I Want Out

[Zdarg]

Presumption of Innocents only applies to court.

So should be punishment.

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.

It's exactly same level of "fairness" as if a security in a shop tried to search through your pockets only because he suspected you to steal something. Illegal and disgusting.

 

[esemjay]

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 Steam) is no longer valid.

In the OP's specific case, he is talking about a transfer of account- an account that, for all intensive purposes, belongs to Valve. Valve says that you, and you alone, can use it. If you try to circumvent their contract, they can deny use of the account. The fact that games verify themselves through Steam is unfortunate- but if you tried to hack the EA Copy Protection service, and they blacklist your IP... how would you be able to justify suing them if the blacklist prevented you from playing a game that uses EA to enforce copy protection?

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers. You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so.

The ToS states that you can transfer the title (of a game) to someone else. However, by account sharing, you are circumventing the entire purpose of Steam- to enforce 1 license for every purchase. If you are trying to get past the system, and the account gets locked, it's no different than posting your activation key all over the internet and Firaxis blacklisting the key- resulting in your copy of the game becoming void through the loss of a valid CD Key.

There is absolutely no difference between account sharing, and distributing CD's with spoofed key's. I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a court that would agree that, given the architecture that Steam operates under, it's okay to distribute illegal copies of a software while simultaneously disregarding the rights of a company to deny their free service to you.

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.

Not "Buyer beware," so much as "read the contract." If you get shafted because you violated the terms of a contract that you voluntarily signed, and did not read or understand, then you deserve everything that you get. Ignorance is not an excuse.

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's not a judicial punishment. Let's say that I am a landlord, and my contract states that I can enter the building without your permission if I believe you to be doing illegal activity (probable cause), and you sign that contract. If you are working a meth-lab in the house, and I enter without your permission, then you cannot sue me for unlawful entry. If you are not working a meth-lab, then you can try to sue me... but if I can provide both probable cause and the terms in the contract- the most you can expect is to be allowed back in the house.

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.

It's also an effective policy. It's unfair, but it's the easiest and most effective way to fix an issue. Consumers who follow the rules find the rules to be, mostly, transparent. The problem arises when you start looking for ways to circumvent the rules. Just do a search for "CD Crack", "CD Key", "No-CD"... you'll see that there is a significant number of users willing to circumvent copy-protection.

The thing is... you bought the game knowing the terms of the purchase, and the terms of the service. If you didn't know, then you should have read the agreement before clicking the button labeled "I have read and agree to the terms of service." To then complain, after the fact, that the terms of service are unfair or inconvenient is actually pretty ridiculous. To then try to sue over it, is just sad.

No consumer is "special." To complain that the gaming industry using copy-protection is an offense, that they are assuming that all consumers are lying, thieving, would-be criminals is absurd. In fact, the assumption that all consumers are lying, thieving, would-be criminals is not something new to the gaming industry... or any industry. Every industry has some kind of investment-protection; but the gaming industry is the target of the most, hands down, dishonest customers.

 

[esemjay]

So should be punishment.

Why? It's not like they're putting you in jail, which is what your rights specifically pertain to. If you were suspected of stealing items in a store, and they kicked you out... are you going to complain that now you can't shop there?

It's exactly same level of "fairness" as if a security in a shop tried to search through your pockets only because he suspected you to steal something. Illegal and disgusting.

That's actually not the same at all. What you're describing is a pocket-width of cloth away from sexual assault. I think we all agree that copy-protection, and sexual assault are two very different concepts.

A better analogy is, if you walk out of a store and you trigger the anti-theft system, they can search your cart, compare it to a receipt, and confiscate the stolen goods. If you had purchased a subscription inside the store, and are no longer allowed inside... are you going to sue to be reimbursed for the subscription?

If you are willing to "bend the rules" (Actually, given the ToS, "break" the rules), and it burns you... you absolutely deserve it. Especially when there's already an approved system in place for what you're trying to do.

This discussion is going to be as split as the topic of illegal immigration. Some people believe that illegal immigrants have equal rights to be here; other people acknowledge that there is an approved system in place for getting citizenship. Just because it's inconvenient does not make it wrong. It's inconvenient because they have to deal with all of the people who are actively trying to find loopholes.

It's the single worst problem with the judicial system, today. People sign contracts, then immediately start looking for ways to terminate their obligations to a company, while looking to retain the company's obligation to the user. Now that is disgusting.

 

[Fistalis]

It's also an effective policy. It's unfair, but it's the easiest and most effective way to fix an issue. Consumers who follow the rules find the rules to be, mostly, transparent. The problem arises when you start looking for ways to circumvent the rules. Just do a search for "CD Crack", "CD Key", "No-CD"... you'll see that there is a significant number of users willing to circumvent copy-protection.

The thing is... you bought the game knowing the terms of the purchase, and the terms of the service. If you didn't know, then you should have read the agreement before clicking the button labeled "I have read and agree to the terms of service." To then complain, after the fact, that the terms of service are unfair or inconvenient is actually pretty ridiculous. To then try to sue over it, is just sad.
.

To be fair.. the steam SSA and the EULA are terms of usage.. not terms of purchase. It is rather unethical to attach terms of usage that are only apparent after purchase of a product and disallow returns. Software distributors are the only ones who can get away with this.

If you were to buy any other product.. then once they had your money.. they refused to allow you return it (opened software cannot be returned but one must open it before the full terms and obligations are laid out) and in order to use it you must accept a further contract it certainly wouldn't hold up in any court. They need to lay out the full extent of any stipulations to usage prior to purchase rather than usage. Now this isn't the case legally in the U.S. at this point in regards to EULAs.. however it is in much more consumer friendly countries such as Germany.

Why is it that software is treated differently in this regard to consumer protection? Furthermore why is it acceptable to you (or anyone for that matter)to not allow the return of a product but require further contractual obligations in order to use said product? Leaving the consumer in a rather bad spot. Already having Paid for a product that they must either accept additional terms to use or accepting that they paid for a product that they cannot return nor use.

 

[esemjay]

To be fair.. the steam SSA and the EULA are terms of usage.. not terms of purchase. It is rather unethical to attach terms of usage that are only apparent after purchase of a product. Software distributors are the only ones who can get away with this.

True... but in the specific case of Steam... you see the agreement prior to installation of Steam. In the case of the game itself, it is a lot like your next paragraph.

If you were to buy a car.. then once they had your money.. they refused to allow return it (opened software cannot be returned but one must open it before the full terms of obligations are laid out) and in order to drive it you must accept a further contract it certainly wouldn't hold up in any court. They need to lay out the full extent of any stipulations to usage prior to purchase rather than usage. Now this isn't the case legally in the U.S. at this point.. however it is in much more consumer friendly countries such as Germany.

This is very true; and companies should put their EULA in a much more accessible place, so that a user can read it before purchasing.

The reason behind not being allowed to return a game is simple, however. You can't spend 30 cents on a CD and burn a copy of a car... you CAN do so with a game. So, if you purchase a game and leave the store, then burn the game to another CD, and bring the game back... the company cannot assume that you didn't burn a copy. After all, the game is opened at that point. If it were a car, it's a used car.

 

[Iranon]

There is a fundamental problem with things like Steam: unethically unequal contracts.

This has been quoted already: 'Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes...'
If their EULA is valid, apparently their beliefs are sufficient... this may as well read 'at will'.

Now, unreasonable EULAs are the norm these days. I only buy software at all (instead of numerous free options) because they are typically void where I live. If invalid terms can be enforced anyway, I won't consider any deal that resembles a purchase (one-time payment comparable to an expected purchasing price, expecting indefinite use).

Either I paid a purchasing price and expect to be free to use the product, which includes reselling or otherwise transferring it... or I'm paying an appropriate weekly/monthly/yearly fee and their ability to terminate the service is balanced by my ability to cease paying them.

 

[Fistalis]

True... but in the specific case of Steam... you see the agreement prior to installation of Steam.

Yes but for a steam integrated game.. say Civ V. The steam agreement is an added requirement in order to use civ V even if purchased through a retailer. Meaning although you were not informed of the steam agreement prior to purchase you are stuck either accepting it or writing off your purchase as a loss. Its a horrible place to put consumers and i simply don't understand why people find practices like that acceptable.

 

[Fistalis]

There is a fundamental problem with things like Steam: unethically unequal contracts.

This has been quoted already: 'Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes...'
If their EULA is valid, apparently their beliefs are sufficient... this may as well read 'at will'.

Now, unreasonable EULAs are the norm these days. I only buy software at all (instead of numerous free options) because they are typically void where I live. If invalid terms can be enforced anyway, I won't consider any deal that resembles a purchase (one-time payment comparable to an expected purchasing price, expecting indefinite use).

Either I paid a purchasing price and expect to be free to use the product, which includes reselling or otherwise transferring it... or I'm paying an appropriate weekly/monthly/yearly fee and their ability to terminate the service is balanced by my ability to cease paying them.

Its pretty frightening when you think of the future implications of it. With all information going digital is this the future of the sharing of information? Authoritarian controls on anything with a copyright? I pine for the simplistic days of books.. you know those funny physical things you couldn't legally copy but could read as many times as you want without the publishers permission, or expectation of being able to revoke your rights to read it.

 

[Lheim]

Esemjay - no offense, but I suspect you have some legal background or at least some legal education. In my experience, it's always the most educated in a certain subject matter that have the biggest problem stepping back and seeing 'the big picture' - what is essentially fair, or wrong, about a situation that arises from the arcane intricities of their discipline.

In this case it seems like the whole history of copyright, lease, contracts, etc - a whole history of mostly-rights - have combined in the software market into one gigantic consumer-screwing wrong.

Any other product I buy; I can return. Any other product that doesn't match my expectations or doesn't live up to promises, I can return. I can even return a half-eaten, unresaleable melon if it's rotten. I can walk out of a movie and get a refund, half way through. Not so computer games - and frankly, the excuse that they can be copied doesn't cut the mustard - because it's very similar to the unresaleable, used-up melon situation. The very reason piracy is so rampant for computer games is because the smart consumers know that they're completely out of options if they believe the wrong hype and spend the wrong money.

If we must have a guarantee that one copy of the game being played = one copy bought; issue a serial number that is verified through steam. Allow me to sell that serial number if I so wish; transfer it to another account, or return it to the company for a full refund within a week of purchase.

 

[esemjay]

Yes but for a steam integrated game.. say Civ V. The steam agreement is an added requirement in order to use civ V even if purchased through a retailer. Meaning although you were not informed of the steam agreement prior to purchase you are stuck either accepting it or writing off your purchase as a loss. Its a horrible place to put consumers and i simply don't understand why people find practices like that acceptable.

You simply transfer the purchase- in the case of a physical copy (Not the impression I'm getting from the OP) you can remove the game from your account (Per the ToS) and the other person could then install the game. In this case, there is a CD Key transferred, and the CD Key should become inactive for the first user, and active for the second.

At worst, you would have to call Steam to explain the situation.

There is a fundamental problem with things like Steam: unethically unequal contracts.

This has been quoted already: 'Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes...'
If their EULA is valid, apparently their beliefs are sufficient... this may as well read 'at will'.

Now, unreasonable EULAs are the norm these days. I only buy software at all (instead of numerous free options) because they are typically void where I live. If invalid terms can be enforced anyway, I won't consider any deal that resembles a purchase (one-time payment comparable to an expected purchasing price, expecting indefinite use).

Either I paid a purchasing price and expect to be free to use the product, which includes reselling or otherwise transferring it... or I'm paying an appropriate weekly/monthly/yearly fee and their ability to terminate the service is balanced by my ability to cease paying them.

Hey, but you'll sign the contract anyways... which brings me back to the point of, "Consumers actively try to find ways to nullify their contractual obligations to a company, while trying to retain the company's obligations to the customer."

 

[Nobody]

I'm angry that I trusted Firaxis wouldn't screw it up again after Civ 3

I think civ3 was the best civ game yet

 

[esemjay]

Esemjay - no offense, but I suspect you have some legal background or at least some legal education. In my experience, it's always the most educated in a certain subject matter that have the biggest problem stepping back and seeing 'the big picture' - what is essentially fair, or wrong, about a situation that arises from the arcane intricities of their discipline.

I just believe: "If you don't agree with the contract, don't sign it." I don't understand the idea of, "If you don't agree with the contract, sign it and sue them." Being, originally, from California... I got to see a lot of situations that were legally justifiable, but seeing the person win out was (for lack of a better word) ******ed.

For example, the guy that was trying to break into a house, and fell through a skylight. The burglar got hurt while breaking the law, and won the lawsuit.

 

[Lheim]

I just believe: "If you don't agree with the contract, don't sign it." I don't understand the idea of, "If you don't agree with the contract, sign it and sue them." Being, originally, from California... I got to see a lot of situations that were legally justifiable, but seeing the person win out was (for lack of a better word) ******ed.

For example, the guy that was trying to break into a house, and fell through a skylight. The burglar got hurt while breaking the law, and won the lawsuit.

I completely agree - that IS an especially ******ed verdict. But the metaphor isn't apt - it doesn't apply to this situation.

Imagine if some (non-governmental) thug tries to charge me a toll for crossing a public bridge. I ignore his rather illegal request and move on through - and he sues me for some violation of personal space.

That'd be equally dumb as the criminal winning the case about breaking his leg.

 

[Zdarg]

Why? It's not like they're putting you in jail, which is what your rights specifically pertain to. If you were suspected of stealing items in a store, and they kicked you out... are you going to complain that now you can't shop there?

Personally, probably no: I am not sue-lover by nature. But I know dozens of people who would call for police immedeately in such a situation... and a few who actually did this.

A better analogy is, if you walk out of a store and you trigger the anti-theft system, they can search your cart, compare it to a receipt, and confiscate the stolen goods.

If I triggered an alarm, it's a proof, so completely different story. I don't object against banning Steam users basing on a proof. But banning on suspicion should be unappropriate.

 

[Fistalis]

Hey, but you'll sign the contract anyways... which brings me back to the point of, "Consumers actively try to find ways to nullify their contractual obligations to a company, while trying to retain the company's obligations to the customer."

Again to be fair.. the average consumer doesn't even understand contractual language. So even if they do read it and agree to it.. certainly doesn't imply they comprehend it, and if they did I think many of the stipulations that are there would meet far greater resistance.

Those of us who do actually read them.. and understand them.. don't use steam, or do so with the mindset of an acceptable risk of loss

 

[esemjay]

Personally, probably no: I am not sue-lover by nature. But I know dozens of people who would call for police immedeately in such a situation... and a few who actually did this.

If I triggered an alarm, it's a proof, so completely different story. I don't object against banning Steam users basing on a proof. But banning on suspicion should be unappropriate.

In the OP's case, the "proof" would be an IP changing. Also, in the OP's case, he would be doing something against the terms of service. I don't agree with the "We can ban you whenever, for whatever reason"... but that's not the point. The point is, it's there... and a lot of people don't know that, because they didn't read it.

Again to be fair.. the average consumer doesn't even understand contractual language. So even if they do read it and agree to it.. certainly doesn't imply they comprehend it, and if they did I think many of the stipulations that are there would meet far greater resistance.

Those of us who do actually read them.. and understand them.. don't use steam, or do so with the mindset of an acceptable risk of loss

Yeah, the EULA's should come with a tl;dr version.

 

[Zdarg]

In the OP's case, the "proof" would be an IP changing.

It isn't a proof by itself. People do change addresses (and therefore IPs) regularly.
In theory, Steam may hire a private detective to prove that both IPs couldn't be used by same person... But I doubt they would. The gain just doesn't worth the effort.

Also, in the OP's case, he would be doing something against the terms of service.

Yes. Moreover, it would be completely needless violation, if Steam actually allows trasfering games from one account to another. OP may just sell the game and then ask Steam to delete his account.
But I fail to see such violation as either immoral or illegal.

