Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
Reminds me of the old bumper sticker:
"Attention Car Thieves! This car is already stolen."
I Want Out
- Thread starter Stretchy Man
- Start date
Reminds me of the old bumper sticker:
"Attention Car Thieves! This car is already stolen."
I think that if you give someone your password, it is assumed as copying since you cannot forget your own password , and if the new owner changes it, you cannot prove that you don't actually know it - thus you cannot prove that it wasn't an actual copy, but a transfer. For all intents and purposes, it would be a copy even though no real copy was made - just a copy of your own permission to use that service.
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
You forgot the part where Steam doesn't need to know anything about someone forgetting or "losing" their password. If the person who "finds" the password wants to buy new Steam games in the future, making a new account with their actual payment information is simple.
Considering that I may or may not have done exactly this with my copy of the game with someone who may or may not be my brother, I'd say it may work just fine.
Of course according to the EULA (actually the SSA to be more precise). What else could I possibly have meant? That the physical laws of the universe don't allow for a particular videogame to be sold?Sharing or transferring Steam accounts is prohibited by the SSA and advocating such a thing could be crossing the line of what's permissible on the forum. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to knowingly suggest to someone to break the rules if it could get them into trouble somewhere down the road.
All of this for the presumed Rights anyone claims should (or must) have.
But, you see, it's a two way street where 1)Consumers(Us) 2)Developers(Firaxis) & 2.5)Distributors(Steam) collide and scramble with their own particular interests.
Nobody enforced Firaxis into striking a deal with Steam, they took a decision and must live with it.
Nobody enforced me into purchasing the DVD version off the shelf rather than the Online-Steam D/L, i went to the store *Knowing very well* of a tricky distinction - Valve didn't package that specific product for sale.
As i read the box though, i realized some of the new but usual distribution tactics were involved. Again, nobody was there to prevent me from purchasing *it* - so, grabbed the item, dumped the plastic card in the cashier's hand. Money gone. Farewell.
Whatever happened next was simply being enforced into creating a Steam account to enjoy a GAME.
That's the point - a darn 'puter game. 49.99CDN$+Taxes.
A decision taken as a customer.
A process of DRM verifications clearly spelled out & written in obvious terms, spywaring its tricky ways on my 1500$+ gear of a ride, bought and maintained, legal & physical, precious and upgradable as long as i want or wish to.
As a bonus... a gaming Industry that enforces people into cloud_y consumerism.
Welcome to Orwell's 1984+ and to collective Paranoia. Cuz, in the end... all that matters is personal wallets. Yours, theirs & mine along with everybody's Rights & Wrongs.
But, you see, it's a two way street where 1)Consumers(Us) 2)Developers(Firaxis) & 2.5)Distributors(Steam) collide and scramble with their own particular interests.
Nobody enforced Firaxis into striking a deal with Steam, they took a decision and must live with it.
Nobody enforced me into purchasing the DVD version off the shelf rather than the Online-Steam D/L, i went to the store *Knowing very well* of a tricky distinction - Valve didn't package that specific product for sale.
As i read the box though, i realized some of the new but usual distribution tactics were involved. Again, nobody was there to prevent me from purchasing *it* - so, grabbed the item, dumped the plastic card in the cashier's hand. Money gone. Farewell.
Whatever happened next was simply being enforced into creating a Steam account to enjoy a GAME.
That's the point - a darn 'puter game. 49.99CDN$+Taxes.
A decision taken as a customer.
A process of DRM verifications clearly spelled out & written in obvious terms, spywaring its tricky ways on my 1500$+ gear of a ride, bought and maintained, legal & physical, precious and upgradable as long as i want or wish to.
As a bonus... a gaming Industry that enforces people into cloud_y consumerism.
Welcome to Orwell's 1984+ and to collective Paranoia. Cuz, in the end... all that matters is personal wallets. Yours, theirs & mine along with everybody's Rights & Wrongs.
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
I find it very funny how the people who say "they are a company, their purpose is only to make money" are also the first to call "immorality!" when someone says something that would go against the company's wishes, even if that action is perfectly legal.
The point is whether after providing the password you are still making use of the product.
I cannot be disallowed to share my password with whomever I want. It might not be wise to do so, ok, but being a bit stupid is one of the inalienable rights of human beings.
Once again: Steam is even advertising with the fact that you can make copies. So, it is not the copying itself which shall be prohibited, but the sharing and the reselling.
No problem with the prohibition of sharing. This would be piracy and a company has every right to try to stop that.
But prohibition of reselling is actively attacking and restricting your rights.
they do if they feel like arguing on the internet
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
As discussed before then much of the content of most EULA's wouldn't stand up in a court of law in most countries.
I can't think of many countries where it would be possible - or even legal - to prevent a consumer from purchasing/reselling a second hand computer game. In fact then trying to enforce rules to prevent consumers doing so is in itself in violation with the consumer laws of many countries.
I can't think of many countries where it would be possible - or even legal - to prevent a consumer from purchasing/reselling a second hand computer game. In fact then trying to enforce rules to prevent consumers doing so is in itself in violation with the consumer laws of many countries.
swinsett
Chieftain
Civ 5 is soooo boring I have gone back to Civ 4. I saw that the genius that screwed it up and gone to another gaming company, so maybe someone at SMCiv, Inc. will redeem it, or release Civ6.
"The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software." - Steam EULA
"The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software." - Steam EULA
You actually have no rights in Steam. You didn't pay anything for their service, and therefor you are not considered a consumer. They reserve the right to freeze your account for any reason. To say that Steam is wrong in denying you access to their product (Which will deny you access to Valve games), for your intentional breach of contract, is a lot like saying that an ISP is wrong in denying you access to their system (Which will deny you to access to Online games), due to an intentional breach of contract.
There is absolutely no comparison between "You are only allowed to use X gas company" and "You are only allowed to use this for personal use." The EULA basically says to "use common sense", and "don't distribute this in a way that causes more than one person to gain possible simultaneous access" to the game. Sharing an account is the same as making two copies of any games associated with the account... forever. If you transfer an account, how can you prove that you do not have access to it anymore? As soon as you share the account, the company can either take you at your word, or follow the procedures as outlined in the contract you signed.
Duplication of a media is a generally accepted practice in the software world- because you purchased a right to a license to use someone else's software- so long as it is for your own use. You can even give your license away, if you wanted to. However, the issue with copy distribution (rather than retail distribution), is that for every copy made, the company potentially loses money. It's no different than if you walked into a car factory, and left with a free car. That is what makes it stealing.
This kind of duplication can only be proven with a CD- in which case, as I've said, the CD is transferable. However, with Digital Downloads, Steam prohibits the transfer of an account because it gives two or more people access to the account. Steam also provides a way to perform a software-transfer through the EULA, and states that violation of the EULA will result in termination of the account. Not only do they say that anything illegal will cause termination... they say that anything they "believe to be illegal" will cause termination of the account.
The customer isn't losing any rights at all. In fact, the customer has the exact same rights as before. Given the lack of physical media to control copies, Steam uses "Digital Copies" to protect items. Instead of you having a CD at your house with the software on it, Steam has a "Fake CD" on their network that tracks who "owns" the CD at any given point in time. By sharing the account, any and all "CD's" attached become duplicates. This is where the problem lies- even if you have no intention of accessing the account... you still made duplicates, and not everyone is as trustworthy as you are... which is why this system exists in the first place.
People actually sign contracts without reading them?
You can trade, or even sell, games from one Steam account to another. By breaching the Terms of Service, you are in the wrong... and Steam can do whatever they said in the EULA. They won't sue you, but they might terminate your account... making all of the games tied to it useless until you can get it reopened.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Just because it is written in a EULA does not mean that it is a definition of the product that a court would necessarily agree with. In fact US Supreme Court have already - in 2 seperate cases - ruled against EULA's with similar licensing claims that Steam (and countless others) is using in theirs.
However, I would agree that the Steam EULA would probably hold up in a court of law where their own software and the services they provide online is concerned, but I seriously doubt the claim would hold in regard to games digital downloaded from Steam - and it definetly wouldn't hold for games purchased via other channels than Steam.
Regarding the reading of EULAs: In many places, they're invalid for formal reasons that have nothing to do with their content. Reading them is entirely optional (unless a customer takes an interest in what the company WOULD do if they could get away with it).
However, the EULA not being enforceable by law only matters if the customer is willing to take a disagreement to court - Steam isn't going to sue when they can simply coerce the customer into whatever they want by freezing the account and they're unlikely to get slapped for this practice.
However, the EULA not being enforceable by law only matters if the customer is willing to take a disagreement to court - Steam isn't going to sue when they can simply coerce the customer into whatever they want by freezing the account and they're unlikely to get slapped for this practice.
Zdarg
Prince
Why should I?
What happened with presumption of innocence?
I don't think I'm making my point very clear. The EULA for Steam is only for Steam. By installing and using Steam, you agree to the terms of the contract. Because Steam is free, (!) you don't gain any rights by the download of the system; Steam also holds the right to deactivate your account at any time for violating their Terms of Service.
To try to "sue" Steam because they aren't allowing you to use their "free service" would be ridiculous.
The EULA you are signing for the use of a video game is an entirely different product- hence the need to sign an entirely different contract. THAT Contract, you could probably sue over. However, in the case of Steam, they aren't deactivating your games... they aren't even really deactivating your ability to access your games. They are deactivating your account, which is the digital equivalent of blocking a CD Registration Key.
I don't understand the hate towards the copy-protection, when the very existence of the system is rooted in the dishonesty of consumers. Maybe I'm just a capitalist at heart, but if you willingly sign a contract while in complete ignorance of it's terms- and then violate the terms of the contract- the company is 100% justified to respond in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Suing a game company for freezing your ability to use a product that they believe to be pirated is comparable to suing someone because you injured yourself breaking into their house. You knew it was wrong, you knew the consequences, and you did it anyways. Even if you didn't know that it was wrong, or the consequences, you signed a contract.
The idea that the industry is somehow indebted to the consumer base is absurd; and will likely lead to either stricter and more specific copyright laws... or a lower quality of game. Steam is a leading competitor in copy-protection software. Is it really that surprising that they go to great lengths to enforce *gasp* copy-protection? They give you an ability to transfer games between accounts- and tell you not to share accounts, because that is the online-equivalent of distributing bootleg copies.
People seem to think that by distributing an account username and password, that is somehow better than just burning a bunch of illegal copies and circulating them. From an industry standpoint... account sharing is just more cost-effective, since you now avoid the cost of CD's to burn bootleg copies onto.
Let's say that account sharing was allowed in Steam's agreement. What is to stop ALL of the people on Steam from sharing one account, donating money to a PayPal account, and all getting copies of the software? The result would be thousands of copies of software floating around, and the company only got paid for one of them. If that sounds unacceptable, at what point does sharing accounts become unacceptable? How many people have to share an account? How many households have to share an account? See where I'm going with this?
"But I'm not sharing an account! I'm transferring it!" Even so, for the period of time where both the giver and receiver are in possession of the username and password, the account is being shared. Beyond that, is Steam supposed to just take you at your word? If the consumer-base could be trusted at their word, Steam wouldn't exist. Individuals are always looking for ways to screw over "the man", "They can afford it," "consumer rights," "I'll just sue them." It's exactly this thought process, and type of action, that leads to companies developing horrifying copy-protection measures.
I remember one, in particular, that didn't allow you to have any kind of ripping, burning, or emulation software installed... if your IP changed too frequently, the CD was blacklisted, and you had to call technical support to get in fixed.
Should the consumer have rights? Definitely.
Should the vendor be allowed to restrict those rights, if the consumer signs a contract to that effect? Definitely.
Should the consumer be allowed to sue, if the company breaches the contract? Definitely.
Should there be repercussions against the customer, if the customer breaches the contract? Definitely.
Should the customer be able to [successfully] sue the company, if the company is following the repercussions in the contract that the customer signed AND breached? This, right here, is ridiculous- and any system in which this is possible, is FUBAR.
Presumption of Innocents only applies to court. In order to be prosecuted by the courts (US), then Steam has to have evidence of you performing a crime. However, in the world of Copy-Protection... you are "a consumer"... not "Zdarg."
You can hold the world-record for "Most trustworthy guy, ever!" However, consumers have a history of dishonesty and piracy. Why should Steam assume that, because they haven't caught you- specifically- trying to screw them (yet)... that you deserve a different set of rules? The rules are actually quite fair.
Cause: People are downloading software, swapping in cracked executables, and then "returning" the software.
Effect: No refunds, no returns.
Cause: 1 person is sharing their account with 7 people. The account has 4 games. That equals 28 games, 4 of which are "properly" licensed; 24 of which are "pirated" copies.
Effect: No account sharing.
Cause: "I'm not sharing an account. We aren't using it at the same time, we are just transferring it between each other."
Effect: No account transfers.
Cause: A group of consumers try to screw over the gaming industry.
Effect: The gaming industry tries to find ways to minimize the amount of screwing.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
The problem here is that they are not just blocking for their own software and services (which they could probably be argued to be legaly entitled to), they are ALSO blocking you from using and trading all software that requires their services in order to do so - and it is this that they don't actually have any legal rights to be doing.
Dictated by the principal of the Lowest Common Denominator then the second they become an unentangleable part of the whole package of a product - where one or more of the other parts of the package can NOT be considered a license in itself (like is the case with Civ5) - any license claim by other parts of the package (incl. Steam) is no longer valid.
Ferengi capitalist perhaps ("Let the buyer beware")?
I will agree as far as we assume that the wording of the contract is actually in accordance with the letter of law that is in effect in the country/state from where the company is operating.
Here you are saying that it is ok to pass judgement and punishment without a trial - and on suspicion alone. I don't know how it works where you live, but where I live you are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - and punishment are not passed out before you have been proven guilty.
It is a poor policy to punish the many for the actions of the few - or even worse for the paranoidly imagined actions of everyone. This is a lesson that the software industry have seemingly yet to learn.
They simply don't stand to gain any higher longterm profits by poisoning all the cows in an attempt to get rid of the rats.
