Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie.
 

Look, people. I am fully aware of the fact that I am more of a letter-of-the-law guy than the vast majority of you, so I really do TRY my best to be understanding. However, when some clown with 3 posts from 2 years ago comes on here and tries to trade a game and I react, it is best to just deal with it. Push me too hard on this, and we'll have letter-of-the-law rules regarding piracy around here. Apparently, many of you don't know (or don't care) that selling or trading games is A DIRECT VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENSE AGREEMENT! I realize that trading is something that is generally accepted, and that's why I hold my breath and don't say anything, but do NOT push me on this.

I appreciate the fact that the complainers have reacted via PM, by the way, but rather than respond to each of you individually, I feel that I need to enlighten many of you publicly on this one, because there's obviously a great deal of ignorance (or lack of integriy, take your pick) out there.



I could list others, but y'all get the point. Basically, SOME companies allow transferring and/or selling of licenses only with direct written consent, while most, it appears, disallow it completely.

So, try this crap with a text sim around here, particularly ones by two guys I happen to like and respect like Arlie and Jim, then you WILL get punished harshly, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it.

And I'm serious, keep pushing me on my "inconsistency" on this, and you will get what you're asking for: 100% consistency on the matter, and the line will be drawn in accordance with the EULA that you people have agreed to.

If this doesn't apply to you, then sorry for the rant.

--Ben

Those last two quotes ben, say you may not sell, copy, or transfer a reproduction of the game. They make no mention of the original game FWIW.

I think that first was is more murky IMHO.

Not trying to bust your balls or anything, just wanted to point that out.

the Dog has layeth the smacketh down!!!

I get the feeling I missed something somewhere.
That said, I'm now confused.

The Civ4 one I agree is very plain. Basically, you can't sell that one period according to the agreement.

But that's not how I read the other two.
Those seem to refer to "reproductions", not to the originals. I.E. don't copy the games/manuals & sell the bootlegs. But I don't see anything in what you quoted that restricts getting rid of a game you don't want anymore.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on board policy or anything -- I'm just taking advantage of the subject that's come up to figure out if I'm reading something wrong here or what, not as it relates to the board but as it relates to the games.

I am angry, and I copied the wrong sections of the last two.

from Civ3:
[quote]OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title. The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States, Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.
OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.
quote]Y'all get the idea.

I didn't know it was a violation of the license agreement to trade or sell games. I thought it would've been okay to do that since EB Games does it all the time. Then again, I never read the License Agreement; I just hit I AGREE and NEXT. *shrug*

Learn something new every day.

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

I don't care at all that you locked the guy's post and had no intention on PMing you about it either. But I think you are misinterpreting something if you don't think you can trade or resell something you own. And if this is true then the software industry had pulled a major coup that no other industry I am aware of has established. Imagine if I couldn't sell my house or my car or my lamps!

FOFC - Educating Morons Daily

dola, is it because its listed under non FOF stuff...

Your reaction, I would think, would be why they would never prosecute individuals for doing it, but that still doesn't make it right by any means.

...and I said this privately to several people. Make no mistake about it, I am pretty uncomfortable with having that thread, but I really am trying to be understanding about the matter.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=44968

I'm confused about this as a legal issue. If this is true, how does Gamestop have a viable business off of this and how is it that ebay hasn't been slammed by the game makers? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. While I couldn't see the game makers going after an average gamer, these are businesses which can hardly be called small which are making profits off of this.

Maybe someone with a background in law could anwser this better than I. But is it legal for a company to sell you a product with a restriction that you cannot sell that item? Is it possible that software companies put that in there, but they have no legal means to do anything about it and if they did do something about it, they might lose in court?

If this law was really followed, it would illegal to simply buy someone a game for christmas or their birthday.

Now I do admit that it easier to reproduce electronic media, so it stands to reason that somone could buy the software, make a copy, and sell the original. I think the spirt of the intention is to stop that.

Just because a lawyer sticks a stipulation in a licensing agreement doesn't mean that it would hold up in a civil hearing.

If someone is selling/trading bootleg copies of software that is clearly illegal.
However, if some one sells/trades software without retaining any copy of that software for their continued use, I can't see how there would be anything wrong with that.

It would be like saying once I purchase a book I cannot sell or trade that book.

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

Actually, I don't think that is true since it isn't part of the purchase contract. If they made you agree to the license before they sold you the game, it would have a little more weight. Having the license inside the box where you can't see it until after you've made the purchase makes it not part of the original purchase contract.

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.

don't get worked up over EULAs - they usually don't stand up in court.

One note: Arles and co had a trading part of their forum at 400 sports for about 3 years where you could trade games. He sure didn't seem to mind as long as both liscenses were traded away.

DD thanks for the background.

I think these liscense just go to show again that copyright laws have gone too far in protecting the companies rights rather than society's rights to innovations. I am scrupulous about following copyright, and have been for years, but this is just rediculous.

I wonder if some of these very restrictive EULAs would not stand up under legal scrutiny. Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you agree to something or not. If the clause is found to be illegal, you are not bound by it.

EDIT... Draft Dodger was thinking the same sort of thing.

Ben, FWIW, you may agree to something that's illegal - by definition, if it won't hold up in court, the agreement is null and void. I fail to see the crime here at all - this isn't even a fair use thing - rather, its trading a good you've purchased for another good. As long as you aren't doing the split license thing (which is blatantly illegal), its not a problem. As I mentioned- the buy every game you want option is fine for people who are earning money, but trading is a reasonable option for any smaller budget. Arlie and Jim are not entitled to protection above and beyond any other producer - and this board stopped being a FOF board a long time ago.

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

How many people actually read and comprehend these software licensing agreements?

If every civil agreement was proper and completely binding there would be quite a few unemployed attorneys out there.

Not to mention... A number of people her talk and post stories from other websites, talk about sports, etc. Do we contact the MLB or the owner before we post them now?

Taken directly from the MLB website.

Doing a little research I found the "First Sale Doctrine" which is an exception to Copyright law allowing the purchaser to transfer (sell, give away) a legally obtained copy of protected work without permission. According to the doctrine, this exception does not extend to recorded music or computer software.

US Copyright case law has held that consumers cannot make copies of the software, but they may resell what they own. Basically, the legallity of this issue is not certain.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine

Based on my recollection of SI's EULA, some of the editors and such that you can download from their website, or from their 'affiliates' would seem to be violations as well. It seems that most developers try to take a 'common sense' approach to this matter and don't mind allowing things that enhance the product...as long as it doesn't help people steal the product.

Facts are different, so we can discuss what happened in the football game without anyone's permission. Posting excerpts are different. Posting the full length stories is technically a violation of copyright law.

Thats because mods usually enhance interest in their products and lead to more sales.

That doesn't make it right, even beyond the legal aspect.

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

I think that's one of the things SkyDog was referring to when he says that he tries to be tolerant of people who aren't quite as by the book as he is.

That's not the point. If I agree to it, I'm going to try my best to stick to it. Period.

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.

If developers don't want people re-selling/trading their product, develop/produce something that people want to keep forever. Don't use creative legal maneuvers to make up for the fact that you produced a game that does not have sufficient "re-playability" or at least establishes a "loyalty" with the customer that makes them want to hold onto it.

If people are trading/selling too many of your games (in your opinion), find out why they don't want to keep your game and try to improve that area for future releases.

The EULA does not apply to the buyer of the game, it applies to the installer of the game. IOW, if you bought a game for someone for their birthday, since you never installed the game on your computer (or opened the box), the EULA does not apply to you. It only applies to the person installing the game on their computer.

Ben,

I fully respect what you do on these boards. I've been in your situation for well over 5 years with my own websites and message boards I run. I was just playing devil's advocate. I could see that if the developer of either of the games contacted you about it you would lock the thread, but I didn't see any harm in the initial post, nor reasoning for why he was banned. Either way, I'm done discussing it.

oh, the heck with it. NO need to raise SD's blood pressure.

I think there have been FAR worse problems on this board not dealt with than this and I like Skydog and have always been supportive of him.

We'll just agree to disagree.

IMO, you're confusing what's "legal" with what's generally "ignored".

You can usually find promo copies (i.e. radio station copies) of music on eBay too, but selling those is highly illegal (and has been prosecuted on at least a few occasions over the years).

This is the one copyright violation that I'm pretty regularly guilty of, and yeah, it probably should be policed more stringently here than it is. I've been a part of at least two forums that did get "lawyer letters" about it & they were both smaller than FOFC. (Luckily/happily, I wasn't the cause of the letters, I used to be a lot more particular about posting full stories than I've been for the past year or so).

I hope I'm not violating any copyright law by posting this

I doubt they'll be effective. Textbook publishing companies have been trying to combat the re-selling of textbooks for years and the best solution is to come out with a different new edition every year. I don't see why softwarre companies would be any different legally, EULAs or not.

Rizon, no, what you posted is a matter of public record and freely available under the Freedom of Information Act.

I know the Dawg didn't ask me, but I'm more concerned about the posting of full articles than the selling/trading of games.

IMO, if you have the CD/DVD, the license, and all the materials from a game, you should be able to dispose them as you want - including selling - as long as the game is unlicensed from all places it was installed and there are no traces left. Online distributed games are another story, one which I haven't thought through thoroughly.

You can use small excerprts/quotations from any written material under the "Fair Use" exception to copyright law. I always do that and add a link to the original article or Web site whenever I find an article of interest.

The one exception is press releases - those are written to be distributed widely, so I have no qualms about using them in their entirety.

I'm really going to miss primelord and his real player files once he's banned.

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me.

I work for a software company and am about as "by the book" on copyright issues as any around here, but this seems like a gross over-reaction to me. Even if you want to argue that software EULAs are legally enforcable (shaky ground) or that there's some sort of bigger moral issue at play (even shakier), was it really necessary to ban the guy who posted the original thread?

Lock the thread if you want, lecture the masses if you feel the need, but to ban a guy for doing something that 99% of software users wouldn't realize was even a problem? Wouldn't a warning have been enough?

I found a newspaper article from 1999 that states you can sell used software. But this is a ... newspaper article ... from 1999 ... with no facts backing it up.

Or we can avoid a whole debate about it and someone can call the SIIA Anti-Priacy hotline and ask them (I think they would be the right people?):

1-800-388-7478

SIIA Anti-Piracy FAQ:

hxxp://www.spa.org/piracy/faq.asp#Usage

Computer programs are written in as not being covered by the First Sale Doctrine, but it looks like that applies only to rentals, leases, and lending. I see nothing that prohibits the outright sale of the computer program.

Link to Cornell Law site.
http://tinyurl.com/7h7vn

How do you agree to a license when it is inside the box, and after you buy it? It's not as you can return the game for your money back (at most stores you can't)?

So I'm assuming that I can sell a game that I've purchased but not yet installed on any computer?

That is one of the issues that Microsoft ran into when they tried to sue a college student for reselling his software. They lost and were required to pay him back what he paid for the software.

Skydog = one ornery bastage when SWMBO is out of town. :)

((SkyDog = Dictator) > Never) < Always

Does anyone have copies of the FOF and TPF license agreements handy?

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

just imagine what he'll be like once the Dawgs lose today


;)

Does the thread title imply that Skydog is really just making all of this stuff up? :D

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

Civilization was kind of a shit example - last I checked FOF5 doesn't come on cd, and I think TPF *might* have, but you still had to use a license. Digital software would be so easy to rip someone off on when trading - 'oops I forgot to unlicensed it' and then never answer the person back. Then whoever got ripped off here comes and makes a fuss about it, or messages skydog and says this guy ripped me off. There's no proof of 'shipping', or any other physical material.

Not to mention some digitally licensed games come with multiple license - so if you allowed one trade - then when someone playing a game with multiple license decided to come here and trade his game (but keep one license for himself) for a game with a single license - youre getting into a whole different kind of mess.

Say what you want, but some of you guys are just being assholes over this.

We are confusing two concepts during this whole discussion. Whether something is a crime, and whether something is a breech of contract. Both are "illegal" in a sense, but they are two different things.

A lot of times they overlap, because we have used the criminal law to enforce concepts that are also reflected in the civil law. Let's say that I contract with you to sell you my car for $1,000. And you then accept delivery of my car, and never had the intention to pay me. In that case, you are liable to me for breech of contract AND guilty of the crime of theft/fraud. I could sue you in court on Monday for $1,000, and the government could prosecute you on Tuesday for theft and put you in jail, fine you, etc.

Let's say, though, that I pay you $50 in exchange for your promise not to see the new Harry Potter movie. There is (I hope clearly) no law against going see the new Harry Potter movie. It is not a crime. But if I find out that you do it, I can still sue you for breech of contract.

In this case, one can argue that selling my used copy of CIV4 is not a crime. It looks (though I am no expert) that there is an exception in copyright law that means that selling a used copy of a game is not a crime.

You may still, however, be in breech of contract. The CIV4 guys could sue you, and you will be liable to them for damages (computed perhaps as the money they lost by not being able to sell a new copy of the game.) Of course, lawyers like me don't come cheap (actually, lawyers like me do. But good lawyers don't). So you can breech your contract with practical impunity because it does not make sense to come after you. But if you start a business re-selling games, then you may be liable for the tort of tortious interference with contract (facilitating the breech of a third party contract). And if you do enough business, it may be worth taking you to court to shut you down.

So, in short, reselling games may or may not be a crime. The EULA does not speak to that. It is, however, a breech of contract, which is a different animal. And what SkyDog feels comfortable allowing on this forum as moderator is his business. Though he does not need me to tell him that.

(NOTE: Some people in this thread have noted that the law tends to disfavor contractual provisions that prevent the resale of property (if you go to one of those expensive lawyers, he will call it a restraint on alienability). Accordingly, these EULAs may not be enforcable. The discussion above was premised on the fact that a court would hold that the EULA was enforcable).

*looks up Jon's opinion of copyright violators in the music piracy threads*

Damn....you have got a lot of punishment to hand out to yourself and you must not have a high opinion of your parent's skills at parenting. ;)

I don't have any problem with SkyDog establishing a "No trading used games" policy on FOFC. I was just saying that it's questionable whether this particular provision of the EULAs is legally enforceable, and pointed out that there are lots of things placed in contracts that are not legally enforceable because they contradict established law.

an example (sorry for the Caps - it's a direct copy and paste from the EULA).



I am not singling out Jim, as his is a pretty typical EULA. It just happened to be handy next to my computer, and probably more pertinent than any other title here. But this is why EULAs are under so much fire - we're not just agreeing to an contract we aren't reading because it's legalese, we are tacitly agreeing to a contract we haven't even seen, with no way to opt out.

Actually, there are much more crazy ones out there - like the ones prohibiting you from releasing benchmarks of the software, or the ones that state that you agree to any future changes that the developer wants to put in the EULA.

and, just so that we are all on the same page:

FOF4 is not an elicense game. I do not have 2k4, so perhaps that EULA is different, but I know that that same language is in other elicense EULAs (OOTP, for example).

for the record, I have no issue with closing the thread, and no issue with rules against trading fof software. But lets just call that a personal decision and not rely on a some Quixote-like EULA crusade to justify the decision.

I'll give you the first half (and I do beat myself up about it fairly often), but on the latter half, my child isn't posting them nor is he aware that I'm posting them, so I kinda get a break on that part.

(Yes, I saw the smiley face you added, but it's actually quite a valid question all kidding aside)

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

you are correct. EB absolutely sells used PC games.

here's an article about Best Buy testing the used games and the game industry getting a little pissed. I'd post the whole thing here, but, well, you know... :D

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/30/comm...column_gaming/

The purpose of a EULA is to change the terms of software acquisition from a "sale" to a "license agreement". If the terms can be successfully (legally) changed to a "license agreement" rather than a "sale", then people would be bound by the EULA and the resale of a program would be illegal (or at least a breach of contract). If the terms cannot be changed, then purchasers are entitled to all the rights under the First Sale Doctrine, no matter what the EULA says.

The question of enforceability of EULAs is not in the specific terms of the EULA, but whether the terms of acquisition of software can be changed from a sale to a license agreement. This has been decided in both ways by the courts, and there has never been a definite opinion passed by the higher courts.

Until the higher courts make a decision, there is no right or wrong answer on this debate.

EULA from TPF

I called it, but they are only open monday-friday 9-5. So it isn't much help on a saturday.

Just to be a stickler..

He said your parent's parenting skills, not yours... you know, for making you such an evil law breaker and what not ;)...

Somebody should have told EB they only seel used console games when they sold me that pre-owned copy of Rise of Nations (and subsequently allowed me to sell it back).

They don't online.

And the majority of the time I go to the store - it's to buy something that just came out , so that's my error concerning the stores.

Still doesn't really matter, the point was in the latter of the message, not the beginning anyway.

Then it must be ok to pirate stuff on weekends. I'm going to go download a pirated copy of the original Sim City now.

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?

This would be interesting, can you charge sales tax on software license agreements? My receipt for FOF is in two places 1) In a box buried behind 50 boxes of my wife's junk in the closet 2) On my other computer which isn't hooked up anymore, so I can't really get to it, but I'd be curious to see if I was charged sales tax.

According to the change in sales tax in California in 2002:

Because he lacks integrity!

Actually, EB was recently purchashed by Gamestop, and no longer accepts PC trade-ins. Once their current stock of used PC games is gone, they won't be sold anymore.

I know this because I tried trading in a game a couple of weeks ago, and was informed of the new company-wide policies.

:mad: , quit taking what I said and turning it into something else. I simply meant they weren't open today. BTW I agree with Skydog's decision on this. While many of his decisions piss me off, he runs this board and if he doesn't want someone trading the license of his friend's games that they make a living off of I see no problem with it. If someone was selling one of my friends music CD's instead of buying it off of them I would be upset too. And if I could stop it I would. There are other places to attempt to trade TPF for FOF if he desires, if Skydog doesn't want him doing it here then it doesn't happen here.

I will call that number on Monday tho, b/c I'm interested in the wording of the Civ. IV EULA agreement.

But that has less to do with legal matters and more to do with money. Gamestop's computer section is ever shrinking. There will probably be a time soon when you'll be lucky to find any software at Gamestop.

I'm not sure about that. I emailed EB about it, since I was confused about the fact that console games were still able to be traded in, but not PC games. This is the response I receieved:

It doesn't change the fact if there was money in it, they wouldn't care. Plus, they are moving software out of their stores.

According to the stuff you quoted, you can charge sales tax (in California) if there is physical media. You can't on a game you purchase and then download. Most online purchases don't include sales tax unless the store is located (for tax purposes) in the same state as the purchaser.

They have to care since many of the games they are reselling are unusable without a new CD key.

Damn....after reading this thread, I feel like a swashbuckling software pirate. I have been using EbGames for years to trade in my old games.

And when I moved to Phoenix, there is this store out here called Bookman's that trades books, videos, and games. I have traded for a lot of my older games to get some newer one there and never thought that I was a morally corrupt individual because I didn't abide by a EULA agreement, but I guess I have been wrong.

Both of these games are electronically distributed and if you really want to support the developer, you might as well pay for it since especially if you want to see the game further developed.

I have mixed feelings about what the guy posted, because he seemed to want to do a straight up trade. No one seemed to be gaining a profit off this transaction. I didn't think the guy deserved a banning, but I don't know how I would feel if my wife was away from town and some girl was hitting on me leaving me with a concerned feeling. :D

Sure I know SkyDog is focusing on the integrity of the whole thing and has bit through his tongue on many occasions, but don't take it out on one guy. You will probably be surprised on how many agreements you have already broken when it comes to other things in your life without even realizing it.

As best I can tell, because his post violated the Civ III EULA.

My bad, 'cause I did misread that last sentence.

None of his posts made any mention of Civ3. He just wanted to trade TPF for FOF5. Now I have no idea what took place in PM's and if Civ3 was involved.

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

lol

You know, looking back on that, it totally went over my head

Well, this fails miserably in terms of integrity.

This is a guy saying something is wrong but it's cool to do as long as you don't do it to his friends and if you complain, he's just going to have to do the right thing and apply the rule across the board.

It'd piss people off but the only answer with integrity is to have the same rule apply to all parties.

Heck, lets not even mention the whole, I don't have a problem if it's illegal as long as both parties agree to it. That should make Buccaneer happy as it's an incredibly libertarian view. :)

Really, I'll stop here since this rant doesn't apply to me and I'll likely piss a lot of guys off if Skydog does the right thing. I've never sold, traded or bought any games on the internet except from official venders so whatever he chooses is fine with me.

I just hate seeing someone getting credit for an attribute when it's not being exhibited. I happen to think a lot of Skydogs integrity so I'm not accusing him of anything. It's just an observation on how he's approaching this issue which is from a purely self serving point of view.

Of course, I don't think Skydog used the word integrity so I don't assume he's necessarily framing the argument around this. You just used the word I was thinking about when I was reading the thread so I wanted to comment on that side of the argument.

he did, actually.

I stand corrected on this point then but the rest of the paragraph still applies. :)

Just a note:

End User License Agreements were found to be enforceable by the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996). That decision has been followed universally (I think) by other federal district and appellate courts. As others have pointed out, the First Sale Doctrine would otherwise apply in these cases, but after ProCD, the EULA has the final word.

It should also be noted that there has been plenty of academic criticism of this decision, and in the right circumstances someone might mount a challenge to it... but as of now (despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue) it's a fairly settled matter in the law. So the question here is really about EULA's rather than copyright.

The research I've done shows that the 7th and 8th district courts favor the EULA while the others still favor the First Sale Doctrine. Of course I haven't been able to find a case on point after your cite, so this may have changed.

I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.

Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree.