It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
keeveek: Well, it is dangerous, to say the least.

For example, the reason why my friend could buy Adobe Photoshop for 1/5 of the price was because he is a student and he was forbidden to share trade or sell his license further.

Such low prices wouldn't be avaible without this limitation.
You have to ask yourself if, in the absence of a competing channel such as retail, these low prices would continue to be the norm. These low prices don't exist because the "threat" of used software is eliminated. These prices exist to discourage people from buying disc-based versions from third-party distributors, instead purchasing from the publisher/developer directly.

Adobe is within its rights to impose a limitation on the person buying the software at the point of sale - namely requiring that your friend be a student to get it at that price - because Adobe's distribution rights are still in force before the transaction has been concluded. But it has always been the case that once the sale transaction is complete, the publisher's rights to control the sale or resale of that specific licence are exhausted. Your friend could legitimately sell the licence on to a non-student.

The exhaustion doctrine in a nutshell.
Adobe is within its rights to impose a limitation on the person buying the software at the point of sale - namely requiring that your friend be a student to get it at that price
And that will never happen if my student friend will be able to sell the license.
For example - he buys it for $99 , and sells it to a company for $199 because it's still cheaper than oridinary price. And obviously Adobe wouldn't want that.
Well, I would make a living just by buying student licenses and sell them to others.

This is why this rulling is dangerous. Low prices may be a threat for publishers.
Post edited September 21, 2012 by keeveek
avatar
keeveek: And that will never happen if my student friend will be able to sell the license.

For example - he buys it for $99 , and sells it to a company for $199 because it's still cheaper than oridinary price.

Well, I would make a living just by buying student licenses and sell them to others.

This is why this rulling is dangerous. Low prices may be a threat for publishers.
I said it was within their rights - I never said it was a good idea. Software like Adobe Photoshop is massively overpriced in any case, and there is no reason why they should be charging massive amounts of money for it like they do.

In the age of Linux and freely available open source software, there is absolutely no reason for any kind of general purpose desktop software like Photoshop or Microsoft Office to cost more than €100, especially not when digitally distributed.
Software like Adobe Photoshop is massively overpriced in any case,
Bullshit. Even if he paid full price for it, he would earn all the money back in a month. And you use the software for years. You don't buy Photoshop to clear your party photos from pimples.
In the age of Linux and freely available open source software, there is absolutely no reason for any kind of general purpose desktop software like Photoshop or Microsoft Office to cost more than €100, especially not when digitally distributed.
A software is worth exactly as much as people want to pay for it. And somehow, they still prefer spending $500 on Photoshop than using Gimp.

I think I'm starting to get why SimonG argues with you :P Please, continue arguing with him, I have no time for this :D
Post edited September 21, 2012 by keeveek
This thread just serves to remind me of why I'm so weary of digital distribution. GOG is about the only company I've seen that actually does it right.
I hope gog gets more indies and AAAs so I can just use gog.
Good.
Quick heads-up, it looks like Valve did not sign the cease and desist or ask for an extension, they had until yesterday. If the vzbv wants to pursue this further, they can and must do so in court.
Interesting... Now, the curtain rises on this delightful little game.
A rather interesting development... I think Valve is one of the nicer companies out there, but I still hope the vzbv will pursue this issue in court.
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: Thank goodness I only own $18 or so worth of games on that service. Ugh. Never could stand Steam.
That's how it starts....
avatar
Neikius: Its stange. Usually both parties have to sign an addendum to a legal contract. But here they can one-sidedly change it? Big corp treading on our hands. About time people wake up.
Valve claims that is has the right to change the terms at any time, as the previous terms included this clause. Of course, that's a load of horse shit, and valve WILL lose the inevitable class action lawsuit by users locked out of their accounts for refusing to give up their rights to class action lawsuits.
avatar
Dexter111: snip
Bravo! Excellent summation.
Post edited October 12, 2012 by anjohl
avatar
forbidden5: Quick heads-up, it looks like Valve did not sign the cease and desist or ask for an extension, they had until yesterday. If the vzbv wants to pursue this further, they can and must do so in court.
Apparently they now clearly state that all sales are final at least for purchases made in the UK (and I would gather Europe too). At least according to friend in the UK who made a purchase yesterday. I can't say whether that's been there all along or not though.
SImonG, it is ridiculous to act as if a digital download is different than a physical copy. The digital download REPLACES the physical, just as the Mp3 replaces the CD, and the automobile the horse and carriage.

Rights put in place to protect consumers who buy products MUST be upheld via "living tree" interpretations of previous laws on the obsolete product.medium.

Supporting the publishers in this case, who will take any position that nets them higher profits, whatever the expense, out of fear of availability of games being sold digitally is ridiculous. Microsoft and Sony sell games that are allowed to be resold, and they are doing ok for themselves I think?

For any consumer to NOT support their own rights to sell digitally purchased goods is akin to fraternization or battered wife syndrome. Unless you own stock in a publisher, supporting their draconian interpretation is self-defeating.
nothing pisses me off more then when they put "you can't sue us" or something like that in their agreements.

this particular case, where your games are unable to be played anymore unless you continueally agree with increasingly hostible to consumer agreements, SHOULD be bad business. it is not, becuase people don't notice or care about the agreements.

in most cases, it never becomes a problem either.
Hold on while I hold my breath!

Or maybe call an ambulance...