He doesn't say it's illegal, he says that it's a matter of the license and he doesn't take sides on whether or not it hurts developers. In other words, he's impartial.
Does the pre-owned and used market kill the gaming industry?
- Thread starter BlazeV
- Start date
- Views 10,730
- Replies 131
If books are a valid comparison, why not a lawnmower? I said "it's not going over very well" as in "people don't like to think that way", which is why I switched to books, where it's almost unavoidable to note the huge similarities.
I think that games are an art form... and just like there's 583,405 girls on DA making shit notebook sketches of flat-faced "anime" characters, there's tons of companies making shovelware where the advertisement doesn't even mention what genre of game it is because it sucks so bad. Then on the other hand, just like there's printed works that bring people to tears, many a teen cried when Aeris died.
Back on topic... of course the idea of expecting royalties to be paid every time an object changes hand is flawed. That's simply not feasible, which is why it's constantly ignored. But, if it is a right, then doesn't that mean selling a used book is ripping off the author?
I think these ideas are very dangerous. This is getting into the realm of controlling who is allowed to know what sort of information.
Their concern is with real commerce. Ideas that simply are not feasible don't fit into it, and so are ignored. We, as a society, choose to agree on other methods that can be done, then. Public/commercial deals can be feasibly controlled. Private deals rarely can without backlash (unless you get into socially-"bad" things like drugs and sex).
Not according to (even the heavily-modifed to be pro-publisher at this time)copyright law. Darn those fair use and first sale doctrines! Now, if someone were able to play a game on their Xbox without the original disc... D'oh, mod chips! Yeah, they're indirectly helping people break the law. Just like VCR's, there's a lot that don't, though. You see people recording shows and not selling them but rather watching them at a later time. The copies are so awful compared to legitimate ones, that people wouldn't want to buy them, anyways! The real problem is when they go digital stuff like a HDD.
Actually, the concepts of data and storage are the same but with different technology. Just ask the Catholics about archiving huge amounts of and old information. I think there's a 'few' famous museums and libraries in Vatican City. They practically invented copyright since you had to be authorized to even own many texts long before modern times. Weakening of those protections lead to the industrial revolution among other things. Rather that is good or bad for our species in the long run has yet to be seen, heh.
All laws of this sort are artificial, though. And no, that's not trolling. It's the whole point of not letting a King decide the laws with no way to say no. It takes a society to create, enforce, and respect a given law. There are however laws that a reasonable person would say are 'natural' in the sense that rampant murder isn't something most people like to have happen to them and their families. The closer to 'natural' a law is, the easier it is to gain respect. This is based highly on intuition and instinct as well as cold, hard logic. Logic and reason are 2 different things - you can use logic to sidestep reason and instinct to ignore both logic and reason.
Some quotes from that first Wikipedia article you mention:
"The first PLR program was initiated in Denmark in 1941. However, it was not properly implemented until 1946 due to World War II.[2] The idea spread slowly from country to country and many nations' PLR programs are quite recent developments."
"For a nation like Canada or Australia the majority of funds would be going to authors outside the country, much of it to the United States, which is unpalatable to those nations."
The USA doesn't implement this except in 'little Europe'. The 'PLR' would be misleadingly named if enacted here. The public in the USA already has a lending right. If this was enacted, it would restrict that after the law to protect the publishers. In countries where you don't inherently have a lending
From an actual USA law school site instead of a stub article on a layman site, heh: http://cyber.law.har...and_Limitations
"Given the highly incomplete coverage of rental and public lending rights in the supranational agreements, it is not surprising that many countries currently do not recognize them. Of particular importance to libraries, currently only 29 countries have established public lending rights systems. Most of those countries are in Europe. The United States does not have one, nor does any country in Latin America, Africa, or Asia. " This article doesn't mention it, but PLR fees are a joke for most authors as it is.
California does not a nation make - it really is like 'little Europe' with these types of laws that are similar to what you see in Europe. It's been about 4 decades and the rest of the nation hasn't followed along. Again, with Wikipedia, you need to read the references. That's less than $10K/year for all authors who collected. Ouch! Even with low enforcement, that's pretty sad. The overhead alone must take most of it. ;(Having a license for software cover the resell of the hardware that you owned before agreeing is kind of funny. It's like having our cake and eating it too (for both the purchaser of the disc and the licensor of the software). The publisher wants to prevent users from keeping the installation and reselling the disc but since they sold them a physical device that holds the software... They're effectively wanting a license upon opening a book. There aren't a whole lot of books with tape seals that require you to agree not to sell them or even let others see the insides of them. Probably because they would be laughed out of court! The fact that there's an inconsistancy with software is due to the perception that any form of data is special just because of the physical format that it comes in. Books have to be interpreted as much as a computer program. It's not like either the brain or a CPU are passive devices. Either the license is tied to the disc, or the publisher just commited a type of fraud by selling a worthless disc and then being generous and giving you a license to prevent lawsuits/prosecution. There's a reason that most people have been suggesting that the physical should cost more but come with unlimited license transfers. The same reasoning would apply to a $5 single-account (Steam) version compared to a $15-$20 transferible 'GOTY' version of a game. But consumers would probably pay $20 for the $5 version and think they got the $20 'play anywhere, resell if you get bored' version and then get a big surprise.
Says who? The author? The publisher? Certainly not tradition or the common practices in other (older) lines of work. You don't expect to get paid again for services or material goods that you keep benefiting from them or decide to give the benefits to a third party. When selling a car, you don't pay the mechanic another fee because they fixed the tail lights 2 years ago. I'm sure that mining companies would love to get a kickback on every time someone recycled copper - not to mention the people that recycled it before! Both of this jobs take skill the same as writing does so there is the basics of the moral situation. Limiting the access at a given time is what a book does. Thus, the concept of a number of copies being the determining factor on how much an author is owed. What's funny is that from a certain point of view, copying the software from the CD to computer's RAM and HDD are themselves a violation of copyright if they allow the original disc to still be readible by another computer. This ignores the fact that the disc is a useless form of the software without a copy in RAM and thus fair use provisions, though.
"chasing down every resale is impossible" Not really, if you force everyone to only trade through 'official' channels if they want to be legal. Namely, eBooks since you can simply deny them the right to transfer it to another device rather the other laws allow it or not simply because of the standard interpretation of the DMCA that ignores it's own compatibility provision or first sale provisions of the other laws. Rather this is worth the effort is another matter - people probably don't want to pay $20 (same price as hard cover) for leaseware. Publishers release multiple formats for this very reason.
Meh, the lawnmower analogy when applied to patents would be similar if the company wanted to get paid for the patent license every time you road or when you sold it. You can only do that with the kinds of models that 'wetvac' companies and Net10 and the like use. In most states, once you've sold it, it STAYS SOLD unless the sale itself was illegal. Say, stolen goods, or a patent violation like Kodak/Polaroid.
http://www.techdirt....432910745.shtml HAHAHA, I knew it. It took me a while but someone IS trying to get a claim on future sales of a physical good!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/22541318119/how-much-todays-copyright-mess-is-due-to-bad-definitions-word-copy.shtml
Interesting... We might be better off with a copyright topic, LOL.
http://www.techdirt....432910745.shtml HAHAHA, I knew it. It took me a while but someone IS trying to get a claim on future sales of a physical good!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/22541318119/how-much-todays-copyright-mess-is-due-to-bad-definitions-word-copy.shtml
Interesting... We might be better off with a copyright topic, LOL.
Because you can't download a lawnmower.
Buying, actually, and it depends on what you're buying it for (we're talking about morals here). If you haven't read it before and you're buying it to get the text, then yeah, kind of. If you've read it before and you're buying it just to have on your shelf then no. If you're buying it to, say, carve sculptures, then not at all. But that's the difference between the novel itself and the paper it's printed on.
It would be nice to have a "donate" button to donate a dollar to the author if you liked the book but didn't come across it via a means that pays royalties. And in an ideal world there would also be a "punch in the face" button for books like Twilight. One can but dream.
Come now. That's slippery slope fallacy and you know it. There's a difference between saying an author has a moral right to be compensated for their work, and 1984.
That's not really contradicting what I'm saying. The law doesn't stop at the logical extent of the issue it regulates, it stops at a point where it's feasibly enforceable. That also means you can't apply the boundaries of the law when examining the logical implications of another issue.
And that's why software is licenced, not sold, and the first sale doctrine doesn't apply.
The "public lending right" refers to a right of the author, not the public. If that law didn't exist people would still have the right to lend books. The law just says/acknowledges that compensating the author in a small way is the decent thing to do.
But it's legal. Also, you're not buying the hardware, you're buying the software.
Nope. In fact it is well within their right to slap a licencing agreement on the book saying "this book is not sold, it is on extended lease." Poof, reselling forbidden.
Morals? Common decency?
Other, older, completely different, entirely unrelated...
My point exactly.
Meh, might as well close this one. I highly doubt anything will change. TL;DR version is Veho thinks software should be granted profit on all transactions and I don't while Rydian is saying that paying again for software after every sale is like charging a patent license fee every time you resell a lawnmower which Veho is saying is different than copyright license fees. I think we pretty much derailed, blew up, crushed, recycled, rebuilt, and resold the topic train.
I have no idea what you mean here.
You're presenting the idea that it's wrong to deal with a used book in order to gain the information inside it.
I'm illustrating the difference between a novel and a lawnmower.
Only in the sense that it's wrong to pirate a game in order to gain the information inside it (as you put it).
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,898
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Watching Hibarigasaki's starry sky
- XP
- 309
- Country
One is paying for something old and the original company doesn't profit but the shop selling it does the other is finding and downloading the game for free and the original company doesn't profit.
To get back on topic. The problem with the gaming industry is that its hurting itself.
They should do like every other goods and make it less durable. Maybe put a DRM that will autodestroy the game after a certain time.
Really game makers should just review their whole business models. What was profitable yesterday will not be tomorrow. Used market, digital distribution and DRM management are just part of the equation. The licences you talk about do not exist in china.
They should do like every other goods and make it less durable. Maybe put a DRM that will autodestroy the game after a certain time.
Really game makers should just review their whole business models. What was profitable yesterday will not be tomorrow. Used market, digital distribution and DRM management are just part of the equation. The licences you talk about do not exist in china.
Botlegging involves the creation of additional copies, used sales don't.
There are differences here Veho, you can;'t pretend they don't exist.
There are differences here Veho, you can;'t pretend they don't exist.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
There is an actual trailer with footage too. lol. Going to watch it tonight. Grabbed it from... a place. -
-
@
SylverReZ:
@Psionic Roshambo, JonTron's back yet again until he disappears into the void for another 6 or so months.+1 -
-
-
