Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[flamepanther]

The $6 you would get can not simultaneously be both The fungibility means you can't distinguish money. You know you got $6 for this and $6 for that. You just don't know which buck came from where in that sense (obviously you can mark bills but that is not what the fungibility means). I thought I had been pretty clear that I only identify the X and Y at the respective times of purchase and after that it is lost in the fungibility property.

The problem with that is that it no longer matters where the $6 comes from once the original transaction is completed. Whether or not it comes from reselling the game has NO impact whatsoever on the original transaction.

I'm not purposely trying to ignore the rest of your comments, but I'm very bad at making a clear and concise argument in written form. I'm going to try very hard to do that here, but I think it will help to clear away the existing clutter.

...

The reason your examples don't stand up is not just because some agreement is present, or because time has passed since the transactions started. The problem is that in all of your analogies, you were involved in the transactions in some way from the very beginning. You were already involved when the hypothetical bank bought your hypothetical house--specifically for you. Beginning to end, you were a part of the process. It could not and would not have happened without you. You contributed (in some sense) even before you began to actually pay any money, because that was the entire point the whole time.

This could not be less true of your example of Player A and Player B. Player B had no role and no input into Player A's purchase of the game. Unlike your ongoing interactions with the bank or with your brother--which you were a part of from the beginning, Player A's interaction with the publisher via the original retailer are long since concluded--over with--done--finished--in the past, long before Player B entered the picture.

If Player A wants some of his money back, it no longer matters whether he gets it by selling the same game, a different game, or his left kidney. It makes absolutely NO difference where the money comes from. After the original transaction is completed, the purchased game is just an object in the player's possession. The money, like you say, is fungible. It can come from anywhere. If Player A gives the game to his kid brother for free and does something else to get the same amount of money as the trade-in value, it is exactly the same as if he had sold the game.

Player B is removed from Player A and the game publisher by two separate, essentially unrelated, over-and-done-with transactions that he had nothing to do with and cannot modify. Ever. Any attempt to describe Player B's money reaching the publisher by way of Player A is: A) imaginary, and purely academic; B) only useful to describe part of an economic ecosystem, not an actual contribution from Player B to the publisher, and; C) could be extrapolated to include the whole of the economy, not just the lifecycle of this one copy of the game. To that end, Player B has contributed to the game publisher in the same way as Starbucks, Ron Jeremy, the local teachers' union, Nabisco--and less so than Player A's employer.

Your bank/house analogy would be more relevant if Player B had come up to Player A in the store and said "hey, I want that game over there. If you buy right now for $60, three months from now I will give you $20 for it and flush an extra $30 of my own money down the toilet." I don't see that happening, and Player A would more than likely tell Player B to fuck off if it did.

[flamepanther]

Okay, that was an epic fail at "concise." Attempt number 2:

Realistic twist on Ivo's scenario:
-Player A buys game at retail.
-Player A gives the game FOR FREE to his kid brother and does NOT recoup any of the cost
-Kid brother sells the game and keeps the money, giving none to Player A
-Player B buys the game at the same price as in Ivo's original scenario.

So...

-Player A's purchase of the game is identical to the original scenario.
-Player B's purchase of the game is identical to the original scenario.
-It's still the same copy of the same game.
With only this very slight change in the game's history, how in the world is Player B's purchase going to "retroactively" contribute to Player A's purchase this time?

[Droid party]

When I was a teenager, I bought a copy of Tyrian 2000, brand new in the box. Later, in college, someone else misplaced my Tyrian 2000 disc. By the time I found it, it was broken, through no fault of my own. The game was no longer available on store shelves. I could have purchased a second-hand copy on eBay to replace it--that is if I had the money, but I was a poor starving college student. I downloaded a new copy of the game I already paid full price for. Technically, this is considered piracy under U.S. copyright law--FACT.

Did I cheat the developer or the publisher by not paying twice for a game I legally purchased? Would buying it used have helped the developer at all?

