| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (95)

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:27PM Reddjoey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Easy solution. Publishers cut off the supply to any retailer that sells used games.

Places like blockbuster are a bit different as I'm sure they get pay more royalties based on the understanding that it will be rented out and eventually sold.

Initially, game sales will go down tremendously, as those who shop exclusively at those retailers will have to go to more traditional markets. But how will they get new games? Simple, they pay full retail like the rest of us or buy it used off a consumer. I highly doubt consumers will be willing to buy a game at release just to trade for one from 6 months ago. Eventually they will become the price gauging pawn shops they spawned from.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 8:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ur solution is no solution. What do you want me to do with my old used games, set up shop on the street corner? Get of couple of buddies and create a local Bazaar for games and such? Not everyone has time to sell shit online, and not everyone HAS online capabilities. Are you an somekind of ass?
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 8:32PM Reddjoey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess I didn't explain it all the way. You can sell them your used games, because that is all they will be able to carry. I'm sure that some people love Gamestop and the like, a great place to pickup games that you missed. We all had a bad experience or two with these places, but that is a solution to the problem that works.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:30PM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why is everyone so against this? It makes EBGames and GameStop (same thing yes) pretty much dead and the idea is to give money to the people who make the games we all like.

I guess I'm not seeing the light here.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:32PM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unless of course it leads to a mark up in game prices...But then again, EBGames charges $120 already for big title games here...Yet non used game stores sell games for $79
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
True they are digital formats, but the physical disc is still used and possibly scratched. Game companies like infinity ward have used "Game of the Year Edition" type SKU's to keep late adopters from buying used games. The consumer is the one losing the money, not the game companies. If I want to sell games back to Gamestop I know I am going to get robbed, but if I don't play the game anymore then I am willing to take a 50% loss in order to lessen the expense of a new game. The only way to circumvent this whole deal is to quit releasing games on discs entirely. If it is a completely digital format that someone has to download from a seller, then there's no way (other than hacking and pirating) to buy the game "used".

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:47PM Stocks109 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eventually, all the big console makers will move towards digital distribution. Its inevitable as thats really the most effective way to combat piracy.

20 years from now we'll look back and realize that the first Xbox (with its HD) was a major turning point in the industry. XBLA and PSN too.

Of course, what will probably happen is that console makers will release both versions, stand-alone disc and digital. When you start seeing the digital version have more exclusive content you'll know the transition is in full swing.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A lot of you are missing the bigger picture here. Similar to what a few of you mentioned before, he is just asking for a cut of the money (a royalty) for sales after the initial sale. It is crazy that a game developer can only receive $5-10 for each game they produce (This was in game informer, I believe July of last year) when retailers such as gamestop makes $5 of every new sale, then straight profit off of every resale of anywhere up to $15-20.

Pretty soon game developers aren't going to have the funds to keep creating these multimillion dollar programs because their funds are going to retailers.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:48PM Telprydain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the Gears 2 plan is clever.
Put a code for free DLC maps in the game - then only the original buyer gets the maps and 2nd hand buyers miss out.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Greed and ignorance ? Wow, talk about irony. The only way in which he has ANY point whatsoever, relies upon the assumption that the people selling their used games or CDs are pirating them, and then selling them, while essentially keeping the game / music.

Which I suppose is possible, but considering the only games taht are really "pirated" by end users are PC games and there really is no used PC game market, I would venture a guess that of all the used XBOX, 360, PS2, PS3, Wii, and Gamecube games you might find in a Gamestop, maybe 1% represent games that were somehow copied / pirated, and then sold.

Similarly the same argument for CDs is nonsense. Getting music online for free is far too simple for anyone to think that people are buying CDs, ripping them, and then selling them back to FYE, for instance. Let alone the idea that someone bought the CD, ripped the music, sold it back to FYE, someone came along, bought the used CD, ripped the music, sold it back to FYE again, and this was repeated 100 times.

I would have to question the sanity of anyone that would even think of proposing that any such thing is taking place.

The fact is that whether or not digital content degrades over time does not change the fact that without assuming piracy, only one person can use that digital content on physical media at a time.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 6:52PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Isn't this the issue that generated 70+ replies to the first post?

Come on Joystiq, don't let me down this time.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty big leap there from NEW movie to NEW DVD to NEW rental to used games. There is a market for used DVDs and so far as I know, the MPAA and the studios are not interested in a cut of those sales. Heck, even Blockbuster sells their used rentals and probably makes a good bit of their total profits that way.

