Deveopers talk about used games countermeasure.

[kn]

Kenny said:

kn said:
Why don't the developers and publishers band together to lobby congress for updates to the copyright acts? Instead of stupid technology, they should be looking for general legislation that stops companies selling used games "for profit" if the developer's/publisher's license agreement states so. We as consumers are actually "licensing" the use of the intellectual property. We do not own it. The media we buy is simply a vehicle to carry it. If They simply modified their license agreements (and copyright acts supported it), Gamestop and every other used game vendor will have to stop selling used immediately. I don't see what the big deal here is and why they don't go forward with something like this. It IS intellectual property and if it is being resold for a profit (as all used games dealers are doing), it is technically theft. The company is selling other people's intellectual property for their gain. Again, I don't see the problem in forcing modification/clarification of existing legislation.

Now, that said, I would still support end users trading, using ebay, etc., as long as it was not "for profit". That would eliminate 70-80% of the second hand market. It would also not require any kind of additional DRM or other draconian measures and would allow people to take their games to a friend's house to play and so on.

They will need to bring the price down, though. I think I've bought a handful of games in my lifetime that, in my opinion, justified the $60 layout.

The problem is a little something called the First-sale doctrine, the very short version of which is that once the physical piece of media is sold to a person, the person is free to do with it as they damn well please. The copyright owner loses all right to change of ownership of that copy of the copyrighted work at sale.

 

That is precisely my point.   It would require modification of current legislation.

 

And as far as "As a consumer, why would I support screwing over a consumer" question is concerned, how is protecting resale of intellectual property doing anything other than screwing over the owner of said intellectual property?   We, as consumers, aren't FORCED to buy the games.  If they aren't available used, it doens't mean you are FORCED to buy new.  You have the right not to buy it at all.  If you do choose to buy it, at whatever price, the intellectual property owner gets his cut.  IMHO, it's as simple as that.