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.
Writing a novel is a complex and time consuming task that involves one person who doesn't get paid at all unless they're already published and can get an advance. Printing physical copies of a book by a previously unpublished author also includes a lot of risk on the part of the publisher. Which is why new writers often can't get book deals and turn to self publishing. But the result of that is that they don't get edited. And writers need good editors.
It's all about trying to make people think that copyright abuse is theft, when it isn't. The definition of theft (in law) is to permanently deprive the owner of the item in question. Making a copy of something is not 'theft', and never has been. The problem is the law has lagged behind the technology that allows us now to make perfect copies of items of value, which people don't like. So they write contract terms to prevent it. Which makes it a civil matter between you and the originator; not a criminal matter.
Well the reason they try to equate IP infringement with theft is to try to persuade people that it's wrong. Unfortunately, most people don't think IP infringement is wrong. And while making a copy for yourself is a civil matter, making that copy available to others (including via peer to peer sharing) is a criminal matter.
Err - that makes no sense. You contradict yourself, equating games with car production rather than music or books. Are you saying writing a game takes loads of effort but writing a book or a piece of music takes no effort at all?
This thread was about games though and they were compared to used cars :p
Books and music are rather different to software because they tend to be written by just one person, and with next to no effort able to be re-used each time. (you can't use some chapters from the previous book in the way you can use the same game engine etc)
No, if they contain security measures (such as uniquely coded encryption) then breaking that security is illegal. Copying the entire encrypted data file does not mean you have breached the security.
This is a direct copy (ironically) of the section in the US DMCA under which the prosecutions of Skylarov, Halderman and many others were made possible, and in short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
It sets the precedent that not only declares that media-copying software which circumvents copy-protection technologies is illegal, but also adds legal credence to the MPAA and RIAA's argument that consumers making copies of legally purchased DVDs and CDs is a crime.
What if a DVD or other media is protected by copy protection technology?
Media such as DVDs are often protected by anti-copying technology to guard against copyright piracy, and this is protected by law. Copyright owners will still be able to apply this protection. However, if copy protection is too restrictive, you may raise a complaint with the Secretary of State.
Well the reason they try to equate IP infringement with theft is to try to persuade people that it's wrong. Unfortunately, most people don't think IP infringement is wrong.
That raises something of a philosophical question though. At what point does it stop being wrong? When does copyright become unacceptable?
Is it when 50% of people don't believe in it? 80%? everyone who isn't a shareholder in a media group?
100 years from now we could well be returning to a model of patronage where all works are in the public domain. I don't think that's likely but it might be one logical conclusion of the increasingly digital nature of content and disregard for copyright along with the invention of "crowd funding" which makes patronage possible without the need for one super rich person to commision every work.
tbh i think youre deliberetly muddying the water, "most" people DONT copy a dvd / game before selling it on...
That's why I included music in that category, where I believe it's a lot more common. And in my opinion it's only when that happens that there's anything going wrong. But it's generally small time and very hard to control anyway, so a certain amount of common sense needs to be applied.
I see nothing wrong with people selling on their games, books, music etc.
That raises something of a philosophical question though. At what point does it stop being wrong? When does copyright become unacceptable?
At the point at which it ceases to fulfill its original intention of generating new works and having them enter the public domain in a reasonable time frame. I'd be happy with a blanket protection of 25 years from date of first publication (rather than creation) for copyright works. I think that's roughly the protection that music used to have.
My son has asked if he can buy a copy of Sonic Unleashed for the Xbox360, now the thing is that locally there are no new copies of the game as it was released some time ago (2009 I think). And I'm sure that there would be a limited amount made, so his only choice is to buy a second hand copy (yes I've seen new copies for sale on ebay but I how can I truly be sure).
Now here's the thing, it's on download (?14.99) but his xbox is my old one with no wireless and no room to store it anyway so by rights I have to say sorry son no can do...
It's bit weird really, before there were digital copies there were a limited number of physical copies of games made. So once they were all sold then the only way to buy one would be second hand.
It always amazes me the amount of second hand copies of game that have been out for a few days sometimes, which must harm sales of new copies of that game when a new batch are distributed?
