AfterDawn: Tech news

New ruling could eventually lead to blocking of used game sales

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 14 Sep 2010 17:31 User comments (55)

New ruling could eventually lead to blocking of used game sales Thanks to a new judgement made by the United States Court of Appeals, used game and software sales may be a thing of the past.
The decision (linked below) rules that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner."

Originally, the suit was brought forward by Autodesk, the makers of the expensive AutoCAD software, who were angry a consumer purchased many copies of the software and then resold them on auction site eBay.

Autodesk wanted to know who, legally, had the rights to the software.

This new ruling does not implicitly imply video games, but games are considered software, so the ruling could affect the used game market, as well.

It will be interesting to see how the major publishers run with this ruling, and we will certainly keep you updated.

View the ruling here: Vernor v. Autodesk

Previous Next  

55 user comments

114.9.2010 18:13
lissenup2
Inactive

Yeah.........there's a right way to doing things and a wrong way. This is definitively a wrong way. Consumers buy the software whether it be on a physical medium or a download therefore, IT BELONGS TO THE CONSUMER. We're not buying "rights to use it", we're buying a COPY of it and therefore we can sell it to whomever we want. I'd be willing to fight this one in court. Just need a judge with a reasonable mindset and not a Stalinistic one.

If this passes then every F'ing manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and "license" everything from furniture to pet food forbidding anyone to sell anything ever...............forcing people to buy another good.

This sucks and so does American Business. The very notion that video games are rendered useless or not worthy of use after playing/completing merits the right to re-sell. This is true of AutoCad. Obviously they don't refund or accept returns. What if a business closes down??????? Then re-selling is the only practical means.

Enough ranting........this is simply screwing the customer and solely benefiting the manufacturer.

214.9.2010 18:54

WELL IF WE CANT SELL, LETS SWAP EM INSTEAD

314.9.2010 18:55

Quote:
United States Court of Appeals


Key factor here, its has been fought for years. The only way past this is the Supreme Court, which I sure that action will be taken next; if not, it damn well should be.

414.9.2010 19:16

@lissenup2 - It's odd you'd use a term like "Stalinistic" to describe this action when it's very pro-Capitalist/Laissez Faire if you're going to argue it from an economic viewpoint. Arguing this from an authoritarian standpoint would be interesting, but

I'd think a "Stalinistic" answer to this issue would be to nationalize Autodesk, make everyone work there for peanuts, give away Autocad, and kill anyone who didn't use it.

This is a ridiculous judgement...I can't wait for it to go higher. I want Autodesk to get their ass handed to them. If it isn't in the end, then I would be very disappointed in our justices. This decision is very anti-free market and anti-consumer.

514.9.2010 20:05

In the ruling it says that he bought six copies from an "office sale" and re-sold them on eBay. The business he got them from had purchased them directly from Autodesk.

Basically Autodesk claims that when you buy their software you are a licensee and not an owner. Because of this "reselling" is, technically, illegal under the DMCA.

As for the reselling of video games, I've never seen a screen with a license agreement nor have I had to sign a paper stating that I accept a "license agreement" for the software before I open or used it. That, as far as I can tell, means that this shouldn't be applicable to video games.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Sep 2010 @ 20:07

"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo

614.9.2010 20:22

Well then the rest of the copyrighted material will follow. So the judge thinks you can't sell a licenses, why? I guess because that is the way he likes it.

714.9.2010 20:43

Whether it games,music,movie or a console the list goes on never have i seen a eula stating i own it,all i've done is purchased a licence the product itself belongs to whoever made it period, all i've got is permission to use it,question now is since i own that licence can they actually stop me on selling it i say not since i do own the licence & not them if i'm not mistaken unless there's somth'n in the fine print which who the hell reads anyway,the long shot why be suprised these days it's anything goes for a buck


814.9.2010 21:27

If this stands, it could be adulterated to include many things we purchase. Why both to pay for it then, just steal it. I can just see websites like The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Baidu, etc., becoming very popular. Corporate America again screwing the consumer.

914.9.2010 22:07

I think this may open the door to piracy becoming a major player. If it becomes illegal to resell a video game, people will be loading up the internet with free copies.

1014.9.2010 23:10

It isn't just game piracy...many startups only exist because of the sale of last years autodesk, solidworks, etc. Without the used market or piracy, they cannot exist. History has shown us time and again that a hungry upstart will happily use pirated software if there is no other choice left to them.

Well, this is the end of me buying games...I might buy GT5 if it ever comes out, but that is it. If I don't own the game, I cannot sell the game, and I cannot modify the game, then what exactly did I spend $60 on? The rights to use some computer code on my own hardware for 12-24 hours per game?

These bastards are taking away our rights, and expecting to make a killing on it...the only way to combat them is with open-source alternatives or piracy. To pirate software might be illegal, but somehow it seems far more moral than giving money to those who are systematically destroying our freedoms.

1114.9.2010 23:29

this is just what Corporations want.

if AutoCAD was smart they'd stop pushing. the only people they'll hurt is themselves. i say let it pass why stop them from impaling the entire software industry.

id be happy to see a *nix that can do everything windows can including games, I'd welcome the very thought of a blackmarket network on the net.

why just shoot the foot when you can blow off the entire leg.



Powered By

1215.9.2010 0:40

used sales of anything reduce environmental waste

1315.9.2010 1:21

Keep in mind the specifics of this case was regarding a license KEY for a piece of software...not really the software itself. Any software that doesn't require registering a serial/registration/activation/license/etc. # to enable the software may not be affected.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Sep 2010 @ 1:21

1415.9.2010 2:22

I think that if you really look at both sides of this argument, the bottom line is that there simply isn't any pancake mix

1515.9.2010 3:45

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Keep in mind the specifics of this case was regarding a license KEY for a piece of software...not really the software itself. Any software that doesn't require registering a serial/registration/activation/license/etc. # to enable the software may not be affected.
It is always a license; regardless of whether or not there is a key that the user must enter...one could almost argue that it is not illegal to distribute ISO files so long as they are not used, as the software itself is not what is sold; only the license. Well, it is not illegal so long as you do not agree to the license terms anyway...and why agree to the terms if you are not using the software?

On that note, I think I may have found a nice little loophole...

If a person were to get a disk for a given piece of software by legal means (like buying it), but that person did not agree to the license terms, then the license would effectively by voided, and so too would the terms of the license agreement...this is just a contract; and contracts are always voided if one party refuses to agree to the terms. The disk itself would no longer hold and value whatsoever, not even the cost that the maker would charge to replace a damaged disk, as it would not be legal to sell this disk. If said person were to modify the program code, it would not violate the agreement, but only if said agreement was agreed to, which it was not. Thus, the person is free to modify the code in whatever way they see fit so long as they did not sell, distribute, or use the code (there are also some DMCA exceptions; AnyDVD would not qualify as it is piracy software, which is illegal to give away, but which is not illegal to sell). Here comes the good part...the person could modify the program, so that "I accept" was not mandatory, and so that the program would install without issue when "I do not accept" is selected. Once this was done, any limitations on distribution of this code would be null and void, as no agreement was agreed to, and thus no one who uses the code is agreeing to only use it under license. As for distribution of non-modified code, this is (as mentioned before) not technically illegal under the current system where the software itself is not sold.

I'm starting to feel better about all the laws that these idiots pass. They believe that they will make slaves of us all, but all they do is to create so many loopholes that they cannot hope to control anything. Before long it will be illegal just to survive...and that is when the revolution comes.

1615.9.2010 4:02

Quote:
If a person were to get a disk for a given piece of software by legal means (like buying it), but that person did not agree to the license terms, then the license would effectively by voided, and so too would the terms of the license agreement...this is just a contract; and contracts are always voided if one party refuses to agree to the terms.
No offense sir, but I dont think that the license would be effectively voided. Since you chose not to agree to the terms, the license would wont be used at all. The fact that you can return the software if you dont agree to the terms, and this software can then be sold to someone else who may or may not agree to the terms attests to the license still being 'useful'.

With regards to all this, if the Autocad wins, it wont really effect the sales of used software. Its one thing for Autocad to file a suit for their $1000 product. Its another thing for a company like EA to sue a gamer selling a used game for $20 dollars. That will be bad PR for them. Gaming companies are already trying to kill the used games market covertly anyway, by limiting the number of reactivations.

Also, this wont really affect console games since i dont remember reading anything on the game preventing it from being used again by different users.

1715.9.2010 5:28

ya this is retarded good thing i run pirated autocad 2010, i could get in serious trouble buying it from somebody


Concordia res parvae crescent

1815.9.2010 5:43

Originally posted by thepohl:
ya this is retarded good thing i run pirated autocad 2010, i could get in serious trouble buying it from somebody
Great point...if it is illegal to resell software, then anyone who resells software (like bestbuy) should be brought to court.

1915.9.2010 8:52

Originally posted by KillerBug:
It isn't just game piracy...many startups only exist because of the sale of last years autodesk, solidworks, etc. Without the used market or piracy, they cannot exist. History has shown us time and again that a hungry upstart will happily use pirated software if there is no other choice left to them.
Great point! I do some moonlighting. I learn and start out with used software. Often they come on the market when a business goes belly up and they liquidate the assets. If I make money the first goes to buying a new version of the software. These packages usually run about a grand so there would be know way I would put out that kind of money to learn.

2015.9.2010 9:57

A very simple solution to this would be to have a statute of limitations of licensing, with new versions of software coming out all the time a 5 year limit with agreements that all "abandonware" will become public use and free to download.

I speak from personal experience as finding a "legit" license for older software is impossible to find and older large industrial machinery we use use command line OS's and windows 3.1 (not even 3.11 ffs). Those licenses are long dead, but under this type of system we couldn't sell a 25 year old measuring microscope.

2115.9.2010 10:30

Software companies can really put anything they want into the EULA (End User License Agreement). Most people click that "agree" checkbox without reading the 12 pages of legalese that you're supposed to read when you click that checkbox. Autocad is particularly eggregious in their licensing. It's more reasonable to boycott these companies and use their competition's product than punish every company. This decision is a bad decision in that it will embolden other software companies to make these inclusions into their EULAs because they want to sell more new copies. Many stores won't take back opened software, so you're unlikely to get your money back if you don't agree to the EULA.

Another company that's just as bad is Quicken with their Quickbooks product. I worked for a company that paid...I don't remember exactly...maybe $300 for Quickbooks from Fry's (major retailer). They installed it and went to license it and Quicken said it was already licensed. It was well beyond the 30 days since they'd purchased it. Quicken was ZERO help. I downloaded a crack and cracked it so that the company I worked for (a small startup that couldn't afford the cost of re-purchasing the expensive software they'd just bought) could use the product that they'd paid for. I refuse to buy any software from Intuit now for this reason (I use H&R Block Taxcut instead of Turbotax for this reason).

2215.9.2010 13:10

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
In the ruling it says that he bought six copies from an "office sale" and re-sold them on eBay. The business he got them from had purchased them directly from Autodesk.

Basically Autodesk claims that when you buy their software you are a licensee and not an owner. Because of this "reselling" is, technically, illegal under the DMCA.

As for the reselling of video games, I've never seen a screen with a license agreement nor have I had to sign a paper stating that I accept a "license agreement" for the software before I open or used it. That, as far as I can tell, means that this shouldn't be applicable to video games.
It still shouldn't matter I can sub lease in others areas like renting so there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to do this with the WAY TOO expensive Autodesk products.

There are somethings that we should be protected from no matter what fine print there is and this should be covered under the fair trade policies we have in place.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Sep 2010 @ 13:11

2315.9.2010 18:57

if this is the case then the software company that makes the products should buy back the software & license (at a reduced price or 50% of retail cost 1st year then 25% of retail cost their after)when the person/client is done with the product(their words are:you are a licensee) in order to keep it off resell market then well see them sh@t and say thats not fair because it hits their wallet and then well see what software is left in the free resell market
i can see it now m$ sold 100 mil copies of win 95 but because of this they also bought back 95 mil copies of win 95 just to stop the resell of used software
well i can dream lol

2415.9.2010 19:06

i just thought of something i dont think it will go too far because it will effect every company they should stop this because when they go belly up and they have to liquidate everything they cant sell the software because of this ruling i would be worried about my company and my investment in it

2515.9.2010 23:07

Originally posted by IguanaC64:
It's more reasonable to boycott these companies and use their competition's product than punish every company.
In this particular case, the competition is also a "bad guy" in fact, dealing with Autodesk is a wonderful experience compared to dealing with Dassault...at lease Autodesk does not charge hundreds of dollars for bug fixes.

Originally posted by deak91:
i just thought of something i dont think it will go too far because it will effect every company they should stop this because when they go belly up and they have to liquidate everything they cant sell the software because of this ruling i would be worried about my company and my investment in it
Forethought has no place in modern business. Quick, knee-jerk reactions, with no thought of the consequences...that is the modern business creed.

