I love GameStop! Because of them I can play tons of quality titles that I wouldn't have been able to experience if I had to buy these games at full price. Many times I pick up games for next to nothing and sometimes a few for free even. Most of these games I would never have bought if they weren't so cheap. It's unfortunate that none of the proceeds go to the developers though.Sounds a little bit like piracy doesn't it? Developers lose out on sales? Check. Gamers experience more while paying less? Check. There has been an ongoing concerted effort to end digital piracy for the past 10 years but it seems no one has challenged the legitimacy of the second hand business. I'm honestly curious about why developers and publishers haven't gone after second-hand sales more than they have. Both avenues detract from profits. The only difference between these two is that GameStop sells only pre-owned console games. PC games usually contain data rights management to prevent reuse of the software which prevents second-hand sales. Does this make GameStop pirates of the consoles?
If a website were to charge a fee per download or perhaps a monthly subscription fee to use a peer to peer sharing service would this still be pirating? This service would allow users to upload their pre-owned PC titles for a credit which could be used toward the purchase of other pre-owned content available on the p2p network. Perhaps the service could even allow for digital sales and distribution of new content similar to Steam or Direct2drive. This would be the digital equivalent of what GameStop does. Would the major publishers go after this type of service with lawsuits and criminal charges?
Why is it that copyright laws only extend to digital? Shouldn't these same laws that protect digital media also apply to re-distributing the physical works themselves? If the answer is no then I would think these laws need to be changed. But are the laws concerning piracy out of line or is the second-hand sales business unlawful?
No comments:
Post a Comment