Tendo City

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/26/bungie...sed-sales/

This guy apparently thinks that the original maker of the game deserves some money from when a game is resold by the person who bought it.

Er, that's not how it works. I gave you money, you gave me the game. End of story. If you get to keep making demands of the game I own after the fact, I can start making demands of the money I gave you after the fact. Obviously that's a retarded scenario, so hey, why not just accept that after you sell something, you DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO IT ANY MORE!

What if I never sold it? Are those missed sales? In a manner of speaking they are, so should I be forced to pay a yearly fee for the privilage of ownership? If so, how is that different than renting?

It's a crazy debate, and I can't believe anyone would be on the side of the game companies with this one. If it was like this in every industry it would mean anyone holding a garage sale would give part of their profits to the companies that made the products. It doesn't make any sense. I buy a lot of used games because I can't afford to buy new games anymore, but it isn't like I'm stealing from the game companies. They got their money from the original purchaser. If it weren't for used games I might not even be able to support my hobby anymore.

You didn't really buy that game, you just borrowed it!

Great Rumbler Wrote:You didn't really buy that game, you just borrowed it!

Computer and videogame companies are doing their absolute best to make that future a reality, I think. :(

As an interesting aside, a while ago I read on someone's log that they think artists should have the right to say "don't do whatever you want to my stuff". That is, the guy specifically said someone who buys a painting shouldn't be allowed to burn it or display it in a manner that wasn't the original intent of the creator, and it should be considered a form of "copyright infringement".

Here's the kicker, the guy was making a mod patch for a game that never had any mod tools released. The guy was hacking it, without the consent of the original makers I'm sure, and the guy was demanding all this to "protect" his work?

Unfortunatly it was some time ago and I don't know the address of the site. Suffice it to say sometimes artists just demand way too much of copyright protection. Not even patents protect people to that extent. If you sell your portrait to someone, and they burn it, at most it's rude, but it's the risk you took when you sold it. It isn't yours any more, and you have no right to say how they should treat it beyond some something like, say, if burning it released toxic gas into the atmosphere or the guy paints over it and says that's what it always looked like to libel/slander the artist.

It's still hilarious that the guy was doing exactly what he said artists should be "protected from" and didn't seem to recognize that at all.