French Court Rules that Steam's Ban on Reselling Used Games is Contrary To European Law (polygon.com) 126
A French high court this week delivered a blow to Valve, ruling that European consumers are legally free to resell digital games bought on Steam, just as they're able to resell packaged, physical games. From a report: The ruling was delivered by the High Court of Paris (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris) two days ago, according to a report on French games site Numerama. In a statement released today, Valve pledged to appeal the decision. The court's ruling is a victory for French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir, which filed a suit against Steam four years ago, alleging anti-consumer rights activities. The court rejected Valve's defense that argued Steam is a subscription service. According to Numerama, the court found that Steam sells games in perpetuity, and not as part of a subscription package. The ban on reselling games is therefore counter to European Union laws on digital goods that are designed to block prohibitions on "the free movement of goods within the Union." According to EU law, all goods, including software, can be sold used without the permission of the maker or the original seller.
apple music and appstore (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It probably could, but music has long been transitioning to a "buffett" style consumption. IE I pay for Youtube Premium which includes Google Music, so I can play/stream any song from their library as I want but I never pay for individual tracks. THAT likely would count as a subscription service but I doubt they can avoid anything where you're paying for a specific song/game/movie/etc being classified as buying that specific good that can be resold.
Re: (Score:2)
Subscription service (Score:2)
Funnily, in several European jurisdictions, if you pay for a subscription service (e.g.: cable TV), you're still allowed to make your own private recordings of any show (say by connecting a VCR to the SCART output of the cable box) and then subsequently share the tapes with your close friends and family.
So technically, even if games/movies/music move to streaming subscription (stadia / netflix / spotify) one should be able to make a recording of it and pass it around.
In steam's case, it's not even a subscri
Re:apple music and appstore (Score:4, Informative)
L'UFC-Que Choisir entend continuer ce combat pour offrir aux consommateurs davantage de droits sur les contenus qu'ils peuvent acheter, quel que soit le support. Notre association compte faire respecter cette decision et l'elargir a d'autres plateformes.
Translation :
UFC-QUE Choisir (the consumer organization at the origin of the trial) wish to continue the combat to offer to consumers more rights on the contents they can buy, no matter the support. Our association will work on the respect of this decision, and on elarging it to other platforms.
Now, Bruce Willis needs just to become an european citizen (and to legally transfer his music collection from US to Europe
Re: (Score:3)
In Europe we don't take this "you bought a license" shit. You bought a game/app/music/movie, you own it, you can sell it to someone else.
It's just a shame that justice takes a while, but we will get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Woudln't that be his beneficiaries? When he dies, he'll be their benefactor.
MMORPG Account Selling? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So I don't know how legal bans are after that :D
It's been a long time since I played WoW but in the day, a 'ban' simply meant your account was no longer accessible, it didn't invalidate the license you bought when you paid for the game - you could still set up a new account or failing that, could sell the game to someone else, who could then set up their own account.
Re: (Score:1)
You completely missed the point.
1. You can own multiple Steam accounts. You can buy games on those multiple accounts, which you can then sell later.
2. You say Valve can track fraud, but how do you propose they do that? They can track where the games went, but how do you PROVE that the transfer was not legitimate? What is to prevent someone from "selling" their games on eBay, then claiming fraud to get them back?
3. If Steam prohibits the transfer of games and accounts, then there is no issue. The only
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, like with physical games, the transfer of license (sale) of the game does not mean transfer of account. The buyer can only create a new account, as if it was a new license. Granted, there may be some technical hurdles, where the license id is the account id, but that should be a fixable problem.
Second Like any sale, Steam can limit the sale to a fixed amount of units per person. This is kind of already an issue, because what prevents someone of buying a large amount of gift codes?
And finally,
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard et al has a MUCH better defense. Steam is FREE. The games cost a one time fee. That is NOT a subscription. WoW literally has a monthly subscription or you can't use your account.
Enforcing this? (Score:2)
It'll be a while anyway. (Score:3)
As for your question about how it might look, I think the most common sense way would be to be able to list games you own on the Steam marketplace for resale (doing so would remove them from your
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Valve can even take a cut for themselves or the publisher out of this.
