18.6% profits down if no used games

[tiffac]

Wlakiz said:

noname2200 said:

Wlakiz said:

That depends what you consider games to be.. a work of art or a manufactured consumer good.

In art/movie context, producers get redistribution fees (royalty). 

There's no difference, in this context, between art and a manufactured good. A painter, sculptist, movie producer, etc. only gets paid when they sell the work to the first customer. They get no cut whatsoever when that customer in turn sells the work to another party. It's how things have worked since pretty much forever.

This is incorrect. Artist/movie producers/ game producers retain ownership of their work. They simply license their work to viewers or distributors. If you check your end user agreement.. it should say something like this:

LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation.

source: http://www.rockstargames.com/eula

Notice the license is non-transferable? It means you are not licensed to re-sell or lend the game to someone else.

The only reason they haven't enforced it thus far is their lack of means to.

Sir you may want to check the exhaustion doctrine under the first-sale doctrine. I believe that law will put into question any EULA with regards to the rights on purchased physical items. Not sure how it applies to digital purchases because I do not believe there has been any case example for it.