Do you equate used game sales with piracy
I was just reading a piracy thread on Gamefaqs.com (a great site, except for the trolls and teenage fanboys) and someone made the usual remark that used game sales (as in the player buying a pre-owned game, whether from a used-games shop like Cex, or from ebay, from a friend, or whatever) are immoral, and are the same as piracy, since in both cases the game's developers get no money from the sale.
Whenever someone says (words to the effect of) "Used game sales are as morally wrong as piracy", someone inevitably replies with "So presumably you've never bought a used car/book/house/whatever?, to which the original poster always replies (in every case I can remember reading) "That's different, games are different and shouldn't be treated like houses or books", yet never post a valid reason why used games are different from used books or houses etc.
To me, selling a used game is no different from selling a used anything, and I can't see why anyone would think differently (except for the people in the gaming industry, who's bias might lead them to speak out against used game sales), so if anyone does think this, then why?
Whenever someone says (words to the effect of) "Used game sales are as morally wrong as piracy", someone inevitably replies with "So presumably you've never bought a used car/book/house/whatever?, to which the original poster always replies (in every case I can remember reading) "That's different, games are different and shouldn't be treated like houses or books", yet never post a valid reason why used games are different from used books or houses etc.
To me, selling a used game is no different from selling a used anything, and I can't see why anyone would think differently (except for the people in the gaming industry, who's bias might lead them to speak out against used game sales), so if anyone does think this, then why?
Post edited by ewgf on
Comments
No money goes back to the software company every time the car is sold.
As time goes on car software will get more sophisticated and control more of the car.
Just a thought...
I'm both a pirate and a second hand buyer/seller so I'm doubly dammed.
1. House/Car. These are in the category of things that are in continuous use during the time that you own them. If you sell them then you no longer have the use of them.
2. Books. These are only used intermittently. For many people, you read it and then no longer require it so you might sell it or give it away. Many books have a bit on the inside cover saying you're not allowed to sell it or lend it, but that has usually been ignored. However, it's harder to ignore if you buy a book for an eReader and it has DRM software.
3. Software (including music). Selling software is fine in my opinion as long as you haven't retained a digital copy for yourself. If you have then you are breaking the copyright because you do not have the right to copy the item. It is generally accepted that you are allowed to make copies for your own use, so, for example, you may have mp3 copies of music you have bought on CD so that you can play the music more conveniently, but if you sell the original medium of that music (the CD), you should, legally, delete all your mp3 copies of it.
So, having shops and sites where you can buy secondhand software isn't the same as piracy, but it could encourage some people to break the law.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
from games, to clothes, to films, to music, to books, to like you said cars
it shows how greedy the gaming industry is when they perpetuate the myth that its hurting them, so a builder builds a house and gets money on it, from then on every time its sold on they dont get money? just the seller and the other agencies involved but not the original builder / developer?
its certainly gonna help them in their battle to stop piracy (not) lol
there might be a very small minority who might but even then you still cant use that as an arguement against the whole secondhand market that just doesnt wash
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I can understand the software houses frustration, but equally I don't see the problem with myself selling a game on that I've paid good money for and got fair value out of playing it. Is it really any different to how we used to buy our albums from second-hand record shops in our youth?
What I do object to is the likes of Game only offering a couple of quid off for a used item - whether it's a week old or not, I don't care, it should be significantly less than the RRP. I presume this is where the software houses frustration comes in as it's just enough to tempt someone over buying a brand new copy - personally I only buy second hand when it's at least half of the original RRP.
Then there's Game trying to actively sell you second-hand copies over a new one. Last week, I went to buy the New Metal Gear Solid prologue for PS4. Took the box to the till and the girl behind said they didn't have any new new copies left and would I mind taking a second hand one. The problem was I could see a shrink-wrapped copy directly behind her! So I asked why I couldn't have that one and was fed some bull**** that it was an empty box. I just walked out and got it from Asda instead.
same goes with publishers, esp. the ones who in the past have ripped off the talent.. if they aren't paying the talent , then I have no sympathy for their stuff getting ripped off. 1 spectrum and 1 c64 company always come to mind :)
a lot of folk didn't grow up with the model we did regarding no licensing , like we did.
I use a lot of music software, and the licensing on it is a minefield...
* some allow transfer of your license
* some use dongles to stop copying
* some allow transfer license BUT you have to pay a fee.. the fee is as much as new s/ware
* some allow you to install it on 2 machines, but update a lot to twart iffy versions.
* 1 doesn't allow ANY transfer, but doesn't have anything to stop it.
