Mord's Blog

Not enough to modify the post, so I'll just leave this in a comment. For the people who complain that companies like Game Stop are ripping off the game companies by selling their games secondhand for 5 dollars cheaper than a new copy and trying to equate that somehow as being as bad as copyright infringement, stop kidding yourself.

 

The people ripping themselves off in that case are the customers actually stupid enough to buy a secondhand game due to a 5 dollar discount. Game Stop would never be doing this if people weren't that desperate for any kind of discount at all. Just don't buy it and let them run themselves into the ground.

Just thinking out loud here. IANAL

 

There are often problems trying to apply laws, rights and other legal concepts to the new digital world. IMHO, the first step is to step back and look at the concept from a historical perspective.

 

Traditionally right of resale first applied to physical goods. You could do what you wished with items you legally owned and possessed, including selling that item to another. And unless there was a contract specifying otherwise, the new owner could do the same. So the rights of the buyer could be restricted, but that restriction was known before purchase and could therefore be worked into the price paid for the item. Obviously restricting further resale is possible (and is certainly normals for many items, for example a monthly bus pass).

 

So, is there any reasons why a game publisher can't try to restrict resale, or make it less appealing to buy a used game? No, as long as the restriction is known before purchase so the buyer can make an educated decision. A for GameStop selling used games for $5 less than new, I'll just take my money to Walmart or another store and buy the new item for the few dollars more. And if I'm willing to wait and don't mind buying used, then I'll check out eBay.