Books and music are rather different to software because they tend to be written by just one person, and with next to no effort able to be re-used each time. (you can't use some chapters from the previous book in the way you can use the same game engine etc)
If you imagine, for even a second, that it takes just one person to get a book written, published and onto the shelves, you're massively deluding yourself.
My son has asked if he can buy a copy of Sonic Unleashed for the Xbox360, now the thing is that locally there are no new copies of the game as it was released some time ago (2009 I think). And I'm sure that there would be a limited amount made, so his only choice is to buy a second hand copy (yes I've seen new copies for sale on ebay but I how can I truly be sure).
Now here's the thing, it's on download (?14.99) but his xbox is my old one with no wireless and no room to store it anyway so by rights I have to say sorry son no can do...
That's why I included music in that category, where I believe it's a lot more common. And in my opinion it's only when that happens that there's anything going wrong. But it's generally small time and very hard to control anyway, so a certain amount of common sense needs to be applied.
I see nothing wrong with people selling on their games, books, music etc.
Totally agree. If, when you sell it on, you no longer have it, then I see nothing wrong. If you MP3 an album and keep those whilst selling the CD on, or install a game with some noCD hack then sell on the discs, then yes it's piracy.
Now granted I'll agree with many that copyright has been extended far too long, though whilst America is in the stranglehold of corporate lobbyists, we're unlikely to see it reduced.
If you imagine, for even a second, that it takes just one person to get a book written, published and onto the shelves, you're massively deluding yourself.
you don't.. I bought 2 games .. 1 from an amazon seller and another elsewhere.. same title, but it was a gift for someone. the one from the 3rd party on amazon was a fake.. looked the part but they didn't / couldn't get past the copy protection.. it was by xplosiv (now bust) who I rang up regarding it ,and confirmed it wasn't proper.
Indeed, it would appear the the UK copyright law element known as Fair Dealing is much more restricted than the US Fair Use concept.
I see no problem with buying a CD, converting to MP3 for strictly personal use and then storing the CD (Rather than selling it on), but that seems to be illegal. Likewise, if somebody had bought my games on tape and then converted them to a faster load system like microdrive or floppy disc I would have been happy for them to do that as long as they didn't also sell the original tape copy.
Format shifting is an issue. I've got the Mac version of Syndicate but I can't install it because I don't have a machine that can read the disks. I tried with a USB disk drive, but it's the old 800K format, and USB drives seem to only be able to read PC formatted disks.
I have felt for years now that the used games market has been what has kept gaming alive. It's diffinatively has helped consoles have a longer life these days as there is massive selection of PS2 games still for sale in my local CEX and I still see people browsing and buying them.
Out of all the games I own on 360, and there's a lot, I've bought about 40% new or in a sale....but, with the other 60%, about 25% has had added DLC that i'll usually buy at some point...DLC that I wouldn't be buying if I couldn't afford to buy the games for five or ten quid! So I reckon as much as a lot of people hate DLC, it's a great way to get cash from old product being resold!
Oh and when I was at working at Game, I was actively encouraged to try and flog punters pre-owned stuff, as all the profit goes to Game and nothing to the original publisher! I've always thought there should be some deal done with games companies so the shops and publishers get a 50/50 split of resales....that way everybody wins!
This argument seems like the games industry; like the music industry does, blaming other people for its own mistakes. Indeed the music industry about twenty years ago made a very similar argument.
Around the early to mid 90s CD sales in America took a nosedive and The Recording Industry Association of America blamed this on... second-hand CD sales. Their argument being that if you ignore the state of the packaging and if the data structure on the disc is intact, then a second-hand CD is exactly the same as a brand new one and should be regarded as such. However because the music industry doesn't see any of that money from its sale, second-hand sales should be regarded as illegal sales and therefore are the same as piracy.
The RIAA actually lobbied Congress trying to either make selling second-hand CDs illegal or levying punitive taxes on the sales (very much how the movie industry tried to get VCRs banned/taxed) and the proceeds of this tax paid to music industry.
You can see obvious similarity here, the only difference being that the DRM technologies to stymie the playing second-hand CDs didn't exist then.
What I'm saying here is basically that the whole 'second-hand is piracy' argument is an excuse for game execs trying to shift the blame elsewhere for their own mistakes.
Do we really need a poll to say "are trolls, idiots, and corporate shills wrong about something?"
