Sony to make reselling of PS3 games illegal

[astr0creep]

well, I have recently had occasion to think about such things as I have been acquiring a lot of music from used cd shops (somewhat related to the topic at hand).

 

if I buy a Metallica cd, for instance, at Planet Music, the band gets paid, the record label gets paid and, retailer gets paid....Corporate USA gets paid in at least 3 different forms with such a purchase.

 

however, if I buy that cd from Joe Schmoe's used cd place, Corporate USA does not make 1 cent of off the transaction.  and, by extension, the band receives no direct benefit.

 

it would seem that, as peer-to-peer piracy is harder to do nowadays (which is good), used cd shops are the next big thing.  question is, how can they crack down on such shops?  apparently, such shops are, currently, operating within the confines of existing law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, used software is very rarely available in the first 2 weeks of release which is, as discussed in other threads, the time the industry considers for making it's money. Like movies, they are considered successful only if they make the cash in the first week or two.

Sony apparently was trying to continue making money by forcing the consumers to pay full price for games, forever or until "Greatest Hits" status, by eliminating "previously owned" titles.

But this rumor was dismissed early...

 

For music, the mediatic success of a band/artist depends largely on how many copies are bought by distributors/stores. CDs are pre-sold and then the stores must sell the inventory or lose money. This is why you get Platinum albums before they are even released.

So, in the case of used/old CDs, one could argue that the artist(s)/Record company already have their money.

Personnally, I would use my CD to promote my concert tours, of which the record company wouldn't get a dime. If the system worked that way. Which it doesn't.

 

Meh.

Edited May 31, 2006 by astr0creep

[Plano Skywalker]

I think it boils down to "what, exactly, are you buying?" when you buy digitized intellectual property.

 

you are buying the "right to use" the product, not the product itself. but that is not really in dispute.

 

the question is whether the "right to use" is legally transferrable. and, I think it is, the same way a used book store is operating inside the law.

 

the bottom line is that the owners of the intellectual property need to be proactive (in a way that involves no thought from the 16 year old owner) if they want to do something about the second hand market.

 

wasn't it Disney that developed a DVD that chemically breaks down after a set amount of time? anyway, something like that would be the way to go (not that I am hoping for it).

[angshuman]

however, if I buy that cd from Joe Schmoe's used cd place, Corporate USA does not make 1 cent of off the transaction.  and, by extension, the band receives no direct benefit.

But why should they? By re-selling the CD to me, the person that originally owned it is transferring their listening pleasure to me. If they were making a copy, that would be a different matter.

 

Once I buy a CD or a game or a movie, I want it to be mine. Of course I don't own the intellectual property on the CD, but I sure as hell own the particular *instance* of the IP, which I should be able to use and resell as I please. Of course, the original intellectual contribution that the creators made should be *recognized*, but they need not be compensated again and again for the same physical instance of their content.

 

This is especially true when you consider that a substantial part of the money you are paying for the product goes to the publisher, who is responsible only for creating millions of these physical replicas and distributing them.

[Plano Skywalker]

Of course, the original intellectual contribution that the creators made should be *recognized*, but they need not be compensated again and again for the same physical instance of their content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true, that. but if the property holders wanted to decrease the amount of times that physical instance gets passed around, then they could do something to make the "out of the box experience" unique.

 

for instance, if I knew that any cd I bought at Planet Music (whether Metallica, Miles Davis, etc) had either a serialized T-shirt or coffee mug offer (for free plus shipping), I might think twice before I bought the cd second-hand.

[astr0creep]

however, if I buy that cd from Joe Schmoe's used cd place, Corporate USA does not make 1 cent of off the transaction.  and, by extension, the band receives no direct benefit.

But why should they? By re-selling the CD to me, the person that originally owned it is transferring their listening pleasure to me. If they were making a copy, that would be a different matter.

 

Once I buy a CD or a game or a movie, I want it to be mine. Of course I don't own the intellectual property on the CD, but I sure as hell own the particular *instance* of the IP, which I should be able to use and resell as I please. Of course, the original intellectual contribution that the creators made should be *recognized*, but they need not be compensated again and again for the same physical instance of their content.

 

This is especially true when you consider that a substantial part of the money you are paying for the product goes to the publisher, who is responsible only for creating millions of these physical replicas and distributing them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. On all counts.

 

However, if you sell a game to a friend, the owner of the IP doesn't get a dime and they don't like that.

 

It's called "Corporate Greed".

[213374U]

This is for console games and this is for PC games.

 

The enforcability of the EULA in the US is unclear but not impossible.

The problem with console games is that you need to buy the product to view the EULA and for PCs, most people just click "ACCEPT" and never look back.

I don't know about US versions of console games, but PAL versions don't include a written EULA anyway. All there is is a warning about the illegality of making copies. So, nowhere it's stated that what I have bought is just a license that can't be transferred or stuff.

 

 

as peer-to-peer piracy is harder to do nowadays

Lawl. Eh, wait a second. The MPAA propaganda campaign is working! OH NOES!!1

 

 

Agreed. On all counts.

 

However, if you sell a game to a friend, the owner of the IP doesn't get a dime and they don't like that.

 

It's called "Corporate Greed". 

It's their right and duty to try and make as much money as possible. It's my right and pleasure to thwart their efforts as far as I'm able to.

[Volourn]

The EULA isn't law. Illegal contracts would not be passable in court. Soemthing like this would likely never stand up in court.

