Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

"I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product."

You didn't buy a product. You paid for a license to use it. You'll need to understand that before we go any further.

While you're working on that one, let's get back to that statement "I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell."

Since your focuse dis solely on the product, which is the CD/DVD/etc. can you link to  license agreement that do not let you transfer the entire physical copy of pre-recorded Software and accompanying documentation on a permanent basis to another person? If it's illegal, someone should inform gameStop

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

Not silly at all. Again, you are confusing the license with the product. I already said in the post you just replied to that the product itself can be sold (since you stated you were under the impression it is illegal to sell it) so, just like your previous replies, you rambled about something unrelated and didn't answer the questions presented.

Originally posted by Anireth

Make a good game, keep your promises about the content, make reasonable prices, make it available (like, companies actually count illegal downloads in countries you can not legally buy the game as a loss of sale..) for everyone without much hassle.

CD Projekt is the poster child for the above.

Originally posted by Isasis

Ebay

 

One can get many new and old games off ebay for really really cheap. I got Skyrim for 5 dollars on Ebay, I got Kingdoms of Amalur for 12 dollars and a whole bunch of other games. (edit) Also, that was in new condition as well I should add, never used (end edit)

 

Why are companies ignoring ebay? But going after everyone else?

What you talking about there is nothing illegal about this... I thought you ment selling pirated or burnt games/movies/apps.... lol

If I have an unopened game/movie/or app I can do whatever I want with it buddy.  Not sure where you live but in Canada its call reselling something you already bought gotten or owned.

Originally posted by Betaguy

Originally posted by Isasis

Ebay

 

One can get many new and old games off ebay for really really cheap. I got Skyrim for 5 dollars on Ebay, I got Kingdoms of Amalur for 12 dollars and a whole bunch of other games. (edit) Also, that was in new condition as well I should add, never used (end edit)

 

Why are companies ignoring ebay? But going after everyone else?

What you talking about there is nothing illegal about this... I thought you ment selling pirated or burnt games/movies/apps.... lol

If I have an unopened game/movie/or app I can do whatever I want with it buddy.  Not sure where you live but in Canada its call reselling something you already bought gotten or owned.

I think a lot of people in this thread are cofusing reselling of software with pirating it.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

"I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product."

You didn't buy a product. You paid for a license to use it. You'll need to understand that before we go any further.

While you're working on that one, let's get back to that statement "I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell."

Since your focuse dis solely on the product, which is the CD/DVD/etc. can you link to  license agreement that do not let you transfer the entire physical copy of pre-recorded Software and accompanying documentation on a permanent basis to another person? If it's illegal, someone should inform gameStop

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

Not silly at all. Again, you are confusing the license with the product. I already said in the post you just replied to that the product itself can be sold (since you stated you were under the impression it is illegal to sell it) so, just like your previous replies, you rambled about something unrelated and didn't answer the questions presented.

You are missing the most important point.  I suggest you read the article in the link I posted a few posts back, specifically pay attention to what the lawyer, who specializes in this type of law, says about ownership and EULA's. 

There is not one universal world law so telling me what I did and didn't do in regard to my purchase of a boxed software package without having a specific and thorough understanding of the applicable laws in my country and state is reaching.

I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States

Its not as simple as you think it is..

Originally posted by Siveria

I pirate most games I play because I wouldn't have considered buying them, Skyrim, fo3 fonv, etc, tons of others. Most recent games I bought have all been indie titles because they actualyl deserve the money, Its pretty sad how a team of 1-3 people can make a game thats unique and ends up selling like 500k+ copies, yet a dev that has a huge budget.. well the best they can do is rehash the exact same game over and over again (fps games are a major culprit of this, i mean what is diff in each cod game? bascally nothing) I can't remember the last time I seen a non-indie made game that was actually worth buying, mostly cuz its all the same shit in a diffrent wrapper with these big name devs.