No, but my reason for making this poll is that the "Used game sales = piracy" argument is becoming more and more common by gamers - well, I say "common", I really mean I'd never seen/heard any gamer say it up until two or three years back (and I visit a lot of gaming forums and have done for fifteen or so years) but now it's usual to see it mentioned by at least one person when the subject turns to piracy, or why games cost so much, or related discussions. I can' for the life of me see how used game sales are different from used car/house/books/etc sales (I mean in any way that supports the claim that games, but not books/houses/cars/etc should be illegal to be resold). And I've never seen anyone give a legitimate reason for it, so I was hoping if anyone on this forum did believe used game sales were wrong then they'd explain why. On WOS we squabble a lot, but in fact WOS discussions tend to be a lot more mature than many of the gaming sites I go on, so a reasoned response is more likely from WOS than many other sites.
Yes, I agree that selling a game (or book, DVD, music CD) etc is morally wrong if you keep a copy of it, but if you've not made (or downloaded) a copy, and sell the original, then I don't see a problem.
By the way, who is the person who voted "Yes, I think used games are different from used books/houses/etc, and shouldn't be sold", and why do you believe that (unless you just voted that way to be contrary)?
Yes, I agree that selling a game (or book, DVD, music CD) etc is morally wrong if you keep a copy of it...
Why do you think that's morally wrong?
What about giving away a game (or book, DVD, music CD) and keeping a copy of it? (In other words: is it the selling part that's morally wrong, or the keeping a copy part?)
What about giving away (or selling) a game (or book, DVD, music CD), and keeping a copy of it, but never using the copy? (In other words: is it the playing of the copy that's morally wrong, or the mere fact of having the copy?)
SkoolKit - disassemble a game today Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
By the way, who is the person who voted "Yes, I think used games are different from used books/houses/etc, and shouldn't be sold", and why do you believe that (unless you just voted that way to be contrary)?
I'm more curious if the person who checked the last option meant it or did it to be funny? ;)
If you sell a book/game/CD then you're obliged to do so in the same form in which you came by it, i.e. complete. Thus you no longer have any right to own any part of it.
Retaining a copy of something you once owned in the past is no different to obtaining a copy of something you never owned. The fact that matters is that you are holding a copy of something you have no legal right to.
What about giving away a game (or book, DVD, music CD) and keeping a copy of it? (In other words: is it the selling part that's morally wrong, or the keeping a copy part?)
If you sell it, then you forefit the right to use it. I know it's not that simple, as you could say that buying something, copying it, then selling the original but keeping the copy is in practise not too much different from borrowing someone else's copy (as in either case two people get to play/read/watch/whatever it even though only one person has paid money to the creators of the book/DVD/etc), but it is still piracy, which borrowing an original and watching/etc that, is not.
What about giving away (or selling) a game (or book, DVD, music CD), and keeping a copy of it, but never using the copy? (In other words: is it the playing of the copy that's morally wrong, or the mere fact of having the copy?)
Yeah, granted you could argue where the crime is, and even what the intent was, but if I did buy a game, then copied it, then sold the original but kept the copy, would you then say that I had the right to play the copy? I'd say that by selling the original, I lost the right to play the copy that I'd made.
If you sell it, then you forefit the right to use it. I know it's not that simple, as you could say that buying something, copying it, then selling the original but keeping the copy is in practise not too much different from borrowing someone else's copy (as in either case two people get to play/read/watch/whatever it even though only one person has paid money to the creators of the book/DVD/etc), but it is still piracy, which borrowing an original and watching/etc that, is not.
Yes, it's pretty clearly illegal (in most places), but I was curious why you think it's also immoral. If there is no significant practical difference between (a) playing a copy you've made of a game after selling or giving away the original, and (b) playing a copy borrowed from someone else, why do you think (a) is immoral while (b) isn't?
SkoolKit - disassemble a game today Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
Who said anything like that? They're both dodgy, but people do them to save a few quid because they can get away with it.
ewgf did, though he has switched from using the words 'morally wrong' (immoral) to using the word 'piracy' (illegal), so I might be misunderstanding him.
Are you saying that borrowing games/books/CDs is dodgy in the moral sense?