2616.9.2010 9:00

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Yeah.........there's a right way to doing things and a wrong way. This is definitively a wrong way. Consumers buy the software whether it be on a physical medium or a download therefore, IT BELONGS TO THE CONSUMER. We're not buying "rights to use it", we're buying a COPY of it and therefore we can sell it to whomever we want. I'd be willing to fight this one in court. Just need a judge with a reasonable mindset and not a Stalinistic one.

If this passes then every F'ing manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and "license" everything from furniture to pet food forbidding anyone to sell anything ever...............forcing people to buy another good.

This sucks and so does American Business. The very notion that video games are rendered useless or not worthy of use after playing/completing merits the right to re-sell. This is true of AutoCad. Obviously they don't refund or accept returns. What if a business closes down??????? Then re-selling is the only practical means.

Enough ranting........this is simply screwing the customer and solely benefiting the manufacturer.
You'd never own the software though.

ever gotten a plastic wrapped MS product?

Once you open the wrap you waiver all rights you have and give them over to MS.

As for your court case you'd lose as as copyright's trademarks and patents have already beaten you to the punch.

The problem with used software sales will be that a end user is acting like they made or and own the rights to all proftits of that game and in law that isn't the case.

Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?

It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.

And I guess I could just turn around and say you don't have any rights to any of the money I've made from your software so screw you.

2716.9.2010 9:04

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:

As for the reselling of video games, I've never seen a screen with a license agreement nor have I had to sign a paper stating that I accept a "license agreement" for the software before I open or used it. That, as far as I can tell, means that this shouldn't be applicable to video games.
Yeah you have, it'll be in 2 places the back of the manual.

and the other

The install program will ask if you agree to the terms.

Don't agree then you can't install.

2816.9.2010 21:45

Originally posted by willyguzz:
As much as this is bullshit and sucks bad, it makes me smile at the idea of Gamestop going out of business.
this will hurt alot more than gamestop your looking at a possible end to game rentals as well.

this law will remove the need for self check Games are 60 dollars now...if this law passes they can charge whatever the hell the want, they can also keep the price high. it'll also end billions of jobs.

but who cares about jobs right i mean hell money grows on trees.

Powered By

2916.9.2010 23:55

Originally posted by xtago:
Yeah you have, it'll be in 2 places the back of the manual.

and the other

The install program will ask if you agree to the terms.

Don't agree then you can't install.
I do see that on the computer. However, GameStop (and other companies) make most of their money off re-selling used console games, not PC games.

As for console games they've said in the manual that you "can't rent, distribute, etc. without a license" from the copyright owner of the game for years. That means companies could have already legally stopped the re-selling of their games before this ruling even came about.

"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo

3017.9.2010 7:27

F@%#$#K autocad ... They are just a small bitter company not making any money. Just because of this company we can no longer buy used games or software apps. Gamestop, etc, should counter sue for their own good.

We should call autocad and send them "HATE" emails. BASTARDS.

3117.9.2010 8:44

Give me a pencil and some paper and I'll just draw the damn thing!


--pcdtv--

3217.9.2010 8:52

OK, this does suck, I work for a company that uses the Autodesk software in several divisions, it is a pain in the @$$ to reinstall legit copies we already own when a PC dies, never did like Autodesk simply because of the way they license thier crap.

As for the aftermarket resellers go don't charge for the actual game call it a swapping fee to help pay for the service being provided by places like gamestop. that way you are not technically re-selling anything but providing a paid for service to the public.

3317.9.2010 9:19

Originally posted by kfir1:
F@%#$#K autocad ... They are just a small bitter company not making any money. Just because of this company we can no longer buy used games or software apps. Gamestop, etc, should counter sue for their own good.

We should call autocad and send them "HATE" emails. BASTARDS.


I really like that concept! Form a class action suit for damages of persons the US not being able to buy or sell used software/games. Hit them up for 500,000 USDs for a few years loss of business. I bet that is probably doable. I bet Autodesk would sh1t their pants. Put those bastards out of business.

3417.9.2010 9:53

When I buy an item. It's mine. Period. I have the right to sell it when I'm finished with it.

This ruling will incite law-abiding consumers to run to the torrent sites for illegal copies of games.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!!

