Just curious as to how people view their game purchases.
Which do you believe?
I don't want to know which one is right, just which one you believe when you walk out of a store after making a purchase.
1
same 1
i would like to expect once ive purchased a game if i so chose that i can play it as long as i like even if the company should go belly up or something as long as i only keep it to one system per purchase ..
I'd like for it to be 1) but having read license agreements I know better. People can believe whatever they want, of course, it'll have no impact on the reality of the situation.
One. If i want to wrap it in tin foil and wear it as a hat i will do so.
1 is actual law here in Norway.
BigCorp does not suddenly gain partial ownership over my harddrive when I copy their bits onto it by installing the game.
In the U.S. at least, the status of "Owner of a Copy" gives specific rights, which do include archiving and using in a day to day fashion, and (having deleted my copy) selling the original and archived copies as a unit.
Not including however reverse engineering/modifying outside certain specific parameter of the DMCA (Reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility is explicity allowed).
So 1.), but to specific limited points condoned and outlined by law.
Jonnan
iN MY OPINION (which is probably not supported by law) buying a game is like buying a book.
It does not give me rights to copy the book and sell it, but I can certainly lend it out to a friend when I'm done with it, or just for a short period of time. I can write in the margins, make notes, or use it for toilet paper. The book itself as an object is mine, but the story is not.
A game becomes mine - you cannot take it away because you do not like how I've scribbled in the margins (modding), or because I've loaned it to a friend (as long as we're not BOTH using a single liscence at the same time) or sold it because I've gotten bored of reading it over and over (selling single-player games.) You do not get to tell me how many times I can read the thing (Install limits) or where I can read it (specific computer limits) or what apparatus I can use to read it.
I believe in 1.
I feel that if we are licensing software there should be a signature (digital or otherwise) involved. Something more than clicking a radio button on an install screen.
I choose 3. I do not have to follow insane license agreements, but neither can I break the laws of my country which says that I MAY NOT freely add, remove or otherwise modify (to) the contents of copy right protected software. The box and it's contents are not worthless, since they include a cdkey of some sort.
Seems like what I thought. It feels like "1" to me too when I walk out of a store. I know it's not, but it still feels like it
Which country is that? Most places I know of allow a person to do just about anything they want with copyrighted material, as long as they don't distribute it. I could write a new Harry Potter novel and J.K.Rowling would have no recourse against me unless I tried to distribute it. Ripping pages out of books is also legally okay. If I try to pass them on the copyright holder can get involved, but not while they're sitting on my self.
I thought the worthless statement might have been a bit much - but once you've activated that licence the cdkey is worthless to anyone else. The real value of the game appears to be in the license which lets you play it (embodied by the cdkey perhaps). Without that the media and box aren't worth much. How much would you pay for a copy of Demigod you're not allowed to play?
Good Analogy.
I think this is how most people think about the purchase - it's just like a book. This isn't the reality though.
With publishers now using technical measures to enforce their license agreements people have to face this reality. Could this have contributed to the outcry over Spore? People's assumptions about game purchases being like book purchases being challenged?
And people are reacting - by flaunting, in vast numbers, the ridiculous DRM. Even with their lobbyist-backed laws in place, greedy publishers cannot subvert the will of the people. I can tell you if my instal limit on Spore or any other game runs out, I will not be calling and begging some customer service rep in India for a new key or activation. I will be breaking the DRM and continue as standard.
Game publishers aren't any greedier than any other company. They exist to make a profit. Because the internet is so good at copying things there will always be some form of restrictions on games. This I can live with, it's only an argument about what sort of restrictions now.
My problem with the games industry is that they want to sell their product like bookshops sell books - but then apply post-sale terms and conditions. I cannot recall ever been asked to agree to any conditions to use a game at the time of purchase.
Online purchases appear to give publishers a perfect opportunity to show the EULA, but I don't even think Stardock displays anything. Even given the opportunity to tell customers that they can only play at night time for instance, publishers choose not to do so at the point of sale.
Can you imagine have to read and sign the EULA of a game before being allowed to buy it?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