Sorry, but the idea that games are some special class of product that the publishers deserve some unprecedented cut of used sales is preposterous.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:29PM Stocks109 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As far as I know rental chains have a deal with studios already where they give a cut of the rental fees to them. They have no such deal with publishers (and the publishers are partly to blame for not ganging up and demanding such rule be made).

I don't know if the studios have a deal with them for used DVD sales. However, probably not since the margins are so low.

Games ARE different because we have ONE chance to make money off a release (hence why they are so expensive in the first place). Granted, DLC is starting to offer future opportunities to make additional revenue but as of right now that amount pales in comparison to what we make off of retail.

Movie industry has 3. Radio Industry has 3 (radio play, CD sales, tours). The game industry has 1.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Right, they will HAVE to buy new games. Because nobody on earth has ever heard of eBay.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So, will these greedy game makers support replacement discs when we scratch a game? No, they won't. I mean we really are only really buying a license to play the game. Offer replacement for a disc at the cost of the physical media or a disc trade in and I would support their used games argument.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most used car lots turn ur sold car around and sell it for more. Only when you sell ur car to another individual are companies not making continual profit. I know what mean though, most used car lots probably aren't in direct corrilation with car manufacturers.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The only real problem that I think he may be right about, if I understand him right, which I'm sure I don't, is that the GameStop type businesses are actively telling people not to buy a new copy and instead buy a used one.

GameStop buys a newer game for $20 and sells it for $55 which makes more than when they buy from a publisher at around $50 and up and sell it for $60.

They are actively attacking the publisher of the game and that is the problem.

A car design is owned by the company and the engineer gets a pay unrelated to how many sell (ignoring bonuses if applicable), but developers get most of their money based on sales, especially funding for new games.

Because GameStop does the type of business they do, the Game Industry loses money while they make money off of developer's work.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 7:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly why the only problem is GameStop and stores like them. If game companies turned in stores like the EA store or the Ubisoft store, and bought back there own games and resold them, then problem solved, but when a party ,that has no part in the actual creation of the product, becomes the distributer and redistributer a problem is created.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:44PM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think they can buy a used game and sell it as new, in fact I know they can't.

New means New (sealed)

Used means used.

Some used are so scratched they're unplayable (money back time) and some used are so new they look like they've been had a week only. And it's always £20 cheaper.

I know what I buy.
Reply

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 2:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"New means New (sealed)"

tell that to GameStop, show me a sealed new game you got from them.
Reply

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 7:05AM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Vic

Perhaps the law is different in the UK, GameStop is not over here at present.

I've worked in stores selling second hand product and so I know there the disk is separated from the box.

But for new product everywhere else I think it's very much on the shelf and sealed.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 8:43PM erac3rx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My thought is, if you can't stop the GameStop problem... just do it with the PS Store and XB Live marketplace. Sell Halo 3 Recon LE on the PS Store and XB Live stores for $30, and send the buyers all the LE goodies -- minus a retail disc -- in the mail. Then sell the disc at GameStop and the big box retailers for $60.. and GameStop cry when no one buys the disc.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But what about the bigger picture? You know, when the retailer finds out they can't make the profit they used to off of resales? Alot of people are saying that they will just reduce resales; no, I have another scenario.

You buy the $60 game. A month/week later you resell it back, getting half your money back (if your lucky). You go to the used area thinking, "I'll just get a $30 used game. La, la,la, la, la,l- what the hell?!?"

That's when you see the "used" prices are $49.99-$59.99. A deep shaft to the booty, 'cause when the retailer sees that he has to give away a piece of the pie away, they damn sure won't hesitate to take it out on our ungreased asses, with no kiss.

Wasn't the whole point of resales to boost customer revisits? The manufacturers and game makers had nothing to do with it. This guy makes it look like he's concerned with the little game companies, but what he's really saying is WHERE'S THE REST OF MY MONEY, BITCH?!

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:21PM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think the way I'm going to say this is a good idea but here's one idea:

The game disc is the full game but only operates as a Demo.

This disc is sold for like £5 at retail, you can play it and if you like it you 'activate' the rest of the disk online, this is also when the rest of the charge for the game is made. Like £20-30.

That way if the game is sold onwards, the disc is only worth £5. The next person would have to activate the rest of the disc content for the same price.

