Support NeoGAF

[vato_loco]

Digital licensing is not something new, but it is the main reason I keep buying as many physical copies as possible. Sony is quite advanced in this subject, and I never had any issues with consoles not allowing me to play, since it's really easy to just delete an old, broken or stolen console from their website and register the new ones again.

In that sense, Nintendo is WAY behind.

 

[jorma]

Surely if I owned it, I could lend it or resell it. Potato, pot-ah-to.

Yes. Is it your claim that you could not resell the copy of that Amiga game?

But yes, copyright in itself is a restriction of your ownership rights. But they were still ownership rights, they weren't trying to sell you a copy of the game and then pretend it's a "license".

 

[facelike]

I always believed this license method was done mainly because games were initially sold on floppy disks and since anyone and buy a floppy with data, change a few things on the floppy (for those who don't know, write protection on floppy's was a physical little switch or hold that was covered, that's all), and could try to resale it and claim it as their own. For example, changing the sprites on a character from batman to Disney and selling it as the latest Disney game, when you didn't create the game in the first place. Someone mentioned this, copyright protection for those who make the games. Games needed to be protected, they are not open source. If they weren't protected, no one would be able to make a living writing games as they could easily be stolen by a legit purchaser of the game.

Question, anyone here download via DD one of the game that was pulled from an online store and still be able to access it later via the download list? I believe someone mentioned the Saboteur in particular. If so, this this entire argument is nothing as we can still access and play our licenses well when a game is out of print.

 

[Curufinwe]

Erosion? Been like that foreverrrrr.

Just had a quick google and Zool on the Amiga, bottom right...

Whilst not as wordy and elaborate as a legal disclaimer, it still amounts to the same thing.

They should have gone with:

"There is no Sonic, only Zool" as a marketing line. Maybe they did.

 

[razoftblend]

Well, this has been known for a while, but few people bothered reading the text. Both digital and physical are licenses. Essentially they want to protect their IP's. It is the same for just about anything you buy (CDs, books, DVDs, etc). You "buy" them, but you do not have ownership rights to do anything else with those other than what they are intended for, like piracy.

I still think that in the event of getting banned, from a digital store, for whatever reason, people should still get access to games/items they bought off of that web store or be refunded the money; one way or another, you paid for those.

 

[Handy Fake]

Yes. Is it your claim that you could not resell the copy of that Amiga game?

But yes, copyright in itself is a restriction of your ownership rights. But they were still ownership rights, they weren't trying to sell you a copy of the game and then pretend it's a "license".

"Unauthorised resale".

 

[travisbickle]

Practically everything that has to be published is licensed to you. You don't own the contents of a book, they are licensed to you to read in the format given. You are not allowed to reproduce, copy, or distribute the contents in any other way without the copyright holders consent.

 

[Japanmanx3]

That statement was inaccurate.

Exactly lol.

 

[Zaku]

I still think that in the event of getting banned, from a digital store, for whatever reason, people should still get access to games/items they bought off of that web store or be refunded the money; one way or another, you paid for those.

I "loved" the Bioware forums for what happened with their bans. That was one of the sillier things I've seen on the net.

 

[Handy Fake]

Just dug out a copy of Pro-Evo 4 on PS2. Box says.. (in small print)...

"FOR HOME USE ONLY. Unauthorised copying, adaptation, rental, lending, distribution, extraction, re-sale, arcade use, charging for use, broadcast, public performance and internet, cable or any telecommunications transmission, access or use of this product or any trademark or copyright work that forms part of this product are prohibited."

Ironically, I googled that and Ubisoft appear to have plagiarised the wording wholesale. Ho hum.

EDIT: And I have reproduced it.


There's no coming back from this one.

 

[serversurfer]

The point I'm trying to make is that the current connected ecosystem allows for "licensors" to legally lock you out of purchased content for pretty much whatever reason they want and since physical media also relies on installed data and is considered a license as well it too could be blocked by a licensor. LEGALLY. With absolutely no recourse for the consumer. The potential for corporate dickery is clear. That is what scares me. I don't like the idea of one day putting in my disc for Final Fantasy XV and getting an invalid license message.

It is indeed, which is why you should avoid dealing with corporate dicks. That's why I'm always ranting about how corporate trustworthiness is not just a thing, but a pretty important thing.

The reason the agreement is worded that way is to protect the creator from unforeseen abuse. There may be a legitimate need for them to revoke your license at some point, but they don't want to be unable to do so if a situation arises which they neglected to predict in the contract. From their perspective, the agreement is in place to prevent you from abusing their stuff. Since it effectively serves as a shield for them, they want it to be the biggest, most protective shield possible. Duh.

However, there are also those that look at a shield, and think, "Hey, not only can I defend myself with that, if I use it skillfully, I could kill people pretty effectively with it too."

I guess I was just flabbergasted by the language in the agreement. It makes me very uncomfortable giving that much potential power to any corporation. I'm not really sure what else could be done at this point other than crossing your fingers and boycotting at the first sign of abuse.

Look at the company's history. Do they tend to wield their contracts as shields, or swords? Given their past behavior, does it seem more likely they'll cut you loose as soon as it's more convenient for them, or only after they have no other choice?

 

[Handy Fake]

However, there are also those that look at a shield, and think, "Hey, not only can I defend myself with that, if I use it skillfully, I could kill people pretty effectively with it too."

I have those thoughts about teatrays too.

 

[SRG01]

It is indeed, which is why you should avoid dealing with corporate dicks. That's why I'm always ranting about how corporate trustworthiness is not just a thing, but a pretty important thing.

The reason the agreement is worded that way is to protect the creator from unforeseen abuse. There may be a legitimate need for them to revoke your license at some point, but they don't want to be unable to do so if a situation arises which they neglected to predict in the contract. From their perspective, the agreement is in place to prevent you from abusing their stuff. Since it effectively serves as a shield for them, they want it to be the biggest, most protective shield possible. Duh.

However, there are also those that look at a shield, and think, "Hey, not only can I defend myself with that, if I use it skillfully, I could kill people pretty effectively with it too."


Look at the company's history. Do they tend to wield their contracts as shields, or swords? Given their past behavior, does it seem more likely they'll cut you loose as soon as it's more convenient for them, or only after they have no other choice?

100% agreed with this post. The legalese within most EULA agreements mostly exists to mitigate any potential damages. That, and the EULA contains language that limits the liability for the licensor -- perhaps more important than the actual licensing part itself.

 

[ironcreed]

The same kind of thing was on the 360. I did not even realize it until I had bought another one years down the line and discovered that I had to simply transfer my licenses to the new console before I could play my digital games offline. This is nothing new.

 

[Handy Fake]

Ah, the good ol' days of floppy swaps. I still remember copying Microsoft C++ 7.0 from a friend when I wanted to learn programming. About a dozen floppies, each of which had to be copied at a snail's pace.

The joys of "XCopy" on the Amiga. And the laborious photo-copying of manuals and/or code wheel for those that had copyprotection.

 

[QuartKat]

In the wake of the DDoS attack on countless companies (Blizzard, Riot, Microsoft, Sony, Brazzers etc) an odd issue prevented PS4 players from accessing even their purchased Single Player games. The issue centered around the "license" function for digital purchases. This greatly concerend me so I took it upon myself to do some research on these "digital licenses." To those unacquainted with the term this is how it is explained by Sony themselves with the emphasis in bold by yours truly:



Source = http://us.playstation.com/softwarelicense/

So, the main take away I got from this wall o' text is that according to Sony we have no purchase rights to any software we buy for the system. Instead we are "licensors" who have no rights of ownership for said software. Now for the legal difference between a license and a purchase



Source

So Licensing games means companies are free to bypass most any laws in regard to personal ownership most notably the "right of first sale." This also applies to the idea of mandatory license renewals which prevent access to software without confirming the purchase is still valid via an online connection. As such it becomes legal for companies such as Sony or Microsoft to disable purchased software based on the idea of an active subscription (like PS+) whether or not it was stipulated as such when first purchased. Couple this with the phrase


and we are confronted with he very real prospect of losing access to our purchased games at the whim of these companies and our connection to their authorization servers and before you go and say "well that's why I buy retail" read the agreement closely. The only difference in stipulation mentioned for physical purchased copies is in reference to a 90-day warranty of sorts and it is still referred to as a license in said stipulation



Thus buying retail does not exempt you from this software as a license agreement.

So GAF, my question is: does this treatment of games as a license instead of a purchased product scare you as much as it does me? Does the thought of losing access to your content at the behest or whim of a "licensor" bother you? Why or why not? What does this mean for the future of our beloved hobby?


Adding to the op for the sake of clarity:

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

 

[TyrantII]

These agreements have been saying this for years and years. Probably even decades. You've never been buying the software itself, you are paying for the right to use it (in one form or another).

I honestly don't care about this like some others vehemently do. "But what about 20 years from now!?" is just not a question I ask or care for the answer of.

I for one appreciate I can take my 1996 first edition Resident Evil and throw it into a old PS1 and play it like I did 20 years ago.

"Well we have emulators for that" … which break copyright and IP laws.

We're also lucky Capcom does have digital versions of it offered elsewhere. A lot of old games and IP are not so lucky.


I do understand a lot of gamers just see gaming as throw away entertainment. But there are also valid arguments for archiving and collecting to preserve history.

 

[Version 3.0]

As has been mentioned, very similar license agreements have been in manuals as far back as the NES. But you're right; back then, they were only trying to say "you're not buying our IP, just a copy of the game", whereas now, some companies want this to mean "you don't own a copy of the game, and can't lend or re-sell it".

If you look, you will notice that every single license agreement also says, near the bottom, that its validity is subject to local laws - and US law still says you own your (physical) copy and have all the rights that entails.

This is the reason I'm constantly defending Gamestop's right to exist, despite how awful they are. As long as Gamestop is open, we clearly still own our games and have the right to treat them as such, no matter what these EULA's say.

I also wish our legal system would get with the times and address this, one way or another. If we do own what we buy digitally, then I want assurances that I'll own it no matter what happens to the company or service, and the right to lend or sell my purchases. If we don't, then I'm not paying the same price as what I'd pay to own it (I already don't, actually).

 

[Alucrid]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

Yeah


No

 

[The Llama]

People always seem to be afraid that Sony/MS/etc. will suddenly flip some kill switch and make you lose access to your games. This has, at least to my knowledge, pretty much never happened in any context, other than that time Amazon revoked a few people's e-books (wasn't it 1984? heh). And there's a damn good reason for it: the consumer backlash would be incredible. Ultimately, while its good to be vigilant, I don't think we need to be paranoid or anything about this stuff.

 

[icespide]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

lolno

 

[Handy Fake]

As has been mentioned, very similar license agreements have been in manuals as far back as the NES. But you're right; back then, they were only trying to say "you're not buying our IP, just a copy of the game", whereas now, some companies want this to mean "you don't own a copy of the game, and can't lend or re-sell it".

If you look, you will notice that every single license agreement also says, near the bottom, that its validity is subject to local laws - and US law still says you own your (physical) copy and have all the rights that entails.

This is the reason I'm constantly defending Gamestop's right to exist, despite how awful they are. As long as Gamestop is open, we clearly still own our games and have the right to treat them as such, no matter what these EULA's say.

I also wish our legal system would get with the times and address this, one way or another. If we do own what we buy digitally, then I want assurances that I'll own it no matter what happens to the company or service, and the right to lend or sell my purchases. If we don't, then I'm not paying the same price as what I'd pay to own it (I already don't, actually).

I agree with all of this. I don't think anything's changed in 30 years, just the legalese has been tightened up as the world gets more technically proficient.

 

[Zaku]

The joys of "XCopy" on the Amiga. And the laborious photo-copying of manuals and/or code wheel for those that had copyprotection.

I still remember having dongles come with software. *shudders* People think today's DRM is bad, but they don't know what it was like. I'll take Steam or even Uplay over crap like the Lenslok Prism, Dongles, or a 500-page book I have to keep on hand for random verifications during play.

I've seen some crap that'd make gamers today riot in the streets.

 

[BobTheFork]

I almost never buy digital, unless it's a older free PS+ game. I got the last of us Digital because I wasn't going to be near a store this weekend. I seriously regret that decision. I barely got to play it this weekend because it could not verify a license.

 

[icespide]

I almost never buy digital, unless it's a older free PS+ game. I got the last of us Digital because I wasn't going to be near a store this weekend. I seriously regret that decision. I barely got to play it this weekend because it could not verify a license.

is your PS4 not set as your primary PS4?

 

[tanod]

This contractual language has been in the back of games manuals for in excess of 10 years. Also applies to all other software that you use on a daily basis.

Same terms if the software is on a disc or downloaded.

It means you don't own the software. You have a license to use it which means that if a person violates the license agreement, they can take away your use of the software.

 

[silvermember]

I almost never buy digital, unless it's a older free PS+ game. I got the last of us Digital because I wasn't going to be near a store this weekend. I seriously regret that decision. I barely got to play it this weekend because it could not verify a license.

Maybe make your ps4 primary?

In any case the op is/was just ignorant of the fact you don't own the copy of any software you buy, you are simply license it. Same applies to physical media, buy the individual has more control over it, i.e they can resell it to GameStop.

 

[BradleyLove]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

I am shocked.

 

[nib95]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

Sony can control or limit how and where I sell, lend or trade in my retail games? And my PS4 requires 24 hour online check in's for me to be able to play my games? News to me!

 

[Handy Fake]

I still remember having dongles come with software. *shudders* People think today's DRM is bad, but they don't know what it was like. I'll take Steam or even Uplay over crap like the Lenslok Prism, Dongles, or a 500-page book I have to keep on hand for random verifications during play.

I've seen some crap that'd make gamers today riot in the streets.

The dongle! Ah the dreaded dongle. Haaa.

 

[tanod]

The biggest problem with this that hasn't been addressed by the legal system is that when the purchaser dies, these licenses die with them.

So on itunes for example. If a person dies and has a music collection worth $1000, they can not will that collection to a family member or any one else.

It's a big gap in the law right now and it's ridiculous.

 

[staticneuron]

Dude this isn't new and yes physical games have the same warning applied to them. The ONLY reason they can't truly enforce it with physical games is because the medium it comes on supersedes the license. You OWN the cart, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray. But you do not own the data that is printed on said medium; this has always been the case. Because you own the medium it comes on you can do with it what you want (short of making copies to sell). By going digital you remove that physical barrier thus the licensing is put into effect.

Yup, iirc this dates back to NES days. I think this is a simple mistake though because normally even on the PS3, you could play the games that you owned without access to the internet. Just let you know, look up the info page on any digital title, movie or song, purchased from PSN and you will see the license information. I had the same issue with XBL when I purchased a new xbox and tried to redownload my games. So I am not surprised by the wording or phrasing of this I just hope this was a glitch because I should be able to play the games I own offline.... actually I have already, so I think this might be an issue with a select few.

Sony can control or limit how and where I sell, lend or trade in my retail games? And my PS4 requires 24 hour online check in's for me to be able to play my games? News to me!

Uoeno?

 

[Alucrid]

The biggest problem with this that hasn't been addressed by the legal system is that when the purchaser dies, these licenses die with them.

So on itunes for example. If a person dies and has a music collection worth $1000, they can not will that collection to a family member or any one else.

It's a big gap in the law right now and it's ridiculous.

Delaware has already started to take steps towards this. I imagine that we'll see more of it as more people who actually have digital libraries start to die.

 

[GutZ31]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

Nope.
Turns out a lot of people didn't set their PS4 as primary, and when the DDoS happened, a server check was necessary to make sure they were on the content owners mechine/login.

The people still having issues were unable, or unwilling to disconnect from the internet completely in order to play their games, as this fixed the issue of the PS4 trying to sign in automatically.


As for the Licensing thing...
EVERY game that has been published has a License agreement when you buy it.
You don't own the game even if its physical, as you have no rights in altering the game as a creator.
Is there DRM in PS4, and Xbox One digital downloads? Yes.
It is the same stuff that has been around for years on PS3 and 360, just with more security checks now.


This was a pretty big wake up call that Sony needs to upgrade its infrastructure and security to combat these issues, and possibly add some form of "Last login active console" to make it possible to play content if you for some reason cant connect.

 

[TyrantII]

The biggest problem with this that hasn't been addressed by the legal system is that when the purchaser dies, these licenses die with them.

So on itunes for example. If a person dies and has a music collection worth $1000, they can not will that collection to a family member or any one else.

It's a big gap in the law right now and it's ridiculous.

I'd argue its not a gap, but by design. After all, corporations have been building cases for why digital is different than physical. They're not 100 wrong either.

But they are using it to grab back rights that they don't want us to have, like first sale doctrine.

 

[faceless007]

Music is 100% licensed. You cannot redistribute or replay without permission and/or royalties.

You are incorrect.

DVDs have licence agreements.

Definitely not true.
Just because you've bought David Bowie's album doesn't mean his music belongs to you, if you know what I mean. You just merely bought the license to listen to it.
I'm not 100% on books, but it's obvious that buying a book doesn't mean the words written in it are yours, you've just bought the right to read the words.

Wrong on all accounts.

Well I'd sure like someone to provide a cite for this if true. I do know that I don't own a single book, music CD, or DVD that comes with anything including a license agreement of the kind found in software. Can anyone go to a bookstore and find a book that includes a license agreement?

I think you're confusing (or maybe you assume I'm confusing) ownership of the product with ownership of the intellectual property. Of course, buying a book has never transferred copyright or granted ownership of the text therein. Duh. The book is still mine, though, and other than those rights already reserved by copyright law, the manufacturer of the book holds no rights whatsoever over my copy. There is no legal way for them to revoke my continued usage of it. That's the difference between it and a license, where the license agreement clearly reserves far more reaching rights to affect and revoke whether I can continue to use the software.

Even if you find some obscure notice somewhere that a physical book is technically licensed, contract law is pretty dim on the idea that someone can agree to a contract without even being made aware of its existence.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Thus buying retail does not exempt you from this software as a license agreement.

The law in the US doesn't agree with them. Purchasing software in physical form grants the owner property rights over that copy of the data.

This is probably language to prevent someone from copying a game they bought on bluray and then selling the copies. I don't think Sony will attempt to prevent private sales.



I think people are being overly pedantic on this. No one thinks that buying a CD means I own the music itself in perpetuity. But owning it on physical media does mean that ownership of that physical media is transferred to me at sale and that, say, Sony can't then ask for me to return the CD to them, not sell it to someone else, etc.

 

[soul creator]

This isn't really trampling over consumers bro. All this means you don't own the software. Hence selling bootleg copies is illegal. Even selling your own copy is sketchy. Which is why everyone has a love hate relationship with gamestop. Hell even X1 original physical disc plans technicaly wasnt anti consumer. They wanted to turn the console into a pc box. Once you use the disc it's done. While it's a extremely stupid idea it's not exactly wrong. They really fucked up on the always online and always on kinect. That was the scary shit.

They were actually proposing an improvement over PC in this regard. It was more "Once you use the disc, you can resell it at approved retailers if the publisher has enabled that feature...otherwise it's done".

Sure, it wasn't "omg amazing" especially compared to the status quo of selling console games, but it was definitely an improvement in comparison to most modern PC game discs.

I still remember having dongles come with software. *shudders* People think today's DRM is bad, but they don't know what it was like. I'll take Steam or even Uplay over crap like the Lenslok Prism, Dongles, or a 500-page book I have to keep on hand for random verifications during play.

I've seen some crap that'd make gamers today riot in the streets.

You do have a dongle on PS4/XB1! It just comes in the form of a shiny plastic disc that you have to insert every time to prove you own the game

 

[serversurfer]

Turns out a lot of people didn't set their PS4 as primary, and when the DDoS happened, a server check was necessary to make sure they were on the content owners mechine/login.

It's been a while since I went through my initial setup, and I know it asked you if you wanted to set this as your primary console when you first logged in, but wasn't the default choice No? That would make sense, as it's the "safer" choice. What if you got sold on the brand playing at a friend's house, and now that you finally have one of your own, you realize you'd already set his console to be your primary, and he just left to go on vacation? Now you need to contact CS and go through an emergency reset, etc. Not the shiniest experience for a new customer.

Like I said, I'm not sure what the default choice was, but I'd be surprised and disappointed if it wasn't No, actually.

 

[Indiedevs]

Call me crazy, but I use PS+ and Xbox Gold in order to test games. If I download full version of a game, and I like it, i usually go out and buy the physical disc because I feel more ownership.

 

[Handy Fake]

Well I'd sure like someone to provide a cite for this if true. I do know that I don't own a single book, music CD, or DVD that comes with anything including a license agreement of the kind found in software. Can anyone go to a bookstore and find a book that includes a license agreement?

I think you're confusing (or maybe you assume I'm confusing) ownership of the product with ownership of the intellectual property. Of course, buying a book has never transferred copyright or granted ownership of the text therein. Duh. The book is still mine, though, and other than those rights already reserved by copyright law, the manufacturer of the book holds no rights whatsoever over my copy. There is no legal way for them to revoke my continued usage of it. That's the difference between it and a license, where the license agreement clearly reserves far more reaching rights to affect and revoke whether I can continue to use the software.

"This book is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

Also cites legislation applicable to the author of the work.

(In this case, Bill Bryson's "At Home".)

 

[Handy Fake]

The law in the US doesn't agree with them. Purchasing software in physical form grants the owner property rights over that copy of the data.

This is probably language to prevent someone from copying a game they bought on bluray and then selling the copies. I don't think Sony will attempt to prevent private sales.



I think people are being overly pedantic on this. No one thinks that buying a CD means I own the music itself in perpetuity. But owning it on physical media does mean that ownership of that physical media is transferred to me at sale and that, say, Sony can't then ask for me to return the CD to them, not sell it to someone else, etc.

In a nutshell. And yeah, Sony made a big deal of being able to lend and resell your used games at E3. This is all just legalise to prevent people taking the piss on a large scale.

EDIT: Sorry, doublepost.

 

[faceless007]

"This book is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

Also cites legislation applicable to the author of the work.

(In this case, Bill Bryson's "At Home".)

1) That's fucking horrible.

2) I have never seen anything like that in any book I own, and I like to read the copyright pages. If the question is whether books in general are licensed, then clearly the vast majority aren't because the vast majority don't contain any such provision.

3) I have serious doubts that provision would be held up in court due to first-sale doctrine. What's the legislation cited?

 

[serversurfer]

Can anyone go to a bookstore and find a book that includes a license agreement?

It's usually not spelled out in books, because it's all pretty boilerplate stuff. However, it's not unusual to see "specific" licensing terms spelled out in textbooks, for example.

 

[Handy Fake]

1) That's fucking horrible.

2) I have never seen anything like that in any book I own, and I like to read the copyright pages. If the question is whether books in general are licensed, then clearly the vast majority aren't because the vast majority don't contain any such provision.

3) I have serious doubts that provision would be held up in court due to first-sale doctrine. What's the legislation cited?

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This is UK, by the way.

And again, there's second hand bookshops everywhere, so it'll be in pretty much the same vein as all this Sony shenanigans, i.e. just covering legalese with no real ramifications unless someone is really taking the piss.

EDIT: Just to say, it really was the first book I pulled out of the bookcase behind me.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Basically the DRM that everyone was worried about on the Xbox One shows its face FIRST on PS4?

I actually seen that coming...

What am I doing halp

 

[faceless007]

It's usually not spelled out in books, because it's all pretty boilerplate stuff. However, it's not unusual to see "specific" licensing terms spelled out in textbooks, for example.

Boilerplate or not, it's damn near impossible for someone to agree to a contract they are not even aware exists, let alone have a chance to read.

Even textbook agreements (quite the racket on their own) are still subject to interpretation under first-sale doctrine.

Also, so are music CDs.

 

[Alucrid]

It's been a while since I went through my initial setup, and I know it asked you if you wanted to set this as your primary console when you first logged in, but wasn't the default choice No? That would make sense, as it's the "safer" choice. What if you got sold on the brand playing at a friend's house, and now that you finally have one of your own, you realize you'd already set his console to be your primary, and he just left to go on vacation? Now you need to contact CS and go through an emergency reset, etc. Not the shiniest experience for a new customer.

Like I said, I'm not sure what the default choice was, but I'd be surprised and disappointed if it wasn't No, actually.

The default is Activate

As for your hypothetical, you can remove your account's association with any console yourself.

 

[serversurfer]

Even without physical access to the console in question?

 

[staticneuron]

1) That's fucking horrible.

2) I have never seen anything like that in any book I own, and I like to read the copyright pages. If the question is whether books in general are licensed, then clearly the vast majority aren't because the vast majority don't contain any such provision.

3) I have serious doubts that provision would be held up in court due to first-sale doctrine. What's the legislation cited?

You are not reading it carefully. That license does not stop you from reselling the book. it stops you from selling..

"This book is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

Also cites legislation applicable to the author of the work.

(In this case, Bill Bryson's "At Home".)

it with a different binding or cover. Meaning you can't sell the book's contents with a made up or alternate cover. I am not sure if first sale doctrine protects you against making alterations to product that can be construed as plagiarism or misrepresentation. So the sticking point is purchasing and selling "as is" versus making alterations to the copyrighted product and then reselling it.