" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @oldschool:  

It's not a high horse point of view.  I also use Windows.  I also dislike corporate oligopolies and I also know about the TCPA which is fundamentally an ologipoly which uses the carrot of safer computing to enact ridiculously overbearing methods of consumer control.
 
Calling people tossers who choose something you do not because either they are educated enough or brave enough to do try is not a nice thing.  Linux is reality.  It exists and is tangible.  While it may not be a choice that you want to take it's not fair or even rational to use a pejorative term to describe it.  You started a discussion which connects to the root of the issue, corporate control and how it affects you as a consumer.  While your reasoning was somewhat unsound, your point of view is indeed valid because this is only the very tip of the iceberg.  I think it would be better if you informed yourself of some of the more consumer rights friendly choices and that's why I mentioned not only Linux but also Good Old Games. "

I didn't call you a tosser, but those I mentioned in the post, and that your behaviour reminds me of it.  You shouldn't try to find points that aren't there.  I don't use Linux because I am not tech savvy enough to and if I wanted to arrogant, I wouldn't admit that (damn Windows is a pain and causes me grief figuring it out, let alone Linux).    It would appear that we are essentially in the same camp, so I fail to see what your point all along has been (that wasn't a question, so don't answer it).   "

" Not that I am condoning piracy, but this way of doing business only encourages it in my opinion.  I just wanted to play a legitimate game, and they want to control you and the item you bought in perpetuity. "

" @oldschool said:

" @Bellum said:

" @Kazona:  Hardware doesn't fit under intellectual property. Your console is yours. The software stuff that it needs to work, on the other hand...  Also, you own the game only so far as you can own, say, a book. You do not own the contents. You only own the physical medium that it is attached to. Might seem obvious to you, but it's an important distinction. "

It is the most important distinction.  Can you imagine if you were only licensed to read a book and couldn't sell it, or even give it away?  It would be nuts.  It is why games should be given any special treatment not afforded to movies, music and print media.  They are all IP.  It is also why you won't see a test case on selling used games in any hurry, especially in light of the one or two that failed. 
 
The USA for example has this, which shows how muddied all of this and why it is difficult to enforce: 

  The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in theCopyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule." 

 
and this: 
 In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc., a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement.     "

I find this pretty interesting. Doesn't this mean that, for instance, Microsoft does not have the right to brick your console? If the console is really mine, shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with it, even if this includes modding it to play copied discs? Banning you from their xbox live service as a result of modding your console is perfectly legal, but if the console is really mine, then they have absolutely no right to brick the system if it's been tampered with. In fact, if the hardware is truly mine, then if Microsoft willfully and knowingly destroys it, they are committing a criminal act punishable by law.  Of course I'm not condoning piracy in any way, but there is no law that dissallows the modifying of a product I own.  And it might stretch even further than that. Remember how Microsoft is limiting the use of third-party memory cards? Why would they have the right to do that if the console is mine? If a product wholly belongs to me, then no one but me has a right to tamper with that product in any way, shape or form; not even the original manufacturer.   In short, if I ever decide to modify my console and Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo decides to brick it, I think I just might take it to court. "

" I really think the moral of story here is don't buy PC games used, you don't know what you're getting yourself in to. "

" @oldschool said:

" Not that I am condoning piracy, but this way of doing business only encourages it in my opinion.  I just wanted to play a legitimate game, and they want to control you and the item you bought in perpetuity. "

unfortunately this way of doing business came about because of piracy, and it still isnt enough, which is why pc gaming is dying except for maybe the occasional mmo "

" @oldschool said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @oldschool:  

It's not a high horse point of view.  I also use Windows.  I also dislike corporate oligopolies and I also know about the TCPA which is fundamentally an ologipoly which uses the carrot of safer computing to enact ridiculously overbearing methods of consumer control.
 
Calling people tossers who choose something you do not because either they are educated enough or brave enough to do try is not a nice thing.  Linux is reality.  It exists and is tangible.  While it may not be a choice that you want to take it's not fair or even rational to use a pejorative term to describe it.  You started a discussion which connects to the root of the issue, corporate control and how it affects you as a consumer.  While your reasoning was somewhat unsound, your point of view is indeed valid because this is only the very tip of the iceberg.  I think it would be better if you informed yourself of some of the more consumer rights friendly choices and that's why I mentioned not only Linux but also Good Old Games. "

I didn't call you a tosser, but those I mentioned in the post, and that your behaviour reminds me of it.  You shouldn't try to find points that aren't there.  I don't use Linux because I am not tech savvy enough to and if I wanted to arrogant, I wouldn't admit that (damn Windows is a pain and causes me grief figuring it out, let alone Linux).    It would appear that we are essentially in the same camp, so I fail to see what your point all along has been (that wasn't a question, so don't answer it).   "

Ahwww Now kiss and make up boys.  :) "

I really like steam and I haven't bought a used game since 2002 but I sympathize with your situation oldschool.  It would be nice if we could go back to a time when people could happily trade and borrow pc games and not have to worry about online activation stuff even when they're single player but unfortunately piracy has pretty much made it mandatory in the modern PC gaming world.  
 
I do find it odd that you bought Orange Box used to begin with considering its 5 games in one and probably costs less than 30 dollars brand new right now.

" I really like steam and I haven't bought a used game since 2002 but I sympathize with your situation oldschool.  It would be nice if we could go back to a time when people could happily trade and borrow pc games and not have to worry about online activation stuff even when they're single player but unfortunately piracy has pretty much made it mandatory in the modern PC gaming world.    I do find it odd that you bought Orange Box used to begin with considering its 5 games in one and probably costs less than 30 dollars brand new right now. "

Shame because as far as PC games go the Orange Box is easily one of the best collections of first person games ever put together.
At the very least you should try to get yourself a copy of Portal if nothing else, they sell it as a stand alone copy now.

" Shame because as far as PC games go the Orange Box is easily one of the best collections of first person games ever put together. At the very least you should try to get yourself a copy of Portal if nothing else, they sell it as a stand alone copy now. "

" @Lazyaza said:

" Shame because as far as PC games go the Orange Box is easily one of the best collections of first person games ever put together. At the very least you should try to get yourself a copy of Portal if nothing else, they sell it as a stand alone copy now. "

I have to agree, Portal is defiantly worth owning, especially considering it is more of puzzle game than a FPS. Course in addition to being on the PC the stand alone copy is on the XBLA as well if you don't want it on PC. "

" @lhaymehr said:

" @Kazona said:

In short, if I ever decide to modify my console and Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo decides to brick it, I think I just might take it to court. "

All they would do is remind you of that lengthy EULA you probably didn't read when you were registering your xbox live account. Once you press "Agree" on an EULA composed by Microsoft's lawyers, there's little use of going to court. "

I think it goes back to the concept that they can legally place barriers in front of you to stop you doing what they don't want you to do.  Trying to sue them would fail because you knew what what would or could happen - they don't hide the consequences.  Then it goes back to you being able to bypass anything that is possible to bypass, legally.  The use of the internet has been the main weapon of technology to try and enforce and control.  If you want to use their online service then you have to abide by the rules.  If you don't go online, then you can just ignore them.  In a way, I assume it is why some people have 2 consoles - one for online and one for modding.  It is a cat and mouse game with them.  It is why I support hackers and modders, they are awesome, as they are the best safeguard against rampant corporate abuse.  I don't support pirates who profit from it. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lhaymehr said:

" @Kazona said:

In short, if I ever decide to modify my console and Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo decides to brick it, I think I just might take it to court. "

All they would do is remind you of that lengthy EULA you probably didn't read when you were registering your xbox live account. Once you press "Agree" on an EULA composed by Microsoft's lawyers, there's little use of going to court. "

I think it goes back to the concept that they can legally place barriers in front of you to stop you doing what they don't want you to do.  Trying to sue them would fail because you knew what what would or could happen - they don't hide the consequences.  Then it goes back to you being able to bypass anything that is possible to bypass, legally.  The use of the internet has been the main weapon of technology to try and enforce and control.  If you want to use their online service then you have to abide by the rules.  If you don't go online, then you can just ignore them.  In a way, I assume it is why some people have 2 consoles - one for online and one for modding.  It is a cat and mouse game with them.  It is why I support hackers and modders, they are awesome, as they are the best safeguard against rampant corporate abuse.  I don't support pirates who profit from it. "

But keeping me from using their Xbox Live service isn't the same as completely breaking something that I own. They can easily prevent me from using xbox live without damaging my console. But I'm guessing they don't really break the console, and instead prevent the operating system from running. And since that is software, it's probably licensed instead of owned. So essentially the only thing we own is a shell with chips in it.   I am really tempted to have a lawyer look at this EULA. "

" @lhaymehr: Doesn't this mean you should still be able to use the console when not connected to the internet? It's been my understanding that if MS chooses to brick my console, it will be completely useless except as a paperweight. "

" @Kazona said:

" @lhaymehr: Doesn't this mean you should still be able to use the console when not connected to the internet? It's been my understanding that if MS chooses to brick my console, it will be completely useless except as a paperweight. "

Your understanding is wrong.  MS do not brick consoles. "

Yeah you should have known, who the hell buys used PC games?

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @Kazona said:

" @lhaymehr: Doesn't this mean you should still be able to use the console when not connected to the internet? It's been my understanding that if MS chooses to brick my console, it will be completely useless except as a paperweight. "

Your understanding is wrong.  MS do not brick consoles. "

He meant that if they chose to shut his system down for running a backup chip. If you misunderstood him cool, but I suspect you are just being a smart ass? "

Why is this thread still around.