[Grall]

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.

[pcchen]

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/2012/0...-action-suits/

[Grall]

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]

<sigh>

RPS 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]

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.

[Grall]

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]

It's the same under French law, the law is supreme.

[MfA]

Same in Holland, the supreme court in the united corporations of America has ruled forced arbitration legal though I see.

[Davros]

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.S.T.]

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]

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]

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

[MfA]

Originally Posted by homerdog

These sorts of things have a tendency to not stand up in court, even in the U.S.

Already did, in the Supreme court.

[Grall]

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]

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.

[Sxotty]

We all welcome steam our benevolent overloads ... oh wait this is one of many reasons I was leery of steam...

[Mize]

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.]

Originally Posted by Mize

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.

[Mize]

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.