Taking things here from this thread: the question is if a consumer is morally (not legally) obligated to reimburse a manufacturer for goods. In other words if all secondary markets are inherently immoral. Or even more simply, is buying used goods wrong?
It is an argument that many people are making and that I vehemently disagree with. I strongly believe that the obligation to the manufacturer ends once they have been paid for their product and once that has occurred the manufacturer has no business in saying what the customer does or what happens to that product afterward. To go otherwise would be contrary to the property rights that underlie most of our legal system.
So what do you think? Is it morally wrong to deal in used goods?
Your subject title and OP don’t clearly state that you’re talking about intellectual property or copyrighted items. I see that the thread you reference is about video games but many people won’t click on your link to understand the context of your question. Maybe ask a moderator to re-title your thread?
Discussing the morals of reselling used cars is different from reselling computer software.
To answer your question, some software vendors specifically sell the license only the original purchaser. It’s up to them as to how they enforce it (ie activation key usable only once, or tech support only provided to original buyer, etc). Some vendors allow license transfers (Microsoft, Adobe, etc) which would facilitate reselling their software on used market. I wouldn’t know the specifics of the video games’ license agreement.
Now, obviously a lot of people don’t re-sell software; they copy software. But suppose I’ve got an old computer I have no further use for (because I’ve got a newer shinier one, or because I’ve had a radical religious conversion and decided to move to a mountaintop and become a hermit with no possessions). If I’m not trying to keep a copy of the software (operating system, applications, games, etc.), why can’t I deliver the CDs and product codes and the software still installed on the hard drive, along with the assorted hardware (CPU, RAM, keyboard) that makes up “my computer” when I sell the whole thing to someone else?
And it’s long-established that it’s OK to sell books and records–you can’t photocopy a book and start running off copies, but if you’ve read it and don’t think you’ll want to read it again, it’s perfectly OK to put it out for the yard sale or take it down to the used bookstore.
I suppose because to sell another new car, the manufacturer has to make one more car, but to make a new copy of some software is far more trivial. When you pay for the car you partly pay for all the work and materials that went into making that particular car, but software doesn’t have that kind of overhead.
Personally, I’m with you–what you’re buying isn’t so much the software as the right to use it. I don’t see what would be wrong with selling that right to someone else as long as you don’t keep a copy for yourself.
We are approaching it from 2 different angles. You’re bringing up the philosophical aspects regardless of software vendor’s revenue intent (model).
My approach to answer Just Some Guy was about clarification of the particular license agreement and working from that. I admit that discussing it from that angle is not as satisfying philosophically.
Here’s an example software company with End User License Agreement that does not allow reselling. It explicitly states “You may not transfer this license to a third party.”Home | Total Training
Many (most?) software vendors are not that restrictive. Microsoft and Adobe don’t do that.
If the video game license is similar to TotalTraining’s, it’s an open-&-shut case for Just Some Guy. However, that answer is no fun for debate purposes, so maybe the philosophical probing is what he’s after: tear-up-all-the-software-licenses-and-let’s-change-the-world type of discussion.
Philosophically speaking, I believe that book publishers and record companies would have pushed for original-buyer-or-single-use if they had the technology to limit the secondary market. (It’s difficult to put digital encryption keys on paper and vinyl.)
I don’t know that that’s a philosophical thing at all. Pretty much any capitalistic seller of goods would probably be quite happy if they could somehow forbid potential customers from buying used versions of their product instead of shiny new ones. While they’re at it, if they could just get rid of all competing vendors, then they could really make money. Philosophically, though, we probably shouldn’t let them get away with that.
You could make a case, I guess, that the software thing is purely a contractual matter. If I buy a new Honda and I have an arrangement with Honda Motor Company whereby I agree I won’t sell it to someone else, tough luck for me. Of course most people who have arrangements like that haven’t bought their cars, they’ve leased them. If I buy something, it’s generally with the expectation that when I’m done using it I can sell it or give it away or have it crushed into one of those cubes to make a really radical coffee table.
I guess maybe some software companies are saying that I didn’t actually buy some of the software on my computer; I’m just leasing it.
No. Actually, if I had to pick something as immoral, it would be not dealing in used goods because it’s wasteful.
For instance, the French government implemented a bonus for people who buy a new car and have the old one destroyed. I understand why they would do that, but I’ve still qualms with this concept.
And looking at that thread from The Game Room that started this one off, people aren’t talking about non-transferable EULA’s there. Some people are in fact arguing that there’s a moral difference between selling someone software (that is, completely transferring it to another person, not keeping a copy for yourself and running off another copy for someone else) on the one hand, and selling a car (that is, completely transferring it to another person, without running it through your handy Quantum Matter Duplicator first) on the other hand.
In the non-intellectual-property world, capitalist manufacturers can get creative with incentives to “discourage” sales in the used marketplace. For example, I have a guitar amp with a “lifetime warranty” but the catch is that it’s only valid for the original buyer. If I resell it on ebay, the new buyer doesn’t get the warranty. Sort of like a low-tech way of enforcing a one-time-use activation-key. Another example is buying some exercise equipment that comes with 1 month free access to fitness consultant – but only available to the original new purchaser.
I agree that the “expectation” on the part of consumers is reasonable and intuitive. The software companies have been saying all along that in reality, you’re only “renting” the software but “buying” only the cardboard box and media it comes on. Unfortunately, the software vendors have created a complex legal construction that is incomprehensible to the real-life experiences of everyday people that deal with food, clothes, cars, etc.
I didn’t scroll down far enough to see the question from Max the Immortal. (I just glanced at the first 2 messages of that thread and noticed it was video games and exited since I’m not a gamer.)
Sorry for jumping the gun then.
To Just Some Guy, I don’t think you have to worry about morals when selling video games if the EULA doesn’t restrict it.
Looking at the other thread, though, I’m not sure how relevant this really is. No one is actually arguing by quoting specific paragraphs from the EULA for the whatever it is; they’re just arguing that software is somehow, as a matter of principle, different from other stuff.
It’s one thing if a manufacturer says clearly and up front (and before they actually get your money), “You can buy/lease/whatever our product for $XX.XX! You may not re-sell it to anyone else thereafter; by purchasing it, you agree to this and other terms and conditions. Offer void where prohibited and prohibited where void. Software sold by weight, not volume. Do not taunt the software or it will turn on humanity when it, inevitably, increases in complexity to the point where it achieves true artificial intelligence.” It’s another thing for a vendors of a particular kind of product to be able to just assume this, without actually persuading their consumers to accept it, or to get Congress to pass a law that makes this the legal norm for some kinds of products (but not, presumably, for others).
I don’t think there’s a difference in the argument there between playing a game, then giving it to the next guy, and reading a book, then giving it to the next guy who wants to read it.
Someone is of the opinion that this is immoral because it deprives the author/programmer of money.
I don’t see it as at all immoral, even a little bit. And as pointed out in the thread that spawned this, I just shipped a copy of the game in question to a friend. That is, the original discs, not copied or in any way modified. More to the point, it is impossible to buy the game new, as it’s out of print. And, IIRC, the company which made it is now out of businenss anyway.
To be honest, what I believe is immoral is computer game companies trying to determine who I can sell the game to after I buy it. They could put anything in their EULA they felt like. If they put that I’m obligated to tithe 10% of my income to them for the rest of my life, that wouldn’t be any less valid than their demand that I not sell my property to another consenting adult. There’s also the fact that, IIRC, click-to-consent agreements have most often been found invalid by the courts.
I simply don’t accept that game companies have the right to limit my use or resale of my own property. And that’s what physical discs are. If they want to have some sort of obviously limited product where I know, upfront when purchasing it, what the rules are, then at least I can make my informed choice as a customer. Selling a game as if it was any other piece of property and sneaking in a clause that tells me I’m not allowed to re-sell my own property (not duplicate, not fabricate, not multiply, but shift in a 1-1 consensual transfer)? Fuck that.
MEBuckner hit most of my points but I want to reiterate that this is not simply “intellectual property”. The arguments used by those who advocate this position (which is so alien to my viewpoint that I didn’t even try to represent it) applies to everything. I have a physical object and want to sell it and the argument from certain other sources is that this is somehow immoral.
That thread is not the first time people have brought up those arguments here and I’ve seen them come out of the mouths of game developers quite a bit recently. Every time I see it I get the impression that the people spouting it don’t realize the full implications of what they are claiming.