3517.9.2010 11:12
cpt_custard
Inactive

Originally posted by Dardandec:
WELL IF WE CANT SELL, LETS SWAP EM INSTEAD
Yeah!! We could swap them for cash

3617.9.2010 13:40

Do your own thing...tell no one.

3717.9.2010 14:06
~*MoJo*~
Unverified new user

THIS IS FRICKEN HILARIOUS..I SEE PEOPLE POSTING MESSAGES SAYING THIS "IS GONNA MAKE PIRATE BAY.. ETC POPULAR" AND "PIRACY IS GOING TO SPILL OVER INTO VIDEO GAMES"..WHERE IN THE WORLD HAVE YOU PEOPLE BEEN? GAMES AND GAME FILES ARE ALREADY ALL OVER THE INTERNET. THIS ONLY AFFECT THE PEOPLE SELLING ACTUAL RETAIL COPIES OF ANYTHING, SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR THE REST OF US EXCEPT THAT MAYBE EBAY WILL HAVE TO DUMP ITS VIDEO GAME CATEGORY..IOFFER IS FULL OF RIPPED GAMES AND MODDED GAME SYSTEMS FOR SALE. AND DOES ANYONE ELSE ON HERE REMEMBER "SWITCHOUSE" WHICH WAS , IN FACT, A GAME SWAPPING COMMUNITY.

3817.9.2010 14:52






To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question!

3917.9.2010 15:13

I still have an old Windows XP disk laying around. I bought it. It's mine, not Microsoft's. I have installed it multiple times in the same upgraded box. (I call Microsoft and demand they give me a new reg number, and they do. Every time :). If I want to sell it to someone who can use it, it is my "right" to do so. And they should have the right to do the same as long as it's on only one machine at a time because it's an OS. I'm okay with that.

If you are no longer using Autocad, the software still exists. If you sell it to me, I now own it because I have the disks to prove it. I should have the right to use it.

I could give a good crap what a EALA says. As long as I don't give away copies, install it on other people's machines, or sell multiple copies then I am within my rights as far as I'm concerned.

If I personally own 5 machines, I have the right to install my Photoshop suite on all five machines. I don't care what Adobe says, so long as I am the primary or only user then it's my right to do so (PERIOD).

I bought it, it's mine!

The problem is we are bad consumers for letting them get away with this bullshit!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Sep 2010 @ 17:50

4017.9.2010 16:52

Well now... we were looking at purchasing AutoCad, but in view of this I think we'll look around for something else, or just do without.

4117.9.2010 17:15

Originally posted by Shifty_1:

If I personally own 5 machines, I have the right to install my Photoshop suite on all five machines. I don't care what Adobe says, so long as I am the primary or only user then it's my right to do so (PERIOD).

I can tell you have not really read the agreements have you.

section of Photoshop 7.0 license agreement:

2. Software License. As long as you comply with the terms of this End User License Agreement (the "Agreement"), Adobe grants to you a non-exclusive license to Use the Software for the purposes described in the Documentation, as further set forth below. Some third party materials included in the Software may be subject to other terms and conditions, which are typically found in a "Read Me" file located near such materials.
2.1. General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of Computers.; or
2.2. Server Use. You may install one copy of the Software on your Computer file server for the purpose of downloading and installing the Software onto other Computers within your internal network up to the Permitted Number or you may install one copy of the Software on a Computer file server within your internal network for the sole and exclusive purpose of using the Software through commands, data or instructions (e.g. scripts) from another Computer on your internal network, provided that the total number of users (not the concurrent number of users) that are permitted to access or Use the Software on such Computer file server, does not exceed the Permitted Number. No other network use is permitted, including but not limited to, using the Software either directly or through commands, data or instructions from or to a Computer not part of your internal network, for internet or web hosting services or by any user not licensed to Use this copy of the Software through a valid license from Adobe; and
2.3. Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or Used on any computer. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided in the Transfer section in this Agreement."
2.4. Portable Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may also make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable Computer provided the Software on the portable Computer is not being used at the same time the Software on the primary computer is being used.

4217.9.2010 17:27

Offline computers, gotta love um ;)




To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question!

4317.9.2010 18:14

"Anything to do with computers is legal"

My favorite quote from one of my son's friends in high school.

Oh, the galloping idiocy of youth! I miss it!


