People don’t buy paintings to look at them once or twice then re-sell them. Hence why the painting rental business isn’t exactly booming. People usually buy paintings to keep them for long periods of time, look at them often, brag to their friends about them, etc. When that painting is sold, there’s an empty space on that wall that needs to be filled (usually with another painting, or other work of art). When I sell an Xbox game I’ve already beaten, my disc drive is empty, but I don’t care. I’ve already experienced the full thing anyway. I might spend my money on another Xbox game, or I might spend it on food, or bills, or whatever else.
Even if the painting business wasn’t exactly profitable, there are still enough people who like painting for painting’s sake to continue to put out high quality art.
If the videogame business ceases to be profitable, you’re never going to see high quality videogames out again. Maybe some small flash games or mods, but that’s it.
A painter can always make money off of commissions from individuals. A game developer can not.
I just wanted to note that it’s interesting you bring up EVE online (a pay-per month game, right?) I’m assuming that you might have spent hundreds of dollars for several years worth of subscription fees. You cannot re-sell any of this back (sure, you might be able to sell your account, but you can’t re-sell your subscription time that you’ve already used). Does this bother you?
Yes, I realize there are parallels, however for the book market:
A) At least with libraries, some record is kept as to how many times a particular book is checked out. Also, one could make the argument that for a writer, letting your books be checked out from a library is just part of the cost needed to get a copyright in the U.S. It was agreed on beforehand, by both parties (the government and the copyright holder)
B) Books are easy enough to create that a single person can put out a high-quality work of literature in a matter of months, even weeks. Even if libraries destroyed the new book market, books would still be made.
C) This is a much weaker point, but books (especially paperbacks) are highly susceptible to being wrinkled and dogeared through use. Game discs, much less so, and once it’s in the drive (99% of the time) you can’t tell anyway. This means there is more of an incentive to buy a book new vs. a new software title.
Are you talking about the movie rental business, like Blockbuster? The filmmakers get a % of the sales in that case. I’m perfectly fine with that. When Gamestop sells a used PS2 copy of Shadow of the Colossus, however, the game developers get nothing.
If it is a gift, presumably you haven’t used it already. In that case, only one person has used the video game, the gift receiver. If you resell the game, after you used it yourself, then two people will have owned/used the game, with only one payment to the creator.
WRT to the “copies” I mention not being full playable versions, since when does a copyright violation attach only when a full, identical copy is made? Digital copies made during the use of a game are significant blocks of proprietary information, that I doubt could be considered “fair use”. Not to mention that I’m sure many games do not require constant reading from the game disk in order to play. Therefore a playable version (though perhaps not the FULL version) is entirely resident on the hard drive and RAM during gameplay.
And 2000 years ago, the Library of Alexandria was also built on extensive piracy. To add insult to injury, Ptolemy kept the originals and gave back the pirated copies to the owners!
Expensive ($100K) EDA software works on this model. You buy a multiyear license, not the software, which will not run with the license software turned off. The benefit the buyer gets is that upgrades are included, though maintenance is extra, but required. Given the buggy nature of this stuff, getting upgrades is valuable. Without this model you might have to pay full price for the next version. Often the licenses you buy are floating, that is can be checked out so that n people can run the software at one time, but no more. Node locked licenses are seen as much less valuable to the buyer.
The problem with EULAs that don’t involve upgrades is that they cause the software to be less valuable to the customer, and the user doesn’t have the option, for that software, of paying less for a restricted version. The other problem is that it is more or less unenforceable.
So it shouldn’t be legal for me to give away a game if I’ve played it? Should it be legal for me to donate a used game to Goodwill or another charity, the same as I might do if I decide I don’t want some books or clothes any more? What if the game ceases to be playable for me when I don’t have the discs any more? How is that different from a book, CD, or DVD, which I can legally give away or sell a used copy of?
I think most of us are arguing whether such behavior is ethical, not really whether it’s legal.
Personally, if you’re pretty sure your friend probably never would have bought a legit copy of that game anyway, sure, go ahead. He might enjoy it enough to buy the sequel on his own, when that comes out. A net plus to the content creator.
But if your friend might’ve purchased his own copy if he knew he wasn’t going to be able to bum it off you or someone else, I’d argue that giving him your copy isn’t perfectly ethical, as the content creator is now out $50.
Before responding to anything else, I titled the thread neutrally to try to avoid the arguments from emotion that some people attach to used game sales thinking that they’re somehow different from any other product. You’ll note that no one has really given a good reason why they’re different and a lot of effort has been put into muddying things up. So tell me why a disk of foil sealed in plastic is different from any other product or start explaining how buying and selling used goods is unethical.
