be crying.

Flea markets? Pawn shops? Garage sales?

No, sorry, that just won't do :P

Blue_Falcon @ Apr 16th 2008 11:52PM

Perhaps I'm reading this whole thing wrong, but couldn't there be some legitimate benefits to this?

I see many people complain about companies like Gamestop selling games used, and the developers don't make a dime off of it. Wouldn't this ruling essentially make it so that they couldn't do that without the approval of the makers of the game? (Presumably the game makers and etc. would like, at the very least, a bit of profit from their own product)

Truthfully, I'd rather see the game makers make their money from where they can.

Again, I could be reading this drastically wrong/out of context, but this seems like it could be quite a bit beneficial to the people who are actually putting the work into the products being sold.

Benny @ Apr 17th 2008 10:31AM

Alas, people prefer to moan about everything.

Psaakyrn @ Apr 17th 2008 12:39AM

There is a harm though, especially in limited-issue products. Like in situations where concert tickets get bought by greedy resellers, or cybersquatting on specific web addresses, you want to regulate transfer of ownership in order to prevent people from buying products for the sole sake of reselling, and thus harming consumers in general.

Pawsie @ Apr 17th 2008 7:38AM

I'm not sure on my stance on this one.... persnoally i find it a bit wrong when people sell things given away for free.... nintendo had that problem and they're the one who lose.. when they want to give something to people

But on the other hand, how do you get rare stuff? some of the stuff i have i ended up buying on ebay.. because they were promotional stuff. Maybe there could be a compromise.. let's say.. if a publisher tell you not to do a particular thing.

hmm... n/m, it's silly. people should do what they want with things they get -- under the condition they really bought it.