[Hurlshort]

When you buy a used game, the publishers have already made a profit off of it. The retailers are taking a risk by allowing customers to sell the game back. If they can't sell it, they have actually given money away.

 

The real facts are that most people do not sell back their games. The people who tend to sell games are usually putting that money directly into more games. The retailers probably benefit the most, but they also have the higher risk. In order to have a supply of used games, you need to sell new ones, so publishers are still moving product. And, used games are good, free advertising for future products. It also allows consumers to experience more products. It's a win situation for everyone.

[Enoch]

U.S. courts have upheld and enforced click-through contract terms. To the courts' view, the buyer is taking the product on notice that there will be some restrictive contract terms within the product (either a printed version inside the shrinkwrapped box, or an on-screen one on program installation). This can be analogized to a 'terms-later' contract, such as you often see in insurance (i.e., you buy a policy from the agent, and recieve the minutiae of the coverage later) and warranties.

 

That doesn't mean the every term in the EULA is automatically enforceable. Courts regularly construe contract terms against the party who drafted them. Furthermore, if there is a term in the fine print that would cause a reasonable non-drafting party to walk away had they known about it, most courts will refuse to enforce that term.

 

As to the restraints on the further sale of a product, software is licensed under the copyright and trademark laws. These laws have always allowed the sale of limited-purpose licenses. (I.e., there are no restraint of trade problems with the seller barring or limiting the futher sale of the product by the buyer.)

 

 

Edit: I now see that the wiki's that Astrocreep linked had most of the EULA info.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Enoch

[Dark_Raven]

The EULA isn't law. Illegal contracts would not be passable in court. Soemthing like this would likely never stand up in court.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I paid good money for something and I no longer wish to own it, I am going to seel it regardless what EULA says. It's still in a playable situation what do they want, to have us throw it away? That would be a waste.

[alanschu]

I think technically it would violate the EULA to resell a game. It hasn't really happened because companies are probably smart enough to realize that they can't really stop it, and that any attempts to stop it would be negative publicity.

[Plano Skywalker]

as peer-to-peer piracy is harder to do nowadays

Lawl. Eh, wait a second. The MPAA propaganda campaign is working! OH NOES!!1

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, I know, it is still quite possible, Limewire being one of them. And they generally don't arrest downloaders, only those who expose files.

 

and, of course, there will always be invitation-only FTP sites and clubs.

 

still, I remember when you could do a simple web search for *.mp3 and find much of what you wanted.

 

it IS less accessible now and it is probably best for music....if the artists cannot make money, the quality of the music will go down....it is that simple.

[themadhatter114]

I would never buy another game if I didn't even have the option of reselling them. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to rent games at Blockbuster, you wouldn't be able to let friends borrow games, you couldn't sample games to ensure that you want to buy them, and you'd have no recourse once you paid for a game and found out that you didn't like it. The only option would be to swap systems with someone who wanted all your games.

 

And what in the hell do you do if your system overheats and you have to get a new one? Buy all your games again?

 

The only amount of copy protection that I will tolerate is restriction to one machine at a time, allowing users to transfer their CDs as long as they won't play the game anymore.

 

Why should a publisher or developer have the right to screw me if I don't like a game of theirs that I bought, or if I'm done with it? You don't often see people sell a game just after release if they liked it, and as others have pointed out, they're likely to pour that money into more games.

Edited June 1, 2006 by themadhatter114

[Craigboy2]

[url="http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035

Edited June 1, 2006 by Craigboy2

[LoneWolf16]

I paid good money for something and I no longer wish to own it, I am going to seel it regardless what EULA says. It's still in a playable situation what do they want, to have us throw it away? That would be a waste.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I agree with you on the whole, it wouldn't be a waste from their perspective. They've already sold that particular disk, so really, it becomes useless for them.

 

And your post made me think of this for some reason.

 

[Judge Hades]

DIE BABY SEAL! DIE!

 

Baby seals are evil.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Judge Hades

[LoneWolf16]

I so hope you get mauled by a horde or roving baby seals.

[Judge Hades]

Wouldn't be the first time.

[LoneWolf16]

Strangely, I don't have a problem believing you on that one. It'd explain a lot.

 

Anyways, yes, I'm most likely getting a 360 this time around. It actually has games I want and there's the whole $200 price difference without them trying to **** me over when it comes to the purchase and resale of their games.

Edited June 1, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[alanschu]

Can I see some sources?

 

If Sony isn't good enough of a source, I doubt you'd be convinced either way.

[metadigital]

I so hope you get mauled by a horde or roving baby seals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, there are hordes of starving baby seals now that the annual cull (for skins) has been under moratorium ...

[Walsingham]

I have to say that unless someone tells me they kill babies I'm still probably going to get a ps3 if I get any console.

[Craigboy2]

Can I see some sources?

 

If Sony isn't good enough of a source, I doubt you'd be convinced either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grrrr... Stupid! Stupid People! Show me where they said that. Was it on there official site or what? All the guy did was say "Quote". He didn't say where he got the info.

[alanschu]

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/sony-ref...umor-176461.php

 

The wonderful thing about Google (and most search engines actually), is you can search for phrases.

 

This was my search string:

 

"PR manager Jennie Kong spoke out against the recent rumor" (including quotes).

[Craigboy2]

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/sony-ref...umor-176461.php

 

The wonderful thing about Google (and most search engines actually), is you can search for phrases.

 

This was my search string:

 

"PR manager Jennie Kong spoke out against the recent rumor" (including quotes).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, but it would have been better if he/she had cited his/her sources.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Craigboy2