[Grall]

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.

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...

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Grall

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?

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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!

[Davros]

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Grall

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.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

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.]

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

Originally Posted by pcchen

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.

[Davros]

ebay have just added a no class action clause, but you can opt out