The following is a comment debate from some less than informed in the ways of Fair Use Copyright law who thought that Used videogames were illegal and unethical. It frightens me that people can believe that corporations are justified to want to control the use of media items.
We are not talking about ROMs and Emulation but used games.
It all started with a simple review of Metroid Fusion.
How in the blazes can you get a new GBA for 25$? It had to be a used game. In that case, you're just as bad as the pirates of the software. The companies only get money if you buy it new. Get off your horse.
Posted by: Insane-Sama
It was on sale at Best Buy. Used games is not piracy just like use car lots are not car theft. In used games the company has already gotten their cut in the original sale.
Posted by: Jake
Oi, buying it on sale is one thing, but buying it used is another. If you're buying it used, the company isn't making any money, just as if someone bought the game and made pirated copies and then distributed them for free around the internet. And please, cars and software are two completely different things. You can't, for instance, just decide to let your friend borrow your car and license for a few days. Yeesh.
Posted by: Insane-Sama
You are joking right? the company has already made money from the original sale. used game sales are 100% legal and 100% ethical. I am sorry but the RIAA concept of device dependent DRM sales is for a word Fascist. I have been buying Nintendo games since the NES came out new and some that I have got were used this is perfectly legal and ethical and it does not cut into their bottom line. If not Nintendo would be suing Gamestop, EB and Ebay.
Posted by: Jake
Here is the problem. Yes buying a used game is 100% perfectly legal. However One person bought the game right? That means the company already made it's money off that game.That's true. So you bought a game from someone used. So where or when did Nintendo get your money for this game. They didn't. It's a very fine line. Instead of buying the game from Nintendo and giving them the profit from game you bought it used. Yes this is legal but it's not a good defense for saying rom usage is bad. I like used games myself but I'm smart enough to understand that used games do hurt the company. If you don't think used game sales hurt Nintendo then go look at several of their lawsuits they have filed against used game companies.
Posted by: Pugo
Pugo I have not heard of any lawsuits over used games. Sure there are lawsuits over pirated games all the time but not used legit games. I just got back from Gamestop where I purchased some used games on sale. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all still sell their new games there at Gamestop and I doubt they would do that if they thought that used game sales impacted their bottom line of selling new games. I dare you to show me proof of lawsuits in the USA over used games.
I bought my car a Ford Taurus from my Grandmother. She bought it new from a Ford dealer. Now did I have to cut Ford a check for the time that I bought the car? No because they already made their money off the first transaction. This is basic capitalism we are talking about here.
Posted by: Jake
What we are trying to say is how does buying the used copy of the game differ from downloading the rom? Both the Rom and The used game provide no profit to Nintendo. So why does Nintendo even care that people download their game for free. They should have made the profit twice. It's just a legal loophole in our country.
Yes. That is basic communism. What I'm saying is unless this is a game that is not being manufactured right now (like say Zero wing on the genesis) then buying a used game is just as harmful to the company as illegal rom downloads are.
Gamestop has come a long way from being funcoland. When they were funcoland they had a much higher profit from used games. Now they barely have any. Gamestop is now making the bulk of it's profits off new game sales so yeah The big companies do like them.
The cases I was refering to were not US ones but rather Japanese ones. In japan there are many more used game stores that make much more money then nintendo would like them too.
So what I'm trying to say is You bought them game. That is good. Better then many internet punks who would try to find the rom. In other words it means about jack to say that you bought a used in publication video game. It only makes you better by one half then guys who download roms. Course if I found it cheaper then that I would have gotten it too. But there are similarities between used games and pirate copies. That being that the company is selling the game once instead of twice.
Posted by: Pugo
e.e Good lord, I'm hoping no one is confusing me with that half-name stealer. But I'd just like to point out that the ROMs I usually get are to tide me over until I can find the original game. Also it's handy for when my NES and SNES decide not to work sometimes.