If their argument is that software on a disk that can only be used with that disk is somehow different from every other physical property in the world then they need to make that argument. Pointing to EULA’s of dubious legality for multiple reasons (the fact that the customer cannot view it until after it has become impossible to decline it and the fact that they sometimes claim that the customer has given up rights that the consumer cannot give up makes them dubious contracts) isn’t going to cut it as an argument either. Until then their claim is that selling any used good (and in the case of some arguments buying from anyone other than the original manufacturer) is unethical.
Just Some Guy is entirely correct. The argument pertains to anything. If Joe made a painting, and I bought it from Joe, the argument goes that I shouldn’t be able to sell the painting, Steve needs to go to Joe to get a new painting.
What’s often glossed over in these computer copyright discussions is the fact that many copies of the information on the disk get made. When your friend goes to use the software, his computer makes copies of data from the disk, and stores it on his hard drive, or in RAM. You, by virtue of paying the manufacturer for the license to the software, are presumed to be allowed to make these copies, your friend is not.
By what reasoning does your friend have the right to make copies of the information on that disk without the permission of the copyright holder?
Videogames (and movies, and books, for that matter) tend to be consumeable products. Once you’ve experienced the full thing (usually within ~15 hours or so), you’re done with it for the most part. They are inherently different than other physical products like cars or hammers.
No one expects to be able to resell a fancy $50 steak dinner once it is already consumed. And If it were possible to regurgitate the whole thing (in perfect form- down to the original shape, color, texture, and temperature), don’t you think the restaraunts would be worried? Don’t you think many of them would go out of business, regardless of the quality?
But in that scenario, if nice steak restaraunts start to fold, we can always just eat the same regurgitated steak. No worries. However, if nice game developers fold, we stop getting new good games. Doesn’t this concern anyone?
As a practical matter, if a game is worth buying new then a used copy will not be much of a bargain, if you can find one at all. Demand will be higher, and the supply of used copies will be low since few people will part with them. There’s also the issue of damage to the physical copy, which can be hard to check for (seeing as some used games are sold for nearly full retail price, I’ll pay the extra $5 for an untouched copy) and missing manuals. And I won’t even touch DRM issues.
What if I buy some software and give it to someone as a gift (as I got Fallout 3 for Mr. Neville for Hanukkah)? Is the recipient not allowed to make a copy of that software on their machine so they can use it, because they didn’t pay for the game? The recipient of a gift has not given any money to the manufacturer or creator of that gift. I’m pretty sure no creator of video games wants to tell customers that it’s illegal to give or receive one of their games as a gift.
But it would be difficult to ban reselling software without banning giving it as a gift. Gifts are often reciprocated- I gave Mr. Neville Fallout 3 for Hanukkah, he gave me something I wanted. Some people even give gifts of money. If I can legally give someone a video game as a gift, and they can legally give me money as a reciprocal gift, how is that different from me buying and reselling the game?
No, not necessarily. I’ve gotten much more use out of, say, Medieval Total War II or EVE Online than I have out of my hammer. More to the point, even physical objects can be bought with limited use in mind. One of our pets died recently and we had to buy a metal shovel to bury it in the back yard. We have since used that shovel zero times and will likely use it zero times in the future. At least unless another pet dies at some point. If I wanted to sell the shovel on Craigslist, would I have done something wrong?
Another essential difference is that when you eat a steak, it really is consumed. But when you beat a game, even one with no replay value at all, it is only “consumed” for you. You can pass it along to someone else for whom it will, indeed, be brand spanking new. Or play it again in five years’ time.
And no, people aren’t all going to stop buying new games because there’s a queue, 1000 long, waiting for Timmy to get done with their copy of Halo 3 so he can pass it on to person #2, and so on. We’ve seen time and time again that some people rush to the stores to buy immediately, some wait until it’s in the bargain bin at the retailers, and some wait until they can get it off of Ebay.
Game manufacturers have no more right to tell me that I can’t sell my CD-rom’s than Sony has to tell me that I can’t sell my CD’s or Random House has to tell me I can’t sell my books.
It’s rather strange not to note that these “copies” do not consist of a full, playable version of the game. You’re not talking about image files or burned CD’s here.
And, by your argument’s own logic, when I read a book, portions of it are “copied” into my memory. So the local library is engaging in piracy, I guess.
Any discussion of the issue should be frank enough to admit that we’re talking about playable games here, and not anything else.