5 ms·

Steam? How about pretty much every digital storefront? You can't sell prime movies, you can't sell iTunes music and so on. All of these store fronts should idea

by hoffs 7y ago

Steam? How about pretty much every digital storefront? You can't sell prime movies, you can't sell iTunes music and so on. All of these store fronts should ideally allow people to resell all digital content they purchased.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Prime movies is all you can watch rental service. Buying movies from Amazon digital is buying a perpetual license. The distinction is in selling access versus selling goods.
- ozymandias12 7y ago
  >The distinction is in selling access versus selling goods. That's the core issue. We shouldn't let firms dictate ownership. Buying stuff is historically a right to property. The whole discussion is pointless because digital firms are using the regulatory capture, its slow reaction and legal loopholes to dictate ownership, all while doing PPP with the gov and lobbying for its causes. This whole thing is a temporary theater show (while we discuss the issue, the firms are making money and donating it). People should DEMAND regulatory instruments to react quicker and respect our rights.
bluecalm 7y ago
Why should? The whole idea of copyright is that only the author (or otherwise copyright holder) can profit from making copies. Just because you purchased a copy yourself shouldn't automatically result in a right to making another copy for someone else as long as you promise not to use yours.
- statusquoantefa 7y ago
  I know, people here are demanding that after you fill up at an all you can eat buffet, you should be allowed to sell your seat to somebody else.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    No they are saying that if you buy a meal, you should be able to package it up and sell it to someone else, which you can do. If I go buy a hamburger, I can walk right out onto the street and if someone else offers me money for it I can sell it. What I can't sell is access, which is what a buffet is, you're not paying for the individual item you're paying for access to the buffet.
    - bluecalm 7y ago
      So what is the difference exactly if Steam says they sell access to the game for your personal account? Would it that be a good analogy then?
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    It's a very good analogy. I feel the downvotes come from people who are opposed to copyright in principle. That fine and all but once you accept the premise of copyright then forcing the author to allow reselling defeats the purpose. In case of ebooks for example one could easily resell it like 100 times to all the friends first day so anyone could take a look. This is especially bad for the authors in case of content based product. If you are selling copies of knowledge you acquired then forcing you to allow reselling means you will have to sell for much higher price or not at all. There are opinions and verdicts of EU courts which makes different rules for content based electronic goods. For example you are not forced to grant refunds with those. I really hope Steam wins the appeal or that courts in other countries won't repeat this verdict (it's not case law in most of Europe so what French court decided hasn't much weight in Germany or Poland or whatever other country.
- jandrese 7y ago
  That's not how copyright works on physical goods, like books, DVDs, etc... The Doctrine of First Sale is a crucial part of Copyright law. The author doesn't get to control your life because you bought one of their works. If you want to use it in some other way then they intended they don't get a say.
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    But you are not making another copy with physical goods. You are giving/selling it to someone else. Those things aren't analogical (for the same reason making a copy isn't "stealing" it's at most copyright violation). There is a reason for this distinction. Making physical goods costs money, making digital copies is free (basically). If we accept the premise that copyright holder can exercise control over it there is no reason why you magically should be able to make exactly one copy for someone else once you stop using yours. The author also doesn't control your life, quite the contrary the court wants to control the life of the author by forcing them to implement ways to move the game to another person/computer/account. I think selling a computer where the game is installed to someone else is more akin to selling a book or a car or whatever and I doubt anyone would oppose that.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      The physical printing costs of a book are a negligible amount of its cover price. Saying that because it's cheaper to make a copy of a digital good it needs new rules doesn't seem like a strong argument. The author's problem are entirely self inflicted in this case, as it is his own DRM that is making him do extra work to allow transfers.

by hoffs 7y ago

cannonedhamster 7y ago

Prime movies is all you can watch rental service. Buying movies from Amazon digital is buying a perpetual license. The distinction is in selling access versus selling goods.

ozymandias12 7y ago
>The distinction is in selling access versus selling goods. That's the core issue. We shouldn't let firms dictate ownership. Buying stuff is historically a right to property. The whole discussion is pointless because digital firms are using the regulatory capture, its slow reaction and legal loopholes to dictate ownership, all while doing PPP with the gov and lobbying for its causes. This whole thing is a temporary theater show (while we discuss the issue, the firms are making money and donating it). People should DEMAND regulatory instruments to react quicker and respect our rights.

bluecalm 7y ago

Why should? The whole idea of copyright is that only the author (or otherwise copyright holder) can profit from making copies. Just because you purchased a copy yourself shouldn't automatically result in a right to making another copy for someone else as long as you promise not to use yours.

statusquoantefa 7y ago
I know, people here are demanding that after you fill up at an all you can eat buffet, you should be allowed to sell your seat to somebody else.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  No they are saying that if you buy a meal, you should be able to package it up and sell it to someone else, which you can do. If I go buy a hamburger, I can walk right out onto the street and if someone else offers me money for it I can sell it. What I can't sell is access, which is what a buffet is, you're not paying for the individual item you're paying for access to the buffet.
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    So what is the difference exactly if Steam says they sell access to the game for your personal account? Would it that be a good analogy then?
- bluecalm 7y ago
  It's a very good analogy. I feel the downvotes come from people who are opposed to copyright in principle. That fine and all but once you accept the premise of copyright then forcing the author to allow reselling defeats the purpose. In case of ebooks for example one could easily resell it like 100 times to all the friends first day so anyone could take a look. This is especially bad for the authors in case of content based product. If you are selling copies of knowledge you acquired then forcing you to allow reselling means you will have to sell for much higher price or not at all. There are opinions and verdicts of EU courts which makes different rules for content based electronic goods. For example you are not forced to grant refunds with those. I really hope Steam wins the appeal or that courts in other countries won't repeat this verdict (it's not case law in most of Europe so what French court decided hasn't much weight in Germany or Poland or whatever other country.
jandrese 7y ago
That's not how copyright works on physical goods, like books, DVDs, etc... The Doctrine of First Sale is a crucial part of Copyright law. The author doesn't get to control your life because you bought one of their works. If you want to use it in some other way then they intended they don't get a say.
- bluecalm 7y ago
  But you are not making another copy with physical goods. You are giving/selling it to someone else. Those things aren't analogical (for the same reason making a copy isn't "stealing" it's at most copyright violation). There is a reason for this distinction. Making physical goods costs money, making digital copies is free (basically). If we accept the premise that copyright holder can exercise control over it there is no reason why you magically should be able to make exactly one copy for someone else once you stop using yours. The author also doesn't control your life, quite the contrary the court wants to control the life of the author by forcing them to implement ways to move the game to another person/computer/account. I think selling a computer where the game is installed to someone else is more akin to selling a book or a car or whatever and I doubt anyone would oppose that.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    The physical printing costs of a book are a negligible amount of its cover price. Saying that because it's cheaper to make a copy of a digital good it needs new rules doesn't seem like a strong argument. The author's problem are entirely self inflicted in this case, as it is his own DRM that is making him do extra work to allow transfers.