|
|
 |
| [Sep 10, 2010, 8:17 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Wired.com reports a ruling by a federal appeals court ( Adobe Acrobat format) saying that first-sale doctrine is "unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works," which makes it unlawful to resell software distributed under shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses. As they explain: "The first-sale doctrine of 1909, in its current form, allows the 'owner of a particular copy' of a copyrighted work top sell or dispose of his copy without the copyright owner's authorization. 'The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee,' the court ruled." This case was an appeal of a case involving sales of AutoCAD on eBay, and it sounds likely that another appeal will follow. Thanks Aclesius via Slashdot.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 43. |
Re: Software First Sale Doctrine Slashed |
Sep 11, 2010, 18:15 |
Verno |
|
|
But Game A benefits when Game B is sold to afford Game A. It's all cyclical.
Sure in theory but in practice Gamestop just puts copies of titles at $5 less than retail front and center so the reality is probably more like Game A is sold to afford Used Game B which is traded in later to afford Used Game C. You're also upsold on used games at every opportunity. Gamestops billion dollar profit margin isn't coming from new game sales, that's for sure.
The main argument against used sales funding new sales is that people who sell their games at Gamestop for $5 are probably desperate for money and lack any caring for developers
I doubt it, it's probably more likely that people in general will usually buy whatever is cheapest. There's a small subset of every market that will pay boutique prices for goods but in general most people are bargain hunters. Games could be $15 and Gamestop could be selling games for $12 and I doubt the situation would be much different.
There's also the simple fact that a lot of people might stop spending $60 on a game if they know they can never sell it for anything, that the money is just gone forever. The success of Steam kind of refutes this, but then Steam has built its success on huge sales and cheap games, things people wouldn't worry about resale on.
This on the other hand I can see. I have a few friends who rarely trade in anything at all but just like knowing the option is there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Animal Crossing, Sleeping Dogs, Tales of Graces F
Watching: Survivorman, Justified, Silent Running |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
