That would be a good strategy except the good folks behind TOR have absolutely no reason for noncompliance. CISPA doesn't DISCOURAGE the freeflow of information between parties in any meaningful way (if it does so at all).
What's the point of a "democracy" if the very system put in place to serve the public can ignore the public's dissent toward any law that it wants to pass. Forget reform. All branches of the government have sidestepped the single most valuable asset the public has against it: Fear. A government should fear its people. Ours, quite clearly, does not. As it systematically vandalizes or outright ignores the very checks and balances put in place against it. And we let it happen.
You're right about the added risk to a secondhand market. It's a part of the business I didn't consider much. But even assuming that risk overhead is covered by the sales themselves, it is hard to argue that Gamestop isn't competing with developers when it pops used titles back on the shelf mere hours (yes, I have seen hours) or days after a title hits the streets.
This isn't a big problem in other markets, where overhead isn't nearly as high. But the overhead in game development in particular is extraordinarily high. And it goes up with each successive generation.
But by dropping the price quicker, you have to sell more copies of the title to cover development overhead and eventually turn a profit. That part isn't guaranteed whether you drop the price or not and that's true for both markets. And you can expect Gamestop to undercut the new price as well. What you'd wind up with is seeing the two markets bleed themselves dry as they try to compete with one another for dominance while the consumer waited until the price couldn't go any lower before they bought it.
Sure. You go right ahead, open up that big, imaginary wallet of yours, and establish a brand new business to compete--directly I might add--in a well-established market against an well-established and entrenched business. You take control of a development firm and create that medium. Oh wait. That's suicide.
To make a long story short: No. From a business perspective it makes more sense to rein in control over the market by cutting them off entirely. Or trying to cooperate with the market that's competing with them. The latter is much more preferable in both markets than the former. And is also the solution we're much more likely to see.
Getting back tot he point at hand: Are you insane? You're trying to tell me that it makes more sense to establish a new service in direct competition with an already established and popular service than work with it to increase revenue gains. If it paid off, the gains would be incredible. But that's an incredulous gamble that no sane developer would take.