--pcdtv--

4417.9.2010 18:32

Originally posted by rtlinux:


I can tell you have not really read the agreements have you.


I really don't care about their agreements. Not only have I read Adobe's agreement, I phoned them about it and let them know what I thought of it.

1) Just because they write and make me accept an agreement doesn't mean it is not in violation of my rights.

2) IMO the license should be bound to the owner, not the computer. My computer is not allowed to buy software for it's own use. I strictly forbid that kind of behavior in all the computers I own. They know better! My computer doesn't need Adobe suite for any reason, I do. If I own 4 computers and I'm the only or primary user I will put it in all four computers. I might have to work at home, while traveling and at work. I might have another office. As long as I am the primary user, Adobe is welcome to have intercourse with themselves if they don't like it. I really don't care.

3a) Any Eula's or contract (excluding those written by lawyers for lawyers) that cannot be read and understood by a 3rd grader are void. And that should be a law. That's part of what's wrong with this country, the lawyers own it.

3b) EULAs or contract that state they can change the rules any time they want for whatever reason they want should be automatically void and ignored.

4) EULAs should be allowed only one short and concise paragraph no more than 300 words. Or the software should only be allowed to be sold with free legal consultation available before purchase.

I obey the important laws like not stealing or killing etc. But some laws are stupid and therefore just don't apply to me. Laws making a license-able contract between my computer and the manufacturer of software that I bought and paid for should be ignored. And I do.

I never make copies and give them away. I never let a friend borrow my software. I never install it on a machine not my own. I never download pirated software.

I do read the EULAs on the high dollar software, but I don't have the time to read every last one of them.

I love those HP's and Dell's when you first start them up out of the box it says you must accept the agreement. Fricken ingenious!

Uhhhhh, WTF are you gonna do? Not Accept it? And where was the EULA? Oh online, but I need a computer to get online... uhhh.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Sep 2010 @ 18:39

4517.9.2010 19:21

I totally agree with you, but I'm afraid that in the end, we'll both lose. Haven't you figured out that they're in charge yet??
I have, and I just go about my business as if I'm NOT GUILTY, which I do believe I am!

4617.9.2010 19:55

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't feel like I'm cheating anyone. But they sure are cheating us. Because we let them.

4717.9.2010 20:15

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Yeah.........there's a right way to doing things and a wrong way. This is definitively a wrong way. Consumers buy the software whether it be on a physical medium or a download therefore, IT BELONGS TO THE CONSUMER. We're not buying "rights to use it", we're buying a COPY of it and therefore we can sell it to whomever we want. I'd be willing to fight this one in court. Just need a judge with a reasonable mindset and not a Stalinistic one.

If this passes then every F'ing manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and "license" everything from furniture to pet food forbidding anyone to sell anything ever...............forcing people to buy another good.

This sucks and so does American Business. The very notion that video games are rendered useless or not worthy of use after playing/completing merits the right to re-sell. This is true of AutoCad. Obviously they don't refund or accept returns. What if a business closes down??????? Then re-selling is the only practical means.

Enough ranting........this is simply screwing the customer and solely benefiting the manufacturer.
Actually read the EULA. When we buy software we never own it, we are merely given permission by the creator to use it and that it remains the property of the creator. You never own it. It has been like this for years. It is wrong but that is the way it is.

4817.9.2010 21:18

OK, SOOOOOO......My question is this: If they are trying to stop piracy why oh why in the world would they do this???? If I can't buy a used game for half price on eBay then I WILL I repeat I WILL steal/pirate games. This is the most ridiculous thing i have seen in my life. These people are idiots and i hope everyone protests this company so they go out of business. This will only make the piracy rates SKYROCKET. I know a lot of people who pirate games but if they find the game they like a reasonable used price they will buy it. Well what if you cant buy them used anymore? What do they think they are accomplishing?

4917.9.2010 22:21

Originally posted by xtago:

It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.

i'm kinda sick, so maybe i misunderstood, but i you're talking about piracy which is not the case here. the consumer sold copies they bought, not copies of one paid-for copy.

Originally posted by xtago:

Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?

again, Autocad got their money when the consumer paid for the copies so they aren't out any money. they would be giving support for paid copies, not pirated copies.

