Took me a while to get to writing this post, because long, argumented posts are not my thing. I prefer short, trolling ones
But you're the one saying that selling or giving away a used game is tantamount to piracy? That's not what happens with used games though. If I sell a used game to somebody, the same sort of transfer happens when a place like Gamestop sold the original to me.
When selling a new game, Gamestop hasn't installed or played the game and therefore isn't bound by the licencing agreement (but more importantly, they aren't playing the game, they are a method of distribution, not the end user). When buying and reselling used games, they're just being dicks. They're making a (massive) profit off of games without giving a cent to the authors. It's bootlegging with a slightly more limited supply.
I used the lawnmower comparison to show that applying the same sort of ideas/restrictions to other products would be silly, but it seems that's not going over very well
Because the comparison breaks down very fast.
so let's say books are another example. Books are much easier to think of in comparison to what sold games really are. A good, a physical copy transferred to you, that contains IP and copywritten stuff all throughout it. As somebody mentioned before, people are buying a physical thing, but they're not buying it for the paper, they're buying it for the words. The fact that it's a physical container and representation of ideas means to either teach or entertain, so people buy the physical thing in order to get education/entertainment out of it.
But books also contain all the necessary hardware to display the IP, making them more akin to those LCD games
But yes, that's the valid comparison. The physical book is a medium to hold and distribute the contents. And like you said yourself, people aren't buying it for the paper, they are buying it for the text. The physical object is just storage. You're not buying it for the paper, you're buying it for the idea. You're paying for access to the idea. The paper is a way of giving you access to the idea, but the paper is not the idea, and the idea is not the paper. So we have the distinction between the storage and the content down.
What makes the idea an integral (and resellable) part of the storage in books is the first sale doctrine, which, ignoring completely the distinction of data and storage, says owning the paper gives ownership of the text as well, and the author can go soak his head. It's not
logically inherent, it's legally defined that way.
But I don't think that selling a book you've already read is morally wrong. Yard sales? Used book stores? Hell, libraries might even count, I don't think they need to get permission from every single copyright holder involved in every single book they have on-hand.
It's not like the copyright holder has any say in the matter one way or another.
There is a thing called a
public lending right, that acknowledges the author's right to receive royalties for every person that reads his book. The
droit de suite grants the artist a fee for every resale of his work.
A similar act exists in the US. It recognizes the author's right to receive royalties for every resale of his work under certain conditions (and while the whole "games are(n't) art" thing is debatable, a parallel can be drawn here between art galleries and Gamestop). I admit I, too, am not inclined to grant a sculptor the resale fee, but it often pops up in used books discussions, and it's a valid view on the morality of the transaction.
Morally, the author deserves compensation for every person that gains access to his work (i.e. the text, in case of books), because that's what's being sold here. The author might (and probably will) choose to fortfeit that right in exchange for exposure (i.e. used book sales and libraries), keeping his works in circulation, making them available to a wider audience (and also chasing down every resale is impossible and more trouble than it's worth). Would a business model where you force everyone to pay you royalties for taking a peek at your work? Hell no, it would fail and fail hard. With stuff that is pure creative output, you bombard people with your work until some of them decide to give you money. But does that mean people have an inherent "right" to someone's work? No.
This is NOT my idea, the fact that an entire section of the US patent and trademark office is dedicated to recording the differences should show that, and also show how important of a concept it is.
It doesn't make the logic any less flawed. But then again their job isn't to use logic, it's to draw arbitrary lines and enforce them. The "software on a CD is different from downloaded software" distinction stems from the first sale doctrine, not the other way around, and you can't convince me anyone in the decision process gave a rat's ass about "concepts".
That's where the software licence comes in. It is legal and legally binding, and while rulings in various cases vary, they all say that "if it looks like a sale, it's a sale,
if it looks like a licence it's a licence", and that if you at any point agree to the licence (by installing the software, if you were warned beforehand, or clicking on "I Accept" anywhere in the purchase or installation process) you are bound by it, including where it says "no resale", because that part of the agreement is legal.
And since software is licenced and not sold, neither the goods VS service issue nor the first sale doctrine apply, despite the tangible physical bits.
But on the other hand, I haven't been just discussing law. It's well-known that the big companies often hold the law in their hand unfairly, I'm discussing morals and whether it actually hurts them (which is the actual topic, not legality).
Legally, software isn't sold, it's licenced. Morally, it is wrong to acquire access to software without paying the author a dime.
Does it actually hurt them? Too many arguments to both sides, with no easy way to check any of the theories. I'm going to say "maybe".
Now you're just being facetious.