SkoolKit - disassemble a game today Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
Indeed, it would appear the the UK copyright law element known as Fair Dealing is much more restricted than the US Fair Use concept.
I see no problem with buying a CD, converting to MP3 for strictly personal use and then storing the CD (Rather than selling it on), but that seems to be illegal. Likewise, if somebody had bought my games on tape and then converted them to a faster load system like microdrive or floppy disc I would have been happy for them to do that as long as they didn't also sell the original tape copy.
Whilst it's still strictly illegal, the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) have stated that they won't sue anyone for legitimate format shifting and have actually suggested in the past that the right should be formally enshrined in UK law.
Comments
Writing a novel is a complex and time consuming task that involves one person who doesn't get paid at all unless they're already published and can get an advance. Printing physical copies of a book by a previously unpublished author also includes a lot of risk on the part of the publisher. Which is why new writers often can't get book deals and turn to self publishing. But the result of that is that they don't get edited. And writers need good editors.
Well the reason they try to equate IP infringement with theft is to try to persuade people that it's wrong. Unfortunately, most people don't think IP infringement is wrong. And while making a copy for yourself is a civil matter, making that copy available to others (including via peer to peer sharing) is a criminal matter.
This thread was about games though and they were compared to used cars :p
Books and music are rather different to software because they tend to be written by just one person, and with next to no effort able to be re-used each time. (you can't use some chapters from the previous book in the way you can use the same game engine etc)
From http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/world/pczone/backed.htm :
From http://www.dailytech.com/US+Court+Rules+Consumers+Never+Have+the+Right+to+Copy+DVD+Movies/article15969.htm :
From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140328/07561926719/uk-finally-legalizes-cd-dvd-ripping-youre-still-not-allowed-to-circumvent-drm.shtml :
That raises something of a philosophical question though. At what point does it stop being wrong? When does copyright become unacceptable?
Is it when 50% of people don't believe in it? 80%? everyone who isn't a shareholder in a media group?
100 years from now we could well be returning to a model of patronage where all works are in the public domain. I don't think that's likely but it might be one logical conclusion of the increasingly digital nature of content and disregard for copyright along with the invention of "crowd funding" which makes patronage possible without the need for one super rich person to commision every work.
That's why I included music in that category, where I believe it's a lot more common. And in my opinion it's only when that happens that there's anything going wrong. But it's generally small time and very hard to control anyway, so a certain amount of common sense needs to be applied.
I see nothing wrong with people selling on their games, books, music etc.
At the point at which it ceases to fulfill its original intention of generating new works and having them enter the public domain in a reasonable time frame. I'd be happy with a blanket protection of 25 years from date of first publication (rather than creation) for copyright works. I think that's roughly the protection that music used to have.
My son has asked if he can buy a copy of Sonic Unleashed for the Xbox360, now the thing is that locally there are no new copies of the game as it was released some time ago (2009 I think). And I'm sure that there would be a limited amount made, so his only choice is to buy a second hand copy (yes I've seen new copies for sale on ebay but I how can I truly be sure).
Now here's the thing, it's on download (?14.99) but his xbox is my old one with no wireless and no room to store it anyway so by rights I have to say sorry son no can do...
It's bit weird really, before there were digital copies there were a limited number of physical copies of games made. So once they were all sold then the only way to buy one would be second hand.
It always amazes me the amount of second hand copies of game that have been out for a few days sometimes, which must harm sales of new copies of that game when a new batch are distributed?
Amazon? :D
Totally agree. If, when you sell it on, you no longer have it, then I see nothing wrong. If you MP3 an album and keep those whilst selling the CD on, or install a game with some noCD hack then sell on the discs, then yes it's piracy.
Now granted I'll agree with many that copyright has been extended far too long, though whilst America is in the stranglehold of corporate lobbyists, we're unlikely to see it reduced.
git :lol:
But again how can I truly know it is a new copy?
I don't, and I didn't say that either.
The dent in your wallet. :grin:
you don't.. I bought 2 games .. 1 from an amazon seller and another elsewhere.. same title, but it was a gift for someone. the one from the 3rd party on amazon was a fake.. looked the part but they didn't / couldn't get past the copy protection.. it was by xplosiv (now bust) who I rang up regarding it ,and confirmed it wasn't proper.
I see no problem with buying a CD, converting to MP3 for strictly personal use and then storing the CD (Rather than selling it on), but that seems to be illegal. Likewise, if somebody had bought my games on tape and then converted them to a faster load system like microdrive or floppy disc I would have been happy for them to do that as long as they didn't also sell the original tape copy.
and well lets face it many a cpc and speccy owner bought a multiface solely for porting to disc... well single loaders , obviously.
Oh and when I was at working at Game, I was actively encouraged to try and flog punters pre-owned stuff, as all the profit goes to Game and nothing to the original publisher! I've always thought there should be some deal done with games companies so the shops and publishers get a 50/50 split of resales....that way everybody wins!
Around the early to mid 90s CD sales in America took a nosedive and The Recording Industry Association of America blamed this on... second-hand CD sales. Their argument being that if you ignore the state of the packaging and if the data structure on the disc is intact, then a second-hand CD is exactly the same as a brand new one and should be regarded as such. However because the music industry doesn't see any of that money from its sale, second-hand sales should be regarded as illegal sales and therefore are the same as piracy.
The RIAA actually lobbied Congress trying to either make selling second-hand CDs illegal or levying punitive taxes on the sales (very much how the movie industry tried to get VCRs banned/taxed) and the proceeds of this tax paid to music industry.
You can see obvious similarity here, the only difference being that the DRM technologies to stymie the playing second-hand CDs didn't exist then.
What I'm saying here is basically that the whole 'second-hand is piracy' argument is an excuse for game execs trying to shift the blame elsewhere for their own mistakes.
No, but my reason for making this poll is that the "Used game sales = piracy" argument is becoming more and more common by gamers - well, I say "common", I really mean I'd never seen/heard any gamer say it up until two or three years back (and I visit a lot of gaming forums and have done for fifteen or so years) but now it's usual to see it mentioned by at least one person when the subject turns to piracy, or why games cost so much, or related discussions. I can' for the life of me see how used game sales are different from used car/house/books/etc sales (I mean in any way that supports the claim that games, but not books/houses/cars/etc should be illegal to be resold). And I've never seen anyone give a legitimate reason for it, so I was hoping if anyone on this forum did believe used game sales were wrong then they'd explain why. On WOS we squabble a lot, but in fact WOS discussions tend to be a lot more mature than many of the gaming sites I go on, so a reasoned response is more likely from WOS than many other sites.
Yes, I agree that selling a game (or book, DVD, music CD) etc is morally wrong if you keep a copy of it, but if you've not made (or downloaded) a copy, and sell the original, then I don't see a problem.
By the way, who is the person who voted "Yes, I think used games are different from used books/houses/etc, and shouldn't be sold", and why do you believe that (unless you just voted that way to be contrary)?
What about giving away a game (or book, DVD, music CD) and keeping a copy of it? (In other words: is it the selling part that's morally wrong, or the keeping a copy part?)
What about giving away (or selling) a game (or book, DVD, music CD), and keeping a copy of it, but never using the copy? (In other words: is it the playing of the copy that's morally wrong, or the mere fact of having the copy?)
Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
I'm more curious if the person who checked the last option meant it or did it to be funny? ;)
Retaining a copy of something you once owned in the past is no different to obtaining a copy of something you never owned. The fact that matters is that you are holding a copy of something you have no legal right to.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
If you sell it, then you forefit the right to use it. I know it's not that simple, as you could say that buying something, copying it, then selling the original but keeping the copy is in practise not too much different from borrowing someone else's copy (as in either case two people get to play/read/watch/whatever it even though only one person has paid money to the creators of the book/DVD/etc), but it is still piracy, which borrowing an original and watching/etc that, is not.
Yeah, granted you could argue where the crime is, and even what the intent was, but if I did buy a game, then copied it, then sold the original but kept the copy, would you then say that I had the right to play the copy? I'd say that by selling the original, I lost the right to play the copy that I'd made.
Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Are you saying that borrowing games/books/CDs is dodgy in the moral sense?
Pyskool - a remake of Skool Daze and Back to Skool
Whilst it's still strictly illegal, the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) have stated that they won't sue anyone for legitimate format shifting and have actually suggested in the past that the right should be formally enshrined in UK law.