5017.9.2010 22:31

Originally posted by bluedogs:

Actually read the EULA. When we buy software we never own it, we are merely given permission by the creator to use it and that it remains the property of the creator. You never own it. It has been like this for years. It is wrong but that is the way it is.
Yup, I suppose possession is 9/10s of the law, and so while they lay on my floor with a smoking hole in their chest, clutching their disks in their cold stiff hands... I guess it's irrelevant to them who owns what. And they are welcome to be buried with it. :)

Nowhere on the box did it say Adobe Suite Rental Version or Loaner Edition.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Sep 2010 @ 22:32

5117.9.2010 22:41

Originally posted by culade:
Originally posted by xtago:

It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.

i'm kinda sick, so maybe i misunderstood, but i you're talking about piracy which is not the case here. the consumer sold copies they bought, not copies of one paid-for copy.

Originally posted by xtago:

Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?

again, Autocad got their money when the consumer paid for the copies so they aren't out any money. they would be giving support for paid copies, not pirated copies.
Well that's the point they are missing here. If my friend calls me up and says he just bought COD4 used. Might that not potentially lead to increased sales? Just a thought. I actually went on bought MOHAA because a friend had a pirated version and he wanted me to play too. It does happen. MOHAA was pretty much almost extinct at the time too. I got it for $9.99 new.

You think this country was built on Free market capitalism. But do you know how many cases where some rich bastards had their political friends pass laws that ousted on manufacturer in favor of another? What's so free about that? They use our legal system and courts to do more business than most any other way. Our patent and copyright laws are so messed up so as to be counterproductive to society.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Sep 2010 @ 22:43

5218.9.2010 2:34

Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Yeah.........there's a right way to doing things and a wrong way. This is definitively a wrong way. Consumers buy the software whether it be on a physical medium or a download therefore, IT BELONGS TO THE CONSUMER. We're not buying "rights to use it", we're buying a COPY of it and therefore we can sell it to whomever we want. I'd be willing to fight this one in court. Just need a judge with a reasonable mindset and not a Stalinistic one.

If this passes then every F'ing manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and "license" everything from furniture to pet food forbidding anyone to sell anything ever...............forcing people to buy another good.

This sucks and so does American Business. The very notion that video games are rendered useless or not worthy of use after playing/completing merits the right to re-sell. This is true of AutoCad. Obviously they don't refund or accept returns. What if a business closes down??????? Then re-selling is the only practical means.

Enough ranting........this is simply screwing the customer and solely benefiting the manufacturer.
You'd never own the software though.

ever gotten a plastic wrapped MS product?

Once you open the wrap you waiver all rights you have and give them over to MS.

As for your court case you'd lose as as copyright's trademarks and patents have already beaten you to the punch.

The problem with used software sales will be that a end user is acting like they made or and own the rights to all proftits of that game and in law that isn't the case.

Autocad, costs a few grand, and if that end user is buying copies to simply resell on ebay, who's have to supply end user support and patches the end user selling on ebay or Autodesk?

It'd be like you making software for $50,000 and I buy 1 copy and I'd just start selling it everywhere and give you nothing back I bet you'd be wanting to clean me up in court as well.

And I guess I could just turn around and say you don't have any rights to any of the money I've made from your software so screw you.


Nope, I disagree! If I buy a car from GM, let's say, I didn't make or build that car but I still have the right to sell it because it is my car, I bought it. If I lease a car than I have to return that car at the end of its lease, but I could still sub lease it for the remaining time if I wanted too. Software is no different no matter what the a-hole manufactures want to claim. Again this is where our fair trade policies should kick in. Now with Clinton's millenium act software companies can get away with h~ll unfortunately. I say screw them and keep selling your software on Craigslist, eBay probably will prohibit sales though.

5318.9.2010 16:01

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

5418.9.2010 16:28

the person who buys the software, is now a licensee ie. they own the license, they therefore have the right to sell that license. also why do they care if this guy sells them on ebay, he still bought the bloody things so they got the money they deserve for them. if people are stupid enough to pay more for them on ebay, or the seller is stupid enough to charge less, then thats their stupidity/own fault. leave these idiots be for christs sake.

sorry. didnt have time to read every post so i dont know if this point has been made.

5519.9.2010 11:06

What if CRACK was licensed?? And some crackhead bought some crack from his local crack dealer. Then they turned around and sold it to their buddy. Could the original dealer sue for damages??... And what if the crackhead went to a lab and had the crack analyzed and got the formula then reproduced it. Could the dealer sue for copyright infringement??



Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive