Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
I understand the analogy, but it's not germaine here; the discussion is about redistributing easily-duplicated products, not reselling used products; and as I said earlier, trying to draw comparisons to physical products is an example of the bad metaphors that have driven this decade-plus-long argument.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
The guy selling the used tool is not by law expected to compensate the company from whom he bought the tool when it was new, any more than I have to compensate Hyundai when I sell my car to my neighbor. That's by the laws governing physical products.
|
Some producers of physical products are trying to prevent or devalue second hand sales and lending in the same way that producers of virtual products are, to cut down on the lost primary sales. Essentially they are making their physical product partly virtual.
There is an increasing trend in video game sales for part of the game to be locked behind a license key, with a single-use version of that key provided in the game box. So the first person who buys the game gets to enjoy all of it for no extra cost. If he sells the same to someone else, they need to pay an extra $10 to the producer to unlock that portion. Third buyer has to do the same again.
Clever attempt to monetise second hand sales, and/or erosion of first sale doctrine?