Earlier this week, Ready at Dawn Studios boss Ru Weerasuriya opined that retailers not sharing the profits generated from used game sales with the publisher/developer is not fair.

Realizing that it has lost the war on Xbox One's online requirements and its used games policies, Microsoft announced today that it is abandoning them altogether. Microsoft has changed its stance on always online and used game policies to be more like they were on Xbox 360. In a blog post explaining the changes President of Microsoft's interactive entertainment business, Don Mattrick, laid out the changes.

Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) President Hal Halpin offers his insights on video game ownership - a topic that has caused cheers for Sony and jeers for Microsoft at E3 in Los Angeles this week.

Broadcasting Cable reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a Second Circuit ruling on a First Sale Doctrine case that could expand its protections beyond U.S. borders. The court ruled that the Second Circuit court erred when it ruled that First Sale Doctrine did not apply to work legally made abroad and imported into the United States.

GameStop is apparently paying close attention to the recent decision by the European High Court that digital purchases could legally be resold. Speaking to GameSpot, GameStop CEO Paul Raines said that the video games retailer is seriously looking into the idea of creating a business out of reselling digital downloads in Europe, but cautions that it is too early for him to say if it is something they will get into. At this point the company is simply investigating the idea.

In an age where acronyms such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CISPA, CSA, and more put fear into the hearts of Internet users all over the globe it's time that someone stand up and clearly define what rights we should have on the Internet. Like the Continental Congress did when America declared Independence way back in 1776, the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) and other advocacy groups have come up with our own version of a "Declaration" for the Internet age.

Last week we presented the news that a "First Sale Doctrine" case (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons) was headed to the Supreme Court. Some journalists were sounding alarm bells that an outcome in favor of the publisher in the case could have a serious impact on how people sell used products such as books, DVD's and even video games.

The First Sale Doctrine has been an important part of copyright law for well over a hundred years now and an important part of the gaming culture for the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately, these last few decades have also seen a lot of effort to erode what protections consumers have to resale their property without the permission of the copyright owner. Once again, the Supreme court is poised to rule on how far the protections the First Sale Doctrine go when it comes to copyright.

The Supreme Court will hear a case related to the First Sale Doctrine. The court decided Monday that it would hear arguments in its next term related to a case that will test the reach of U.S. copyright law outside of the United States. The Federal circuit courts of appeal are split on the issue. The case is Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (docket 11-697).

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a split decision on Costco v. Omega, a case dealing with first sale doctrine. The court divided 4-4. The case had to do with watches bought overseas and sold at Costco discounts in the United States. The split denies a change in a lower court decision upholding the rights of the Swiss watch manufacturer, Omega.

According to Scotus blog, a different outcome might have been possible if the newest justice, Justice Elena Kagan, didn't recuse herself from the case. Kagan has recused herself from about half of the cases being heard during this term.

Costco argued in its appeal that the Ninth Circuit decision allows copyright owners who make products outside the U.S. to gain added legal weapons against those who buy goods overseas.

More from SCOTUS Blog:

You may have recently heard of a court decision out of the Ninth Circuit involving horror stories about EULAs banning the right to resell games. There has been a lot of misinformation and fearmongering surrounding the case, with people shouting how it is the end of the world. It really isn't, and I'd like to take the opportunity to go over the actual decision, as well as the existing law behind it, to explain why this will have minimal, if any, effect on gamers.

Background on First Sale

Earlier this week, GamePolitics reported on “benefit denial,” a loss-prevention technology proposed by game retail trade group the Entertainment Merchants Association. The EMA plan would disable movies and video games until unlocked at the point of sale.
 
Not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.
 
Writing for CNET, technology columnist Don Reisinger dubs the plan "a loser."

Piracy and theft is indeed a problem in the video game industry. But it's not so bad that it requires games to be shipped in an unactivated state. Moreover, game piracy is really a bigger problem on the PC than on consoles... And since most of the issues affect the PC side of the business, not even benefit denial will be able to stop piracy...

However, EMA Public Affairs VP Sean Bersell told us that benefit denial is “all about retail theft,”  not piracy. He points to a comment to Reisinger’s article posted by Capgemini, the firm commissioned by the EMA to evaluate the feasibility of benefit denial.

[The benefit denial study], announced by the EMA, doesn't even mention piracy.  And that's because the whole project is about elimination of physical theft of discs, whether DVDs, or CDs, or games on optical discs. It has nothing to do with piracy. Zero.

Reisinger also raises concerns about how well this technology will work with second-hand games, whether Internet connectivity will be a factor, and if the Big 3 console makers' participation will be required.  Bersell commented:

We are not talking about DRM or other software-based technology. The technology to which we are referring would be a physical lock that is opened via radio frequency in the store at the point of sale...
 
The purpose is to make it easier for the consumer to purchase the product... And since EMA is pursuing this and we have been protecting the First Sale rights of retailers and their customers for 28 years, I can assure you that nothing in this will interfere with the rights of consumers to sell, lend, or give away their used games.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the benefit denial study here.
 
-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen...