View Full Version : Updated Steam license agreement recently?
I got a popup just now when restarting my box, asking me to accept roughly four hundred yards of compressed legalese. As I could not accurately determine what was new I skimmed through the text, and there now seems to be a section on voiding the right to sue Valve or participate in class actions against the company. Maybe it was there before and I just didn't know it, but I've never heard anything of this before so I assume it's new.
Anyhow, since this very thing was very widely criticized when EA enforced such a policy I'm going to have to be consistent and slam Valve for following down the same path. At least EA allowed a (snail mail!) opt-out of the clause, which Valve does not seem fit to do. I can't find anything like that anyhow.
So I declined the agreement and is now Steam-free for the moment. I'll have to look around and see how I can access my legitimately bought and paid for Steam games, should I not be able to resolve the violation of my ethical standards any other way.
Yes, that's the new part. Valve now requires Steam's users to settle disputes with it individually. You can read more about it in the press release:
http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523
Ars' short report:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/valve-to-steam-users-no-class-action-suits/
Yeah, I saw a news post over at Kotaku confirming it as well. "It's for your own good", Valve says, and whenever a big corporation tells me that I tend to disbelieve it, because it's pretty much universally not so.
Richard
01-Aug-2012, 23:27
<sigh>
RPS (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/01/steams-sub-agreement-prohibits-class-action-lawsuits/) went the extra mile and asked a lawyer if this is enforceable. TL: DR: only when it's challenged in court will we know.
ninelven
01-Aug-2012, 23:32
Already been ruled on, hence why it was added... I don't think they even needed the language in the EULA to force arbitration, but I may be wrong.
Under swedish law, you can't contractually sign away rights granted by law. However this is a matter of principle. I don't care wether this EULA is enforceable or not, I'm not going to support such scummy behavior.
Rodéric
02-Aug-2012, 10:01
It's the same under French law, the law is supreme.
Same in Holland, the supreme court in the united corporations of America has ruled forced arbitration legal though I see.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7596/itos.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/itos.png/)
Ive never had the faith in steam (or other services) that other people have, being a retro gamer "can I play this game in 20 years time" is important to me
Hence i avoid steam or I only buy a steam game if a way of playing it without steam exists, because trust me on this steam wont be around forever.
I'm actually pissed off as fuck about this, but sadly I also don't want to punish developers/publishers and I don't want ot lose access to the games on my HD... *sigh*
And I've got a friends list ot worry about too. Fucking Hell.
homerdog
07-Aug-2012, 03:45
I think we should file a class action law suite over this. Who's with me?
Wait, I already agreed.. Doh!
These sorts of things have a tendency to not stand up in court, even in the U.S.
Anyway you might as well give up gaming if you're gonna boycott Valve for being evil. They are a consistently great and consumer friendly IMO.
function
07-Aug-2012, 09:51
You will accept this new agreement that takes away your rights or you will permanently lose everything you've invested in your PC games library over the last 8 years.
God damn you MS and your shitty Windows 8 app store, forcing [Formerly known as] Metro on us! Just wait till Gaben finds out about this, he'll stand up for PC gamers everywhere and speak out abou ... o hang on wat thread is this
These sorts of things have a tendency to not stand up in court, even in the U.S.
Already did, in the Supreme court.
Hurm, Blizzard got thumped in court over its claims regarding its EULA, in the Wowglider case. That was regarding copyright infringement and not arbitration of course, but at least EULAs don't grant corporation carte blanche powers, even in the US.
Colourless
10-Aug-2012, 15:48
Companies will put as much in a EULA as possible as a deterrant and hope that it stick in court. You'd be foolish not to try if you run a business. Of course in different countries consumer law can override anything written in a EULA as the law states that you can't sign away certain rights. Even things as simple as warrenties that are almost always stated as non existing in EULAs in reality still exist and must be honoured.
We all welcome steam our benevolent overloads ... oh wait this is one of many reasons I was leery of steam...
Seems illegal to me.
Personally it seems like a great time to download all your games onto as many computers as possible then go into "offline" mode on all of them before telling Valve to permanently F-off. They can't deactivate your games if you leave the client in offline mode. Sure, no updates or communities but no bullshit contract shoved down your gullet.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Aug-2012, 03:07
Seems illegal to me.
Personally it seems like a great time to download all your games onto as many computers as possible then go into "offline" mode on all of them before telling Valve to permanently F-off. They can't deactivate your games if you leave the client in offline mode. Sure, no updates or communities but no bullshit contract shoved down your gullet.
They've changed their licensing agreement because the licence says they can change it when they feel like it. They've added the clause removing your right to class action and agreeing to arbitration because the US Supreme Court recently ruled that to do so is legal. Revoking your licence if you don't agree without giving you a refund is (no doubt) part of the licence. Nice and circular, eh?
This is exactly the sort of reason why I'm against software being licensed in this way as an end run around consumer law, whilst conning the customer into thinking that he has bought and owns the software he paid for, when he's done nothing of the sort.
I mean any contract that allows unilateral future modification into perpetuity is likely illegal because a contract must meet equitable trade rules and nothing given away forever can be valued properly. Sure a tard like Scalia might go for it because it's a business concern, but that doesn't mean it would pass the smell test of a legal scholar or a court that wasn't corrupt.
Either way...I think I can have several hundred games on about fifty PCs within a week before I suddenly go offline forever for Valve.
This is exactly the sort of reason why I'm against software being licensed in this way as an end run around consumer law, whilst conning the customer into thinking that he has bought and owns the software he paid for, when he's done nothing of the sort.
Did Steam tell you that you "own" the software you paid for? I doubt that. Actually, I seriously doubt any software vendor ever tell you (or imply) that you "own" the software you paid for. And this, of course, has been the case for decades. You can't really argue that one should naturally expect anything else.
This is just like, if someone bought a book and found that he can't rent it to others (or make more copies and sell them), do you think he's "conned" into thinking that he has bought that with these rights? Heck, most bookstores don't even have something like "the books you buy here are merely licensed to you for end user usages" written on the wall.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Aug-2012, 11:07
Did Steam tell you that you "own" the software you paid for? I doubt that. Actually, I seriously doubt any software vendor ever tell you (or imply) that you "own" the software you paid for. And this, of course, has been the case for decades. You can't really argue that one should naturally expect anything else.
Did they "rent" me a game, or "sell" me a game? Do I "buy" a game, or do I only "lease a copy under licence"? It's pretty obvious how publishers have been pitching their products to their customers for a long time now.
This is just like, if someone bought a book and found that he can't rent it to others (or make more copies and sell them), do you think he's "conned" into thinking that he has bought that with these rights? Heck, most bookstores don't even have something like "the books you buy here are merely licensed to you for end user usages" written on the wall.
If I buy a book, I can give it away, read it myself, lend it to my wife, sell it on Ebay. That's accepted normal fair use. I didn't sign agreements or contracts, read a EULA, I just handed over my money and took the book home.
The publisher doesn't come back after I bought it and says "We're changing your rights, superseding statute law, and if you don't like it, we're taking your book back and keeping the money you paid".
If publishers want to do this, they shouldn't con people into thinking they "bought" a product and now "own" it, when in fact they only licensed it, with all the restrictions and limitations that brings. Maybe people would only pay less if they realised they were only renting a game, instead of actually buying it as they are led to believe.
Did they "rent" me a game, or "sell" me a game? Do I "buy" a game, or do I only "lease a copy under licence"? It's pretty obvious how publishers have been pitching their products to their customers for a long time now.
They license the game to you. As in any license contract, it could be terminated at any time. It's nothing new.
If I buy a book, I can give it away, read it myself, lend it to my wife, sell it on Ebay. That's accepted normal fair use. I didn't sign agreements or contracts, read a EULA, I just handed over my money and took the book home.
Yet, you can't rent the book, sell another copy, or incorporate a significant portion of the book in your own work. I'm pretty sure if you buy a car you can rent it with no problem. Do you think the publishers "conned" you into believing that you "bought" the book?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Aug-2012, 12:47
They license the game to you. As in any license contract, it could be terminated at any time. It's nothing new.
Yet, you can't rent the book, sell another copy, or incorporate a significant portion of the book in your own work. I'm pretty sure if you buy a car you can rent it with no problem. Do you think the publishers "conned" you into believing that you "bought" the book?
No, because I paid for the book and it's now mine to do with what I want as an object, short of selling it as my own work.
It's markedly different from how software publishers work, where apparently they can change the terms of your sale after the fact to deny you your consumer rights, unilaterally remove all the products you have ever bought from them, but keep all the money you paid them for those goods. If people had a true understanding of these facts instead of them being hidden away in small print, they'd probably pay a lot less for their games, and buy less of them. Which is of course why these facts are hidden by the publisher in the first place.
No, because I paid for the book and it's now mine to do with what I want as an object, short of selling it as my own work.
It's markedly different from how software publishers work, where apparently they can change the terms of your sale after the fact to deny you your consumer rights, unilaterally remove all the products you have ever bought from them, but keep all the money you paid them for those goods. If people had a true understanding of these facts instead of them being hidden away in small print, they'd probably pay a lot less for their games, and buy less of them. Which is of course why these facts are hidden by the publisher in the first place.
So you are ok with when you "buy" a book with some limitations, but you are not ok with when you "buy" a software with some other limitations? The limitations are different, but both have limitations, which are not consistent with the traditional sense of "buying."
Further, as most software publishers are just selling you a license, as I said, this has been the case for decades. You can no longer argue that it's not common practice so most people don't know about it. Just like most people already know that when you buy a book, you don't actually "buy" it, since you can't rent it (unless you negotiate the right to do so), sell additional copies, or take it as your own work. Do you imply that if people realize about these limitations, they'd pay a lot less for their books?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Aug-2012, 15:33
So you are ok with when you "buy" a book with some limitations, but you are not ok with when you "buy" a software with some other limitations? The limitations are different, but both have limitations, which are not consistent with the traditional sense of "buying."
Further, as most software publishers are just selling you a license, as I said, this has been the case for decades. You can no longer argue that it's not common practice so most people don't know about it. Just like most people already know that when you buy a book, you don't actually "buy" it, since you can't rent it (unless you negotiate the right to do so), sell additional copies, or take it as your own work. Do you imply that if people realize about these limitations, they'd pay a lot less for their books?
I'm not okay with publishers telling you they are selling you a game, when in fact you are just licensing it under many restrictions. These are hidden from the buyer in unreadable and mostly unread EULA small print. Go to somewhere like Steam, and you are pressing a button marked "purchase", not a button marked "licence".
Book sales are different in the ways I described above. Buying a book does not give the publisher the right to break first sale doctrine or impose penalties and restrictions retrospectively on the customer.
Interestingly, when the book becomes an e-book, book publishers are following the software companies in circumventing fair use and consumer rights in order to place ever more restrictions on customers in order to nickel and dime them into the ground. Heck, they've even been convicted of illegally colluding to damage the market of e-books after being led down that path by Apple.
They license the game to you. As in any license contract, it could be terminated at any time. It's nothing new.
They offer you games in what they call a store. They also have summer sales, and christmas sales and special offers and whatnot. It's certainly implied strongly enough that you do in fact buy the games.
That you don't, and it's only a license you pay for is only revealed if you bury your head deep in legalese fine print, which virtually nobody ever does because it only gives you a headache if you try to read and understand that shit. Valve knows this of course and relies on it - and so does EVERYBODY ELSE TOO, from Gooogle to Microsoft, Sony, Facebook... Everyone. Doesn't make it right though. If you rely on your customer not actually knowing or understanding the terms of the contract you're offering it's usually considered invalid or not binding, at least when not dealing with software or IP anyway.
I'm pretty sure if you buy a car you can rent it with no problem.
Why wouldn't you be able to rent out your car? You actually own it after paying for it, you haven't merely licensed its IP from the manufacturer...
They offer you games in what they call a store. They also have summer sales, and christmas sales and special offers and whatnot. It's certainly implied strongly enough that you do in fact buy the games.
They sell the license. Like how theme parks sell tickets. Do you think when you pay money to buy a ticket, you suddenly own a small part of a theme park?
Why wouldn't you be able to rent out your car? You actually own it after paying for it, you haven't merely licensed its IP from the manufacturer...
Exactly my point. You can rent out your car, but you can't rent out your book you bought. How is that different from software? Why are people ok with books without any "warning" (and books are also sold in stores!) but not ok with software?
I'm not okay with publishers telling you they are selling you a game, when in fact you are just licensing it under many restrictions. These are hidden from the buyer in unreadable and mostly unread EULA small print. Go to somewhere like Steam, and you are pressing a button marked "purchase", not a button marked "licence".
Book sales are different in the ways I described above. Buying a book does not give the publisher the right to break first sale doctrine or impose penalties and restrictions retrospectively on the customer.
But you are not "buying" a book. As I said, you can't do a lot of things with your book, yet you seem to have no problem with publishers calling them a "purchase."
Books have limitations. Yes, they are less than digital distributed software, but limitations are limitations. You may not like it, but calling it "conned" is, IMHO, just too much. With this logic, you can call anything a scam. If I bought a LV handbag, can I make a complete replica of it? I paid real money! They didn't say that I can't do that! So I must be conned!
Not at all, they dont need to say "you cant make copies" because there is a law in place that says that
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Aug-2012, 19:34
But you are not "buying" a book. As I said, you can't do a lot of things with your book, yet you seem to have no problem with publishers calling them a "purchase."
Books have limitations. Yes, they are less than digital distributed software, but limitations are limitations. You may not like it, but calling it "conned" is, IMHO, just too much. With this logic, you can call anything a scam. If I bought a LV handbag, can I make a complete replica of it? I paid real money! They didn't say that I can't do that! So I must be conned!
Did you not read anything I posted? I can re-sell or lend a book to a friend. A book publisher does not come back to me a year later, asks me to sign waivers for my statutory rights, and then takes away all my other books if I refuse, and keeps my money. A book does not have a load of DRM built in to stop me selling it or sharing it with a family member.
You seem to be wilfully ignoring the scale of the differences between the rights we used to have when we bought something, and the rights we've lost by allowing everything to become licensed as an end-run around consumer law.
They sell the license. Like how theme parks sell tickets.
I'm aware of this, Sir, thank you, but what I'm saying is actually that they (Steam, for instance) are not up-front with this, and give you the IMPRESSION that you ARE buying games when you're really not.
Why are people ok with books without any "warning" (and books are also sold in stores!) but not ok with software?
Are you sure people are OK with it (books), have you asked them? :) Your rethorical question seems oddly self-serving; I don't think most people are even aware you may or may not be allowed to rent out books you purchased yourself (depending on what their national legislation may say on the matter, of course), nor do I think people consider private book renting a particularly high priority in society; books are low-cost commodities, unlike cars. So there's not much need to RENT them in the first place; you either buy one cheaply - often less than US$10 or equivalent for paperback releases - or go to the library and borrow it. These days you can also borrow library books digitally using ipads and other such options.
Did you not read anything I posted? I can re-sell or lend a book to a friend. A book publisher does not come back to me a year later, asks me to sign waivers for my statutory rights, and then takes away all my other books if I refuse, and keeps my money. A book does not have a load of DRM built in to stop me selling it or sharing it with a family member.
You seem to be wilfully ignoring the scale of the differences between the rights we used to have when we bought something, and the rights we've lost by allowing everything to become licensed as an end-run around consumer law.
Actually, no. I'm not saying you should accept these. I'm just saying that you can't say you are "conned." Your concern is about the meaning (or definition) of the word "buy." But it's meaningless. There are a lot of different definitions of "buy," as I already mentioned.
I don't have problem with people complaining about DRM or other "right" issues. Personally I buy DRM-less things if possible (including software, games, and e-book). However, saying about something which is not is not helping your argument, such as your "conned" statement.
I'm aware of this, Sir, thank you, but what I'm saying is actually that they (Steam, for instance) are not up-front with this, and give you the IMPRESSION that you ARE buying games when you're really not.
My point is, since software licensing works like this for decades, this is no longer a valid argument. Do you think it's a valid argument if someone says "the bookstore didn't tell me that I can't rent out the book I bought so I think I have the right to do that"?
Also, book renting is actually quite popular with comics and novels in, say, Japan. There are also textbook rental services in the US.
My point is, since software licensing works like this for decades, this is no longer a valid argument.
Why wouldn't it be? Since when exactly have people in general been aware that you typically don't buy software when you buy it? It's not as if any regular users actually read any EULAs etc before clicking yes to them; you know that just as well as I.
Do you think it's a valid argument if someone says "the bookstore didn't tell me that I can't rent out the book I bought so I think I have the right to do that"?
I don't see your point. It's not a widespread problem with people trying to rent out books (in the west) and being denied that, so why keep harping this one particular example?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
16-Aug-2012, 09:56
Actually, no. I'm not saying you should accept these. I'm just saying that you can't say you are "conned." Your concern is about the meaning (or definition) of the word "buy." But it's meaningless. There are a lot of different definitions of "buy," as I already mentioned.
I don't have problem with people complaining about DRM or other "right" issues. Personally I buy DRM-less things if possible (including software, games, and e-book). However, saying about something which is not is not helping your argument, such as your "conned" statement.
Even many technically savvy users don't know that software "sales" are really software "licensing".
The vast majority of people who run software (whether on the PCs, smartphones, e-book readers, etc), do not know this at all. Sure, us geeks around here know the details, but as software is so ubiquitous and used by the masses, only people like us know the situation that recent technical advanced in DRM and licensing law have put us in.
You can argue about the meaning of the words "buy", "sale", "ownership", etc, but that just goes to show how the meanings have been muddied so that companies can pretend we are buying ownership of a physical something, when in fact we are just renting it under a whole raft of restrictions that have not been possible in the past.
Recent technical and legal restrictions have allowed companies to give us less, whilst absolving them of any requirement to supply a decent, working product. And that's wrong.
You should look up the case a few months back of doctors who were getting bad reviews online, so started getting their patients to sign contract waivers that stopped the patients commenting on their treatment publicly, or else be subject to legal action and penalties. How long before bad doctors slip in clauses for patients to waive their legal rights and go to enforced arbitration in the event of malpractice?
Maybe if you have a bad burger and report a fast-food outlet, you'll find yourself being sued for breaching the licence agreement that you wouldn't reveal your opinions of your food publicly. "What licence agreement?" you'll say. "The one in the smallprint behind the counter here that we deemed you accepted as soon as you placed your order - it's all here in the boilerplate".
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in, because its coming as every company games the legal system for every small advantage - and to deny having to keep to legal minimums of behaviour, service or standards.
You should look up the case a few months back of doctors who were getting bad reviews online, so started getting their patients to sign contract waivers that stopped the patients commenting on their treatment publicly, or else be subject to legal action and penalties. How long before bad doctors slip in clauses for patients to waive their legal rights and go to enforced arbitration in the event of malpractice?
I think the solution is to not go see these doctors anymore. :)
No one is forcing you to sign these "agreements." There are many alternatives, competitions. If you don't like Windows, use Linux. I'm pretty sure if enough people are fed up with Microsoft's license agreements, and turn to Linux, Microsoft will get the message (or else, out of the business).
The important things is to vote with your money. Just like I said, personally I choose DRM-free solutions when available (even if it's more expensive... as long as it's not too much). If enough people go with DRM-free solutions, those companies will comply. It's not impossible as some may believe. Apple went from offering only DRM musics to providing DRM-free (but more expensive) alternatives. So that's doable.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
16-Aug-2012, 13:35
I think the solution is to not go see these doctors anymore. :)
Well exactly, but that's not much help if you've already suffered malpractice. That doesn't help other people to avoid the bad doctors when those that have suffered are threatened with the courts for speaking up.
No one is forcing you to sign these "agreements." There are many alternatives, competitions. If you don't like Windows, use Linux. I'm pretty sure if enough people are fed up with Microsoft's license agreements, and turn to Linux, Microsoft will get the message (or else, out of the business).
I don't remember "signing" any agreements. Any EULA isn't delivered until after you've bought the software, and let's face it, no one reads them. There have even been a few court cases here that have invalidated such agreements because a company cannot simply assume that someone has read (let alone understood) such a legalese document.
I'm pretty sure that the likes of Davros who have been supporting Steam since it's inception wasn't expecting to be told to give up their rights to class-action suits or lose all their paid for games with no refunds.
Taking you your own advice is impossible if everything you bought was subject to retrospective changes in terms and conditions. Got a mortgage? Here take this nice low rate. Five years later, your rate goes up by five times, we want a monthly "service fee" and if you don't like it you can find another mortgage company, and we'll take back your house and keep your money. What other industry could get away with such behaviour?
None of them, because there are laws that are supposed to stop them pulling this shit, which they are circumventing with contract law ie "licensing" so they can do whatever they like. Only if you have a lot of people complaining and getting government agencies involved will you see thing resolved a few years down the line. We've seen it time and time again, with the banking and financial sector most notably being caught out over and over for such mis-selling.
The important things is to vote with your money. Just like I said, personally I choose DRM-free solutions when available (even if it's more expensive... as long as it's not too much). If enough people go with DRM-free solutions, those companies will comply. It's not impossible as some may believe. Apple went from offering only DRM musics to providing DRM-free (but more expensive) alternatives. So that's doable.
No, the important thing is to stop companies gaming the legal system and writing their own laws in their favour by replacing consumer protection with contracts. The important thing is to allow people the information and to swap stories with each other about who are the bad companies, so that people who are stung can help others to avoid the same problems, and really hit those big companies in the wallet. There's not much benefit to "voting with your wallet" after you've already handed over your cash, but write a forum posting with hundreds of others that's found on the internet for years to come? That's worth a lot more money, money that never gets into undeserving hands in the first place. The important thing is not to allow big business to buy laws and politicians that give them cart blanche to lie and cheat money out of their customers with no comeback.
ebay have just added a no class action clause, but you can opt out
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.