 

[CyberChrist]

@esemjay:
You seem to be either unable or unwilling to understand/accept the fact that it doesn't really matter what any company write in a EULA/contract - or whether you agree to 'sign' it or not - if the content of the EULA/contract is in violation with the current laws in effect.

Neither you nor the company involved can set aside laws just because you agree to sign a EULA/contract stating you are willing to do so (unless there are specific provision in the law(s) allowing for such a deviation) and this means that if even a single aspect of a EULA/contract is in violation with any law then the EULA/contract can effectively be considered null and void in it's entirety - and if brought before a court of law it will almost certainly be judged to be just that.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

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.

Except when the contract isn't in accordance to the law. You can't enter a contract to become a slave, and so on. These restrictions exist so that people don't get screwed up just because they were a bit stupid to sign something without reading.

You can hold the world-record for "Most trustworthy guy, ever!" However, consumers have a history of dishonesty

So do corporations. Why is it more wrong for an individual to be dishonest than for a commercial organization to be thus?

 

[esemjay]

It isn't a proof by itself. People do change addresses (and therefore IPs) regularly.
In theory, Steam may hire a private detective to prove that both IPs couldn't be used by same person... But I doubt they would. The gain just doesn't worth the effort.

An extreme example would be showing the account as active in the USA, and then 2 hours later, in China.

@esemjay:
You seem to be either unable or unwilling to understand/accept the fact that it doesn't really matter what any company write in a EULA/contract - or whether you agree to 'sign' it or not - if the content of the EULA/contract is in violation with the current laws in effect.

Neither you nor the company involved can set aside laws just because you agree to sign a EULA/contract stating you are willing to do so (unless there are specific provision in the law(s) allowing for such a deviation) and this means that if even a single aspect of a EULA/contract is in violation with any law then the EULA/contract can effectively be considered null and void in it's entirety - and if brought before a court of law it will almost certainly be judged to be just that.

Have you read Steam's contract, or are you talking about a hypothetical EULA?

Steam blacklisting your activation keys for piracy is completely legal. There are several services, that are not free, that can/will/have locked people out without reimbursement... and lived to tell the tale. World of Warcraft comes to mind. Anyone who does, what they call, "Gold Trading" (That is the transfer of WoW money for real-life services/products/money) has their account blacklisted.

Steam has, basically, if/then statements for different areas of the world- to make a kind of "blanket" contract that doesn't depend on the area of the world you are in.

What I'm not understanding, is the idea of suing a company because you performed an action KNOWING that the result was having the account "locked." Theoretically, you can sue for anything. The question is: Who want's to be first?

By sharing accounts, you are sharing all of the CD Keys associated with all of the games that are ever tied to the account. The number of pirated copies then becomes:

Y = X(Z-1)

Y is Pirated Copies
X is Number of Games on the Account
Z is Number of People with Access

You are suggesting that you can go, in front of a judge, and claim that "Just because I gave away [Y] pirated copies of the game doesn't mean that Steam has the right to close my account."? Are you going to tell the judge that it's unfair? That just because you were actively breaking copyright laws, doesn't give them the right to deny you service?

If the game came on a CD, and you posted the CD Key on the internet... only to have the key blacklisted, and lose functionality of the game... would you complain to a judge that your legitimate copy won't work, and it's all Steam's fault?

Does it not seem at all plausible that a Judge will want to know what you were doing, or why you were pirating games in the first place?

At the MOST, I would expect Steam to have to give you access to the game again.

The OP was asking if they could transfer an account. If the account were a physical list of retail Activation keys... the answer would be "Yes." But it's not. The account is like a "Digital ID Card", and the keys are associated with it. In this case, the proper way to do what the OP is asking... is to contact Steam and request a transfer of title.

By giving away your account information, you have "duplicated" all of the information on the account. And what, Valve is just supposed to take you at your word, that you "really, really promise" not to use the account anymore? Or lock your account until you transfer the games off of the account instead of trying to pirate them.