Run that by me again?

Theory;

- Pirate X has properly registered its LEGAL copy with the necessary principle provided by SD.

- Makes a number (fill in your favorite amount of profits here) of illegal copies which will receive the 'advantages' hinted about in the quote above.

- SD must now support a *number* of items - only one of which is the perfectly legal item.

Transfer(s) or costly support from now on?

Lost sales for SD or illegal activity having an impact on POTENTIAL business with possible consumers?

Yep, it's a wash alright.

Isn't material.  Traditionally all property that is transferred to me through sale has been legally held to be fully transfered including the right to resale.  Prior exceptions had typically been made with respect to liens for mortgages and autos and the like. Which must be removed once the loan which is the subject of the lien has been satisfied.

Annatar what I'm referring to is a traditional legal standard within the property law.  A software company can only incur maintenance costs if they choose to do so.  It's voluntary on their part as far as the law is concerned.  No court would uphold that has having any legal preference to negate my property interest that was transferred at the time of the sale.

If what you were saying was legally sufficient they wouldn't need the legal device of limiting the software license to be a single non-transferable license.  Furthermore, in contracts due consideration must exchange hands and there has to be a genuine meeting of the minds between the parties.  I'm surprised noone has brought a class action lawsuit on the software industry over this.

In essence the software industry from a property law point of view has managed to go beyond copyright law and enforce through this licensing mechanism all real property interests to remain with them including everthing that is transfered to me.  In essence even my license to use the software ends up remaining the property of the software company.  It outrageous.  I should have the same right with respect to the money I paid.

You buy a disc. You sell the disc. New owner gets what's on the disc, no support to go with it. Seems pretty standard. You're not prevented from selling your retail Sins copy, and the new owner can play the game from that disc just fine. So, in your own words, the standard is kept.

But if a software company is not required to incur maintenance costs and it's voluntary, then the user has no grounds upon which to expect any support by the same logic, and is certainly not legally granted any support.

But your own argument revolves around registration transfer which only guarantees support for the product, not the ability to play it.

So, you do a very good job of contradicting yourself There's nothing preventing you from re-selling your original disk, and Stardock games are perfectly playable off them without needing a serial. The only thing a serial is needed for is support. But since as you pointed out Stardock is in no way obligated to provide support and it's entirely voluntary, it is completely up to them how to provide it because it is fully voluntary. And as such, the user can not have any legal reason to complain about the support limitation to only the original purchaser/registrar.

Huh???  Ya right.

Edited my post to explain.

How so? Stardock only supports the registered copy. The pirated  copies cannot be registered with the same CD key. This is the reason why they can sell their retail games with no DRM.

Annatar: you're talking about extended warranties. Products you buy (such as cars, electronics, etc. already have a warranty attached. You don't need to buy it separate. And you could easily look at support and patches as warranties for software).

As well, yes, your example is extreme, but using extremes is a poor way to argue your point, IMO. The reality is this wouldn't happen in every case and likely in very few (where the specific patching problems and support would be required both for the former user and the new one). I think there's also just as much chance that being able to resell the software would lead to more revenue for Stardock as I noted in my previous posts.

ZubaZ needs to refresh this page more offten.

You forgot something I was specifically mentioning this langauge in many software licensing agreements which attempts to claim through the edict of these things the specific llimitation of "non-transferable" license to use.  Just read Microsoft's license agreement I'm pretty sure it has this language.

Furthermore,  I should have the same legal right they've secured for themselves.  Namely slip a license agreement in with my cash that says they have received from me a single non-transferable right to hold my money until I'm done with their software at which time they must either destroy it or return it to me.  It's the same game they've been playing all this time.  Microsoft's and some other company's billions have purchased these laws and made them what they are.

Yes... but, that WAS the whole reasoning behind such an argument.

SD is in no obligation to provide support to any other than those who actually paid for the stuff - as to when a pirated copy gets transfered (or even re-sold bootlegged or by any other means - making the practice ILLEGAL if not highly corruptive to the entire economic schema expected from a *manufacturer* standpoint) to a second 'buyer' (ad-infinitum, btw) - that specific person is NOT entitled to receive proper support since they didn't BUY that right or privilege.

Hence, pirated copies are not allowed to be supported (i doubt anyone would deny this fact *other* than those making a gain from such situations).