Then you have instances lie ebioshock where the pirates were able to play the game way before the legit buyers did due to the drm they decided to use to stop piracry (which as you can see drm etc is virtually non-effective vs piracy at all). You want people to stop pirating your games? start making shit WORTH buying and people would. The indie games I bought I'll admit I pirated first, but I liked them so much I went out and bought them shortly after. Terraria, Dungeon Defenders, The Binding of Issac, Space Pirates and ZOmbies, and I plan to buy Space pirates and zombies 2, and starbound on release.

I mean I play the games released by big name devs lately and I am like.. "This game has to much of that Been here done that feel" and I end up just uninstalling and deleting the iso off my hdd cuz the game just ain't fun to play.

Also yeah, most pirates out there would never have bought the game in the first place so its not really a sale lost at all. They mostly are losing sales because the games are just bad, or boring, or too much of the same crap over and over again. The devs etc know this, yet they still try to blame piracy for loss of sales.

Surprised you said Skyrim. While it's certainly not without bugs/flaws, I think it's worth the price simply because you can easily get 100+ hours out of it, which I find well worth my money.

Anyway, I think most of the DRM we have now is a bit disguised to make pirates seem like the devil, when really a lot of it is a great way of stopping resale. It's working double-duty for companies. Not only is it stopping the resale when  it's all tied to one account that can't be transferred, it's telling people "Hey, this is the fault of pirates. Grab your pitchfork and burn these bitches!". Sadly, it's working. I can almost see the suits twirling their mustaches in a nice office with a smirk. A bit ingenious really and perfect sleight of hand. Pirates take the fall for plain corporate greed, as boring and old a story as it gets (Without the pirates ;). Next time you see always online DRM tied to other accounts you hold, don't think of what it's doing to pirates, think of what it's doing to stores like GameStop.

@Loktofeit - Thanks for the CDProjekt link. I didn't have the money at the time of Witcher 2's release so I forgot all about it and this is also a company I am happy to support, and that was before reading the article. Glad to see they still have the same attitude.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

You still dont quite understand the differences here. Software and hardware are worlds apart and what applies to one cannot in the same vein be applied to another due the key differences between the two.

First sale concept only morally works when physical goods are at play, where the product itself manifest entirely in a physical object as the primary soure of the sale. When you purchase a software package, you own the packaging, but you are limited as to what you can do with the software. You cannot make your own copies of software and resell them, you cannot legally change or steal the software's code, you cannot modify it to call it your own and thus resell. You could on the otherhand, modify a physical product and resell it (modded computers, custom cars..ect). Software is intellectual property it can only ever be owned by those who have the rights to it (in this case the publisher).

It is not bad law nor a "silly american" thing to protect intellectual property. In fact the US is probably the best in the world at protecting intellectual property. There is always a right way to protect IP and there are of course bad ways to protect IP, most first world nations have a bit of both.

Have you looked at the case Vernor vs Autodesk? The person Vernor purchased used copies from had already upgraded the software and sold the old copies. Meaning, autodesk allows for upgrading old software for a lower cost as opposed to buying it new(upgrade charge). This means the software is upgraded, not replaced and yet while the owner of the license had old physical copies, they did not have the moral or legal right to sell the copies they used to get upgrades.

Without the license requirement, the EULA, there is less incentive for developers to create software and the intellectual property they cannot protect. The first sale rule is not entirely viable in the digital era. Reselling software, which can easily be copied and sold, copied and sold...ect muct have restrictions. Its why its a licensed product. You can always own the packaging, the medium but not the IP.

We are already seeing huge negative reactions to not enforcing license agreement in the used game industry. Game's like diablo 3 come empty... the only thing on the disc is a few mb internet installer. Meaning, you have to download gigs worth of game and have an account just to play it. You have the creation of expensive DLC to offset losses, DLC tied to online accounts only. You have games shipping with content missing, so even if you buy it used you would be required to purcahse the rest of the game (mass effect 2-3). Honestly none of this is friendly to the consumer. Back in the day, extra content was free..given by the developers who liked their creation. First party publishers and hardware developers such as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft start charging more just for the console development, fees are put in place, more money grabbing features are built into the machines and software.

A lot of this could have been avoided if the used game market wasnt a rampant cancer in the  industry, again making up around 75% of the losses a publisher will face.

Now it may be just me, but from here it just seems like you have a confirmation bias regarding both the US and the used game market, this could pontetially make it harder to understand what exactly is at stake here.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

 

You still dont quite understand the differences here. Software and hardware are worlds apart and what applies to one cannot in the same vein be applied to another due the key differences between the two.

First sale concept only morally works when physical goods are at play, where the product itself manifest entirely in a physical object as the primary soure of the sale. When you purchase a software package, you own the packaging, but you are limited as to what you can do with the software. You cannot make your own copies of software and resell them, you cannot legally change or steal the software's code, you cannot modify it to call it your own and thus resell. You could on the otherhand, modify a physical product and resell it (modded computers, custom cars..ect). Software is intellectual property it can only ever be owned by those who have the rights to it (in this case the publisher).

It is not bad law nor a "silly american" thing to protect intellectual property. In fact the US is probably the best in the world at protecting intellectual property. There is always a right way to protect IP and there are of course bad ways to protect IP, most first world nations have a bit of both.

Have you looked at the case Vernor vs Autodesk? The person Vernor purchased used copies from had already upgraded the software and sold the old copies. Meaning, autodesk allows for upgrading old software for a lower cost as opposed to buying it new(upgrade charge). This means the software is upgraded, not replaced and yet while the owner of the license had old physical copies, they did not have the moral or legal right to sell the copies they used to get upgrades.

Without the license requirement, the EULA, there is less incentive for developers to create software and the intellectual property they cannot protect. The first sale rule is not entirely viable in the digital era. Reselling software, which can easily be copied and sold, copied and sold...ect muct have restrictions. Its why its a licensed product. You can always own the packaging, the medium but not the IP.

We are already seeing huge negative reactions to not enforcing license agreement in the used game industry. Game's like diablo 3 come empty... the only thing on the disc is a few mb internet installer. Meaning, you have to download gigs worth of game and have an account just to play it. You have the creation of expensive DLC to offset losses, DLC tied to online accounts only. You have games shipping with content missing, so even if you buy it used you would be required to purcahse the rest of the game (mass effect 2-3). Honestly none of this is friendly to the consumer. Back in the day, extra content was free..given by the developers who liked their creation. First party publishers and hardware developers such as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft start charging more just for the console development, fees are put in place, more money grabbing features are built into the machines and software.

A lot of this could have been avoided if the used game market wasnt a rampant cancer in the  industry, again making up around 75% of the losses a publisher will face.

Now it may be just me, but from here it just seems like you have a confirmation bias regarding both the US and the used game market, this could pontetially make it harder to understand what exactly is at stake here.

Yeah that particular case (Vernor vs Autodesk?) is the one I was looking at.  I do understand what you are saying, however even in the US most states differ markedly on the validity of shrink wrapped licences. 

"whereas in many cases, the so-called shrink-wrap "license" agreement has not been reviewed at the time of purchase (having been hidden inside the box), and therefore is arguably not part of the implicit legal agreement accompanying the sale of the copy, and is thus not enforceable by either party without further "manifestation of assent" to its terms. In general, a user is not legally obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc"

Link

Edit: I actually support copyright laws.  No one has the right to copy a software package and get it for free.  It is stealing imo.  However reselling software is not anything similiar to duplicating.  Its like reselling a book as opposed to copying a book.  The industry doesn't suffer any more losses to 2nd hand resellng than does the auto industry to second hand car sales.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States

Its not as simple as you think it is..

False. Now, it's entirely possible this is another wasted effort to get you to support your claims, but I'll try anyway:

"I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale."

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States

Its not as simple as you think it is..

False. Now, it's entirely possible this is another wasted effort to get you to support your claims, but I'll try anyway:

"I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale."

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Seems these days, if there's a law anywhere that looks as if it might actually give some support or advantage to an individual, chances are you've misread it. The whole system has been hijacked by greedy lawyers and corrupt politicians to further the aims of their paymasters. 

Most companies are able to exercise rights that are meant for individuals. So Ebay would be easily able to shutdown or prove in any court that attacking them for second hand sales is bullshit.

In most cases, the argument against second hand sales or the argument defending DRM fall short in common law as an injured party would have to prove damages which is, excuse the pun, virtually impossible. The majority of our legal system is too primitive for our type 1 civilization communications network aka all things digital.

It is extremely difficult to prove damages with digital theft unless the data in question was used for the purpose of gaining the thief some type of profit.

I think that the problem is that DRM is at the cost of the legit customer. It also always gets cracked, but meanwhile the customer still has to use the annoying DRM. While the person who plays a pirated copy, doesn't have that drawback. I don't understand how this DRM business is helping me as customer anyway. Piracy is their problem, not mine.

If I buy a singleplayer game I expect to be able to play any time when I want to. Lol at lag in single player or unavailable login servers. 

Originally posted by Anireth

And Steam has some really nice deals, yes. But half of that is because the regular price is quite high, especially outside the US, especially in Europe. Some game cost only 10% more, some even 3 times as much (really. $25 vs €60 and similar). The regular price is almost always higher then any other shop, even the pricy ones. And it certainly can't keep up with Amazon or GoG.

That is not quite true, given the exchange rates in question.  Typically, 1.5 to 2 of our dollars equals 1 euro or pound.  

Originally posted by lifesbrink

Originally posted by Anireth

And Steam has some really nice deals, yes. But half of that is because the regular price is quite high, especially outside the US, especially in Europe. Some game cost only 10% more, some even 3 times as much (really. $25 vs €60 and similar). The regular price is almost always higher then any other shop, even the pricy ones. And it certainly can't keep up with Amazon or GoG.

That is not quite true, given the exchange rates in question.  Typically, 1.5 to 2 of our dollars equals 1 euro or pound.  

Today I found Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai for 28 US dollars in EBGames, with Box, CD's, Book and Bonus content.  On Steam its 49.99 US dollars. 

But the real killer is this -

I bring it home, instell the steam client (5 mins), client finishes installing and then hangs, eventually kill the process (10 mins),  start the client, create a steam account (5 mins),  install the first 2 disks, 3rd disk install crashes and steam wants to download the rest which is going to take 2 hours (20 minutes). 

So I run the setup again, steam has to validate the installed files, its been validating those files for about 30 minutes, now its sititng on 100% validated doing nothing for the last 20 minutes, I think its locked up... (50 minutes).

This is the most frustrating annoying process, made even worse because I only want to play this non-steam game offline. 

Cancelled the installed and going to try again, I don't hold out much hope.

Edit: Validating locked up again, cancelled.  Uninstalled the game.  Reinstalled the game.  Now Steam has decided (without asking me)  that I need a 3 gig update to play my box game offline. Started at 18:00 its now 22:00 although I did have dinner in between attempts. 3 hours 6 minutes estimated download.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

They were used copies that he was selling. You kinda left out that part, Ikon. ;)

To explain it further so that others don't have to wade through legalese and court docs:

A guy had legitimate copies of AutoCAD 14. He then bought the Upgrade Version of AutoCAD 15 and installed them with AutoCAD 14 as the qualifying software. He then sold the used AutoCAD 14 software - used software, currently licensed to him - to Tim Vernor, who then proceeded to try to sell it on eBay.

"I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

Ikon's representation of the scenario leaves out each of those key points because his argument completely falls apart when all the facts are present. There is nothing illegal in any State in America about walking into a store, puchasing software and reselling it.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

They were used copies that he was selling. You kinda left out that part, Ikon. ;)

 

To explain it further so that others don't have to wade through legalese and court docs:

 

A guy had legitimate copies of AutoCAD 14. He then bought the Upgrade Version of AutoCAD 15 and installed them with AutoCAD 14 as the qualifying software. He then sold the used AutoCAD 14 software - used software, currently licensed to him - to Tim Vernor, who then proceeded to try to sell it on eBay.

"I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

Ikon's representation of the scenario leaves out each of those key points because his argument completely falls apart when all the facts are present. There is nothing illegal in any State in America about walking into a store, puchasing software and reselling it.

 

 

Annemarie Bridy - "Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Professor Annemarie Bridy BA MA PH.D JD - Professor Bridy specializes in Internet and intellectual property law, with specific attention to the impact of disruptive technologies on existing frameworks for the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

They were used copies that he was selling. You kinda left out that part, Ikon. ;)

 

To explain it further so that others don't have to wade through legalese and court docs:

 

A guy had legitimate copies of AutoCAD 14. He then bought the Upgrade Version of AutoCAD 15 and installed them with AutoCAD 14 as the qualifying software. He then sold the used AutoCAD 14 software - used software, currently licensed to him - to Tim Vernor, who then proceeded to try to sell it on eBay.

"I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

Ikon's representation of the scenario leaves out each of those key points because his argument completely falls apart when all the facts are present. There is nothing illegal in any State in America about walking into a store, puchasing software and reselling it.

 

 

Annemarie Bridy - "Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Professor Annemarie Bridy BA MA PH.D JD - Professor Bridy specializes in Internet and intellectual property law, with specific attention to the impact of disruptive technologies on existing frameworks for the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software.

Copypasta of the same article by one person over and over doesn't change the fact that you are leaving out facts in order to prove your point, nor does it make your claim highlighted above any less false. Posting her list of degrees also doesn't change anything, but such a desperate move indicates you're starting to realize you made an absurd claim and we're only a post or two away from the backpeddling.

"when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

The highlighted sentence is false. It has already been explained to you why it is false and why the one example you keep posting over and over is flawed.

"First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software."

No one has questioned that in this thread. Ever. You don't understand the terms. You don't understand the difference between the license and the physical product. We're at an impasse. Read up and we'll talk more.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by lifesbrink

Originally posted by Anireth

And Steam has some really nice deals, yes. But half of that is because the regular price is quite high, especially outside the US, especially in Europe. Some game cost only 10% more, some even 3 times as much (really. $25 vs €60 and similar). The regular price is almost always higher then any other shop, even the pricy ones. And it certainly can't keep up with Amazon or GoG.

That is not quite true, given the exchange rates in question.  Typically, 1.5 to 2 of our dollars equals 1 euro or pound.  

Today I found Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai for 28 US dollars in EBGames, with Box, CD's, Book and Bonus content.  On Steam its 49.99 US dollars. 

But the real killer is this -

I bring it home, instell the steam client (5 mins), client finishes installing and then hangs, eventually kill the process (10 mins),  start the client, create a steam account (5 mins),  install the first 2 disks, 3rd disk install crashes and steam wants to download the rest which is going to take 2 hours (20 minutes). 

So I run the setup again, steam has to validate the installed files, its been validating those files for about 30 minutes, now its sititng on 100% validated doing nothing for the last 20 minutes, I think its locked up... (50 minutes).

This is the most frustrating annoying process, made even worse because I only want to play this non-steam game offline. 

Cancelled the installed and going to try again, I don't hold out much hope.

Edit: Validating locked up again, cancelled.  Uninstalled the game.  Reinstalled the game.  Now Steam has decided (without asking me)  that I need a 3 gig update to play my box game offline. Started at 18:00 its now 22:00 although I did have dinner in between attempts. 3 hours 6 minutes estimated download.

Just a bit of advice. As soon as you deal with all that make SURE you set steam to offline mode. Offline mode for steam simply does not work unless you already had it in offline mode. If you had steam in online mode and turn your computer off, when you go to play the game next time you turn the comp on steam will require you to connect to the net. If you for some reason do not have internet you are simply screwed. Steam, nor any games installed on steam will load. However if you already have it on offline mode you should be fine. Just tell it to stay in offline mode.