Like New could be out of the wrapping, but still have that sticky edge seal that needs to be peeled off! :)
If is a unwrapped game, I call it new. Maybe is not the definition a lawyer would accept, but is one that make sense to me.
Theres a truck with games next to my house. I steal the truck, and sell it with the games inside. Are now “used games”?
They are Like-New! ;)
Are now “evidence” or “Stolen Goods”. Advise you describe as “fell off a truck”.
This is what happens when a company is successful in gaming. We’ve seen it over and over again. They get so full of themselves that stupid shit like this happens. Shall we discuss Five Hundred Ninety Nine dollars? How about getting a second job to afford the console? Lootboxes for Star Wars?
Yeah… this is just another symptom of that disease.
Netgreat quietly sends threatening letters to people who try to sell their routers as not authorized resellers. They’ve been doing it for years. And every once in awhile someone would show up on a financial board I used to be on to talk about what the risk is of actually forcing them to take it to court. The problem is, with company’s of size an individual is going to be drowning in lawyers and forms and costs all because they tried to sell one often less than a 100 dollar product the internet… and they seem to only go after you if you post it under MSRP.
There are several like this. I don’t think any real article has ever been ran on it but you’ll notice some of the lingo is the same.
The site that had a bunch of these individuals dealing with Netgear threats that I actually participated on, sadly died (deal and financial site), but they’re all similar. Notice the… lingo which is right up there with Bethesda. Netgear seems to focus on Amazon resellers, but they’ll go after other sites too. Amazon is just easy.
Yeah, that is horsecrap. Agree 100%. There is no difference between me selling you my router and me selling you my lawnmower or car.
In my twenties and in college, I used to do this a little bit. Some laptop or electronic item would be clearancing out at Staples, Office Depot/Max and it was very YMMV depending on where you live. I’d buy it cheap, sell it for a bit more, always under MSRP, and make a little money. Netgear was an easy avoid because of their resource dedicated to going after resellers.
There was zero concern with games though. I mean everyone mostly knows there is some risk with third party sales, that’s why they use Amazon so you can get Amazon’s help if you get cheated and have some protections.
Bethesda is screwing their PR for small fries here and for… nothing. The number of reselling like this has to be minuscule compared how these titles are typically sold.
Yeah, this is both a bad look and for peanuts.
Not necessarily; their point is not whether the games are new or not. It’s that you are not an authorised reseller so you are not allowed to sell ‘new’ Bethesda games.
Except this is media, games. People are allowed to resell their products. Like I said, when you start dealing with counterfeits and people pretending to sell things in volume, that’s different. This isn’t really a legal space games should be in.
Are they allowed to sell new Bethesda products if they’re not an authorised reseller? I wouldn’t know.
All I’m saying is that the argument is not around whether the games are actually new or not - it’s kind of irrelevant. :)
They do NOT wanna go to the wall on that one. They’ll be handed the same legal Heisman wave from higher courts that the Motion Picture and Recording industries got about resale. This seems to happen once a generation.
The Heisman Wave = a Stiff arm
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/files/2012/12/Heisman-Trophy.jpg
This is Silicon Valley (metaphorically/writ large) having to get the same legal kick in the junk that previous industries did when they got grabby.
Copyright laws are for creators, not storefronts or megaconglomorates. Especially when there is a physical copy involved.
Pretty much, yes, This was determined years ago. Book publishers, for example, cannot force people not to sell their books as new.
They’re gambling that people don’t have the resources and are too afraid to fight this. That’s wrong and shame on Bethesda for banking on that.
I’m not sure why lawyers were involved.
It sounds like the seller listed their item at an incorrect condition, according to the definition on Amazon. They should have just had Amazon remove the listing, which they would have done, or, if they wanted to get petty, bought it and had Amazon refund them because of inaccurate listing.
That’s why it’s an overreach. Once you bring in your attorneys, you’re an asshole.
How is that inaccurate. I thought he said it was a shrink-wrapped new game. How is that not new?
If I buy a game at discount at Wal-Mart, and never open it, I have every right to sell that as new on Amazon. These guys and their lawyers just want to intimidate and threaten people they are betting on never meeting them in court.
It is new, by any reasonable criteria. That’s why this is an overreach, scummy lawyers claiming that the lack of a warranty somehow made it a used product, when in truth Bethesda would have had no way to tell that it had changed hands and it would have been covered by warranty anyway, and of course the warranty itself has essentially nil value as it only covers physical damage to the product.
While I largely hold the same opinion as you guys, there’s this to consider:
The first sale doctrine, however, does not apply when the reseller sells trademarked goods that are materially different than those sold by the trademark owner. Since a materially different product is not genuine, consumers may be confused as to the source of the products. In order to determine if Midwest could rely on the first sale doctrine, the court determined whether the changes that Midwest made to the product as sold on eBay constituted a materially different product. Midwest argued that its changes were not materially different because the changes revolved solely around the product’s warranty. Midwest claimed that it removed the serial number, so consumers would know that the purchaser would not be covered under Beltronics’ warranty. In addition, on its eBay sales page, Midwest disclosed to potential purchasers that the product was covered by Midwest’s own warranty and not any other. Based on these facts, Midwest argued that the changes to the product were immaterial and that it was protected from any liability under the first sale doctrine.
The court, however, was not persuaded by these arguments. The court held that even though there may have been no physical change in the products, there was a material difference in the nonphysical characteristics associated with the product. Since Midwest did not offer the same warranty as Beltronics did, the court held that this constituted a material difference. The court stated that such characteristics as warranties and customer service must be considered when examining the product as a whole. Since the resale of a trademarked product that is materially different constitutes trademark infringement, the court upheld the preliminary injunction.
Emphasis mine. The ruling from the court held that a change in warranty status (e.g., in this case that Bethesda specifically conveys a warranty to new products sold through its authorized reseller program that was absent in the disputed resale on Amazon) was sufficient to hold that there was a material difference in the offered product, thus that the first sale doctrine does not apply.
I’ll note that this case revolved around serial numbers on products, but the fundamental point remains: Bethesda holds that their warranty is only valid on purchases from authorized resellers.
It’s a pretty pedantic and certainly scummy point, but given that an argument that the above ruling be overturned was rejected by the 10th circuit, it’s the law of the land until such time that the supreme court sees a case before it arguing differently or the law changes.
As my cousin used to say, “Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. Ayyy!”