2nd hand game shops may go out of business(or slash profits to nothing) but there would be a thriving try-before-you-buy environment and demo scene on a finished product.

To make it fairer, over time the 'buying-at-activation-cost' would go down.

And really the games should be cheaper since they'd be saving that 'billion' or so supposedly.
--
TBH a lot of demos ARE practically the full game already (1-2gigs some of them) just with some artificial limiters.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Since everyone has internet and a credit card. Good thinkin outside the box, but be realistic dude. Not everyone is you.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:59PM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Vic

Idk - I know what you're saying, but what with future trends everyone having internet and a cashless society just may be were we find ourselves.

Besides the rig it costs to play these games, some form of electronic payment doesn't seem that much of a stretch.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:31PM nonfatnonfat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Marty O'Donnell's logic is flawed. When he sells his 2007 SL500, I expect him to cut Mercedes a check.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:40PM CyberNigma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think it wold set a pretty bad precedent if producers were guaranteed revenue on resales of that which they produce (aka used produce). This wouldn't be limited to games, but could apply equally to someone selling their old car, selling books to a used bookstore, everything being sold at a Garage Sale (you already at least need a license to cover taxes on garage sales), etc. What about people that work in other industries. Take a construction company. Should they get kickbacks every time that building is resold or royalties if the building is leased? Should the workers at that company that actually built the facility get anything more since the facility/building is still being used as a result of their labor?

I don't believe that copyright was invented to guarantee someone a retirement or profit for life. It was designed to guarantee a profit for a limited time in order to encourage artists/producers to create art for the betterment of society. that's the key. It wasn't intended to be a continuing handout. Art existed quite some time before copyrights were even established and will exist quite some time if they are ever abolished. All it would do it weed out the profiteers from the real artists (those that create art regardless of the money). I believe the first sale doctrine is fine as it is. Many artists are notorious about overvaluing themselves and what they produce. I believe art is fantastic and they should be paid for what they do, but I don't believe they should be guaranteed a lifetime of revenues when no other industry (with hard working, producing people) grants that right. Establish a pension plan just like everyone else.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:55PM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know how everything is designed to break? and "they don't make them like they used to" (as in lasting)...See imagine everything else did last and nothing broke. What would happen to new production or demand.

I think the problem is, with all of those examples you've listed, is that those things degrade and deteriorate over time, so there is a demand for those services.

And we are applying our old-way of thinking of products which disappear over time and need to be reproduced to a product which doesn't disappear and is still new.

I'm not saying I agree with the article, just that everyone, us and them, needs to change our thinking.

For what if one day all things were made of something which didn't degrade?

What would a non-consumer world be like? Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if we had made products which lasted. Considering resources it may be the only future we have to now make sure we do make things that last.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 10:24PM CyberNigma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ahh, but these products (again, I'm not talking digital distribution because that's a moot point anyhow) DO degrade. That's the reason most people that buy used DVDs, CDs, games make sure that there is a return/guarantee policy. It's not uncommon to get home with a game bought from GameStop (or a movie/CD from CD Warehouse) only to find the disc is scratched and won't play in your player, manuals torn or missing. Even if it's fine, it's also not uncommon for DVDs and CDs to get scratched over the years and become unusable. A representative of the movie industry recently was confronted with that question with regards to making backups. His response was they need to buy a new copy, and that just like any other product, that product will degrade over time.

Most products (other than Craftsman :-) aren't made to last a lifetime. They are made to last some time past the warranty period (kind of backwards).

Someone else mentioned in the comments that you may just be buying the right to play or use their product and not actually own it (most EULAs state this). You can check online (I'm not going to find it for you, sorry) that this interpretation is not universal and various courts have made contradicting rulings. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it is entirely up to your region (whether state or federal district court).

Again, it will probably be a moot point as things move to a subscription or lease system. If that is the case, then they'd be hard pressed to explain to subscribing customers (or people paying them their cut for used products) why they stopped supporting/patching/fixing said products.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:49PM CyberNigma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As an add, I think it will all be a moot point in most industries eventually, anyhow. Digital content producers are realizing they can tie the games into online distribution (via activation, subscription, etc) which will nix the 'gamestops' of the world when dealing with used games. Auto manufacturers, seeing as how they feel entitled with their requests for government handouts as well, may just as easily switch to leasing out their cars instead of selling them (several have done that exact thing in the past with hybrid/electric cars). Movies may be tied to streaming in the future instead of being produced on disc (not necessarily near future, though that remains to be seen). GM crops are already rented to farmers, guaranteeing their revenue year to year.