I believe that was actually written into Australian law a few years ago. You can make as many copies of your own game,movie,book or music that you legitimately purchased as you choose for as long as you still own the original.

I believe the reason that they wrote it in was more for the purposes of clearing up confusion about copying your cd collection to your pc and then to portable music players. I'm only going by what I vaguely recall reading in gaming magazines at the time, they were reporting on it because it had implications for the gaming industry for all media they distributed in Australia.

It also means that if I buy a dvd I can copy it to my phone or pc to watch on the go as long as I own the dvd, if I sell the dvd then I have to delete all copies.One thing that I wonder writing this, if I own the dvd, can I then download the HD blu-ray rip? Probably not, but it is still a fairer law.

[CFFJR]

Player A paid X and therefore supported M company. If Player A sells to Player B for Y, but then a portal to planet Z opens up, sucking through players A, B, and the unwitting C, who was only stopping off at their location to use the bathroom, does company M receive the money, or does company M's long lost nega-universe planet Z parallel company, company N, receive the money?

And if company N receives the money, will it then create orbital laser O, powered by the brain of unlucky player C, who was dissected by evil doctors D and E, for the sole purpose of destroying company M and our planet along with it?

Following that, what will then stop players A and B from teaming up with the mechanical dog P and busty Amazonian in a chainmail or fur bikini Q, who in real life is head of tribe R on planet Z but denies it because she's unwilling to fulfill her destiny, mainly because she's fallen in love with player B but can't admit to it since he's not from planet Z? Will Company N have to bring out their super soldier F and his team of mutant ne'er-do-wells G, H, and I?

And after the destruction of mutant H by circular saw S wielded by player A and mutant I is killed by mechanical dog P's turbo missile K, then A, B, P, and Q must assuredly engage in a final battle with F, with G doing his henchmen cheers from the sidelines, while they battle over molten core J in the center of planet Z under the very heart of skyscraper L, which is the base of operations for company N. Once that happens, G will be pinned under metal girder W, while A, B, P, and Q escape using hover cycle T so they can trigger self-destruct sequence U to cause explosion V to bring down company N's skyscraper L, which will then tumble into planet Z's molten core J,with tribe R rejoicing and changing their rules to let player B marry Q. Meanwhile explosion V will also have killed doctors D and E and sent laser O hurtling into space while player C's brain screams incredulously at the shock of it all. And through none of this will company M gain any more than X money...and the possible annihilation of our entire planet.

And that is why you shouldn't pirate games.

This is the post of the year. End of discussion.

Ack deserves an award for writing a summer blockbuster.

[flamepanther]

I believe that was actually written into Australian law a few years ago. You can make as many copies of your own game,movie,book or music that you legitimately purchased as you choose for as long as you still own the original.

I believe the reason that they wrote it in was more for the purposes of clearing up confusion about copying your cd collection to your pc and then to portable music players. I'm only going by what I vaguely recall reading in gaming magazines at the time, they were reporting on it because it had implications for the gaming industry for all media they distributed in Australia.

It also means that if I buy a dvd I can copy it to my phone or pc to watch on the go as long as I own the dvd, if I sell the dvd then I have to delete all copies.One thing that I wonder writing this, if I own the dvd, can I then download the HD blu-ray rip? Probably not, but it is still a fairer law.

The law in the U.S. used to be understood to allow backup copies of any computer software, but that's being challenged now. When I needed to have a backup of Tyrian, I should have been safe to make backups. The law does still allow "transfer" of media such as from CD to MP3 player--but only if it doesn't require "circumvention" of copy protection measures.

The catch in my case with Tyrian? A legal backup has to be copied from your own original, not someone else's (yes, regardless of the fact the data are identical). Since my original was already destroyed, it was too late to legally make a backup.

[Droid party]

A legal backup has to be copied from your own original, not someone else's (yes, regardless of the fact the data are identical).

