[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:02:02 -0000

Also not bad:

"Buying And Selling Used Video Games Could Become a Thing Of The Past

Posted on September 23rd, 2010 in Business, Gaming, Legal 14 Comments

If a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands, the
days of buying and selling used video games could come to a screeching
and dramatic halt in no time flat.

The whole problem beings with a ruling where an eBay seller resold some
used copies of some architecture software. Since Tmothy Vernor bought
the the copies of AuoCAD from AutoDesk at a sale, he felt that he was
within his rights to resell the expensive software on the auction site
because he never agreed to the copyrights contained within. Autodesk of
course felt otherwise. At the district court level, the ruling was in
favor of Mr. Vernor, but upon appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, they
overturned that ruling and ruled in favor of Autodesk saying that the
software was never to be sold as the architecture firm had really bought
the software, but had instead merely licensed it from the manufacturer.

This is where video games come into it.

If you read through the ruling (PDF link), it becomes clear that all
software is not “sold”, but rather “licensed” to the end user.  If you
read through the agreements in your video games (which no one does), it
is all stated as “license”.  Under this interpretation of the law, no
software falls under what is known as “the first sale doctrine”; a 1976
addition to the copyright law which allows the first person to buy an
item to have the right to resell it.  In other words, we have never
“bought” any of our video games, we have merely “licensed the right to
play them”.

Say “good bye” to selling, trading or buying used games if this stands.

This would bring an end to one of GameStop’s leading revenue streams. 
GameFly could conceivably have to stop renting games, along with
anywhere else that does so.  All stores would have to stop their buy
back programs.  In other words, this is the game industry’s idea of

As used game sales have increased in frequency, game publishers have
been trying to find more creative ways to give games additional replay
value in the hopes that you wouldn’t be tempted to sell or trade your
games away for someone else o pick them up.  The publishers only make
money on the first sale, so every used game sale is like a lost sale for

The problem is that the next court to hear an appeal would be the
Supreme Court of the United States, and they have the right to pass on
even hearing an appeal.  If the case should go to them, there is no
telling which way the nine justices would rule.  My thinking is they
would go with the “licensing” ruling because that is how it is stated in
the software.  If that happens … “game over, man!”

Personally, I’m all for the sale of used games, otherwise I could never
get rid of some of the stinkers I’ve bought over the years, or those
from older systems that I just simply no longer need.  This could have a
very definite backlash on the game industry as people would be more
cautious with their purchases knowing they could never legally get rid
of them.

Hopefully it won’t come to this, but the law is a fickle thing.

What say you?  Would not being able to buy, sell or trade games impact
your purchasing decisions?"


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]