+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" (/showthread.php?tid=625)
Pages:
1
2
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Nbokkri - 09-11-2010
Freyar Wrote:Nupopo Wrote:Anyone who has written software already knew this. It's why companies can ban you from a game you buy or pull a license if you use their software for purposes they don't agree with.
However it wasn't really affirmed by the courts till now. EULAs exist, but many have unenforceable parts.
It's been affirmed in court several times. The only thing that has ever been iffy are what can go in EULAs, but even that has been defined by at least 5-6 cases in the US over the past decade. The ruling hasn't changed anything, it just followed precedent set by previous cases.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Freyar - 09-11-2010
I know the "click-wrap" agreement is being challenged against NCSoft, supposedly being tested against Texas law. It's still a bad thing to see in the long run, especially as this will only embolden the already overzealous RIAA.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Satrina - 09-12-2010
Alvaruz Wrote:In fact, price will go up...
Why? New games had to compete against the resell competition. Now if there's no resell, there's no competition, without competition, companies normally up their prices, because the customers are... Well have no choice...
Competition is at the base of the liberalism/capitalism system to protect the customers...
Capitalism is a great system, especially when you just let companies begin to monopolize areas because they give you kickbacks and fund your campaigns! :cheer:
I'm sure Gamestop will strike a profitable deal with developers where they give them a %cut, and in turn developers will up the price of games by 10$ or so...or just continue to make shit games with a whole 5hrs of gameplay, sell it for 63$ and then go "Well it HAS multiplayer!"
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Doktor_Ljubavi - 09-13-2010
Satrina Wrote:Man this is bad news for Gamestop. Which I honestly don't feel sorry for, as they make a huge profit off the work of the game developers. Since developers only see the cash from the first sale and that's it, there's nothing like the movie industry and theater sales --> DVD sales.And... every other product that gets sold goes through the same thing. Every company for every product only see sales from the first sale only. Yet, junk yards/used auto parts are still big, and around. Do you piss and moan about junkyards/used auto part stores? Making profit off the work of car companies?
If they do stop Gamestop from reselling games, I expect the prices to drop on games or i'll be pissed.
Why put media into a different category? Pure folly, is what this is.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Freyar - 09-13-2010
Doktor_Ljubavi Wrote:Why put media into a different category? Pure folly, is what this is.
Because media, more specifically digital media, doesn't degrade.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Doktor_Ljubavi - 09-13-2010
Freyar Wrote:and collector items(cards, coins, etc) increase in price based on age, yet I see no one bringing people to court for selling an item they bought 10 years ago.Doktor_Ljubavi Wrote:Why put media into a different category? Pure folly, is what this is.
Because media, more specifically digital media, doesn't degrade.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Vareal - 09-13-2010
This is just all too similar to the idea of a Cloud Operating System which, if they decided to go down this path with software, would be a better option. But then you'd get the nerds, like me, who like to tweak things and set things the way we like it. Either way, I agree that this act, if passed, will promote piracy amongst it's respective communities.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Freyar - 09-13-2010
Doktor_Ljubavi Wrote:and collector items(cards, coins, etc) increase in price based on age, yet I see no one bringing people to court for selling an item they bought 10 years ago.
And that is because the cards, coins, collector's items, and historical artifacts are by the very definition sold. They aren't licensed. The brands are licensed to the manufacturers, but the goods themselves are sold.
As is, thinking about it further it seems like Developers and Publishers are trying to have their cake and eat it. Either you sell the product (as the advertising that so many publishers use "Pre-order your copy today, buy now, purchase now", etc), or you license it and say it clearly in the advertising. We're nerds, we know, but the general public is still trying to come to grips which means that there's ambiguity that needs to be cleared up.
Quote:This is just all too similar to the idea of a Cloud Operating System which, if they decided to go down this path with software, would be a better option. But then you'd get the nerds, like me, who like to tweak things and set things the way we like it. Either way, I agree that this act, if passed, will promote piracy amongst it's respective communities.
I've tested the likes of Onlive, and frankly it's nowhere near where it needs to be. Companies that can afford to do it already do some form of virtualization or cloud computing (hell, my Elementary school back in '94 had some form of cloud computing as is) already applied. The big question mark is what it will mean for personal data and games.
Steam's implementation is interesting and fairly useful, though at the cost that many people constantly outline and I won't repost here. Onlive takes that a step further and tries to do everything remotely which in the end results in a massively degraded experience.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Nbokkri - 09-13-2010
Freyar Wrote:I know the "click-wrap" agreement is being challenged against NCSoft, supposedly being tested against Texas law. It's still a bad thing to see in the long run, especially as this will only embolden the already overzealous RIAA.
Two problems with this:
1. Click-wrap has already been through court before too. It was decided that it's fine to force people to have to agree to a EULA before use (before installation or after an update being a stipulation as well as the EULA being visible in it's entirety) and that the agreement, even if the person didn't read it, was still valid if they clicked agree and continued.
2. The RIAA has nothing to do with software only music... In fact there isn't even a unified software copyright / license enforcement agency. There are a couple copyright enforcement groups that act in stead of a few larger game development firms, but that's about it. Companies like Stardock have no one enforcing their copyrights and have been screwed over a couple times because they release their games without copy protection since they're fundementally against DRM (see Gamer's Bill of Rights).
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Asyria - 09-13-2010
Here's to hoping Canada doesn't jump in!
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Freyar - 09-13-2010
Nupopo Wrote:2. The RIAA has nothing to do with software only music...
That doesn't meant he RIAA won't push hard to get the same status as software. We're talking about a group that wants radios (and thus royalty revenue) in every piece of electronic equipment.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Asytra - 09-14-2010
This ruling is actually worse for software companies than they realize.
People who buy used games also buy DLC. These people will just turn to piracy instead, likely pirating DLC as well.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Asytra - 09-14-2010
Freyar Wrote:Doktor_Ljubavi Wrote:Why put media into a different category? Pure folly, is what this is.
Because media, more specifically digital media, doesn't degrade.
I disagree.
The actual disc media does degrade. If it's stored on a hard-disk, well... they degrade too. But we're talking about the first sale here, right? So yes, discs DO degrade.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Nbokkri - 09-14-2010
Freyar Wrote:Nupopo Wrote:2. The RIAA has nothing to do with software only music...
That doesn't meant he RIAA won't push hard to get the same status as software. We're talking about a group that wants radios (and thus royalty revenue) in every piece of electronic equipment.
There's quite a bit of a difference between the RIAA being able to enforce anything and a software organization being able to enforce something. Software can track usage, requires updates, and has many active features while music is just flat data. Even if the RIAA somehow got music, movies, or any other flat data to fall in the same category as software how would they enforce it any better than they do trying to tag music pirates (which they are horrible at btw)? And for that matter how many people buy used CDs/music? Most people I know buy their music either from a store that cells new CDs or from an online distributer which would be the same as buying something new. The only exception I can think of are vinyl records and old tapes, but the major record companies associated with the RIAA don't even produce those anymore, so I doubt they'd be scrounging around garage sales trying to peg someone.
The problem with being paranoid about the RIAA or any other private copyright enforcement agency is that there are too many people in the world with a computer, the Internet, and just day-to-day friends. It costs too much money to catch everyone (or anyone) and if someone decides to fight back it costs them much more than they gain. It pretty much all works off of fear, so as long as you just ignore them they lose.
Re: US Federal Appeals: "No 1st Sale Doctrine for Software" - Freyar - 09-14-2010
Asytra Wrote:I disagree.
The actual disc media does degrade. If it's stored on a hard-disk, well... they degrade too. But we're talking about the first sale here, right? So yes, discs DO degrade.
Yes, but with the literal intepretation of this ruling, you are permitted to sell the physical disc, but not permitted to transfer the license which is what happens to be more valuable than 15 cents. The data itself, the ideas put together do not degrade, and that is what is being sold on with "used game sales".
Quote:There's quite a bit of a difference between the RIAA being able to enforce anything and a software organization being able to enforce something. Software can track usage, requires updates, and has many active features while music is just flat data. Even if the RIAA somehow got music, movies, or any other flat data to fall in the same category as software how would they enforce it any better than they do trying to tag music pirates (which they are horrible at btw)?
Quite simply, they push for a use model. You use it, you pay for it. This would in turn push the way to allowing more restrictive DRM that would allow for tracking one's use of the content. Hell, if you buy your music legally, you can't particularly resell it. (Using iTunes for that example.)
Quote:And for that matter how many people buy used CDs/music? Most people I know buy their music either from a store that cells new CDs or from an online distributer which would be the same as buying something new. The only exception I can think of are vinyl records and old tapes, but the major record companies associated with the RIAA don't even produce those anymore, so I doubt they'd be scrounging around garage sales trying to peg someone.
There's a lot of collectors; games, music, movies and otherwise, that buy games and CDs used. The used CD trade is still strong.
Quote:The problem with being paranoid about the RIAA or any other private copyright enforcement agency is that there are too many people in the world with a computer, the Internet, and just day-to-day friends. It costs too much money to catch everyone (or anyone) and if someone decides to fight back it costs them much more than they gain. It pretty much all works off of fear, so as long as you just ignore them they lose.
It costs too much to fight back, especially if you lose. Somehow, some $100 worth of transfers magically transforms into hundreds of thousands of dollars in combination with the cost of actually defending yourself. It's better to change it at the top than to violate it and have to fight it with insane amounts of money on the line.