No, that likely wouldn't fly. The whole point is that copyright is designed so that the publisher gets paid for the initial copy but they can't get paid every time it transfers hands. When I go buy a book from the thrift store the publisher doesn't get another cut - and especially not when I borrow it from a library.
The publishers here are just being greedy. The natural state of things would be that once a person owns a copy of something they could copy it to their hearts content. Copyright law provided
Re: (Score:2)
The right of first copy is also supposed to be fairly tightly timeboxed with a release into the public domain at the end of that box, as the goal of copyright is to ensure the people can continue to enjoy the arts.
Re: (Score:2)
They can try the second hand market place, which might not be such a bad thing, for steam, but probably not the game publishers. This would kind of solve the situation where you don't know anybody that would want to buy the game. If Steam does not do it, somebody will.
But Steam needs to offer a "transfer license to xyz" feature or it will not be compliant. The transfer of games can be part of a non monetary transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair for the game itself as-is but Steam is under no obligation to provide any service to you under copyright law. No patches, no forums, no mods, no DLC, no friends, no achievements, no matchmaking, no online saves and so on. Named, non-transferable contract parties are normal and It would be a fundamental breach with contract law if you can unilaterally transfer your end of Steam license agreement to anyone else without their approval. So I think that even if the first sale advocates win the result
Re: (Score:2)
That was pretty much my thought. I could believe Valve spends 6 months looking at it and decides the most cost effective solution would be to simply stop services in France.
If it extends to the entire EU then maybe the calculus changes. Presumably this impacts Epic and other digital distributors too, including things like Google and Apple app stores.
I'm not at all clear on French or EU court appeal structure but it's such a far reaching decision I could believe it'll be tied up in court for years to com
Re: (Score:3)
Valve get 2 tries in France to appeal, but only if the appeals court believes that there are grounds for an appeal. They can, without a hearing confirm the judgement. My lay person interpretation is that this case is cut and dry, at least in the French interpretation of the law. Valve would need to substantiate their "it's a subscription" point, which does not look good.
After that, since this refers to a EU law, they can start proceedings at the European court of justice and claim France has unfairly judged
Re: (Score:3)
If it extends to the entire EU then maybe the calculus changes.
France is a country of 66 million people generally well off westerners with a high GDP. No the calculus already favors compliance, not the least reason because Valve S.a.r.l is also the holding company providing services for a good chunk of Romance Europe in total making up close to 200 million people.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the court would rule any ToS attempt to weasel out of this invalid. It would also potentially cause other problems, since they'd still have to allow transfer of accounts that contained purchased games.
Re:Enforcing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
While this ruling makes sense (ownership of game should be transferable, as it is your property), how is this going to be enforced? Can they actually force Steam to offer service (i.e. support for resale) that they currently not providing? Also, what would stop Steam from changing ToS to work around this (e.g. I agree to rent this title for 99 years)?
Presumably Steam has some presence in the EU that will be called to task if they don't comply. Steam can of course just send the EU commission the middle finger and go off to whereever in the US they are based to sulk. That, however would mean (a) abandoning a market of 500 million consumers to the competition, (b) that their games would be massively pirated in the EU while they are at home sulking and (c) Steam would thus be missing out on massive amounts of potential profits. This effect is also why most oil tankers are double hulled these days. The EU decided back in the early 2000's that no single hulled tankers were allowed in their territorial waters and gave shipping companies a few years to adjust and if they didn't like it the ... though. The oil did not stop flowing despite predictions to that effect by certain pundits. California has a very similar market swaying power in the US. The California market is so huge that if California sets strict emissions regulations then US industry can either decide to go off and sulk and not to business in that huge market that California is or they can implement California standards in all their products.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably Steam has some presence in the EU that will be called to task if they don't comply.
Specifically France. Valve S.a.r.l is the subsidiary that runs Steam services for southern Europe. Valve GmbH running it in northern Europe, and located in Germany with similar right to resale laws.
Re:Enforcing this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
b) charge EU customers 2X as much for games
Based on what? The digital market is fungible enough as it is with piracy being a readily available alternative. Steam doesn't give a crap, they are just a middleman, heck I'm sure Valve will somehow set this up to take a 30% cut of the resale as well. Distributors have had bugger all success actually geofencing their games (seriously have you met a single Australian that has actually played the censored version of Left4Dead2?, I certainly haven't), and if anything easy availability is precisely what has be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can they actually force Steam to offer service (i.e. support for resale) that they currently not providing?
Fines tend to go a long way and I'm sure Valve S.a.r.l. (S.a.r.l standing for Société_à_responsabilité_limitée) would start to comply when it hits their pockets. The bottom line is that in many situations require you to do something to comply with law. Simply not offering that something is not a defense against it. e.g. You simply can't say I don't provide any warranties for my products so I won't abide by the 2 year warranty requirement of the EU, doing so will just land you with d
Re: (Score:2)
selling things that are your property makes sense, and democracies can make any regulations at alllike companies must make games and they must pay you to play thembut you are ignoring that the fun of a game is playing it the first few times, and that is part of what the company is selling, and you are completely ignoring that obvious aspect to make your argument work, and without cheating your argument doesn't
Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the europeans could ban selling incomplete games where parts of the game code have been held hostage on a remote computers inside companies offices. The last 15 years or so from 2005 onwards, almost every fucking game is now mainframe-dumb client model. All the big releases have been succesfully stolen. And the big push to finally prevent gamers from getting complete game files for the games they are paying for. So now a game or its multiplayer can be "shut down" remotely because they cut out parts of the game and held them back on computers half a world away.
Watching gamers fall for the mmo scam in the late 90's which were attack on PC rpg players owning their rpg's which began with UO, Guild wars, etc, which then lead to steam in 2004. Then TF2 went f2p around 2010, a buy to play game going free 2 play, aka now valve can sit on all that mtx money. This whole shit all because of ass backward IP law written by corporate lobbyists that got rid of our basic rights to own the software we buy, now every tom dick and harry corporation trying to remove basic rights to other devices by associating it with software, so they can use IP law to remove your basic human rights to own your own shit.
The only way we are going to stop further encroachment on our rights is to get back property rights to own our software and technology, not that I'm planning to ever see that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I know calling MMOs a scam is a popular opinion, but for the duration at which they continue to pump out content I am hard pressed to agree. That is to say, I do not.
WoW, just for a well known example, is a month's worth of playtime for ~15 Euro. By comparison your average new game easily runs ~60 Euro, four times as much, and I'd say few of them provide four months worth of entertainment.
Is it a problem that I lose access to it all when Blizzard doesn't want to host WoW anymore? Honestly I don't see that i
Re: (Score:2)
I know calling MMOs a scam is a popular opinion,
You don't seem to understand what you told CEO's and game developers when you said "I don't care about owning the game" you morons gave the market signal for orwellian only DRM systems, since MMO's were the original "DRM test" tria baloon you idiots. There long term plan has always to remove game ownership. For those of us who know silicon valley and the history of tech and corporate amreica, your moronic comment speaks volumes about how stupid you are.
Private servers prove your opinion incorrect, say the
Re: (Score:2)
Those Darn Socialist (Score:5, Interesting)
Those Darn Socialist who keep on actively destroying capitalism.
A free capitalist country need to reserve the right for the larger company to block your ability to resell your properly after you are no longer using it. Because the point of capitalism is about making money, not about how collecting and trading property.
(This was a sarcastic statement)
The problem we are getting is way to many products are being turned into a service, even physical ones. Consumers fell into the trap of paying lower service fees, vs saving up for a product. Thus overall are getting a bad deal. Because they were more concerned about the cost of everything vs the value of anything.
One of the reasons why this generation no longer is collecting wealth, is more complex then just wages for their work. But the fact it is difficult for them to collect property which they can trade for when they no longer need it. The working poor decades ago, were still able sell items they may own but not really need to get them out of a temporary rut, or the money from a garage sail may enough to give yourself a vacation. Selling Books, CD, Tapes, Records you no longer want to read, Selling old and unused appliances that you don't want. Going to someone who could probably use them.
Today there is less and less that you own, and if money is tight you can stop services, but that doesn't bring capital back in.
Re: Those Darn Socialist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Those Darn Socialist (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons why this generation no longer is collecting wealth, is more complex then just wages for their work. But the fact it is difficult for them to collect property which they can trade for when they no longer need it. The working poor decades ago, were still able sell items they may own but not really need to get them out of a temporary rut, or the money from a garage sail may enough to give yourself a vacation. Selling Books, CD, Tapes, Records you no longer want to read, Selling old and unused appliances that you don't want. Going to someone who could probably use them.
Today there is less and less that you own, and if money is tight you can stop services, but that doesn't bring capital back in.
This is an interesting concept. If I were not posting in this thread, I would mod you up.
I'm not sure it is correct, but it is worth exploring.
I think a more correct answer may be because people are more interesting in buying experiences than they are in buying property. Experiences such as hanging out with their friends, doing shit on line, using services of various kinds, traveling, etc.
What they don't want to do is accumulate baggage that holds them down - material trinkets they have to deal with as they move around (the books, cds, etc. that you mention) from place to place or support their on-the-go lifestyle convenience needs (listening to or watching shit on their phone). I think most of them also don't have physical space to store much property (vehicles, etc.) as they live in tight urban environments like cockroaches with roommates, or with parents, etc. They want to live where things are happening, not at a distance from anything, so that puts real limits on the physical property that they can accumulate.
Last but not least - some people just don't want much stuff. I'm a fat old man and I look around and I think, "Jezuz - what do I need all this shit for?" I wish I could get rid of most of it. I can't wait to get rid of most of it. And yet I buy more shit most every day. I've got shelves of books I have not looked at in years. I finally threw away probably 100 of them because even thirft stores didn't want them, for FREE! Couldn't even give them away on Craigslist. Of the ones that are left....I just came make myself throw them out, even though I should.
At the end of the day, I think people don't accumulate wealth because of the decisions they make, not because they are being pushed into a "rental" model on everything they wish to consume. But your idea is still an interesting one.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting discussion, but the premise is what is completely absurd. "wealth" is not accumulated through CDs containing music, DVDs containing games or movies, or stacking magazines instead of reading them online.
For things that are actually worth something (and more importantly retain their worth or at least have more than a token resale value) the equation often favours the subscription model. People rarely realise how expensive owning things actually is.
e.g. Subscription to a car sharing serv
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pointed out that IP law is a government construct and has nothing to do with the free market or capitalism. In a perfectly free market, there w
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, reading these threads always amuse me. They think Valve will just say "Aww shucks, OK we'll let you just take away a massive chunk of our profits! Sure, it's fine to force us to even facilitate the resale!". It's the same things in the Uber/Lyft employee case. Sure, I bet they will just go even further into debt by paying all their drivers much more, who wants money?
No. This is an existential threat, you can't sell games for the same price for one month of play, then have the buyer just resell it on y
Re: (Score:2)
Worst case they shut down in France or the EU, more likely they get creative and move to a whole new model that will be more burdensome and possibly expensive to the customers.
And then the customers will move to other game shops or raise the sails.
This is an existential threat, you can't sell games for the same price for one month of play, then have the buyer just resell it on your same fucking platform for far less, undercutting your own sales.
Well, if I buy something I should be able to sell it after I am done using it.
And it's Valve's design that I would have to use the same platform to sell the game. I'm OK with selling it on ebay or locally. As long as the buyer can play the game after buying it I am OK with that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an existential threat
Not in the slightest!
It used to be that people would buy new games, play for a while, sell them and buy another one. Removing the ability to resell will have reduced the total amount of sales. People only have so much money.
Consider this: how many car owners bought new? Would car manufacturers profit if second hand car purchases were banned? Is the second hand car market causing an existential threat for them?
Anyway, the EU law is very clear on this. I bought the Orange Box, ie: with physical media. V
How far does that extend? What is a game? (Score:2)
If you can resell a game, does that mean you are also reselling all in-app purchases or other micro transactions made while you were playing the game?
Or, are those separate items that can in turn be resold? Or are they items you own but cannot resell?
If I have an app that is a card game, can I resell that mobile app? If so, I should be able to resell any app, including a run-tracker or meditative app.
App I also reselling the subscription I purchased in the app? If so can I also resell the app with the su
Can You Now De-Couple Games From Steam??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Domino effect... (Score:2)
All Steam has to do is expand the trading card marketplace to include games. Let me post up my copy of game X that i no longer want and steam users can buy them with steam credits. Steam takes a cut for the transaction and now only the Devs get screwed! Now Steam is the new GameStop! Pretty soon we'll all be buying the used copies of games on Steam and Dev income will plummet until bingo, Steam starts to wither.
YAY! Progress!
Re: (Score:3)
Devs, Valve, you.
If its a Valve game they should only take 20.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"You cannot sell it for a higher price than you purchased it for", meaning if you got a $30 game during an 80% off sale you're not selling it for more than six bucks..
I like this as well.
Rent everything (Score:2)
All they have to do is convert to a rental model.
I have never used Steam/Valve/whatever (I only barely know what it is - so my pricing here may be wildly off), but for example.....it is $25 to rent it for the first year. Then if you want to renew your rental, it's $1 every year after that. It will expire if you don't renew it.
The post-first-year rental fee is a token fee, and really only exit to avoid transferring "ownership". They made their money on the initial rental fee.
Then the question would become, d
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe when that happens EGS might be worth looking into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy will go up as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They most likely cannot do that for the games I already own and I would definitely not "rent" any more games after that.
and so then companies can just say - ok, well, fuck it, it's $25 to rent for a year, and if you want to rent beyond that, it's another $25 every year. Fuck you, thank the EU.
And some other company won't do that and will get all the Steam customers.
If this stands, Steam DRM is illegal in the EU (Score:4, Interesting)
The court says that what's relevant here is EU law, which obviously has ramifications outside of France.
But there's literally no way to have phone-home DRM which complies with this law. None. Whatsoever.
The court claims that EU law prevents having to ask a third party for permission for resale. But that is exactly what phone-home DRM does, when the action we're discussing is resale.
If this ruling is correct, Steam (and everyone else!) would have to cease using phone-home DRM in the EU at all, because it would interfere with the ability to resell the product without getting permission from Steam.
Obviously, I think that this is a desirable outcome.
Obviously, nobody who uses DRM to control others' access thinks so.
So what does Steam do in the case in which this ruling is upheld not only in France, but in the EU in general? Issue a DRM-removal patch for everything they ever sold in the EU, and then stop doing business there?
Obviously Steam will continue to lean on the "subscription service" argument. But that's a losing strategy too, because if they win that then the consumer rights groups will have standing to sue them for fraud; Steam presents itself to customers as selling games, not merely renting them. But any titles with phone-home DRM are clearly rentals in fact.
If the EU can stand strong on this law, then Steam is well and rightly screwed, with emphasis on the "rightly". I have a lengthy Steam library myself these days, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I "own" anything with DRM on it. I just don't pay more for it than I'm willing to lose. Literally the only thing in my Steam library that I paid full price for was HL2, and I don't regret that in the least as I enjoyed the whole experience (except for having to install Steam, which was a hilariously poorly implemented process, and still is. But that's another rant.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Steam never refuses to allow a transfer to happen, preferably allowing it to be automatic (as in the seller just goes to a transfer page, enters the username of the transferee, verifies it, and clicks "Transfer"), they're in the clear.
I disagree. From the technical view, you effectively have to get Steam's permission to make the transfer, it cannot happen without them taking some action. And it also requires the other party to use their platform to take ownership, which requires that Steam permit them to use it. So not only can they not refuse to transfer, they also can't refuse people the right to use their service.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is you can sell the games if you want, but if the DRM doesn't allow the buyer to actually use the game then the buyer is out of luck. So many games now cannot be played because they have digital code, or some DRM server that is no longer functioning, but those games are still sold on eBay. Not sure how they plan on handling this. I didn't read the article at all.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is you can sell the games if you want, but if the DRM doesn't allow the buyer to actually use the game then the buyer is out of luck.
That won't hold up in court.
https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com]
UsedSoft customers download the resold software directly from Oracle's website after acquiring a 'used' license. Oracle argued that the principle of exhaustion does not apply to user licenses for computer programs downloaded from the Internet. However the ECJ firmly rejected this argument.
So, you have to make the game available for download if it was downloaded by the first customer. So, making DRM reject the new owner would be seen as trying to restrict the sale of the used game.
So many games now cannot be played because they have digital code, or some DRM server that is no longer functioning, but those games are still sold on eBay.
In this case the buyer can probably just break the DRM. I do not know if such a case ever went to court, but from what I read the court would probably side with the buyer since he broke the DRM to be able to use a game that he lawfully bought.
Re: (Score:2)
The buyer would have to also get the software from the original owner in that case, because they can't download the files from steam either.
Or they could just download a cracked copy. But that's usually done with a torrent, making you an uploader, which is also illegal.
Seeing steam dinged for illegal restraint of trade would make me excited. I have long preached about its evils (it's the lesser of such amongst its peers, but still ultimately bad for consumer rights) and usually been modded down for it, and
Re: (Score:2)
People will buy games in cheap countries and sell them to people in expensive countries.
Looking forward to that. It pisses me off that streaming services cost 1/5th the price in Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, they could completely sidestep the issue by switching to a 100% subscription service. They could start charging a nominal monthly fee, and modify the client to download game assets every time you launch. They adjust some marketing material around, and now we all lose.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably cannot do that for the games I already bought. And I would not "rent" any more games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there's literally no way to have phone-home DRM which complies with this law. None. Whatsoever.
Erm of course there is. The law requires you to be able to resell the game, it does not require you to be able to physically move it as you want. e.g. Steam providing a resale service that revokes your game (possible with DRM) and at the same time generating a new key for the next person (possible with DRM) achieves this while at the same time preventing a duplicate version of the game existing.
DRM controls the number of copies in the wild, it does not care about who owns the copy, that's a function of the
Quack quack (Score:2)
Also, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and they pocket money like a duck, it's a sale, not a licensing agreement.
What started out as a quite reasonable way to shield the company from consumer warranty physical product laws in the new realm of complicated and fast-moving software has morphed into a profit center business model mechanism.
This is not a good thing (Score:2)
This will be used to trade games with friends. I'll take my $60 copy of Borderlands 3 and "sell" it to my buddy for $1.
That sounds good on paper, but single player games that aren't stuffed with predatory loot boxes and micro transactions are already pretty thin on the ground. Now we've just made it so you can trade games for a nominal fee.
Europe might do Japan
Re: (Score:2)
Europe might do Japanese style laws that limit how cheaply a game can be sold for.
Why do that?
I bought a game and paid 60EUR for it. The publisher got my money. I should be able to give my copy away for free if I want. The publisher still has my 60EUR.
Just like if I buy a TV, the manufacturer gets the money from me. I can then give the TV away for free, the manufacturer still has my money.
Interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in France, if you buy a painting from an artist then sell it - the artist gets a commission. You don't need his permission. But you do need to give him more money.
That is the most retarded fucking thing I have read all year.
Why in the fuck should this be the case?
Why is selling a painting different from selling any other kind of art?
Or selling any other kind of ANYTHING for that matter?
long overdue in US too (Score:2)
And am legally allowed to sell the nails in my wal (Score:2)
And I am legally allowed to sell the nails in my wall. Their are certain physical impediments that make this rather impractical and probably a really bad idea anyways.
But I think opening up the sale/gifting of accounts might work fairly well.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam already has the ability to:
a) add a license to an account
a.5) gift a game to another user, even
b) revoke a license from an account.
So all they need to do is add a button that enables those steps to happen at user initiation. They don't even need to build in any infrastructure to allow a steam user to directly pay another steam user, though they easily could.
Missing the point ? (Score:2)
I think that many people (including French lawyers) are missing a very important point :
VALVE DON'T OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THE GAMES.
It acts as an intermediary between a software publisher and a client. As such, it is bound by the restrictions imposed by the game publisher.
Some (steam) games explicitely mention extra DRM or the need for a serial key aswell as publisher specific license agreement.
So, if someone buys a game and want to resell it later, it's not Valve permission that is required but the g
Re: (Score:2)
Because they spend more to BUY politicans.
All political contributions to lawmakers and candidates should be banned and declared treasonous...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We came here to escape persecution (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect it's because in Europe the population has spent the last couple hundred years fighting to push back that oppression, while Americans have wallowed in patriotism, congratulating each other on the freedoms won by our ancestors, as though such things endured without maintenance. And done almost nothing as corporations and the government have steadily eroded them.
Re: (Score:2)
This America is NOT my America, it's spiralling down the toilet and backwards....
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one America. It may not be the one you want, but it's the one you've got. And if you're not fighting for change, then it's the one you've given your consent to.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? As I recall most of Europe was vehemently opposed to such things, and we just helped them win the war against the militaristic nation that was conquering them.
That's also only a few short decades out of centuries.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this an issue. The account is licensed; a rental. Nothing is being "sold".
Except you're not seeing that the law is corrupt and written to explicitly deny public any ownership rights, aka it's a bad law you idiot. Software licensing IP laws were always a scam on the public since corporate lobbyists wrote them to benefit themselves, so of course they would be onesidedly corrupt. But we can't expect that kind of analysis from people who don't think too deeply about how politics works.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this an issue. The account is licensed; a rental. Nothing is being "sold". There is no "ownership" with a game license, just like if you buy a ticket to a carnival ride, you don't "own" the ride.
No, but I can give that ticket to my kid who wants to go in the ride again. You don't own the ride, but you do own a place on that ride and are free to use, transfer, not use, or destroy/abandon (throw away/tear up the ticket) that place on the ride as you see fit. It would be like saying only the person who purchased the ticket can use the ticket for that ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like airplane tickets?
Re:Why is this even an issue? Licensed, not sold (Score:4, Informative)
The account is licensed; a rental. Nothing is being "sold".
That's not what Valve themselves are saying. I just went to Steam Store frontpage. I see a list of "Top Selling". I enter a random game. Here I see in large bold letters "Buy gamename". Yeah, there is probably something to that degree in the fine print, but in Europe you can't use deceptive language and then hide contradictary terms in the fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs don't trump law, because they aren't law themselves. Rental implies return when it is no longer required and you can't return a license, therefore you bought it. As you bought it, you can resell it, because it is yours.
Re: (Score:3)
From an EU point of view, there is either a sale or a rent. You have to decide which of them you want your contract to be about. If it's a sale, then the First Sale Doctrin applies, and the new owner is fully free to resell it at will, without asking the manufacturer for permission. Technical restrictions which are in place to hinder a transfer of ownership are not allowed. If it's a rent, then the renter is obligued to keep the rented object in usable order during the t
Re: (Score:2)
This is expressly spelled out in the EULA
In the EU, the EULA is not above the law.
For example, I can sell you a new radio with an EULA stating that there is no warranty on it. And yet, I would still have to provide 2 year warranty for it because that's the law.
contract is a contract
Any part of a contract that is against the law is considered null and void. You can put all sorts of clauses there, but if they violate the law you will not be able to enforce them. ICANN learned this with GDPR too. Even if a contract says that an EU registrar has to provide WHOIS informatio
Re:Not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope the ruling stands. Re-sell works even better with digital goods since they do not degrade.
What it means is that Steam and publishers can no longer over charge for old games. They profit from the difference between the original sales price and the re-sell price (which is lower because time has passed). It is really silly that age old games like Spore from 2008 still cost about $15.
I'd mostly like the ruling to stand for personal reasons. I am a happy Steam user because it is easy and convenient to use. I do not like the ambiguous ownership though and I believe this ruling would clear that up. My game investments are currently tied to the company Steam. What if Steam changes their user agreement or stops supporting my platform? What if I just don't like them anymore and want to go somewhere else? If this ruling stands, I can sell the games on Steam and repurchase them on another platform. It means I actually own the games I paid for. It also means I can "sell" my own games to another user like my kids and actually have two games running at the same time! I see nothing wrong with this, just benefits for the consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're happy now because you don't realize the implications of the ruling. With digital resale being extremely quick and easy, and no degradation in value (and with most video games being play-once experiences), many sales of video games would become second hand. Probably 50% or more. Valve et al. aren't going to sit back and do nothing while half their profits evaporate. The simple solution is to stop selling indefinite licenses: change Steam sales to be time-limited to 6 months, or a year. No on can argue
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because game devs are going to give up all that European money on a tantrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Valve would not be allowed to advertise the games then, so, EGS could advertise "Borderlands 3", Valve would only be able to advertise "trading card" but for the same price.
The courts usually consider intent as well. If this was done, the court would most likely state that the game is the actual product being sold.