I did answer you question, they shouldn't receive a cut of resale simply because they don't deserve any, they got their money with the original sale what happens after don't concern them anymore.

It's like if you were asking for a reason why it would be wrong if a original producer of an entertainment product to obtain some cut every time product created by somebody else is sold... I am sure they would love it but it doesn't makes it any less silly.

I've realized now that I'm arguing with an insane person and there is no reason whatsoever to continue this conversation. Likening resale rights to slavery? You're living in another universe. Enjoy your delusions.

If you couldn't find beneath my words the answer to your question, you're too slow to productively debate with at all. You suggested that all rights should be kept; I merely said that some rights are not worth keeping, as they promote injustice. Sometimes the most radical arguments are the ones that cut to the heart of the matter.
Lets look at the radical case: one person buys a product, and everyone else who consumes it consumes it after buying it used. Lets say 10,000 people play a game, yet only one buys the game. The developer goes out of business, only having one sale, when all 10,000 enjoyed his game. Does he deserve to go out of business? There is no functional difference between a used movie, game, or CD and a new one, apart from the price. There is no logical reason to buy a product new. You talk of what people deserve and don't deserve, but you never speak of why.

Yeah, just like how describing anyone who does something you feel is wrong as 'nazis' 'cuts to the heart of the matter'. If you can't make your argument without sweeping massive hyperbole the like of bringing up slavery in comparison to resale rights, you have no business debating at all.

I also didn't claim that 'all rights should be kept'. You're reading what you want to read. I was applying precedent. If the same precedent has been in place for as long as a concept has existed, there's usually a very good reason. I hardly made the claim that all rights should be kept and never said as much.

You made the claim that people should, at the very least, not defend "something that takes your rights away". I, in an attempt to choose the most simple and obvious counterpoint, brought up the argument that people felt that the ability to own slaves was a right that should be guaranteed. Not all rights should be protected.
Argument to tradition.

Argument to tradition.

Argument to tradition and often not correct. You own a license to use that game or, in some circumstances, a subscription to said game.

It would be trivial to implement in used game stores and online retailers, but that's not what I'm arguing for in this thread. The infrastructure is already in place for EA and Ubisoft to do this.

Argument to tradition.

Generally publishers pay developers to make the games for them, so the developers wouldn't deserve the money. Money would go to the rights holders of the product sold (as in GOG's case).

And content producers would make more money and could hire more people.

Try again.

The problem is they are sold in a box. I don't see anyone fighting for the right to sell a AAA membership.

But this is where the whole argument falls down, again, they choose to be only ones bearing those costs. The community was happy to provide it for free (and they made no profit on the game). No one has really addressed this. I fail to feel sorry for them for bearing in any costs, no matter how small or large, when they were the ones stubbornly forcing themselves to be the only ones who could.

So in short, fuck em.

So any argument based on precedent in law or centuries of human behavior, ethics, and morals is invalid... because you say so. Great argument. We're done here. There is absolutely no reason for me to waste more time on you.

Protection against what ? Customer rights ? Yeah riiiiiight poor industries really needs to be protected against this evil monstrosity that are customers rights.

And seriously "non perishable", CD/DVD or even HD non perishable ? the least perishable media entertainment support is probably paper the other have rather low and often random lifespan.

And what about if some guy buy a car and then lend it to its one billions friends to use, oh my god that would destroy the car industry for sure, they really should protect themselves against that...

What you describe is not a "radical case"... it's a completely stupid one, second hand market will always be limited by definition (otherwise already today nobody would be buying any new car/book/cd whatever) because... well... WHEN YOU SELL SOMETHING YOU NO LONGER OWN IT! that's kind of make a difference and it's kind of an issue for some peoples who actually like to keeps their books/movie/cd so that they can read/watch/listen them whenever they want to.

Not to mention those who to play/watch/hear stuff as soon as they are released and not wait for their turns after the 9999 other buyers.

Why, it's worked for tons of folks so far. That's pretty much the sole reason at this point that the console market is so much bigger than PC, i.e. new title sales are higher because more people can afford to buy new, thanks to being able to sell a week later.

There's nothing stopping producers of any product from already getting multiple payments from different users of something they've produced- they can simply choose to lease the item instead of selling it. The way things are now both buyers and sellers can decide whether they want to buy/sell or lease an item, and choose the option that works best for them. For some reason it seems that you want to remove the ability for people to actually transfer ownership through a sale and instead force everyone to only engage in leases. I'm not really seeing how this would provide any kind of benefit to society.

Because it's rent seeking and doesn't encourage the creation of new works or the increase of the public domain, the latter being the only reason society granted them copyright in the first place.

You don't want to pay your plumber that fixed your toilet money every time you take a crap, same thing. You don't want to pay for the art on your wall again every time new company shows up at your house and enjoys it, same thing.

It's wrong because it causes great harm to the arts and to culture. There's your answer.

Last I checked, there was a significant difference between buying products and paying membership dues for an organization. Nice strawman though. Too bad it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Not to mention that Mr. Cow here has made it perfectly clear that he could care less about the people who actually developed the product. In a recently reply to me he said the devs don't deserve compensation for a used sale, only the publisher does. As if his preposterous position couldn't get any worse.

That's your problem though, you see online games as a product. They're not.

Well. That sure is odd. Seeing as they're sold in all stores as products and not subscription services. You don't go to GameStop, go up to the counter and ask for a limited subscription to Street Fighter 4. You BUY Street Fighter. The ONLY times this is not the case are with games that require a monthly fee like WOW. But in those specific cases the game publishers and store clerks go out of their way to have warning labels on the box and to let customers know that this is a subscription, not a product you can use indefinitely. Most games are not sold that way. They are sold as products and always have been.