I'm saying that we have no choice. People have unfettered access. There is nothing we can do about it. Just like there is nothing we can do about the laws of physics. Reality has changed. This is not a decision we get to make. Information, and anything that can be represented digitally, is infinitely and freely copyable. That's the reality of the world we live in. Does that mean bad things? Yes, it means a lot of bad things for certain people. Does everyone have to like it? No, it's understandable why many will not like it. But there's nothing we can do about it. It's already done. Deal with it.
So even though it sucks and is bad on many levels we should change our laws to agree with the fail?
You truely live in your own world and I'm fucking sick of trying to look into it. This isn't debating shit, this is Scott's way or the spiked pit. Fuck this, I have better things to do with my time.
So even though it sucks and is bad on many levels we should change our laws to agree with the fail?
You truely live in your own world and I'm fucking sick of trying to look into it. This isn't debating shit, this is Scott's way or the spiked pit. Fuck this, I have better things to do with my time.
It's not Scott's way. It's the way of the world. You may not like that trees are green, but that isn't something we get to decide. We may not like that we can infinitely copy information, but we can. It's not something we can change, it's something we must accept.
Also, maybe I wouldn't have to patronize if you didn't make me repeat myself. Your posts demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. Your replies make no sense within the context of the points I make, leading me to assume you simply are not reading or understanding what I am saying. Also, your rebuttals are laughable at best. Simply saying "that's hippy bullshit" does not count as a rebuttal among intellectual folk.
It's not Scott's way. It's the way of the world. You may not like that trees are green, but that isn't something we get to decide. We may not like that we can infinitely copy information, but we can. It's not something we can change, it's something we must accept.
Weren't you the one in another thread saying that we don't to accept society's rules as they are? That we have the power to change things?
Also, maybe I wouldn't have to patronize if you didn't make me repeat myself. Your posts demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. Your replies make no sense within the context of the points I make, leading me to assume you simply are not reading or understanding what I am saying. Also, your rebuttals are laughable at best. Simply saying "that's hippy bullshit" does not count as a rebuttal among intellectual folk.
If you didn't keep coming back with flawed analogies that didn't prove your point you wouldn't keep repeating yourself. My replies only make no sense to you because no one understands what the fuck you're on about. I'm sure Pete got what I was saying just fine. And my rebuttal was not "that's hippy bullshit," it was actually, "here look at this hippy bullshit that he's using as the basis of his argument." That article defeats itself in my opinion, especially the squeegee man you keep bringing back up.
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. I disagree with the basis of your argument. Despite the ease of file sharing presented by modern technology we can still treat art and the creation there of as a commodity. Sure it's very easy to pirate stuff, but it's equally easy to buy songs and such legitimately. There is no reason artists should have to make everything freely available just because the technology is there.
As I've said, the squeegee analogy is flawed, because the artist is closer to a product innovator than a service provider. Would you say that Nintendo is like the squeegee man when they produced the Wii? Success in the free market requires a degree of innovation, and there's always a risk associated with attempting to introduce a new product to the market. Most record companies manage that risk through talent scouting and market research (as any intelligent business should), but at the end of the day, you're still taking a mild risk. You don't automatically become the squeegee man just by trying to market something, and artists are just trying to market their art.
The issue really comes up with the introduction of the record label as the distribution and promotion mechanism. Basically, technology has made the record label useless. Copyright can still be useful (as long as it's relatively short-term, perhaps a year or so), but it's been abused by the labels. They attempt to monopolize distribution where such a thing is no longer possible. They also force artists into a losing situation by taking a gambling approach.
The only viable business model is one based on selling convenient services to people. As I've said, I would love a subscription service that regularly gives me fresh, new material from favorite artists and new artists. Provide me with unlimited access for a fee, correctly tagged information, reliable torrents, easy access, and regular updates, and you've got a successful business.
Weren't you the one in another thread saying that we don't to accept society's rules as they are? That we have the power to change things?
It's not about rules of society. It's about rules of nature. A rule of society, like copyright can be changed trivially. A rule of nature, like the rotation of the earth around the sun, is unchangeable. The fact that information can be copied and transmitted effectively infinitely is a law of nature. Trying to pass a law that fights against this is like trying to pass a law that tells the earth to slow down its rotation.
Would you say that Nintendo is like the squeegee man when they produced the Wii?
No, they were not taking a squeegee approach with the Wii. In some ways yes, and in some ways no. Yes in that they were taking a huge risk. They spent all this time and effort inventing the Wii with no gaurantee whatsoever that even one person would buy one. However, it was not a squeegee approach in that they did not give out Wiis for free and then ask for money. They asked for money before they gave you the Wii.
Now let's say we lived in the distant future when replicators exist, like in the novel "Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson. In that world, inventing the Wii would be taking a squeegee approach. In a world where replicators exist, making one thing is the same as making infinity of that thing. Thus, if the economy of such a world were the same as the one we live under here, you would have to only create things after you had agreed upon compensation, or rely on the charity of others.
They also force artists into a losing situation by taking a gambling approach.
That's just it. The record companies are not taking a gambling approach. They eliminate the risk for themselves and pass it off to the artists. Artists who sign a record contract go into the record company's debt. The record company then promotes the artist only after the artist has agreed to pay them for it. If the artist's works do not bring in enough money, the artist has to pay the record company for their trouble. This is how the record company avoids risk. Rather than being a squeegee man themselves, they hire a bunch of squeegee men, and agree to returns before work is done. They're sort of a squeegee pimp.
The only viable business model is one based on selling convenient services to people. As I've said, I would love a subscription service that regularly gives me fresh, new material from favorite artists and new artists. Provide me with unlimited access for a fee, correctly tagged information, reliable torrents, easy access, and regular updates, and you've got a successful business.
Yes, even in a world without copyright, or much less copyright, people are still willing to pay. Squeegee men do make money. If they didn't, you wouldn't see them out there doing their thing. It's definitely a viable model. And there is nothing at all wrong with paying. All I'm saying is that we have to stop demonizing those who do not pay.
They asked for money before they gave you the Wii.
And record companies and artists do the exact same thing. They may play a single on the radio, but that's more akin to setting up display consoles at a game store; it's a form of advertisement.
The problem is that the secondary market provides an alternate method of distribution, so the record label is obsolete.
That's just it. The record companies are not taking a gambling approach. They eliminate the risk for themselves and pass it off to the artists.
Yeah, that's what I meant. They force the artists to take a gamble, while they make only calculated, profitable moves.
All I'm saying is that we have to stop demonizing those who do not pay.
I concur. That doesn't mean that copyright needs to go away, it just needs to be applied differently, or business models need to be changed to be reasonable. Really, if any record label had a reasonable business model that actually utilized the advances in distribution technology, none of this would even be an issue. People are willing to pay $15/month to Blizzard to play WoW, so I'm sure many people are willing to pay a monthly access charge to get new art delivered to them.
If you make something, and nobody pays for it, it's just the tough shit rule. It doesn't mean we should make laws that say you should be paid even though nobody wants to pay you.
If you walk into the street, and someone shoots you in the face, it's just the tough shit rule. It doesn't mean we should make laws that say you shouldn't be shot in the face even though somebody wants to shoot you.
If you walk into the street, and someone shoots you in the face, it's just the tough shit rule. It doesn't mean we should make laws that say you shouldn't be shot in the face even though somebody wants to shoot you.
Uh, getting shot in the face is sort of a major infringement upon basic human rights. Someone listening to some music, and sharing music with their friends doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights. In fact, it doesn't even cause any harm. It only creates joy.
Copyright's goal is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." There's nothing there about anyone's right to make money. The goal is to have lots of art and science so people's lives can be better. As it stands, our useful arts and sciences would be a lot better off right now without the limited monopolies that the constitution gives congress the power to grant. Everyone has a right not to get shot in the face. Nobody has a right to have their obsolete business model propped up by a law that diminishes useful arts and sciences.
We are going into what is or is not a basic human right?
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What were you saying about people not having the right to be paid for their work?
We are going into what is or is not a basic human right?
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slaverynor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What were you saying about people not having the right to be paid for their work?
I'm sorry, that's a really terrible example. People who make art are not doing it involuntarily.
By making those persuits profitable so that people persue them :-p
People are persuing them despite lack of profit. Also, I think the evidence is clear that the legalization of non-commercial sharing would not eliminate profit.
The only thing that will be lost, and is going to be lost with or without copyright, is the phenomenon of the super-star. There will never be another Elvis. No musician is ever going to be so universally popular and wealthy ever again. Even if copyright sticks around, there is so much diversification of entertainment, that no single thing can get that sort of critical mass of popularity ever again. If one did attain that level of popularity, relaxed copyright might prevent them from becoming uber uber rich, but they won't be in the poorhouse either. Concert tickets keep rising, and they keep selling out.
Actually, with relaxed copyright I expect there to be a huge increase in artists able to make a living wage, without being rich and/or famous. I mean, imagine for example that suddenly anyone is allowed to use Disney characters. There will be a huge outpouring of content. And in that outpouring a lot of money will be made, it just won't all be made by Disney. Lots of people are going to make a living wage, be it by having a salaried position, doing commissions, through charity, or through other more clever means.
Think about Jonathan Coulton. His audience is all nerds. They all know how to pirate stuff, and probably 99% of them do so. Yet, he is making a living and people buy his stuff anyway. If copyright were reformed, his financial situation would be almost entirely unchanged.
Copyright only protects the existing profits of the old media companies. Other than that, it is restricting the progress of arts, and is restricting potential profits in the realm of new media. It's just a law that keeps the old people in power and the young people down.
I'm sorry, that's a really terrible example. People who make art are not doing it involuntarily.
Many people who make art do it with the express understanding that if someone wants to use it, they will have to do it on the terms of the artist. If the artist is not voluntarily providing their work for free, then forcefully taking it is the same as involuntary servitude.
Is it not considered involuntary servitude to force someone to pick cotton for you for free, even if that person would voluntarily pick cotton for a wage?
Would it not be involuntary servitude if you forced a band to play music for you for free, even if that same band would gladly play the same music for pay?
What were you saying about people not having the right to be paid for their work?
You have a right to be paid for your work, but if you didn't notice, people agree to be paid before they do their work, not after.
Let's say I walk into a mechanic's shop. Then I just start fixing cars without anyone asking me to. If I ask for money afterward, they'll just laugh at me. They have no obligation to pay me. Is that slavery? Absolutely not. I worked of my own volition. If I wanted to be paid, I should have gotten hired by the mechanic first.
Just as Nina Paley says in her article:
ART is negotiated with the MUSE. The "payment" is LIFE. WORK is negotiated with an EMPLOYER. The payment is MONEY.
If I go of my own volition to a plantation and work the cotton gin, if they refuse to pay me afterwards, that's not slavery. That's just me giving out free work. If you want to be paid in money, rather than simply being paid in "life", then arrange to be paid before you create your art, not after. To force someone to pay for work you decided to do all on your own after the fact, that's extortion.
Is it not considered involuntary servitude to force someone to pick cotton for free, even if that person would voluntarily pick cotton for a wage?
You're ignoring your own point of "product innovator" vs "service provider". No one is forcing Nintendo to make Wiis, and no one is forcing artists to make art.
[Edit] Actually, it was Pete's point, but it seemed as though you agreed with it.
[Edit edit]
You have a right to be paid for your work, but if you didn't notice, people agree to be paid before they do their work, not after.
Also, me listening to someone's music isn't forcing them to work. They did the work already. The work was the creation of the art. That's the only part of the process that can be considered creative or artistic work. You made it. Now you are done working. Nobody takes it from you by force. You can keep it in your house and never share it with anybody. But as soon as you share it with one person, they can share it with the whole world, if they so choose. If you would like them not to share it, then have them explicitly and contractually agree not to do so before you give it to them.
People have to work on innovation just as they have to work to provide a service. It's still labor.
Scott, there is a difference between doing work FOR someone else and producing art. An artist who is expecting to be paid for their product doesn't provide it to someone else before asking for payment. (Or if they do, they are stupid.) If you fix someone's car, you have by it's very nature given your work to someone else before asking for payment. Huge, HUGE difference. Making something does not equate to giving it to others. Just because it exists does not mean it is universally owned.
Not all artists are voluntarily giving their work away! Just because I have made something does not mean I have given it away to everyone for free! Why can you not understand this? Your basic premise, which you keep repeating, is that when someone creates art, it is the same as giving it away for free like the squeegee man.
Also, me listening to someone's music isn't forcing them to work. They did the work already. The work was the creation of the art. That's the only part of the process that can be considered creative or artistic work. You made it. Now you are done working. Nobody takes it from you by force. You can keep it in your house and never share it with anybody. But as soon as you share it with one person, they can share it with the whole world, if they so choose. If you would like them not to share it, then have them explicitly and contractually agree not to do so before you give it to them.
So, you are arguing that if someone wants to make money from their art, then their only option is that they should charge the entire production price to the first person to consume it, and then everyone else can get it for free?
By the way, when you buy a CD, there is literature included with a notice that your purchase of the CD is bound by certain terms. Same with downloading music from legit sites on the internet. If you read those terms, they are pretty explicit. Your purchase of the product is your confirmation of acceptance.
Not all artists are voluntarily giving their work away! Just because I have made something does not mean I have given it away to everyone for free! Why can you not understand this? Your basic premise, which you keep repeating, is that when someone creates art, it is the same as giving it away for free like the squeegee man.
I agree that artists are not intending to give it away for free. The thing is, they are whether they intend to or not. It's a pandora's box situation. As soon as you make some art, and distribute it, it's out of the box. You can never get it back. Whether you intended to or not, you have no choice in the matter. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of nature. People share, and technology enables and encourages such sharing. It's like letting a bird out of a cage with the window open. It's going to fly away, like it or not.
I can even agree that the old world where artists have control over their work was better in some ways than the current world. The reality is that world is gone, and it is not coming back. Mourn its passing if you must, but to live as if it was still around is folly. It's gone. Anything that can be distributed and copied digitally, will be. That's the way the world is now, and will be. There's no changing it. You have to assume that if you give someone a CD of music, the whole world can now listen for free, because that's how the world works now. If you would like to receive financial compensation in return for producing things which can be distributed digitally, then you need a new plan that works in this new world.
This thread has gone in pretty-much the opposite direction from what I intended, which is sadly about exactly what I expected.
Well, what do you expect when Scott brings up the stupid squeegee analogy? We were doing pretty well discussing the secondary market for awhile there.
The secondary market is the same issue. Once you let the cat out of the bag, people will do as they please, including reselling. You can't stop it. Rather than try to stop it, you have to adapt rather than struggle.
No one said we were trying to stop reselling. In fact, I believe I made the opposite point, and I talked about why reselling was not a threat to the market.
It's a related issue in this context; hence, it's relevant to the discussion.
The secondary market exists. The existence and proliferation of this market necessitates a change in certain business models, or else those business models will cease to function. Is there room for copyright law in this changing marketplace?
My answer is yes, but in a different format. Crazy lady on that blog says no, because she's crazy.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to profit from the application of your skills. You just have to find a new way to do it in this changing marketplace.
There will always be a large market for new content no matter how large the volume of older content. The question becomes: how much will people pay to get that content, or what else do you have to provide in order to make that content worthwhile?
Game publishers have adapted by adding DLC to their games. If you can keep the consumer interested in owning their physical copy they are less likely to trade it in.
Take the Prof Layton games for example. Unless you get a cheating device to unlock all of the bonus games (they are not really downloaded but unlocked) you have to keep the game until the free puzzles stop being offered.
Pokemon is another example. Unless you cheat you have to hold onto your game if you want to get the event Pokemon via Nintendo events.
Many games on the Xbox360 offer DLC to expand on the base game. If a consumer spends $30+ buying DLC for their game they are less and less likely to part with the game because they can't resell their DLC.
Game publishers can also get around the secondary market by using the unique ID of the console when creating game-to-game codes. If I can get a special code after beating "Gunslinging Cosplay Girls" that will unlock some bonus content in "Gunslinging Cosplay Girls 2" (where the code is tied to my actual console) I can't go to a game cheat site and get the code. Instead I have to actually acquire a copy of the game and beat it (or use some sort of hacking/cheating device).
Days of wonder includes online codes in all of their boxed games. These codes are one use and offer the owner some type of bonus. Even Nintendo offers the Club Nintendo codes in all of their games. Is the five dollar price difference between a new and used game worth not getting the code to you?
The music industry is in a very tough position because what they create is so easy to copy and distribute. The film industry is in a similar position with digital releases of movies. To these two industries piracy and the secondary market are held in equal disdain. The only difference between the two is that the govt gets to collect taxes on secondary markets like Gamestop.
Comments
You truely live in your own world and I'm fucking sick of trying to look into it. This isn't debating shit, this is Scott's way or the spiked pit. Fuck this, I have better things to do with my time.
Also, maybe I wouldn't have to patronize if you didn't make me repeat myself. Your posts demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. Your replies make no sense within the context of the points I make, leading me to assume you simply are not reading or understanding what I am saying. Also, your rebuttals are laughable at best. Simply saying "that's hippy bullshit" does not count as a rebuttal among intellectual folk.
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. I disagree with the basis of your argument. Despite the ease of file sharing presented by modern technology we can still treat art and the creation there of as a commodity. Sure it's very easy to pirate stuff, but it's equally easy to buy songs and such legitimately. There is no reason artists should have to make everything freely available just because the technology is there.
The issue really comes up with the introduction of the record label as the distribution and promotion mechanism. Basically, technology has made the record label useless. Copyright can still be useful (as long as it's relatively short-term, perhaps a year or so), but it's been abused by the labels. They attempt to monopolize distribution where such a thing is no longer possible. They also force artists into a losing situation by taking a gambling approach.
The only viable business model is one based on selling convenient services to people. As I've said, I would love a subscription service that regularly gives me fresh, new material from favorite artists and new artists. Provide me with unlimited access for a fee, correctly tagged information, reliable torrents, easy access, and regular updates, and you've got a successful business.
Now let's say we lived in the distant future when replicators exist, like in the novel "Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson. In that world, inventing the Wii would be taking a squeegee approach. In a world where replicators exist, making one thing is the same as making infinity of that thing. Thus, if the economy of such a world were the same as the one we live under here, you would have to only create things after you had agreed upon compensation, or rely on the charity of others. That's just it. The record companies are not taking a gambling approach. They eliminate the risk for themselves and pass it off to the artists. Artists who sign a record contract go into the record company's debt. The record company then promotes the artist only after the artist has agreed to pay them for it. If the artist's works do not bring in enough money, the artist has to pay the record company for their trouble. This is how the record company avoids risk. Rather than being a squeegee man themselves, they hire a bunch of squeegee men, and agree to returns before work is done. They're sort of a squeegee pimp. Yes, even in a world without copyright, or much less copyright, people are still willing to pay. Squeegee men do make money. If they didn't, you wouldn't see them out there doing their thing. It's definitely a viable model. And there is nothing at all wrong with paying. All I'm saying is that we have to stop demonizing those who do not pay.
The problem is that the secondary market provides an alternate method of distribution, so the record label is obsolete. Yeah, that's what I meant. They force the artists to take a gamble, while they make only calculated, profitable moves. I concur. That doesn't mean that copyright needs to go away, it just needs to be applied differently, or business models need to be changed to be reasonable. Really, if any record label had a reasonable business model that actually utilized the advances in distribution technology, none of this would even be an issue. People are willing to pay $15/month to Blizzard to play WoW, so I'm sure many people are willing to pay a monthly access charge to get new art delivered to them.
Copyright's goal is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." There's nothing there about anyone's right to make money. The goal is to have lots of art and science so people's lives can be better. As it stands, our useful arts and sciences would be a lot better off right now without the limited monopolies that the constitution gives congress the power to grant. Everyone has a right not to get shot in the face. Nobody has a right to have their obsolete business model propped up by a law that diminishes useful arts and sciences.
The only thing that will be lost, and is going to be lost with or without copyright, is the phenomenon of the super-star. There will never be another Elvis. No musician is ever going to be so universally popular and wealthy ever again. Even if copyright sticks around, there is so much diversification of entertainment, that no single thing can get that sort of critical mass of popularity ever again. If one did attain that level of popularity, relaxed copyright might prevent them from becoming uber uber rich, but they won't be in the poorhouse either. Concert tickets keep rising, and they keep selling out.
Actually, with relaxed copyright I expect there to be a huge increase in artists able to make a living wage, without being rich and/or famous. I mean, imagine for example that suddenly anyone is allowed to use Disney characters. There will be a huge outpouring of content. And in that outpouring a lot of money will be made, it just won't all be made by Disney. Lots of people are going to make a living wage, be it by having a salaried position, doing commissions, through charity, or through other more clever means.
Think about Jonathan Coulton. His audience is all nerds. They all know how to pirate stuff, and probably 99% of them do so. Yet, he is making a living and people buy his stuff anyway. If copyright were reformed, his financial situation would be almost entirely unchanged.
Copyright only protects the existing profits of the old media companies. Other than that, it is restricting the progress of arts, and is restricting potential profits in the realm of new media. It's just a law that keeps the old people in power and the young people down.
Is it not considered involuntary servitude to force someone to pick cotton for you for free, even if that person would voluntarily pick cotton for a wage?
Would it not be involuntary servitude if you forced a band to play music for you for free, even if that same band would gladly play the same music for pay?
Let's say I walk into a mechanic's shop. Then I just start fixing cars without anyone asking me to. If I ask for money afterward, they'll just laugh at me. They have no obligation to pay me. Is that slavery? Absolutely not. I worked of my own volition. If I wanted to be paid, I should have gotten hired by the mechanic first.
Just as Nina Paley says in her article: If I go of my own volition to a plantation and work the cotton gin, if they refuse to pay me afterwards, that's not slavery. That's just me giving out free work. If you want to be paid in money, rather than simply being paid in "life", then arrange to be paid before you create your art, not after. To force someone to pay for work you decided to do all on your own after the fact, that's extortion.
[Edit] Actually, it was Pete's point, but it seemed as though you agreed with it.
[Edit edit]And yeah, this.
Scott, there is a difference between doing work FOR someone else and producing art. An artist who is expecting to be paid for their product doesn't provide it to someone else before asking for payment. (Or if they do, they are stupid.) If you fix someone's car, you have by it's very nature given your work to someone else before asking for payment. Huge, HUGE difference. Making something does not equate to giving it to others. Just because it exists does not mean it is universally owned.
Not all artists are voluntarily giving their work away! Just because I have made something does not mean I have given it away to everyone for free! Why can you not understand this? Your basic premise, which you keep repeating, is that when someone creates art, it is the same as giving it away for free like the squeegee man. So, you are arguing that if someone wants to make money from their art, then their only option is that they should charge the entire production price to the first person to consume it, and then everyone else can get it for free?
By the way, when you buy a CD, there is literature included with a notice that your purchase of the CD is bound by certain terms. Same with downloading music from legit sites on the internet. If you read those terms, they are pretty explicit. Your purchase of the product is your confirmation of acceptance.
I can even agree that the old world where artists have control over their work was better in some ways than the current world. The reality is that world is gone, and it is not coming back. Mourn its passing if you must, but to live as if it was still around is folly. It's gone. Anything that can be distributed and copied digitally, will be. That's the way the world is now, and will be. There's no changing it. You have to assume that if you give someone a CD of music, the whole world can now listen for free, because that's how the world works now. If you would like to receive financial compensation in return for producing things which can be distributed digitally, then you need a new plan that works in this new world.
The secondary market exists. The existence and proliferation of this market necessitates a change in certain business models, or else those business models will cease to function. Is there room for copyright law in this changing marketplace?
My answer is yes, but in a different format. Crazy lady on that blog says no, because she's crazy.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to profit from the application of your skills. You just have to find a new way to do it in this changing marketplace.
There will always be a large market for new content no matter how large the volume of older content. The question becomes: how much will people pay to get that content, or what else do you have to provide in order to make that content worthwhile?
Oh wait, I remember.
Take the Prof Layton games for example. Unless you get a cheating device to unlock all of the bonus games (they are not really downloaded but unlocked) you have to keep the game until the free puzzles stop being offered.
Pokemon is another example. Unless you cheat you have to hold onto your game if you want to get the event Pokemon via Nintendo events.
Many games on the Xbox360 offer DLC to expand on the base game. If a consumer spends $30+ buying DLC for their game they are less and less likely to part with the game because they can't resell their DLC.
Game publishers can also get around the secondary market by using the unique ID of the console when creating game-to-game codes. If I can get a special code after beating "Gunslinging Cosplay Girls" that will unlock some bonus content in "Gunslinging Cosplay Girls 2" (where the code is tied to my actual console) I can't go to a game cheat site and get the code. Instead I have to actually acquire a copy of the game and beat it (or use some sort of hacking/cheating device).
Days of wonder includes online codes in all of their boxed games. These codes are one use and offer the owner some type of bonus. Even Nintendo offers the Club Nintendo codes in all of their games. Is the five dollar price difference between a new and used game worth not getting the code to you?
The music industry is in a very tough position because what they create is so easy to copy and distribute. The film industry is in a similar position with digital releases of movies. To these two industries piracy and the secondary market are held in equal disdain. The only difference between the two is that the govt gets to collect taxes on secondary markets like Gamestop.