cicero
Member
This is the only thing that I have ever found regarding this NEW situation that you decided to put forward now.If you're arguing the perspective that all things are permissible if the other person agrees -- that's fine. That's an opinion as valid as my opposing view and I can't argue against that.
However, that's a perspective that doesn't allow for any of the wild west crap that took place during the early years of the Humble Bundle to be called out for what it is. Like the guy who tried trading his DRM-FREE Humble Bundle games. If you believe that, if he can find someone to agree to the deal, it is acceptable, then, again, that's a valid, if decidedly Randian, perspective.
http://www.humblebundle.com/terms
Once you make a purchase, you should receive a unique download page. You shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose the unique URL for your download page to anyone else or use anyone else's download page. You are solely and entirely responsible for all activities that occur on your download page. Humble Bundle shall not be responsible for any losses arising out of the unauthorized use of your download page.
But we weren't even discussing this level of trading/sell though, and I had defined my comment with this: "He clearly stated that he isn't someone who paid $1 for 20 bundles, it is his extra keys that he would like to trade for another Indie Bundle or another cheap game." so I find it strange that these new examples are seemingly now given in reference to drizzle or the comments made previously, either as a slippery slope type argument, or a direct comparison/analogy.
I agree, it isn't fair to gouge people. But now you bring up free keys, which wasn't even the original issue at hand. You do realize there are distinct and specific differences between trading an extra Humble Key for another cheap Indie Bundle, and trading/selling free promotional keys or the DRM-Free Humble games, right? Because you keep piling these new examples on as if they were comparable, analogous, or equal to what drizzle was suggesting, which they most certainly aren't. There is nothing illegal, unethical or immoral about someone trading an extra Humble key that they have for something else at a cheap valuation. But from your comments here, and your defense of them, it seems clear that you are suggesting that there is.I just don't think it's fair to gouge people, especially in the example of a completely free key, like Metro or Dirt 3. In many of those promotions, there are only a limited number of keys allotted. So you taking a key to resell later down the line could potentially be depriving someone who actually wanted to play the game. Again, if you disagree and think the free market will decide, that's an opinion I can't argue against. However, I don't want to be a part of a community that supports that kind of behavior and I'll continue to argue against it when it props up.
Really? Because it was made specifically in response to your inclusion of the charity component of the Humble Bundle as being a reason why anyone trading like drizzle proposed would suddenly become a "scuzzy move". I gave my own personal example as a legitimate case where the charity component would not even be applicable, and I knowingly chose to explain my reasons because someone moralizing in a tedious and ridiculous manner about the innocent trading of an extra Humble Bundle key for another cheap Indie key, would most likely respond with indignant outrage at the possibility that someone would dare not to support charities with their game purchases.Talk about tedious and ridiculous moralizing.
drizzle didn't propose selling or trading a free promotional key, or a key he purchased for a few cents, he proposed trading an extra Humble key for another cheap Indie Bundle. Humble Bundle Inc. isn't a damsel in distress, and drizzle isn't the dragon. But to appease you and send you back on your glorious quest, I knuckle my forehead at you.