* 1 works on a trust system and isn't expensive
and the EULA's on them are crazy long.
But that doesn't mean the publishers should get to distort the law in their favour.
Maybe if they published some decent, original games that people wanted to keep, there wouldn't be over-priced trade-ins on their shelves within days of a major release.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I do remember that current European law does consider selling used games as being legal, using very well thought out reasons.
People from other countries might be bragging about them having no rights of that, but I personally think having fewer consumer rights is not something I'd brag about. :)
Games List 2016 - Games List 2015 - Games List 2014
Well there is an argument that artists ought to get a cut of the price artworks make when they are sold on given that, with few exceptions, most of the money made out of art is made by the dealers, not the artists.
As a writer I rely on IP law for my living. I support royalties payments, because creative works cannot be churned out at the same rate as functional objects. However, I support the right of someone who has purchased a copyright work to sell it on, providing they don't violate the moral rights of the author.
It gets complicated because a large amount of the creative stuff we consume now is intangible. I can see why streaming is all the rage with content providers ... because the consumer never actually has their own copy.
If anything, it is books where that argument can be applied most convincingly, particularly reference books where you can learn from them and then pass them on, whilst still retaining that knowledge. You can't really enjoy a painting after you've sold it to someone else. And books have the longest history in law of being allowed to be re-sold, whilst - as you say - at least protecting the rights of the author for the content not to be altered. I guess that argument was settled a long time ago.
Games can be different though, particularly if something has a strong on-line component. There the provider of that service is perfectly free to choose their own payment mechanism - free-play, subscription, or one-off up-front payment. If it's the latter, then (as some have done) they provide a one-off code with the game that the second-hand buyer can't use. And they get crucified for it. (Sad, but not as sad as finding out no-one's actually playing it on-line once you do get in).
Though you've got to wonder who's in control. It's really a fight between the publishers and the retailers. The consumer doesn't seem to benefit one jot.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
No, that's illegal.
Yet another example that copyright law is broken.
You are not. You are supposed to be spending your money on new console titles instead.
It's not the preservation effort that's illegal. It's distributing the results of the preservation effort. The legal thing to do is to not publish until the copyright has lapsed. And lobby for much shorter terms of copyright for videogames, which frankly should have about the same level of protection that music recordings used to have.
And secondly, all that's needed for preservation is that right to make a copy of something you already own on alternate media. The emulator to replay it is not an essential part of the preservation. That's the point of law that needs to be addressed - personal backups and media-shifting.
Emulators fall foul of the law on their own operation (duplicating system designs and firmware) - which has nothing to do with preservation of the media, only its presentation.
Of course, we've all been pirates at some point anyway. How much loss it actually caused anyone is another matter...
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
It depends. If the original software includes any kind of copy protection (Speedlock, DRM, whatever) then even personal backup copies are illegal.
It's not illegal per se, but it's illegal under too many circumstances. For instance, software frequently has some kind of copy protection, and copying copy-protected software is considered illegal even for backup purposes.
The problem is, copyright duration never stops increasing. It seems software copyright duration is now 50 years in UK, 95 years in US.
Unfortunately the lobby to increase copyright durations in all areas has a lot more time and money than we do...
Piracy originally meant the stealing of very expensive ships / cargo / real objects by mass murder. The word was presumably adopted to try and add weight to a feeble notion that copying information is somehow a bad thing.
See, this is why people need to understand that "the free market" and "capitalism" are not the same thing. Re-selling second-hand media is the free market, demanding that sales are banned so that the developers can make more money is capitalism.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
The physical books/cd/downloads can be churned out at far greater rates than physical objects and for a fraction of the cost though. This is why there's vastly more money in books and music than in manufacturing kettles for example. If the artists aren't making millions it's because some greedy megacorp is keeping all the profit, not because some people don't buy a copy.
Writing a video game and designing a new automobile are both complex and time consuming tasks that involve large teams of salaried engineers doing lots of work for a company that risks no-one will buy the product.
What you don't hear is companies complaining that second hand car sales are like stealing cars and put car designers out of a job, so they (the company) should get paid when the car changes hands.
Books, music, and games are all distributed as duplicates in media which is dirt cheap to reproduce; the value is all in the original creation of the work.
With a physical product like a car, sure there's a load of investment in its design, but there are also high costs in the production of each unit, so it has a bigger chunk of material value.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Steady on. The threat of torture, yes. Actual torture often ending in murder for those who resisted, yes. Mass murder was more the style of the officially government sanctioned trading companies. But pirates also invented democracy and worker's compensation. Pirate captains were elected.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -