OFFICIAL: Not allowed to resell the Game!

[urfisch]

...this news i found in the german forum. so think about, if you are going to buy it, just for testing purpose. could be an expensive try...if you are not even able to sell it via ebay, etc.



nice marketing idea, indeed.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Since when do used game dealers buy used PC games anyway? None of my local game stores have for many a year.
While I won't be buying SH5 for a number of reasons, I wholeheartedly support the steps that the games industry as a whole has taken towards combatting used game sales - they provide no revenue for the developers or publishers whatsoever.

"I wholeheartedly support the steps that the games industry as a whole has taken towards combatting used game sales - they provide no revenue for the developers or publishers whatsoever"

What a stupid thing to say. PS3 and 360 gamers have the ability to trade in games when ever they feel like. DRM should be there to stop piracy not to be a new revenue stream for the developers against PC users.

PC gaming is dying and DRM will only serve to finish it off quicker. Publishers are producing more and more multiplatform games would you choose to spend £40 on a game on the PC if it has no residual value or on the PS3 knowing that you can trade it in when finished playing and get money back.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Who said anything about DRM? We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.

Get your panties unbunched.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

Who said anything about DRM? We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.

Get your panties unbunched.

This is another example of how little business smarts Ubisoft has if we were to take this to the next logical step then we will need to close down the public libraries.

Seriously, we need to shut down all the libraries as Go To Hellman's (link to site) article demonstrates so well

Offline Book "Lending" Costs U.S. Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion

Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher's Weekly that "publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy" comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were "loaned" last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.

From what we've been able to piece together, the book "lending" takes place in "libraries". On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a "card". But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there's no admission charge and it doesn't cost anything to borrow a book, there's always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material.

To get to the bottom of this story, Go To Hellman has dispatched its Senior Piracy Analyst (me) to Boston, where a mass meeting of alleged book traffickers is to take place. Over 10,000 are expected at the "ALA Midwinter" event. Even at the Amtrak station in New York City this morning, at the very the heart of the US publishing industry, book trafficking culture was evident, with many travelers brazenly displaying the totebags used to transport printed contraband.

As soon as I got off the train, I was surrounded by even more of this crowd. Calling themselves "Librarians", they talk about promoting literacy, education, culture and economic development, which are, of course, code words for the use and dispersal of intellectual property. They readily admit to their activities, and rationalize them because they're perfectly legal in the US, at least for now.

Typical was Susanne from DC, who told me that she's been involved in lending operations for over 15 years. This confirms our estimate that "lending" has been going on for over ten years, beyond even Google's memory. Our trillion dollar estimate may thus be on the conservative side. Of course, it's impossible to tell how many of these lent books would have been purchased legally if "libraries" were not an option, but we're not even considering the huge potential losses to publishers when "used" books are resold for pennies on the black markets.

The communications backbone for this vast enterprise appears to be Twitter. Already, there is constant chatter on the #alamw10 hashtag. Most messages are clearly coded references to illicit transactions. For example a trafficker with the alias "@libacat" tweets "Have to be on the bus to the airport at 6:41 tomorrow morning to make it to the airport to get on my plane to #alamw10". At first glance, it seems like a mundane tweet about travel plans, but the breathtaking ordinariness and triple redundancy is more likely a secret code. How else to understand @scolford's (correction: retweet of @SonjaandLibrary replying to @BPLBoston) tweet; "curling my toes in joy at the thought of visiting your library"?

I've attended this meeting before. When I register for the book lending confab, I'll be presented with an encrypted document labeled the "program", which once decoded, will tell me where I can meet other book traffickers, discuss arcane trafficker lore, and drink trafficker beer. It's thick with secret code words like YALSA, LITA and NMRT, and no apparent rhyme or reason in its layout, evidently to frustrate outside investigators. I'll be lucky if I can find a bathroom.

Two places I'll be sure to find this weekend will be the OCLC Blog Salon on Sunday evening and the Chinatown Storefront Library on Saturday afternoon. Say hello if you see me.

In their greed the companies have lost all common sense.

[GlobalExplorer]

I believe according to German (and other EU) law, such claims as made by UBI are irrelevant and can be ignored. You can of course resell the game if you paid for it. Of course this applies only if you're a customer, rental etc. is different. However, the content mafia is already trying to undermine the law, that's why I now vote for the Pirate Party btw.

[Letum]

Of course you can't resell it if it's not yours.

You may have paid for it, but with this DRM you don't own it.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Originally Posted by Letum

Of course you can't resell it if it's not yours.

You may have paid for it, but with this DRM you don't own it.

