Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie.

[Rizon]

I found a newspaper article from 1999 that states you can sell used software. But this is a ... newspaper article ... from 1999 ... with no facts backing it up.

Or we can avoid a whole debate about it and someone can call the SIIA Anti-Priacy hotline and ask them (I think they would be the right people?):

1-800-388-7478

SIIA Anti-Piracy FAQ:

hxxp://www.spa.org/piracy/faq.asp#Usage

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by clintl

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

Computer programs are written in as not being covered by the First Sale Doctrine, but it looks like that applies only to rentals, leases, and lending. I see nothing that prohibits the outright sale of the computer program.

Link to Cornell Law site.
http://tinyurl.com/7h7vn

[Galaxy]

How do you agree to a license when it is inside the box, and after you buy it? It's not as you can return the game for your money back (at most stores you can't)?

[Joe]

So I'm assuming that I can sell a game that I've purchased but not yet installed on any computer?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

How do you agree to a license when it is inside the box, and after you buy it? It's not as you can return the game for your money back (at most stores you can't)?

That is one of the issues that Microsoft ran into when they tried to sue a college student for reselling his software. They lost and were required to pay him back what he paid for the software.

[Bad-example]

Skydog = one ornery bastage when SWMBO is out of town.

[NoMyths]

((SkyDog = Dictator) > Never) < Always

[DanGarion]

Does anyone have copies of the FOF and TPF license agreements handy?

[Maple Leafs]

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Skydog = one ornery bastage when SWMBO is out of town.

just imagine what he'll be like once the Dawgs lose today

[panerd]

Does the thread title imply that Skydog is really just making all of this stuff up?

[Deattribution]

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

Civilization was kind of a shit example - last I checked FOF5 doesn't come on cd, and I think TPF *might* have, but you still had to use a license. Digital software would be so easy to rip someone off on when trading - 'oops I forgot to unlicensed it' and then never answer the person back. Then whoever got ripped off here comes and makes a fuss about it, or messages skydog and says this guy ripped me off. There's no proof of 'shipping', or any other physical material.

Not to mention some digitally licensed games come with multiple license - so if you allowed one trade - then when someone playing a game with multiple license decided to come here and trade his game (but keep one license for himself) for a game with a single license - youre getting into a whole different kind of mess.

Say what you want, but some of you guys are just being assholes over this.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by clintl

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

We are confusing two concepts during this whole discussion. Whether something is a crime, and whether something is a breech of contract. Both are "illegal" in a sense, but they are two different things.

A lot of times they overlap, because we have used the criminal law to enforce concepts that are also reflected in the civil law. Let's say that I contract with you to sell you my car for $1,000. And you then accept delivery of my car, and never had the intention to pay me. In that case, you are liable to me for breech of contract AND guilty of the crime of theft/fraud. I could sue you in court on Monday for $1,000, and the government could prosecute you on Tuesday for theft and put you in jail, fine you, etc.

Let's say, though, that I pay you $50 in exchange for your promise not to see the new Harry Potter movie. There is (I hope clearly) no law against going see the new Harry Potter movie. It is not a crime. But if I find out that you do it, I can still sue you for breech of contract.

In this case, one can argue that selling my used copy of CIV4 is not a crime. It looks (though I am no expert) that there is an exception in copyright law that means that selling a used copy of a game is not a crime.

You may still, however, be in breech of contract. The CIV4 guys could sue you, and you will be liable to them for damages (computed perhaps as the money they lost by not being able to sell a new copy of the game.) Of course, lawyers like me don't come cheap (actually, lawyers like me do. But good lawyers don't). So you can breech your contract with practical impunity because it does not make sense to come after you. But if you start a business re-selling games, then you may be liable for the tort of tortious interference with contract (facilitating the breech of a third party contract). And if you do enough business, it may be worth taking you to court to shut you down.

So, in short, reselling games may or may not be a crime. The EULA does not speak to that. It is, however, a breech of contract, which is a different animal. And what SkyDog feels comfortable allowing on this forum as moderator is his business. Though he does not need me to tell him that.

(NOTE: Some people in this thread have noted that the law tends to disfavor contractual provisions that prevent the resale of property (if you go to one of those expensive lawyers, he will call it a restraint on alienability). Accordingly, these EULAs may not be enforcable. The discussion above was premised on the fact that a court would hold that the EULA was enforcable).