If the game is in publication and easy to find, getting a ROM is just sad, because anyone can afford the game if they have a damn computer. However, if the game is rare or hasn't even come out in America, I don't see why I should deprive myself of an overseas gaming experience.
And yes, I love communism. Sharing is the best way to go about everything. Isn't that what kindergarten taught us? Or was it just me?
Posted by: Insane-Sama
I have no problem with ROMs of super rare and out of print games. In fact I have a very large personal collection of them. I just don't see why every 13 year old kid comes to my site looking to download games and is pissed when I don't help them steal from Nintendo because they lack the basic Internet skills of how to obtain said ROMs.
Pugo when a person buys a game new they are also purchasing one permission to play that game. When the physical game is sold again to another party the permission is transferred to the new owner.
Legal loop hole my ass. Personal property rights that are controlled by the individual rather than the corporation is the fundamental principals of American capitalism not communism. Jesus.. your IP is from the University of Kentucky I hope you are getting your tuition money's worth because I can't believe I am explain how basic intellectual property rights work.
If you read Nintendo's Legal FAQs
It does not mention anywhere that used games are considered piracy or are any way Unethical or illegal.
I wrote about this here on my post
A PSA: Don't Pirate New Gameboy Advance Games You Cheap Bastards!!
Look if you want to send Nintendo a check every time you want to buy a used game or say penance or what ever but I have no ethical problem with used games, CDs, Books, Magazines, comic books, DVDs, Video tapes, or what ever.
If I go to the Salvation army store and buy some Levis Jeans should I ethnically cut Levis a check for the difference between the five bucks that I paid and the $30 that I could have got a similar pair of Jeans at Wal Mart? No that is batshit loony.
Posted by: Jake
Now you've got Pugo paranoid with the whole IP thing and he's yelling at me. Anyhow, I think we're all agreeing that ROMs are pretty much only ethical when the game is rare or out of print. o.O I don't see any real agruement here o.o Ah well, Metroid Fusion still kicks mighty ass, even though it is a bit, eh, easy? Yeah, that's my only complaint. Ah well, Samus! We loves you!
Posted by: Insane-Sama
Geez, Jake. I'm not sure how I managed to miss this post originally! Great review on Metroid Fusion, I have to agree 100% I would have bought it sooner if I had read this earlier on.
Now, I would like to address Pugo for a second. GameStop was NEVER Funcoland. GameStop bought FuncoLand out, therefore making it a completely different company. It did not evolve. Prior to GameStop buying FuncoLand, they had their mall stores: Babbage's and Software Etc. which were actively selling used games also. Of course, the mall stores don't have as high a volume of used sales as the FuncoLand-based stores, because the clientele that usually frequents malls isn't looking for anything used. FuncoLand-based stores still have an insanely high percentage of used sales. We sell used games/accessories/and *shock* DVD's. We are just stomping all over copyright laws aren't we? Get over it. The only legal litigation that has ever come up over the sales of used games is used PC. And that is because of the high amount of pirating and 'burning' of PC games that occurs.
Now I ask you this. If you are so against the selling of used video games...what about used clothing? used furniture? as Jake mentioned before, used cars? These are all items that were purchased by an original buyer and resold. And in most cases, were bought by the original buyer (random company) and sold to the consumer (random consumer), therefore creating a middleman, which could be construed as having been previously-owned.
You really should think before you speak.
Posted by: Mici
The moral of the story is that those who do not fully understand their rights and freedoms will not complain when forces try to destroy their digital rights and freedoms. Support the EFF!
Jake,
Apparently, this is a kid you are dealing with, not someone who has even had a basic business 101 class.
Companies selling dry goods, project off of one time sales. Not resale values. If they did, no place would be in business, because that is not fit within the "physics of general business." Too long and complicated to get into. But it is obvious this kid has no clue what he is talking about.