We're becoming a society where, one day perhaps, people won't really own very much themselves. They'll be subscribing to Windows on their AMD subscription computers, renting movies and music, driving to work in their leased car, and coming home to their rented home/apartment. This is all because too many people believe that they are entitled to a guaranteed income, protected by the government (in the form of handouts or in the form of consumer unfriendly laws).

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 11:02PM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thats the medium that degrades, not the data. It depends what you consider the product.

It's like some people seeing a computer as 'that box under the desk' and not as all the components inside.

Peronsally I beleive if you bought the disk you own the data on the disk.

Regarding the data on the disk, they can't have it both ways, if it's a lease, and the disk breaks - they SHOULD give you a new disk for free. By their own admission you've already paid the 'entry fee' for leasing the product.

As it stands now I think they charge you to replace the disk if it breaks. Happened to me and they wanted £7 for a replaemnt disk and to mail it. You know considering the price of Dvd discs I thought that was toatlly unacceptable.

I never got to play Battlefield 2 again and they lost out on me buying expansions for it, plus positive word of mouth.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 9:50PM Ethan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know somebody will have said "what, does IKEA get a cut when I resell my sofa?' But if you're selling the right to play (and I'm no DRM fan) I do think the publisher should be paid each time.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 1:37AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i disagree. the original purchaser has no access to the game after selling it. the license to play is effectively transferred.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 10:38PM Karmastocracy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I acually agree with Marty on this one, he's offering a viable solution to a new problem created by electronic distribution. Since this mediums only been around for about 10 years, it IS different from the other businesses because it is legitimately 100% digital.

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 11:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How come used game sales have become such an issue for games, but not for music/dvds?

Also, how come the main games retailers sell used games, but the main music/dvd retailers usually dont? You usually have to go to some little "used music store" to pick up used CDs.

It must be something about the retailer's profit margin on games vs other media.. or their relationship with the publishers.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 12:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll always pay for my games, but what I won't do is let publishers tell me how I can use them. The same goes for movies and music. I like digital distribution, but even the average consumer has to be pretty daft not to see the DD push as a means to maximize profit through tightening control. No rentals, no trading no resale. Well except for Sony. At least they let you trade 9/10 PSN titles. I guess that's a start.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 1:33AM CyberNigma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Again, I think these recent court cases concerning EULAs and whether software is truly licensed or sold will boil until it hits the Supreme Court. Right now there are conflicting rulings from various federal districts on a EULA being valid or not.

The Supreme Court will interpret the intent of copyright, and determine whether the intent was to provide indefinite revenue to creators or just to provide them with temprorary exclusivity (and revenue) in order to further the nation's arts and crafts. I suspect it really depends upon who is in the chair at the time of the decision. I personally don't think it is an entitlement, but rather a temporary incentive to create new arts, not to make an author rich, but to make a nation richer in the field of the arts.

If the Supreme Court decides movies, cds, and software sold on discs are indeed SOLD and not LICENSED, then it doesn't change much. Copyright laws still protect those properties from being copied and distributed without the copyright holder's permission. It puts software creators on the exact same footing as authors, painters, sculptors.

Many people are right. Digital media is new and we need to think about it. However, I think that when we come to the end of that train of thought we must decide if we want to give more rights to these types of creators, or leave them with the same rights as traditional creators have. There's absolutely nothing that compels us to guarantee them any more rights than they have right now. For any person that comes along and says that they are the creators and we should give them more money, there will be another person that looks at them an makes an argument that the "more money" is not enough. We decide how much is enough through our laws. It's about groups of people like Metallica and this guy that feel they are entitled to something more than what they're getting. Artists are usually treated as superstars and many times they let it get to their heads. Even content producers do that - look at Ted Turner.

As far as the other comment about moving everything to digital distribution will cause people to buy the new stuff instead, that's not true and I think the recording and movie industry may want their way of thinking back from you. People will either not buy it or will infringe their copyrights in some manner. I don't think infringement is the right way, I rather see not buying a product as the right way, but that's just me (and the law, of course).

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 1:48AM CyberNigma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Another possible turnout in the train of thought concerning licensing, copyright, and digital distribution could turn out similar to patents. If we decide that these new forms of media rate more royalties for used sales (and it should be applied to traditional products for those complaining about fairness - including books, vehicles, etc), then perhaps the alternative would be to provide that and put copyright law on par with patent law (assuming patent law was fixed somewhat as well).