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This is the one copyright violation that I'm pretty regularly guilty of

*looks up Jon's opinion of copyright violators in the music piracy threads*

Damn....you have got a lot of punishment to hand out to yourself and you must not have a high opinion of your parent's skills at parenting.

[clintl]

I don't have any problem with SkyDog establishing a "No trading used games" policy on FOFC. I was just saying that it's questionable whether this particular provision of the EULAs is legally enforceable, and pointed out that there are lots of things placed in contracts that are not legally enforceable because they contradict established law.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

an example (sorry for the Caps - it's a direct copy and paste from the EULA).

Originally Posted by EULA from a title we all know

BY OPENING THE SHRINK-WRAPPED PACKAGE CONTAINING THE SOFTWARE, OR BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SOFTWARE, PROMPTLY RETURN THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING PRINTED MATERIALS) TO SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND.

Originally Posted by my receipt from that same title

We can non accept returns once the shrink-wrap is broken

I am not singling out Jim, as his is a pretty typical EULA. It just happened to be handy next to my computer, and probably more pertinent than any other title here. But this is why EULAs are under so much fire - we're not just agreeing to an contract we aren't reading because it's legalese, we are tacitly agreeing to a contract we haven't even seen, with no way to opt out.

Actually, there are much more crazy ones out there - like the ones prohibiting you from releasing benchmarks of the software, or the ones that state that you agree to any future changes that the developer wants to put in the EULA.

and, just so that we are all on the same page:

Originally Posted by FOF4 EULA

You may transfer your rights under this agreement, provided you transfer this license, the software, and all printed materials, retaining no copies.

FOF4 is not an elicense game. I do not have 2k4, so perhaps that EULA is different, but I know that that same language is in other elicense EULAs (OOTP, for example).

for the record, I have no issue with closing the thread, and no issue with rules against trading fof software. But lets just call that a personal decision and not rely on a some Quixote-like EULA crusade to justify the decision.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Damn....you have got a lot of punishment to hand out to yourself and you must not have a high opinion of your parent's skills at parenting.

I'll give you the first half (and I do beat myself up about it fairly often), but on the latter half, my child isn't posting them nor is he aware that I'm posting them, so I kinda get a break on that part.

(Yes, I saw the smiley face you added, but it's actually quite a valid question all kidding aside)

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

you are correct. EB absolutely sells used PC games.

here's an article about Best Buy testing the used games and the game industry getting a little pissed. I'd post the whole thing here, but, well, you know...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/30/comm...column_gaming/

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We are confusing two concepts during this whole discussion. Whether something is a crime, and whether something is a breech of contract. Both are "illegal" in a sense, but they are two different things.

[arguement snipped]

So, in short, reselling games may or may not be a crime. The EULA does not speak to that. It is, however, a breech of contract, which is a different animal. And what SkyDog feels comfortable allowing on this forum as moderator is his business. Though he does not need me to tell him that.

(NOTE: Some people in this thread have noted that the law tends to disfavor contractual provisions that prevent the resale of property (if you go to one of those expensive lawyers, he will call it a restraint on alienability). Accordingly, these EULAs may not be enforcable. The discussion above was premised on the fact that a court would hold that the EULA was enforcable).

The purpose of a EULA is to change the terms of software acquisition from a "sale" to a "license agreement". If the terms can be successfully (legally) changed to a "license agreement" rather than a "sale", then people would be bound by the EULA and the resale of a program would be illegal (or at least a breach of contract). If the terms cannot be changed, then purchasers are entitled to all the rights under the First Sale Doctrine, no matter what the EULA says.

The question of enforceability of EULAs is not in the specific terms of the EULA, but whether the terms of acquisition of software can be changed from a sale to a license agreement. This has been decided in both ways by the courts, and there has never been a definite opinion passed by the higher courts.

Until the higher courts make a decision, there is no right or wrong answer on this debate.