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

Yes, clearly I have not bought the copyright to the code. That is not what is
meant when one says one owns a game.
I know that and it does not change what I am saying.

[Silanda]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

Lets. EULAs are legally not worth the paper they're printed on / bytes they take up, despite what the software industry would have you believe. Anything can be written in a EULA but that doesn't mean that a court will uphold it, especially when, as has been alluded to, the EULA may not actually be written in accordance to actual law.

The most obvious and common problem would be that for physical purchases the buyer cannot view the EULA until after the purchase has already been made and/or the software executed.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

You never owned SH3 or 4 either. Read your EULA - you purchased a license to use the game, you do not own the game or the code on the disc.

I do not support this new DRM as I have said elsewhere, but let's make sure we're getting our facts correct here.

Wrong (apart from the code ownership part). Publishers are not above state/federal law. Just ask Autodesk...

In Autodesk Case, Judge Rules Secondhand Sales OK
2 Oct 09

A Seattle judge ruled in favor of a man arguing that he has the right to sell secondhand software, in a case that had some people worried about an end to used-book and CD stores.

The suit was initially filed by Timothy Vernor after eBay, responding to requests by Autodesk, removed the Autocad software that Vernor was trying to sell on the auction site. EBay later banned Vernor from the site, based on Autodesk's complaints.

Vernor argued that since he was selling legitimate versions of the software -- not illegal copies -- he hadn't violated any laws.

Autodesk contends that it doesn't "sell" its software, but instead licenses it and therefore prohibits buyers from reselling it.

But no matter how Autodesk describes the agreement with customers, it is transferring ownership to end-users, the judge, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, found. Autodesk had argued that its restrictions on the way that buyers can use the software show that users license rather than own the software.

"A person who buys a home is nonetheless restricted in his use and subsequent transfer of the home by property laws, zoning ordinances, and fair housing statutes," Judge Richard Jones wrote in his ruling. "No one would characterize the person's possession, however, as something other than ownership. Similarly, the court cannot characterize Autodesk's decision to let its licensees retain possession of the software forever as something other than a transfer of ownership, despite numerous restrictions on that ownership."

In previous arguments, both sides warned of dire consequences that could follow the judge's decision. But he said he thinks the impact will be minimal.

Autodesk argued that if the judge decided that people own its software, prices will rise for end-users. But that argument ignores the secondhand market, which offers better prices for consumers, the judge noted. "Although Autodesk would no doubt prefer that consumers' money reaches its pockets, that preference is not a basis for policy," Jones wrote.

Vernor has argued that if the judge ruled that the software was indeed licensed, then any copyright owner could impose severe restrictions on how their products are used. For instance, book publishers could bar resale and lending, eliminating the used-book market as well as libraries.

Even if he had ruled against Vernor, such fear was "misplaced," the judge said. "Although the interpretation of 'owner' in the Copyright Act no doubt has important consequences for software producers and consumers, the court is skeptical that its ruling today will have far-reaching consequences," he wrote.

The judge denied Vernor's charges against Autodesk of copyright misuse.

Autodesk did not immediately have comment on the ruling, which it can appeal.

It's just that Tim had the balls to call their bluff. I'm sure there'd be other examples in other juridictions across the world.

[codmander]

who gives a hoot all we want is a great sim too much about security and whatnot no wonder only 7/43

[Rosencrantz]

Kapitanleutnant wrote:

We're talking about used game sales which do not provide any revenue for the developer or publisher who made the game.

Unless you are somehow personally connected to the game industry, I can't see much of point in your statement. If company has already sold that single peace of the game, why in earth second hand trading should provide any revenue anymore? Is there no limits in human greed?


With respect,
-RC-

[Kapitanleutnant]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Unless you are somehow personally connected to the game industry, I can't see much of point in your statement. If company has already sold that single peace of the game, why in earth second hand trading should provide any revenue anymore? Is there no limits in human greed?

Because somebody who has not previously owned the game goes into the used game store and buys a used copy of that game. All the profit from that money goes directly to the retailer - the developer doesn't see a penny of it, and loses out on a customer who otherwise would have put money in their pocket.

So no, I guess there isn't a limit to human greed, it's just that in this case it's the retailer who is getting greedy, and the people who made the game are missing out.

[MercurySeven]

Well, isnt that the same thing Valve tried to score with HL2 in the beginning? And failed in court? If I remeber my "Legal Aspects of IT 101" right then (at least in European law) you have the right to resell whatever you bought as long as you bought it in a physical form (e.g. DVD). And since SH5 is just the first of a long list of UBI games thats supposed to run on this DRM thing I assume it will not go unnoticed by legal institutions. So ... Well, lets see what the proper authorities do with this.