Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Don't be naive. You're not purchasing the physical medium for $50-60. You're paying for the IP contained on it. And as such, you can't possibly imagine that your $50-60 is purchasing full rights to the source code. Therefore, you must be licensing the IP, anything beyond that makes absolutely no sense.
And when it comes to data in a digital age, it's not unreasonable to ban the resale of data, given that the owner of the IP (not you) has zero guarantee that you have not made a copy of the data.
I fully support resale of the physical medium. Gouge that CD deeply, and sell the physical product as a coaster for fifty cents at a yard sale. Anything less than that, and you're reselling IP that you do not own, and the owner has not sold any transferable rights to you.
I fully realize all this, but frankly it's an issue. If I own the physical medium and their proprietary data is on it I shouldn't have to destroy my property to protect their rights. The relative value is an issue, but it's still a major problem.
Quote:
The argument that you have no way to see the EULA before purchase was a good one a decade ago. Now, the EULAs are generally posted online, and are boilerplate anyways and we've all had the opportunity to read ones that are just like it, so claiming that you were surprised that you weren't purchasing any transferable rights is pretty silly at this point when you own fifty other games with EULAs that also don't offer any transferable rights.
Surprised or not really doesn't matter. The EULA is an agreement and contract of sorts. This would be like selling someone a house and then refusing to give them a key until they sign a contract saying they're really just renting it and then claiming that its perfectly legitimate because it's standard and it's available online.
Quote:
IIRC, I've read several EULAs that stated that you could immediately ship the full contents of the box back with a receipt dated within X many days of the shipping date for a refund if you don't accept the terms of the EULA, though I think that died out as the piracy caught up to the copy protection schemes.
If it died out, that's a serious problem.
Basically they're demanding that you pay first, then agree in order to use what you paid for. It simply doesn't square up with any other sort of buisness or exchange or property. I, quite frankly, think someone ought to belooking to see if there were any "inducements" for the judge to decide this way.