Good example to give to him: A company makes 10 widgets. It would like to turn a profit on those 10 widgets. It costs them $50 to build them, market them, etc. (the whole deal), they mark it up to 100% so the item sells for $100. When the project the profit, they project off of the one time sale of this device. So their projected profit is $500. In no way is a resale of this device (used or otherwise) biting into their profit number 1 because they target their sales of these deivces to demographics. They know full well that the person who only has the money to afford a used unit will not be a target consumer. Therefore, they don't give a rats ass if a targetd consumer decides to sell their device, even if they just bought it the same day. Why? Because they already made thier $50 profit off of it.
All he'd have to do is look at any software license agreement; it says right there that you're perfectly entitled to do whatever you want with the software, so long as it's only installed on one computer at a time. In the case of a GBA cartridge, only one person can use it at a time, period. When the person sells the game, they pass on their rights to that game to the buyer. It works the same way with any used media.
That guy is seriously fucked in the head.
Well, I'm convinced! Tomorrow I'm taking my hockey mask and axe and murdering all those thieving crooks who work at the Salvation Army. I'm also going to blow up EB, and I will burn all of the used movies at Blockbuster. I shall call it... "Operation Corporate Freedom!"
Mmmmm... corporate freedom.
YEAH! Evil corporate bastards! They provide us with the bane of our existance....jobs!!! SOBs I am gonna put my night vision goggles on and attack under cover of darkness because the Army "owns the night" then i will disembowell(sic?)thos corporate MOFOS!!!!
BTW...that comic was great....it made me laugh my ass off. I only wish he hadnt pissed on those HOs rather he should have busted a nut on them! HA!
Jake is of course right. I will continue to burn CDs and there is nothing anyone can do about it either. I am running bootlegged software RIGHT NOW! of course i always buy it if i like it(games) and it works....that is called ethics people. This whole argument could be moot if more people werent trying to steal games. I think that 90% of people who burn copies of stuff should really be more ethical and if they like the product and really enjoy it they should fork over the cash to buy it so trhe developers will be rewarded for thier efforts. This does not apply to those of us using software to learn like..... 3DS MAX because it is 3,000 bux.
And another thing. Insane Sama is in fact insane. Communism has NOTHING TO DO with buying a product used! It is called a free market you retard. I have sold a washer and dryer set at a garage sale...i am not about to give GE a cut. They already got thier money and the property is LEGALLY mine damnit. I wish people would think before they post to this BLOG. JEEBUS!
Note from Jake: If you don't post a real email address I am tempted to delete your comment. Is that too much to ask for?
There is a big difference between the production costs of a car and a videogame. When you buy a car, you are mostly paying for the material and the time the workers spent at the factory; in other words, you are paying the variable costs. When you buy a videogame, you pay perhaps 10% for the cartridge, manual, and box. The other 90% are used to develop new games.
The durability of games is another issue. You may spend hundreds of dollars to keep a seven year old car in mint condition, but your copy of Atari's Pitfall is probably just as good as when you took it off the box the first time. The bottom line is used games are much more cost effective compared to new ones than used cars/jeans/shoes/washers/whatever and hurt sales much more.
I don't think used games affect new game sales one bit. Just like used CD sales do not cut into new music sales and stop music artists from making new music. Besides we are not talking about Pitfall we are talking about Gameboy Advance currently being published like Metroid Fusion.
^^^^^^^^i agree with the above post^^^^^^
i dont think that sellin games once u buy is illegal... thats my say
The key here is to remember that whenever you purchase anything you take part in a contract.
For software its usually a end-user-license-agreement(EULA) (quite explicit). Things such as a car will have a bill of sale (somewhat explicit). Other things such as a hammer come with no agreement (completely implicit).
So you can see that these puchase contracts can be both explicit (detailed description) or implicit. As a matter of fact almost all contracts tend to have some implicit features since these things are occuring not in outer space but within the context of society and law which create pre-established norms to judge these contracts.
So in the case of video games, I have read several EULAs which expressedly allow you to transfer your rights (i.e. to resell the item) If such statements are not present in the EULA, you can, as far as I can tell, assume that your EULA gives you such rights since this is the norm that has been established. (eg. when you buy a hammer, you are given the right to use it and the manufacturer can't insist that it may only be sheathed in your toolbox, unless he makes you expressedly sign a contract that says so).
So, if your game's EULA does not say that you can not resell the item, then you are perfectly fine to do so.
As a matter of fact there are probably many reasons why they would want you to do so. For example, let you tap the market that they can not.
Another way to view it is to think in terms of their expanding markets. If they could only sell to the first tier of buyers (they can not directly sell to the used game buyers as their offered prices are not cost-effective), the capital available for game purchases would be smaller. Now enter the used game buyers who gives you the money and what do you do? You add another ten dollars and promptly plop it down for the next best greatest game, and voila the used game buyers money has magically made its way to the manufacturer. In essence you are doing what game retailers do all the time! They buy from the developer and sell to you. Just imagine if a developer had to sell all their games on their own! Not to mention the fact that whereas a retailer took a cut out the profits from the developer, your only cut was the pleasure that you derived from it minus the depreciation that you acqueisced to in your used game sale. I'm sure the developer would love to sell you all their product under those terms if you wanted it!
These are the types of intricate webs of relationships and activities that make up commerce and is the backbone of capitalism and is also why communism turned out to be spineless. Trading is what keeps our markets alive and well. Capitalism is active whereas communism breeds lethargy.
Unfortunately, capitalism does not leave much room for ethics, only laws (which represent the ethics of the market) If the market says the right to resell is fundamental then you get that right otherwise, as in the case of copying, the market can decide to not give you certain rights.
A hammer manufacturer would like a check everytime you touch it. The check manufacturer would like another one everytime you use one. But they know the market will not allow it.
In otherwords being extremely fair, which is essentially communism, is difficult and unworkable. In communism everyone takes care of each other; in capitalism you take care of number 1 and so you take what the market will allow you.
So in the end everyone is taken care of (by themselves)
So be a capitalist and trade!! Read EULAs and familiarize youself with and follow applicable laws and ALWAYS VOTE (so that you will have laws that you like)!!
Well hey there again Jakeypoo. I'm flattered to see our comments annoyed you so much that you made a page for Pugo and myself. But I think the essence of the arguement got lost somewhere along the way, because I know I sure as hell wasn't all the way awake. Here's the only point we were trying to make, so write this down:
Companies make no money from the resale of used games or the use of ROMs. That is -all- we were pointing out. The only difference is that used games are legal, whereas ROMs are a sticky area of copyright doomyness. We weren't saying one was better or worse than the other (regardless the legality), just saying that in both cases the company gets NO money.
For those who would say that burned games or ROMs generate no money for the company, I point you to the copying of PSX games and running them on computers. Someone had to buy the original, didn't they? Well, no, they could have stolen it, but let's not think that deeply about it. Either way, the company makes its original profit from both cases (those being buying it for legal and non-legal purposes.)
Now, when the buyer gets bored with the game, they have every right to sell it for a price, or simply give it away for free. The company makes no more money off of this.
The ROM creator has the option (though not sanctioned by law) to distribute (again, illegally) the ROM that they made from the original cart or whatever. The company makes no more money off of this.
I hope that cleared up our arguement somewhat. Please take down the little paragraph saying we think used games are illegal. That'd be a treat. And for those confused about our previous posts, don't worry, we're just sleepy college students that muddle their points, alrighty?
Wow, amazing what ego-surfing turns up years after the fact. Shall I try and clarify an ancient point?
I never intended to try and make the argument that buying a used videogame was illegal. I was only trying to say that the company gets the same profit whether or not you buy a used game or a ROM (that is to say, 0$)
By that logic, why is it wrong to simply get ROMs instead of used games? The company was not going to make any profit out of your used game purchase. And it certainly isn't making any cash from your ROM download.
My only point was that unless you're buying a new game (which is surely what the company WANTS you to do so they can, you know, turn another bit of profit) then one should have no qualms with taking it for free from the internet. That's all.