You’ll note that the booming areas for used game sales are console games. Where does the PS2 store copies of the information on disk? (And I think it’s safe to say that saved games are fair use derivative work.)
The right to make those copies in PC games are implied by the software requiring it. To get back to my rights as a consumer again the manufacturer is obligated to sell me something that works (insert your own joke here, though there have been lawsuits based on that in the past), so if I was not allowed to make a copy of the required data to disk and memory then the product would fail on the warranty of merchantability.
Excuse me? Filmmakers do not get a percentage of movie rentals; there was a lawsuit about that in the 1980’s where the studios got shot down hard. They do make specific deals with certain rental chains to make copies of the movie available there before they are available to the public for a percentage of the rental fees in that period but that is it’s own contract.
I like the point made upthread about eliminating the 2nd-hand market being wasteful. As an aside to that, it also gives the consumers more choices–when you buy used you don’t get all the benefits of buying new (warranties have run out, there’s some wear and tear, etc.) but the tradeoff is that you don’t pay as much for it. Upfront, anyways. And for people with less money, it allows them to buy goods that they want or need that they would not be able to afford new. It’s a benefit to both the buyer and the seller, with no impact on the original producer.
Software gets a bit weird because there is no real difference between a new copy and an old one. Hell, there doesn’t have to be a physical copy at all these days–the product you’re using is little more than an arrangement of electrons. After a certain point in time it may become harder to use, but that’s because of OSes and other software changes, not to mention customer service being dropped for that particular product. What you’re getting hasn’t changed, just the environment you’re using it in. By that point it’s probably not available new anyways though, so your choices are a newer version or a used copy.
That said, I’m not aware of any real market for old software. Console games obviously have a big second-hand market, but those are not copied onto the hardware generally, so the physical object is as much a part of what you’re buying as the information on it.
The “disk of foil sealed in polycarbonate” is different but my explanation is too long to reply here. I’ll create a thread outlining the scenarios.
I wouldn’t say it’s ethical or unethical. I don’t think it’s productive to reduce it down to ethics. If you want to force the issue and demand a simple black & white answer, then sure, I can say it’s “ethical” to resell software.
However, it’s more fruitful to understand the authors’ “revenue intent” and use your buying power to decide if it works for you.
The question is, should you be allowed to transfer the right to make digital copies of the game (necessary for the game to be used) without the permission of the copyright holder? What if the license you get with the purchase specifically prohibits transferring the right to copy to a third party?
In my opinion, if selling or giving the product to another person denies you use of the product, including your ability to sell or give away further copies of it, then it’s perfectly ethical to sell or give away the product. The manufaturer will have been compensated for every copy of the product, even if it has passed through multiple owners since then.
Sharing or selling without self-deprivation brings in the spectre of you making yourself a source of competition to the original creator, an act you will be committing via unfair or fraudulent use of their labors, and with little or no effort of your own. This is unfair and unethical.
(In cases where the manufacturer has permanently removed themselves from the marketplace, I do not consider illegal duplication of their product unethical, because you are no longer in unfair competition with them - but they’d have to be permanently gone from the market for that product for this to apply.)
The problem with the second part here is that most often the license is what used to be called a shrinkwrap license - you agreed to it by the act of opening the product. Now you can’t install the product without agreeing to it. I suspect that in most cases the restriction is not placed in large friendly letters on the box, as this would reduce the value of the game to consumers. Given that I don’t see any major ethical problem with violating the terms of a license you got tricked into accepting. I’d suspect many stores would not even take an opened game back.
For the first part, my understanding, which might be wrong, is that copyright cannot restrict fair use, and making copies inherent in game play certainly qualifies. So, it all comes down to the license.
A point I made up thread but to hit it even harder: try to disagree with the licensing agreement. In contract law (which is what this is) if one party does not agree with the contract then there is no exchange between the two parties. EULA’s, on the other hand, mean that before one party has the opportunity to examine the contract the other party has already gotten what they want in the contract (the money for the product) and the person who paid cannot get their money back. This is one major reason that EULA’s don’t hold up in court.
On the other hand a rental or purchase contract, like most high end professional software has, is reviewed by both parties before signing off on it.
When they first came out the business computer rags had editorial upon editorial against them, noting that you were agreeing to terms that said that if their buggy software ruined your business you could get the purchase price back.
Not just reviewed - negotiated. I used to be involved in this on the buying end and we were very hardass. It was fun to watch.
Bolding mine. That’s a wee bit longer than the period of time “before they are available to the public.” Plus they have to return/destroy/purchase them when the revenue sharing agreement is up.