[DanGarion]

EULA from TPF

You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this license agreement provided you retain no copies and the recipient agrees to the terms of this license agreement. If the Software is an upgrade, any transfer must include the upgrade and all prior versions. Total Pro Football and accompanying documentation are provided "as-is" without warranty of any kind. The entire risk as to the results and performance of the Software is assumed by you. .400 Software Studios will not be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or similar damages.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Rizon

I found a newspaper article from 1999 that states you can sell used software. But this is a ... newspaper article ... from 1999 ... with no facts backing it up.

Or we can avoid a whole debate about it and someone can call the SIIA Anti-Priacy hotline and ask them (I think they would be the right people?):

1-800-388-7478

SIIA Anti-Piracy FAQ:

hxxp://www.spa.org/piracy/faq.asp#Usage

I called it, but they are only open monday-friday 9-5. So it isn't much help on a saturday.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll give you the first half (and I do beat myself up about it fairly often), but on the latter half, my child isn't posting them nor is he aware that I'm posting them, so I kinda get a break on that part.

(Yes, I saw the smiley face you added, but it's actually quite a valid question all kidding aside)

Just to be a stickler..

He said your parent's parenting skills, not yours... you know, for making you such an evil law breaker and what not ...

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

People keep saying 'EB games does it why can't we' EB games only resells pre-used console games - console games aren't saved to your system so that copy you 'trade' isn't left behind for you to use.

Civilization was kind of a shit example - last I checked FOF5 doesn't come on cd, and I think TPF *might* have, but you still had to use a license. Digital software would be so easy to rip someone off on when trading - 'oops I forgot to unlicensed it' and then never answer the person back. Then whoever got ripped off here comes and makes a fuss about it, or messages skydog and says this guy ripped me off. There's no proof of 'shipping', or any other physical material.

Not to mention some digitally licensed games come with multiple license - so if you allowed one trade - then when someone playing a game with multiple license decided to come here and trade his game (but keep one license for himself) for a game with a single license - youre getting into a whole different kind of mess.

Say what you want, but some of you guys are just being assholes over this.

Somebody should have told EB they only seel used console games when they sold me that pre-owned copy of Rise of Nations (and subsequently allowed me to sell it back).

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't know about your EB Games, but every one that I've been to across the country sells used PC Games as well as console games.

They don't online.

And the majority of the time I go to the store - it's to buy something that just came out , so that's my error concerning the stores.

Still doesn't really matter, the point was in the latter of the message, not the beginning anyway.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I called it, but they are only open monday-friday 9-5. So it isn't much help on a saturday.

Then it must be ok to pirate stuff on weekends. I'm going to go download a pirated copy of the original Sim City now.

[Airhog]

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The purpose of a EULA is to change the terms of software acquisition from a "sale" to a "license agreement". If the terms can be successfully (legally) changed to a "license agreement" rather than a "sale", then people would be bound by the EULA and the resale of a program would be illegal (or at least a breach of contract). If the terms cannot be changed, then purchasers are entitled to all the rights under the First Sale Doctrine, no matter what the EULA says.

The question of enforceability of EULAs is not in the specific terms of the EULA, but whether the terms of acquisition of software can be changed from a sale to a license agreement. This has been decided in both ways by the courts, and there has never been a definite opinion passed by the higher courts.

Until the higher courts make a decision, there is no right or wrong answer on this debate.

This would be interesting, can you charge sales tax on software license agreements? My receipt for FOF is in two places 1) In a box buried behind 50 boxes of my wife's junk in the closet 2) On my other computer which isn't hooked up anymore, so I can't really get to it, but I'd be curious to see if I was charged sales tax.

According to the change in sales tax in California in 2002:

Software Purchases and Software License Agreements
Software can be purchased outright. Software also can be acquired via a software license agreement that, depending on agreement terms, is considered to be a purchase or a lease. In general the same rules apply to software purchases and software license agreements.

Custom software and license agreements are not taxable. Custom software is a computer program created and tailored specifically for a customer. This also includes modifications of canned software at a charge of 50% or more over its original purchase price.

Canned software and license agreements are taxable if delivered via tangible media, such as diskette or cd-rom. Canned software is not taxable if delivered electronically or loaded by the vendor. Canned software is a pre-written program developed for general or repeated sale or lease.

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by Airhog

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?

Because he lacks integrity!

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

They don't online.

And the majority of the time I go to the store - it's to buy something that just came out , so that's my error concerning the stores.

Still doesn't really matter, the point was in the latter of the message, not the beginning anyway.

Actually, EB was recently purchashed by Gamestop, and no longer accepts PC trade-ins. Once their current stock of used PC games is gone, they won't be sold anymore.

I know this because I tried trading in a game a couple of weeks ago, and was informed of the new company-wide policies.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Then it must be ok to pirate stuff on weekends. I'm going to go download a pirated copy of the original Sim City now.

, quit taking what I said and turning it into something else. I simply meant they weren't open today. BTW I agree with Skydog's decision on this. While many of his decisions piss me off, he runs this board and if he doesn't want someone trading the license of his friend's games that they make a living off of I see no problem with it. If someone was selling one of my friends music CD's instead of buying it off of them I would be upset too. And if I could stop it I would. There are other places to attempt to trade TPF for FOF if he desires, if Skydog doesn't want him doing it here then it doesn't happen here.

I will call that number on Monday tho, b/c I'm interested in the wording of the Civ. IV EULA agreement.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Actually, EB was recently purchashed by Gamestop, and no longer accepts PC trade-ins. Once their current stock of used PC games is gone, they won't be any sold anymore.

I know this because I tried trading in a game a couple of weeks ago, and was informed of the new company-wide policies.

But that has less to do with legal matters and more to do with money. Gamestop's computer section is ever shrinking. There will probably be a time soon when you'll be lucky to find any software at Gamestop.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But that has less to do with legal matters and more to do with money. Gamestop's computer section is ever shrinking.

I'm not sure about that. I emailed EB about it, since I was confused about the fact that console games were still able to be traded in, but not PC games. This is the response I receieved:

Hello Jason,

Thank you for contacting EBgames.com. Actually, our EBgames stores were
not supposed to accept PC games as trade-ins for a few years now. Its
mainly due the fact that most PC games require the CD Key to install on
a PC. Once its registered, the same CD-Key can't be loaded into a
second
PC. This prevents multiple computers having to play the same game
without having to purchase multiple games. And most PC developers don't
offer a transferable registration clause that will allow users to
transfer ownership of the game.

We apologize if you do not agree with our policy and hope that you
continue to shop with EBgames. If you have any other questions, please
feel free to respond to this email. You can also give us a call at
877-432-9675, 7 days a week from 8 am to Midnight Eastern Standard
Time.

Sincerely,
Rey
Senior Sales Associate
EBgames.com

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'm not sure about that. I emailed EB about it, since I was confused about the fact that console games were still able to be traded in, but not PC games. This is the response I receieved:

It doesn't change the fact if there was money in it, they wouldn't care. Plus, they are moving software out of their stores.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This would be interesting, can you charge sales tax on software license agreements? My receipt for FOF is in two places 1) In a box buried behind 50 boxes of my wife's junk in the closet 2) On my other computer which isn't hooked up anymore, so I can't really get to it, but I'd be curious to see if I was charged sales tax.

According to the stuff you quoted, you can charge sales tax (in California) if there is physical media. You can't on a game you purchase and then download. Most online purchases don't include sales tax unless the store is located (for tax purposes) in the same state as the purchaser.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It doesn't change the fact if there was money in it, they wouldn't care. Plus, they are moving software out of their stores.

They have to care since many of the games they are reselling are unusable without a new CD key.

[Antmeister]

Damn....after reading this thread, I feel like a swashbuckling software pirate. I have been using EbGames for years to trade in my old games.

And when I moved to Phoenix, there is this store out here called Bookman's that trades books, videos, and games. I have traded for a lot of my older games to get some newer one there and never thought that I was a morally corrupt individual because I didn't abide by a EULA agreement, but I guess I have been wrong.

Both of these games are electronically distributed and if you really want to support the developer, you might as well pay for it since especially if you want to see the game further developed.

I have mixed feelings about what the guy posted, because he seemed to want to do a straight up trade. No one seemed to be gaining a profit off this transaction. I didn't think the guy deserved a banning, but I don't know how I would feel if my wife was away from town and some girl was hitting on me leaving me with a concerned feeling.

Sure I know SkyDog is focusing on the integrity of the whole thing and has bit through his tongue on many occasions, but don't take it out on one guy. You will probably be surprised on how many agreements you have already broken when it comes to other things in your life without even realizing it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Airhog

So, if both EULA's from TPF and FOF allow you to sell your game to someone else, why was he banned in the first place?

As best I can tell, because his post violated the Civ III EULA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Just to be a stickler..

He said your parent's parenting skills, not yours... you know, for making you such an evil law breaker and what not ...

My bad, 'cause I did misread that last sentence.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

As best I can tell, because his post violated the Civ III EULA.

None of his posts made any mention of Civ3. He just wanted to trade TPF for FOF5. Now I have no idea what took place in PM's and if Civ3 was involved.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Airhog

None of his posts made any mention of Civ3. He just wanted to trade TPF for FOF5. Now I have no idea what took place in PM's and if Civ3 was involved.

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

lol

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Sarcasim is lost on the internets.

You know, looking back on that, it totally went over my head

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It's not unusual to find software EULAs that are quite impossible to follow to the strict letter, because they contradict themselves and/or suggest some sort of remedy that is not allowed (such as returning the software for a full refund if you don't accept the agreement, which retail stores will not allow).

Seems like an extreme leap to try to make this out to be an issue of integrity.

Well, this fails miserably in terms of integrity.

This is a guy saying something is wrong but it's cool to do as long as you don't do it to his friends and if you complain, he's just going to have to do the right thing and apply the rule across the board.

It'd piss people off but the only answer with integrity is to have the same rule apply to all parties.

Heck, lets not even mention the whole, I don't have a problem if it's illegal as long as both parties agree to it. That should make Buccaneer happy as it's an incredibly libertarian view.

Really, I'll stop here since this rant doesn't apply to me and I'll likely piss a lot of guys off if Skydog does the right thing. I've never sold, traded or bought any games on the internet except from official venders so whatever he chooses is fine with me.

I just hate seeing someone getting credit for an attribute when it's not being exhibited. I happen to think a lot of Skydogs integrity so I'm not accusing him of anything. It's just an observation on how he's approaching this issue which is from a purely self serving point of view.

Of course, I don't think Skydog used the word integrity so I don't assume he's necessarily framing the argument around this. You just used the word I was thinking about when I was reading the thread so I wanted to comment on that side of the argument.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Of course, I don't think Skydog used the word integrity so I don't assume he's necessarily framing the argument around this.

he did, actually.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

he did, actually.

I stand corrected on this point then but the rest of the paragraph still applies.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Just a note:

End User License Agreements were found to be enforceable by the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996). That decision has been followed universally (I think) by other federal district and appellate courts. As others have pointed out, the First Sale Doctrine would otherwise apply in these cases, but after ProCD, the EULA has the final word.

It should also be noted that there has been plenty of academic criticism of this decision, and in the right circumstances someone might mount a challenge to it... but as of now (despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue) it's a fairly settled matter in the law. So the question here is really about EULA's rather than copyright.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Just a note:

End User License Agreements were found to be enforceable by the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996). That decision has been followed universally (I think) by other federal district and appellate courts. As others have pointed out, the First Sale Doctrine would otherwise apply in these cases, but after ProCD, the EULA has the final word.

It should also be noted that there has been plenty of academic criticism of this decision, and in the right circumstances someone might mount a challenge to it... but as of now (despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue) it's a fairly settled matter in the law. So the question here is really about EULA's rather than copyright.

The research I've done shows that the 7th and 8th district courts favor the EULA while the others still favor the First Sale Doctrine. Of course I haven't been able to find a case on point after your cite, so this may have changed.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me.

I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm gonna say this, then shut up about the whole thing:

A) the EULA's of the games involved ALLOW the games to be sold/traded completely removed and given away to another party, as noted in quotations in other's posts.

B) There is no lack of integrity involved in this situation.

C) Screaming into the wind and threatening people that you're going to snap and go postal on anyone and everyone involved in something you disagree with if they keep arguing with you is seriously childish and utterly lacks integrity.

D) If you are indeed going to quietly ignore something, perhaps you shouldn't write up a post like the one I just quoted. Say one thing, do something else? there is a word that comes to mind...

I like you Ben, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways. Either get the facts straight and treat EVERY action equally, or stick with your own professed rule of keeping quiet and ignoring the problem. I've rather lost some respect for you over this and thats a sad thing.

My nickel.

Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree.