Locked out of Steam/Civ V because of PayPal security

Status
Not open for further replies.
In your list of cases that won I see one case that actually should have one and three cases of activist judges seeking to erode the first sale doctrine and hand more power to our corporate overlords.

Especially when you quote something that states, quite plainly, that EULA's are decided to be valid or invalid based on their content-- which is a valid statement about any contract.
Any true statement about a set of items is also true for any subset of those items.
 
Steam's EULA is a legal document in the United States;

Not it isn't, and by about any number of OTHER National Justice systems on Earth.
The international nature of the web contradicts *ALL* applicable means of Legal issues designed to protect single entity interests -- including the US.
There's no control device that can bring two sides (from any locations) in a physical court of Law. Cuz, it doesn't exist.
 
In your list of cases that won I see one case that actually should have one and three cases of activist judges seeking to erode the first sale doctrine and hand more power to our corporate overlords.

Let's deal with what the courts actually did, and leave your politics at home. 'Activist judges' makes that a political statement. Fact is, the term 'activist judge' just really means they don't agree with you, no matter if you're liberal or conservative, or in between.
 
Of course, if people didn't think it was fine and dandy to pirate everything they could, then the trend toward 'ET Phone Home' software wouldn't exist.

Under a Credit-Card driven transaction principle... the risk is even greater that Fraud can occur. Checked the News lately... ATM passwords theft, counterfits, phishing?
It's one thing to claim Piracy is an issue, another to admit crooks can empty an account as easily as filing for a Limit under wrong Identity data, spend the whole 1000$ in a day while being chased for six months after the fact.
The Money is gone, the transaction *WAS* proven valid and the Banks want to trace it all the way to the origin.
Pay back time. :rolleyes:
 
Under a Credit-Card driven transaction principle... the risk is even greater that Fraud can occur. Checked the News lately... ATM passwords theft, counterfits, phishing?
It's one thing to claim Piracy is an issue, another to admit crooks can empty an account as easily as filing for a Limit under wrong Identity data, spend the whole 1000$ in a day while being chased for six months after the fact.
The Money is gone, the transaction *WAS* proven valid and the Banks want to trace it all the way to the origin.
Pay back time. :rolleyes:

Again, I work for a major bank/credit card company, and know quite a bit more about this than you seem to. I can't really say a lot more, but I will say that anyone basing it on 'the News' is laughable. News and 'accuracy in details' do not even belong in the same sentence.

Phishing sites/emails only exist because people are stupid. Anyone with any sense knows better than to answer/click on them, but people do it every day. Why would a bank site *ever* ask for your ATM pin? They wouldn't, of course, but people fall for it every day. Right now, we've had a rash of trojans piggybacking on banking sites, that asks for debit card #, and ATM PIN, among other things, *even if the user has no checking account/debit card with that bank*...and people still fall for it.

I guess in relation to the Civ/Steam question, not sure what your point is...if the purchase is fraudulent, Steam can *and should* lock it down, because they're not going to get their money, or if they got it, the credit card company's going to charge it back, so the game's not paid for anymore.

Identity theft usually occurs because people give their information *too* freely. There's a time and place to give certain info, and a time and place to withhold it, and a lot of people don't understand the difference.
 
Laughable?
Yeah, right.
Accountant here, also worked at National Bank HQ downtown Montréal for a couple of years.

Since you introduced us all to your "Dandy to Pirate" deviation of a comment, i'd say you're guilty as much as to reasoning on fraudulent Credit-Cards usage being impossible to prove by Steam or otherwise.
Trust me, i know exactly how "Economics" proceed to stack Capital. Not everyone has multiple PhD's or Doctorate in Financial Mathematics as i do.
Charge me for being honest and rational.
 
as to reasoning on fraudulent Credit-Cards usage being impossible to prove by Steam or otherwise.

Steam's not 'proving' anything's fraudulent, nor do they even try. They only know if they're getting paid or not. If they get paid, good license as far as they know, and if they don't, bad license, lock it down. If other factors alert them, fraud comes into the picture for Steam, but not before that.

In the OP's example, Steam only knows that the money's being withheld by PayPal. It's PayPal that's holding it for whatever reason. Steam locks the account down because they're not getting paid for what they've already released for use. Seems pretty simple to me.

I do understand the issue that they lock the whole thing, rather than just the one piece in question, but, again, that goes back to the agreement. If you don't want to play by Steam's rules, don't use it. Do people ever read the agreements they click yes to till after the fact? I investigated Steam's user agreement before I ever signed on or bought a game, and I understand the tradeoffs. Seems some people here didn't do that.

Of course, my stance on agreements goes back to working for a credit card company. Seems a lot of people never look at what they agreed to when they use their credit card, either. How dare we charge them interest if they don't pay their bill on time...

(Not the person I replied to in particular, as you seem to have a brain. You were an accountant, I'm a manager in security, so we've both seen parts of the bank process, it seems. My comment on the 'news' is that the fraud issue is what I work with every day, and what is on the news is sensational, makes good news, but as a percentage, is only a tiny bit of what I deal with.)
 
Okay, that clears up the Foggy weather a little.
The basic transaction of STEAM intermediate pull of "Traceable" cash flow could have caused such a fluke on PayPal's end... i'll admit.
Now it becomes a matter of *efficiency*, wouldn't you agree?
Then, i doubt security levels under such conditions are (let's be consequential from the conversation we started since page 2) prioritized nearly as much as buying a Car.
Insurable for a yearly Fee. Maintenance. Accidents. Plouck - scrapyard.

Now you get it... 2.99$/DLC! Virtually delivered and processed.

The devil is in the details.
Thanks for the ride, Mavfin.
 
Not it isn't, and by about any number of OTHER National Justice systems on Earth.
The international nature of the web contradicts *ALL* applicable means of Legal issues designed to protect single entity interests -- including the US.
There's no control device that can bring two sides (from any locations) in a physical court of Law. Cuz, it doesn't exist.
Microsoft v. Harmony seems to lean more in favor of my argument than yours.

I invite you to point out a reference of any contract being inapplicable between United States consumer and United States company, because the contract was signed on a computer. Also, within the U.S., there is a device that can bring two sides in a physical court of Law. It is called a subpoena. If a party fails to show, they forfeit the case.

However, if what you said is true- then the EULA isn't a contract, but a statement of what will happen if you violate the terms. If there is no international jurisdiction to fight it, then the point is moot: you will still lose. Not because Valve is a corporation of money-grubbing corporate bastards; but because you are the consumer, and when you knowingly violate the rules of your provider, you lose. To try to fight it at that point makes you a thieving, untrustworthy consumer.

A sense of invariable entitlement on the part of a consumer is the exact reason that programs like Steam exist.
 
Then, i doubt security levels under such conditions are (let's be consequential from the conversation we started since page 2) prioritized nearly as much as buying a Car.
Insurable for a yearly Fee. Maintenance. Accidents. Plouck - scrapyard.

Now you get it... 2.99$/DLC! Virtually delivered and processed.

The devil is in the details.
Thanks for the ride, Mavfin.

Well, security at the level of $2.99 or even $299 is "will we get paid, or will we have to eat this ourselves because it's fraud and we didn't act to protect ourselves quickly enough?" whether we're talking about the bank dispensing the money, or the merchant (Steam, in this case), or PayPal, the middleman in this example.

As you well know, if someone steals your credit card and charges $1000, you won't have to pay it, but sure as hell someone is eating that thousand bucks, probably split (not necessarily equitably) between the bank and anyone who didn't get actual cash in hand out of the deal.


A sense of invariable entitlement on the part of a consumer is the exact reason that programs like Steam exist.

Best quote of the thread. That's why Starcraft 2 phones home, too, and more software will do so as time goes on.
 
esemjay, i specifically wrote *INTERNATIONAL* before for good reasons.

In legal terms, a place of Affairs is defined. Under proper jurisdiction(s).

The web is virtual, owned & operated by multiple (again, worldwide) ISP. Steam is on it and plenty more.
Thus, there's no central focused point of origin or "COMMONLY" managed monitoring device such as - you guessed it - the Judge in a Court.
Although, Hagues Tribunal has a clear mandate.
Economics are National interests of Corporations.
US has some and so does, everyone else.
 
If there is no international jurisdiction to fight it, then the point is moot: you will still lose.

EULA cases have increasingly been fought in foreign jurisdictions because those jurisdictions have shown much greater willingness to side with users against content providers. That doesn't do much for our OP, but as a matter of tactics a legal team might decide to fight the same occurrence in another nation. The foreign jurisdiction will rule the "state of Washington" clause invalid given the circumstances, and Valve is forced to defend the case in a less favorable jurisdiction to its interests.

You might think that this wouldn't matter to US courts, but US judges are increasingly citing foreign courts for precedent.

A sense of invariable entitlement on the part of a consumer is the exact reason that programs like Steam exist.

I don't think that anyone reasonable would dispute this statement, but it has nothing to do with the question on the table. The question isn't whether Valve has the right to protect content. It's whether its actions in this case are legal, given the existence of contravening legislation and precedent. That's always the question in any civil question worthy of a judge's time. Valve has an EULA to defend its actions with; the consumer has a valid contravening position, and the judge sorts the mess out.

Well, security at the level of $2.99 or even $299 is "will we get paid, or will we have to eat this ourselves because it's fraud and we didn't act to protect ourselves quickly enough?" whether we're talking about the bank dispensing the money, or the merchant (Steam, in this case), or PayPal, the middleman in this example.

This also has nothing to do with the problem. The magnitude of the fraud doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not Valve's actions to ostensibly "defend itself from fraud" are legal. Valve has some real problems here, because less draconian technical solutions to the problem do exist. If there were no action that they could take short of locking the account down, they'd easily win any case. But it's equally feasible to prevent the customer from making further purchases while the dispute is resolved, without barring the customer access to previously purchased content. It's also feasible for them to implement code that checks for the presence of DLC that wasn't paid for when the game starts up, and disable the game until the offending content is removed.

That puts the costs of managing the problem on Valve's side. They don't like that, so they trample on the consumer's rights and implement a solution that costs them less to enforce. The problem is that they're effectively repossessing paid-for content, since they're the exclusive means of accessing that content. I can't see how that's going to stick in any state court irrespective of the EULA. You can't hide behind a contract when you engage in illegal behavior.
 
esemjay, i specifically wrote *INTERNATIONAL* before for good reasons.

In legal terms, a place of Affairs is defined. Under proper jurisdiction(s).

The web is virtual, owned & operated by multiple (again, worldwide) ISP. Steam is on it and plenty more.
Thus, there's no central focused point of origin or "COMMONLY" managed monitoring device such as - you guessed it - the Judge in a Court.
Although, Hagues Tribunal has a clear mandate.
Economics are National interests of Corporations.
US has some and so does, everyone else.

I specifically wrote "In the United States" for the same reason. Our arguments don't work against each other, because our arguments are about two different situations. Mine intrastate, yours interstate.
 
That puts the costs of managing the problem on Valve's side. They don't like that, so they trample on the consumer's rights and implement a solution that costs them less to enforce.

The consumer also has the right to read what they're agreeing to and intelligently proceed from there. The law has no mandate to save the consumer from himself. If you don't want to agree to the terms, then don't use the service.
 
Assuming this is legit, i would suggest acquiring it from alternative sources. The paying customer should not have to suffer financially over the screwups of corporations he has no control or influence over.
 
The consumer also has the right to read what they're agreeing to and intelligently proceed from there. The law has no mandate to save the consumer from himself. If you don't want to agree to the terms, then don't use the service.

In order to use the Firaxis product, the customer is forced to agree to use Valve's service. That's another reason that Valve is on somewhat shaky legal ground here. Hiding behind a EULA becomes more difficult when you have the position of a middleman with dubious technical grounds for involvement in the first place.

Addressing your point more broadly, caveat emptor is a perfectly valid legal doctrine. A lot of countries' legal and commerce systems (notably Middle East and Asian nations) proceed from that first principle. US law does not; consumers are ex ante assumed to have inviolable rights by precedent and statute.

Assuming this is legit, i would suggest acquiring it from alternative sources. The paying customer should not have to suffer financially over the screwups of corporations he has no control or influence over.

You can't. 2KGames has essentially subcontracted product verification to Valve. You can't use Firaxis's product without dealing with Valve.

Don't get me wrong: there are a lot of positives to Steam. But the manner in which they're handling these sorts of problems is reprehensible.
 
Very uninformed question here: If customer protection laws don't apply because Steam is a free service... doesn't this render such laws irrelevant to software products? Could you tie any product to a free service that by itself just turns the subscriber's mouse cursor pink on Valentine's day?
Apparently, it doesn't matter if the service is actually used in any meaningful way (nominally a online content delivery service, physical medium 'bought' in a physical store).
 
Very uninformed question here: If customer protection laws don't apply because Steam is a free service... doesn't this render such laws irrelevant to software products? Could you tie any product to a free service that by itself just turns the subscriber's mouse cursor pink on Valentine's day?
Apparently, it doesn't matter if the service is actually used in any meaningful way (nominally a online content delivery service, physical medium 'bought' in a physical store).
Well, the issue is actually that software is generally not "purchased", so much as it is "leased". Much as a leased vehicle is not actually yours, a piece of software isn't actually yours. The software still belongs to the company, as your copy isn't a true reproduction. The difference between a purchased piece of software and a free piece of software is minimal at best, as far as the binding nature of the EULA.

When I, personally, talk about how Steam is free- it isn't to make a difference, legally. It's to point out that, especially in Steam's case, you have no legal right. First Sale Doctrine and similar legal documents don't always apply in the case of intellectual property, or in the way that a software is transferred; however, in the specific case of Steam- you did not purchase it, and as a result it is easier for most people to understand that since it is not purchased, you don't have any rights to it.

In fact, you likely don't own any of the software on your computer; and as such, you likely don't have any rights to the software. While I disagree with the practice of hindering the right to transfer the contractual owner of a piece of software, doing so is entirely legal. After all, if the contract for a leased vehicle is that you may not rent that vehicle to other people or groups for profit; you can't.

A lot of people make the mistake of comparing software purchases to physical purchases. The only time this comparison was relevant was when copy-protection was based on who had the CD. While some companies (Stardock) disregard copy protection, claiming that thieves and pirates likely wouldn't have purchased the game anyways; most companies take a more active interest in protecting their investments.

So, to answer your question... it's not that Steam is free that makes the difference. It's that the software is owned by the publisher- and therefor, the grievance for not being able to play it without Steam lies with the owner (Firaxis), not with the borrower (Consumer). As the borrower, you don't actually have many rights in regards to a licensed software.

I'm not saying that this practice is perfect, and I'm not defending the system. This is just the way it works, currently, under many legal systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom