consumers have a right to sell or do whatever they want with a copy of a product they buy.
End of Story.
English
-
Developers and publishers also have a right to protect their product, and all profits made from said product.
-
So do car makers deserve to set the price of my used car? Can Topps tell me not to sell or trade baseball cards? Can Marvel forbid me from selling any of their comic books I collected? Does Rolex have a right to stop pawn shop watch sales? Does LucasArts own my Star Wars collection? Does Thompson or Prentice Hall have any say about what I do with the books on my bookshelf? If the answer is no to all of these, why do game publishers have the right to control what I do with things I bought from them?
-
The answer to all of your questions is: Yes. They should have that right if they exercise it. It's their intellectual property, not yours. You may own the cheap-ass $0.50 disc, they own the digital information encoded onto the disc. Used. Games. Are. Killing. The. Industry.
-
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Because Marvel owns the Spiderman IP, they can confiscate all Spiderman comics in the world if they so choose? Same goes for every copyrighted product ever made? Would be a bit funny is Intel and AMD decided they wanted to destroy all of human society by taking back all their copyright protected products.
-
@Achilles1108 The difference between digital media and physical goods is that the physical good will degrade over time and lose value. Sure, game discs can get scratched and whatnot, but that's easily fixable, and it doesn't affect the amount of content on the disc. The problem with the used games market is that you have distributors (i.e. GameStop) making pure profit off of someone else's work. The only thing they did with the games they sell is put stickers on the box. They also have the balls to demand exclusive content for sales at their stores or they will refuse to sell the product.
-
[quote]The problem with the used games market is that you have distributors (i.e. GameStop) making pure profit off of someone else's work. The only thing they did with the games they sell is put stickers on the box. [/quote] You've just described every banker, investor, retail store, convenience store, pawn shop, and car dealer in history. What they do is not pure profit. They have operating costs, they pay fair value for used games from gamers, and sell at a profit. Gamers always have the option not to sell games to them if they feel they aren't getting a fair price. They are simply market investors that found a way to trade things for a profit.
-
Yeah, they're market investors that aggressively push used games in your face only because they're $5.00 less than the new copy. I worked at GameStop for a while. You're trained to curve consumers away from the new copy, because the sale of the used copy goes straight to corporate.
-
Is there something wrong with that?
-
Edited by BrenMan 94: 6/13/2013 9:00:45 PMIt reeks of douchebaggery, given that no other store that I know of does it. If I go to buy a new copy of a video game at, say, Best Buy, they're not going to aggressively push a used copy on me. Oh yeah, not to mention that GameStop takes new games out of their cases, which (in my experience) has led to scratched and misplaced discs. They fact that they don't let you return the game for a full refund once the seal is broken in spite of this is laughable.
-
I can't speak for all of the franchises in the chain but Gamestop takes the disc out of the display copy on the shelves. So that kids don't steal it. They keep that copy in a paper CD sleeve to protect it and keep it behind the counter. They keep boxed and sealed copies behind the counter and sell those first. Only when all the copies are gone do they sell the display copy. My first jobs did the same thing too. Unbox a unit, set it up for display and then sell the boxed ones in the back before selling the floor model.
-
[quote]It reeks of douchebaggery[/quote] Welcome to the business world.
-
I wouldn't answer any of these questions with "no", so I'm afraid I can't share your train of thought.
-
Really? So your line of reasoning is that that no one except the company that originally makes a product can legally own anything? Life must be interesting in your world.
-
No they don't.
-
Yes, they do.
-
without customers they will have no product. They can claim 'protection' for the unholy horde of customers all they want. I'm not falling for the BS.
-
That works both ways. Without the developer and publisher, there would also be no product. It just sounds like you only care about one side of the equation.
-
Edited by realdomdom: 6/12/2013 9:57:25 PMWell, it's because [b]we are only on one side of the equation[/b]. LOL