What a strange differentiation to make. What difference does it make? Unless it makes the monitoring of data transfers easier to decide what is legal and what isn't (ie, if you get it through a p2p network you can't then say it's for legitimate reasons like your replacing a damaged disc, you are breaking the law either way because your "backup" won't be from the original source)

This makes me all the gladder that I buy the majority of my games via Steam nowadays. Download as many times as I like, I only lose the enjoyment of having a physical copy sitting on my shelf. But at least nonsense like this is something I shouldn't have to worry about unless Valve disappear.

[Ivo]

You keep equating this to loans. That's not how things work. The first person contributes. Every person down the line does not. If the second person gives the first person the loan BEFORE he buys the game, then maybe you have a case for him contributing. You don't get to retroactively make something a loan.

Why are you worried that I retroactively make something a loan? You already stated even in cases where there is indeed a loan, that you still think only the "initial" contributor is to be considered a contributor. You are entitled to that opinion (which I obviously think is totally wrong), and that is a fundamental difference. If you believed that if there is a loan then the repayment of the loan makes the loan-taker a contributor, then it is worth discussing the rest (which I will do with flamepanther in fact, and you are free to read that).

[Ivo]

Okay, that was an epic fail at "concise." Attempt number 2:

Realistic twist on Ivo's scenario:
-Player A buys game at retail.
-Player A gives the game FOR FREE to his kid brother and does NOT recoup any of the cost
-Kid brother sells the game and keeps the money, giving none to Player A
-Player B buys the game at the same price as in Ivo's original scenario.

So...

-Player A's purchase of the game is identical to the original scenario.
-Player B's purchase of the game is identical to the original scenario.
-It's still the same copy of the same game.
With only this very slight change in the game's history, how in the world is Player B's purchase going to "retroactively" contribute to Player A's purchase this time?

The same way as it works with the "thief" scenario. It doesn't matter how many people the game travels to, and it doesn't matter what people pay for it. You can even have Player A PAYING to have his kid brother accept and then his kid brother sells the game and keeps the money giving none to player A. It is still:

Player A: Contributes X+what he pays the kid brother (i.e. more than X)
Kid brother: contributes -what he got from older brother-what he sells it for
Player B: contributes Y.

Industry always gets X, the different parties involved contributed different portions of that. It is internally consistent not matter the scenario.

[Ivo]

The problem with that is that it no longer matters where the $6 comes from once the original transaction is completed. Whether or not it comes from reselling the game has NO impact whatsoever on the original transaction.

Heck, that is also what I have been saying. It only matter that X (not *which* X) was paid for the game and that Y (not *which* Y) was paid for the game.

The reason your examples don't stand up is not just because some agreement is present, or because time has passed since the transactions started. The problem is that in all of your analogies, you were involved in the transactions in some way from the very beginning.

I only threw out those examples in order to weed out people like MrPopo who don't even consider that people are contributing in those cases. That is beyond what I want to convince here.

You were already involved when the hypothetical bank bought your hypothetical house--specifically for you. Beginning to end, you were a part of the process. It could not and would not have happened without you. You contributed (in some sense) even before you began to actually pay any money, because that was the entire point the whole time.

Ok consider another case without initial agreement. Player A buys a house (no loan from bank). Player B later buys the house from Player B. Why is Player B not contributing to the real estate market? Not only he IS, that many governments around the world know he is and place appropriate and specific real estate taxes on the second transaction beyond income taxes.

This could not be less true of your example of Player A and Player B. Player B had no role and no input into Player A's purchase of the game. Unlike your ongoing interactions with the bank or with your brother--which you were a part of from the beginning, Player A's interaction with the publisher via the original retailer are long since concluded--over with--done--finished--in the past, long before Player B entered the picture.

That is correct, we only disagree that being involved initially is a requirement in order to attribute credit to Player B for contributing to the industry (see example with houses above as well).

If Player A wants some of his money back, it no longer matters whether he gets it by selling the same game, a different game, or his left kidney. It makes absolutely NO difference where the money comes from. After the original transaction is completed, the purchased game is just an object in the player's possession. The money, like you say, is fungible. It can come from anywhere. If Player A gives the game to his kid brother for free and does something else to get the same amount of money as the trade-in value, it is exactly the same as if he had sold the game.

I disagree with this statement. Money is fungible, but the game isn't. This is why I tie specifically into the transaction of that particular game (whereas some people believe the contribution only exists if Player A then uses that money to buy another game - that was why I used the shmup/RPG example as you may recall).

Player B is removed from Player A and the game publisher by two separate, essentially unrelated, over-and-done-with transactions that he had nothing to do with and cannot modify. Ever. Any attempt to describe Player B's money reaching the publisher by way of Player A is: A) imaginary, and purely academic; B) only useful to describe part of an economic ecosystem, not an actual contribution from Player B to the publisher, and; C) could be extrapolated to include the whole of the economy, not just the lifecycle of this one copy of the game. To that end, Player B has contributed to the game publisher in the same way as Starbucks, Ron Jeremy, the local teachers' union, Nabisco--and less so than Player A's employer.

Disagree! Player B is partially taking on the support that had until then been entirely attributable to Player A, regardless of whether that was initially agreed or not, it happens at the moment of the second transaction. The initial agreement is irrelevant and you can not even know it is going to be upheld (I could have said I would pay for half the operation and then not do it), but you can know the transaction is done ONCE it is done.

If this is purely academic or not depends - it is indeed only useful in describing the economic ecosystem in the sense that it proves that used buyers are contributing to the industry, if anything it is the used SELLERS that are "bad" (only in the sense that they shift their initial contribution to someone else).

Any other parties, including the employer, of either player can not be said to explicitly contribute via that game as due to the fungibility you can only unambiguously assign responsability to those that actually enter a transaction for that game.

Your bank/house analogy would be more relevant if Player B had come up to Player A in the store and said "hey, I want that game over there. If you buy right now for $60, three months from now I will give you $20 for it and flush an extra $30 of my own money down the toilet." I don't see that happening, and Player A would more than likely tell Player B to fuck off if it did.

I touched on this above. What happens then if Player B does not comply with the agreement though? That you can not guarantee. On my side of the interpretation however, even without the initial agreement, I have the luxury of not needing to rely on that: I only shift the responsibility of the support when the transaction occurs.
This is why in the brothers and operation scenario, I would maintain that before the other brother pays, the other can rightfully claim to have paid for it all. As soon as he accepts the money, no longer can he do that - but only AFTER it has been paid and accepted does he lose that right, as he transferred his responsibility.
So once again, my interpretation is internally consistent and robust.

Ivo.

[isiolia]

Ok consider another case without initial agreement. Player A buys a house (no loan from bank). Player B later buys the house from Player B. Why is Player B not contributing to the real estate market? Not only he IS, that many governments around the world know he is and place appropriate and specific real estate taxes on the second transaction beyond income taxes.

In that case, Player B is contributing to the real estate market as a whole. In the same sense that, say, Gamestop is part of the games industry as a whole or that used cars are part of the automotive industry.

What Player B is not doing is paying more money towards the contractors who built the house in the first place, which is the more relevant parallel to draw. The folks who built my house, back in 1984, haven't seen a dime from sales past the first one.

Again, it only matters - from the angle of supporting the developer - if "pooled resources" are part of the original purchase decision. As in, without that, the initial sale would not have taken place. You can spin it into that this person or that person all contributed this little slice of that original purchase price...but the fact remains that for two people, or 10 people, or whatever, the game developer got their cut of -one- copy.

It's like "supporting" a relief effort by wishing that the affected people recover soon, versus, supporting it by actually contributing money. A used game buyer, from the developers perspective, is helping them pay their bills about as much as posting on Facebook is helping rebuild Japan.