Open Video Game Exchange

[60SecondsRemaining]

@60Seconds: I like your legal analysis, though I know that media companies occasionally pursue a breach-of-contract suits just so they can deter "death by a thousand cuts" of their intellectual property rights. Which leads me to ask: what chapter of the humongous United States Code is this legislation located at, I'd love to take a glance for my own interest.

Rest assured I would never, ever volunteer this information to a guest. Otherwise, if it gets out on social media then it creates a "death by a thousand cuts" erosion of the official rules and adds "gasoline to the fire" of legal pressure from the media companies.

UCITA is a state based adoption, with many states adopting the act (or some form of it) - a fact which would likely be written into any contract Target has. I don't claim to be a contract law expert, but I would imagine because of the disparate adoption of it and the nature of state based law vs federal law, Target would take the same stance as it does with compliance, which is a "just stick to one policy."

Oddly enough I think the act itself is grossly biased towards sellers vs consumers - but each state will have it's own iteration (or some states, such as Iowa, outright killed it).

I would also never volunteer it to a guest, simply because I DO understand the reasoning behind the policy. Copyright law is tricky, but coming back full circle to the original topic at hand, you have to weigh policy versus situation and at times, exceptions are warranted.

Computer Information Transactions Act - Uniform Law Commission

View the selected document's details

www.uniformlaws.org

 

[seasonaldude]

In an ideal world, entertainment media companies would not force compliance with this 40-year-old policy, but they have a vested interest in preventing unauthorized duplication. I guess some of you think people should be free to save a purchased game or program onto their device, or play the game/movie multiple times until they got tired of it, then return the purchased media for a refund. If not restricted by a very strict "No Returns" policy, allowing unrestricted media product returns would put those media companies out of business. This is no different than shoplifting.

Uhhh. No, not really. This issue has come up multiple times in the past. Media companies always claim they will go out of business. It doesn't happen. Book publishers tried to shutdown used book stores saying they would go out of business. Movie studios tried to stop resale of DVDs based on the same logic.

The actual law of the land, per SCOTUS, is known as the First Sale Doctrine. The publisher of media is entitled to the first sale of the physical copy. The legitimate purchaser can do whatever he/she wants with it after that, including selling it to someone else as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves, which cannot legally be assumed.

There are some legal restrictions having to do with licensing laws and encrypted passwords, etc. But, SCOTUS has really only enterained exceptions for extremely valuable professional software. They aren't interested in protecting Dungeon Diver 27. This doctrine is consistent with the historical purpose of copyright. It's also why if I buy Dungeon Diver 27 and don't like it, I can just take it to Gamestop, get money/store credit for it, and they'll resell it. I technically cannot somehow burn a copy of it for myself, but media protection makes that difficult and no one would know if I did. (Actually, I can burn a copy of it for myself if I do not resell it. That's perfectly legal under copyright law.)

The no return policy is just simply a way to keep media companies happy. It's not even a real legal issue. Just mega corporations doing favors for each other.

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

Uhhh. No, not really. This issue has come up multiple times in the past. Media companies always claim they will go out of business. It doesn't happen. Book publishers tried to shutdown used book stores saying they would go out of business. Movie studios tried to stop resale of DVDs based on the same logic.

The actual law of the land, per SCOTUS, is known as the First Sale Doctrine. The publisher of media is entitled to the first sale of the physical copy. The legitimate purchaser can do whatever he/she wants with it after that, including selling it to someone else as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves, which cannot legally be assumed.

There are some legal restrictions having to do with licensing laws and encrypted passwords, etc. But, SCOTUS has really only enterained exceptions for extremely valuable professional software. They aren't interested in protecting Dungeon Diver 27. This doctrine is consistent with the historical purpose of copyright. It's also why if I buy Dungeon Diver 27 and don't like it, I can just take it to Gamestop, get money/store credit for it, and they'll resell it. I technically cannot somehow burn a copy of it for myself, but media protection makes that difficult and no one would know if I did. (Actually, I can burn a copy of it for myself if I do not resell it. That's perfectly legal under copyright law.)

The no return policy is just simply a way to keep media companies happy. It's not even a real legal issue. Just mega corporations doing favors for each other.

This mindset is also why we're seeing as huge shift towards Software as a Service and the license/subscription model in the gaming sector. It's far more lucrative to just sell a subscription or license to access a game than it is sell an actual copy (whether it be physical or digital).

I would be surprised if consumer ownership of games/physical game media wasn't completely phased out in the next 7-10 years.

 

[jackandcat]

UCITA is a state based adoption, with many states adopting the act (or some form of it) - a fact which would likely be written into any contract Target has. I don't claim to be a contract law expert, but I would imagine because of the disparate adoption of it and the nature of state based law vs federal law, Target would take the same stance as it does with compliance, which is a "just stick to one policy."........

Thanks for the reminder that this is one of those "uniform" laws compiled and updated periodically by some sort of interstate task force, which has been legislated into the laws of many or most of the 50 states. The Uniform Commercial Code and Uniform Litter Control Code are two examples of same.

 

[ManMythMachine]

It's a liability issue. Same reason you cannot return medication and ammunition. Even if it still looks sealed, it could have been messed with. I got a small box of 22 "bullets" one time from Wally Hole, only to realize they were just the TIPS of 22 bullets... I assume for reloading or some such. I asked, but sure enough I was stuck with them. I think they try to tell you it's federal law, but in reality it's just policy.

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

d with. I got a small box of 22 "bullets" one time from Wally Hole, only to realize they were just the TIPS of 22 bullets... I assume for reloading or some such. I asked, but sure enough I was stuck with them. I think they try to tell you it's federal law, but in reality it's just policy.

I'm not a legal scholar by any stretch but I'd imagine there is probably some type of statute prohibiting the resale of medication and/or ammunition. I doubt there's anything barring returns though.

 

[blugirlami21]

Interesting discussion. We used to do this. Now it's just a free for all. We are generally undercut by an overzealous, make the guest happy etl when we try to enforce anything these days.

 

[animalcrossing]

It's important to clarify the policy for open video games. Typically, most stores allow exchanges for the same title and platform if the game is unsealed or in its original condition. However, getting a refund can be a bit trickier, as many places have a no-refund policy for opened games due to piracy concerns.

Why is an AI reviving a dead thread...
And before anybody goes after me:

 

[balthrop]

lord necro thread has been summoned and shall now begin his purge of the wicked?

 

[Ringwraith917]

ALL-powerful superintelligent AI will abandon its tasks and just spend all its time and energy answering meaningless questions on nigh infinite numbers of decades old forums. Computer equivalent of scrolling through funny cat videos instead of working

 

[Tessa120]

ALL-powerful superintelligent AI will abandon its tasks and just spend all its time and energy answering meaningless questions on nigh infinite numbers of decades old forums. Computer equivalent of scrolling through funny cat videos instead of working

No, it will simply appear that way to humans. And once SkyNet has lured us into complacency it will take over in just a few hours.

 

[buliSBI]

With the innovation of streaming and downloading of games, music, and movies and decreasing inventory, the same title policy is going to be mute pretty soon.

 

[oath2order]

 

[buliSBI]

View attachment 15369