Without making a distinction between the two, a copyright holder/creator (such as an artist or publisher) would be guaranteed by law the same rights as patent holders, for an equal amount of time.

We could provide a tax or royalty plan to cover resales that go to the content creators, but at the same time reduce copyright lifetime to something more reasonable such as 10 or 20 years (putting it on par with patents), which would remove the burden on society of 1) having to continually pay extra for a product every time it changes hands, and 2) allowing society to benefit from that product sooner in the form of derivatives (such as the works not within copyright that companies such as Disney took, improved upon, and provided to society).

I would just prefer the Supreme Court clear up the confusion and determine the application of traditional copyright law with modern software, one way or the other.

However, if more control does go to the content providers and consumers do not (either choose not to or are not able to) fall in line with what their profits expect to be, I am totally opposed to them asking for a handout and blaming it on anything other than poor product or licensing mechanisms. The arts are one of the few industries that historically not taken the blame upon themselves for lower products. There has always been an "external" source for those lower products. The software industry is no exception. Stardock has brought up that very topic. In fact, in most industries, if they produce a poor or tightly restricted product, then there opens a market opportunity for someone else to come along fill that gap. That is, unless, as is sometimes the case, they lobby for laws to make the restrictions apply to everyone.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 7:22AM MrIronic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We'll there definitely shouldn't be a tax for ever more on a product sold between people, just the sound of that sounds wrong.

And I believe you're right on the copyright being there to stimulate creativity not a lifetime income (although actually I think it's patent law not copyright).

I made a joke about it before but thinking about it, if publishers are so worried about resale of their product may be they should go in to the business themselves. They would after all be able to undercut all the competition. Offer better trade in prices, and 'forever more' get their cash on swapsies.
Reply

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 10:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like how they use such overinflated examples and try to make mainstream artists sound "hard up" for cash.

A CD re-sold 100 times? First off, how often is a CD re-sold anywhere even CLOSE to that? I'd say 20-25 times is maybe the extreme Max. After that the CD usually looks like crap and the stores will likely not re-buy it back or at least a consumer won't buy it off the store if it's condition is that poor.

"A musician who writes and records a song that millions of people end up enjoying should be able to put food on the table" OK if MILLIONS of people enjoyed it I seriously doubt 10 people bought it and 100,000 people just re-bought the used copies over and over. The artists that are selling millions of copies are typically doing 'just fine' by current economic standards.

If you're really going to hold up the music industry as the model then let's look a little deeper. The reason that artists don't see enough money off of record sales is the industry as a whole skim so much off the top of that pie that there's very little left for the actual artist. You can argue about who deserves what as much as you want but the industry does about as much harm to the artist as any pirate or used CD store does, probably more.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 7:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It makes no sense to me to prevent consumers from selling or trading anything they 'own,' however we do have to at least look at the impact of the technology on how creators get compensated for providing entertainment."

Why is the word own in inverted commas? If I've paid approximately £40-£50 for a new game then yes, I own my copy. I am not paying solely for the right to play the game. Marty was compensated when I paid four times the price of a CD or double the full retail price of a DVD for the entertainment he and his company have so kindly provided.

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 8:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if you pay £40-£50 for a new game you still don't own it, when game makers make money from selling ads you/I don't see one penny from that so why should they get any money from when when I decide to sell 'my' games.If they want money when I sell 'my' game we/I should get money when they sell in game ads.
Reply

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 9:37AM MechMarine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Getting rid of used games wont do much. People will just rent the games instead. Often times, that is enough, especially for 10-15 hour games. I played through Tales of Symphonia on 2 rentals, which cost me about 10 bucks. This was when the game came out. These publishers need to understand that people dont want to spend money. You have to show them a reason to buy anything. People arent just going to hand their money over because you ask them nicely.

Posted: Oct 19th 2008 9:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry Marty but if you've been following trends, its nearly impossible to set up a method of gatekeeping digital content. One of digital medias greatest strengths is also its primary weakness, the ability to distribute flawless copys quickly and easily. The RIAA has shown you can try and railroad folks into paying but you end up causing more harm than help. Lastly, while I agree its an issue that nees to be addressed, the consumer shouldn't be the ones "shouldering" the burden. The only solution to this particualr problem I can see is to set up some kind of streaming technology and implement a charge-per-use model.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW