3 ms·

The "Fair Trade" approach seems irrelevant in the retail model of distribution (trading cartridges and discs - much like used books), but takes on vastly differ

The "Fair Trade" approach seems irrelevant in the retail model of distribution (trading cartridges and discs - much like used books), but takes on vastly different implications in the service model (Xbox Live, Steam, Appstore). I would be more comfortable with the downloadable platforms (as a curator at an archeological media lab) if it were possible to maintain the same kind of liquidity associated with the physical media by trading them in public markets (given that most game vendors prohibit or discourage transferring game licenses), even if it meant paying a royalty to an existing corporation to do so until such a time as the work enters the public domain. What scares me is not being able to access these works in a hundred years. Would a royalty system enable one to open the markets by fostering greater income much like how the traditional used game market in brick-and-mortar "allows" for higher prices on new games. Related: "Valve: Are Games Too Expensive?" http://tr.im/zEJW http://tr.im/zEJW or http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expe...

Periodic 17y ago
Similar to the digital music industry, it seems that the publishers are trying to spin software as something you have licensed instead of something you own. This can be seen very readily in the MDY v Blizzard case that's going on right now. Blizzard claims that they only license the game to you, even though you bought a physical copy at a store front. Because they own the game and you only license it they can say that you don't have the right to modify the memory. You would essentially be bound to anything they want to put in their EULA/ToS in this case. This does have a very chilling effect on archival systems. When you aren't able to format-shift a piece of media or it is bound to only one player then eventually you will loose access to that media, either through hardware failure or obsolescence. Copyright law section 117 gives you a lot of rights for software you've purchased and owned, but treating it as a license circumvents that clause and gives the publisher full control. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-it-mdy-v-blizzard-appealed http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-i...

Periodic 17y ago

Similar to the digital music industry, it seems that the publishers are trying to spin software as something you have licensed instead of something you own. This can be seen very readily in the MDY v Blizzard case that's going on right now. Blizzard claims that they only license the game to you, even though you bought a physical copy at a store front. Because they own the game and you only license it they can say that you don't have the right to modify the memory. You would essentially be bound to anything they want to put in their EULA/ToS in this case. This does have a very chilling effect on archival systems. When you aren't able to format-shift a piece of media or it is bound to only one player then eventually you will loose access to that media, either through hardware failure or obsolescence. Copyright law section 117 gives you a lot of rights for software you've purchased and owned, but treating it as a license circumvents that clause and gives the publisher full control. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-it-mdy-v-blizzard-appealed http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-i...