OFFICIAL: Not allowed to resell the Game!

[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.

[Reece]

EB Games here in Australia have a swapping section, is it OK for them to do this? If so then it's OK for me!!

Excellent post Teddy.

In our society 1 in 10 people demonstrate sociopathic tendencies. In the upper echelons of corporates the stat is 1 in 4. Corporate structures are thus geared such that empathy challenged people rise higher and quicker. Is it really surprising then that joe public feels 'shock' and 'awe' at the cut throat and inhumane practices of corporates ?

We created this society, so its up to us to keep it clean.... one way joe public can help is by ethical shopping.

So vote with your wallets - it's the only 'useful' vote one has in a society mainly driven by greed.

[MercurySeven]

Originally Posted by 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.

As far as I remember this is true as long as you have purchased a physical object (such as the DVD).
Additionally:

• Any addition to a sales contract between a company and a customer that would classify as "unexpected" (such as "You have bought our product, but you are not allowed to sell it again") are void
• Anything that UBI wants you to agree on has to be agreed by you before the contract between you and UBI is valid by a definite action which is not provided by just buying or even opening the game

Regarding the second part:
If you buy the thing you can resell it immediately.
If you then open the box you can resell it immediately and also return it to the retailer. This is due to the fact that UBI will probably not put a legal text on the outside of the packaging telling you that you cannot resell the thing. Since you therefor have to open the package to gain that information you can then refuse to enter this contract and return or resell.
If you agree to UBIs contract by installing the game you will have to dig deeper for the first mentioned part about the right to resell any physical merchandise you bought as mentioned above.

Mind you, all this is legal mumbo jumbo and might require a lawyer of some sort since neither UBI nor a retailer will be very happy about this.

[JU_88]

Well this isnt the first time, I remember it being similar with Half Life2.
Its no great loss anyway, PC games depreciate in value so quickly, unless you sell the game withing first few months you'll get a pittance for it anyway.
I dont expect its a law that will be taken too seriously by most, if you want to sell it to some one who wants to buy it, no-one can stop you.
Can you really see anyone being taken to a small claims court over this?

I am calling Ubi's bluff on this one, not that it effects me personally as I will not be reselling my copy of SHV.
No offence but anyone who decides to consult a Lawyer over this, must have a lot of spare time and money on their hands...

[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.

[Sgtmonkeynads]

Just a thought, but doesn't the no re-sell impede interstate trade. I know the feds don't like that at all. Hell, Montana skirts some ATF laws with the claim of hampered trade.