same 1    

i would like to expect  once ive purchased a game if i so chose  that i can play it as long  as i like  even if the company  should  go belly up or something  as long as i only keep it to one system per purchase ..

One. If i want to wrap it in tin foil and wear it as a hat i will do so.

In the U.S. at least, the status of "Owner of a Copy" gives specific rights, which do include archiving and using in a day to day fashion, and (having deleted my copy) selling the original and archived copies as a unit.

Not including however reverse engineering/modifying outside certain specific parameter of the DMCA (Reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility is explicity allowed).

So 1.), but to specific limited points condoned and outlined by law.

Jonnan

I believe in 1.

I feel that if we are licensing software there should be a signature (digital or otherwise) involved. Something more than clicking a radio button on an install screen.

Seems like what I thought. It feels like "1" to me too when I walk out of a store. I know it's not, but it still feels like it

Which country is that? Most places I know of allow a person to do just about anything they want with copyrighted material, as long as they don't distribute it. I could write a new Harry Potter novel and J.K.Rowling would have no recourse against me unless I tried to distribute it. Ripping pages out of books is also legally okay. If I try to pass them on the copyright holder can get involved, but not while they're sitting on my self.

I thought the worthless statement might have been a bit much - but once you've activated that licence the cdkey is worthless to anyone else. The real value of the game appears to be in the license which lets you play it (embodied by the cdkey perhaps). Without that the media and box aren't worth much. How much would you pay for a copy of Demigod you're not allowed to play?

I think this is how most people think about the purchase - it's just like a book. This isn't the reality though.

With publishers now using technical measures to enforce their license agreements people have to face this reality. Could this have contributed to the outcry over Spore? People's assumptions about game purchases being like book purchases being challenged?

Game publishers aren't any greedier than any other company. They exist to make a profit. Because the internet is so good at copying things there will always be some form of restrictions on games. This I can live with, it's only an argument about what sort of restrictions now.

My problem with the games industry is that they want to sell their product like bookshops sell books - but then apply post-sale terms and conditions. I cannot recall ever been asked to agree to any conditions to use a game at the time of purchase.

Online purchases appear to give publishers a perfect opportunity to show the EULA, but I don't even think Stardock displays anything. Even given the opportunity to tell customers that they can only play at night time for instance, publishers choose not to do so at the point of sale.

Can you imagine have to read and sign the EULA of a game before being allowed to buy it?