BUT illegal copies erode the potential profits of SD and, indirectly, ruin any future perspectives for deserved support to those honest people who bought a single legal copy.

Forget the 'registration' principles here for a moment and try to think in abstract terms; sales are lost, money is wasted and the criminals steal property DIRECTLY from my hopes of getting SD to develop better and enhanced software which i would purchase if i ever decide or need to.

Now, in common LAW - theft is punishable because it is the right thing to do.

Why should a game (on CD or otherwise) be any different?

Once again, i have no choice but to blame the whole 'Capitalism agenda' and its free-market companion for the essence of what criminality does.

Checked the price of fuel, lately?

What about your bank account fees?

Or the latest US plan to rescue 'failing' investment schemas out of tax-payers money?

Where were we when the big fat & ugly banks (8 majors in Canada alone, btw) were declaring billions worth of *profit* every three months for how many years.

And i shouldn't be condemning any pirate for illegally copying the very game(s) i bought upfront in hard-earned cash from SD!

Gimme a break.

Zyxpsilon, I don't know why you're preaching to the choir here. I never in any way suggested pirates should get support. I'm talking about the ability to sell your game to someone else. All of what you say is well and good, but has nothing to do with selling your copy to another user and they being able to get support for the game.

To break it down: you de-register your copy of the game and sell it to someone else. They buy it, with your old serial key and register it. If you do that, they get support. You don't. If you don't de-register, then they cannot register, so they don't get support.

I fail to see why you're quoting me and then going on about pirates, the price of fuel, banks, and the capitalist system. I have zero sympathy for pirates. That's not at all what I was talking about.

How's that any different than the support the original user might need installing the legal copy on a new system? This "new owners incur expenses that old owners don't" thing doesn't really make sense to me.

Installing issues usually ouccur only once per user.

Also you dont download all the patches more than a few times.

So if the new user has installing issues and downloads all the patches, SD has to pay for additional support.

Also you have another one downloading and using impusle whitout paying aynthing.

Not to mention that nothing stops you from keeping a fully patched copy of the game somewhere.

Reselling of software simply fails for practical reason.

SD could implement a system to transfer license. But i do not see how this could be done cost effective.

And a big difference between software and music cd is that you dont need to make copies of the music to play it and there is no way to make the user to sign an eula. Which means the most users of music cds dont even make copies that they could keep after selling the original one.

Depending on what you're playing it on, yes, you do make copies. Remember, loading something from hard drive to RAM is copying for copyright purposes, so playing music at all on a computer requires copying. So do most mp3 players. I don't know about you, but I have portions of nearly every CD I own ripped onto my computer. So I could easily sell the CD and keep the copy.

Holding a customer's hand through the process of 'support' is something the CUSTOMER may be entitled to.

The person the on-seller sells his copy to is NOT a customer and thus cannot expect support.

Games/software is definitely NOT the first comodity that has non-transferable warranty.

About the only 'reasonable' way the second buyer could garner support would be to have the customer/seller request it as the 'registered purchaser'.

The only alternative to this is to have separate 'costs'.

Buy the game for $10....and be required to purchase updates/patches AND assistance as required.....then it'd matter little exactly who was seeking [and paying for] support....so then and ONLY then no-one loses, not even the software co. ....

I see this all the time, it's crap.

This is an argument for Stardock to have non-transferable user accounts so that they only provide support to the original purchaser.  It is not an argument for resale to be illegal.  It is also not an argument for patches to be secured so they don't leak out.  Stardock incurs no costs in patching resales if those patches are taken off third party file servers that make money by selling advertising space.  Stardock incurs cost only if Stardock directly does something for a specific user.

Because something can be abused, something should be illegal.  What in life doesn't that cover?  I can murder people with a toaster.  A toaster is heavy, I can put it in a sack and bludgeon people to death.  I can plug it in and drop it in someone's bath.  A toaster can start fires, even trigger explosions.  I can disconnect gas lines, put a piece of paper in the toaster and blow up their house.  Toasters are lethal in multiple ways, capable of massive destruction with little effort.  Compared to the paltry excuses against resale of software, why aren't toasters illegal?

Furthermore, the difference between a chair and a piece of software isn't that you have to pay to fix your chair when you break it.  It's that your chair isn't broken when you buy it.