I Want Out

[Zdarg]

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

Evidently. It would be a proof of an abuse. Bad part is that your extreme example is extremely theoretical.
Sorry for bad poetry, but I'll try to translate popular song from a good Soviet movie into English:
"As for women it concerns,
Me theoretic am...
I am lover of the whores,
And sending hi to them!"

 

[esemjay]

Evidently. It would be a proof of an abuse. Bad part is that your extreme example is extremely theoretical.
Sorry for bad poetry, but I'll try to translate popular song from a good Soviet movie into English:
"As for women it concerns,
Me theoretic am...
I am lover of the whores,
And sending hi to them!"

Yes, it's very simplistic... but the point is that two people just have to log on in quick succession from noticeably different IP addresses to trigger the suspicion.

It probably wouldn't be noticed if you, and your neighbor, logged in at the same time... but if the IP ranges are different enough- or shows a trend... then it becomes probable that the IP addresses are being shared. Picture, for example, an IP log that read:

[0800] Connect - 85.94.160.19 (Andorra:Andorpac)
[0900] Disconnect - 84.94.160.19 (Andorra:Andorpac)
[0900] Connect - 91.187.64.33 (Andorra:Andorpac)
[0930] Connect - 194.117.123.178 (Germany:Industries Montanya)
[0945] Disconnect - 91.187.64.33 (Andorra:Andorpac)
[1200] Disconnect - 194.117.123.178 (Germany:Industries Montoya)
[1700] Connect - 194.117.123.177 (Germany:Industries Montoya)
[2200] Disconnect - 194.117.123.177 (Germany:Industries Montoya)

The way that I would read that log, from 0800-0930, I had legitimate access to an account. From 0930-0945, there were two accounts in different ISP's (Different countries, too, from the lookup) connected at the same time. From 0945 onwards, the "New Guy" seems to have control. In Steam's position, I would immediately consider this to be account-sharing.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I don't think that would happen in the scenario the OP proposed, however. He seems to not have been using his account anymore, and would sell to someone who would then start using it, and thus there wouldn't be a "logging in in quick succession" at all.

 

[esemjay]

I don't think that would happen in the scenario the OP proposed, however. He seems to not have been using his account anymore, and would sell to someone who would then start using it, and thus there wouldn't be a "logging in in quick succession" at all.

If that's the case, why not transfer the game off his account?

 

[Zdarg]

If that's the case, why not transfer the game off his account?

Because he hadn't care to know about such possibility?

 

[Fistalis]

If that's the case, why not transfer the game off his account?

Because steam generally won't do that. If/when they do its a rare occasion. Its part of their anti fraud measures. If it were as simple has transferring it then the steam = anti resale argument would be moot. It's not however. The only way to get it transferred is via support and the majority of the time they won't transfer it.

 

[mjb2k8]

This strikes me a similar to the situation that farmers face when using "roundup ready" crops. For those who don't know, roundup is a pesticide and several types and plants have been genetically altered (eg example soybeans) to make them resistant to it (allowing for easier planting and less maintenance). It is, however, illegal for farmers to use or transfer to others the seeds grown in their own fields from any of these modified plants because as a genetically modified organism they contain patented traits. The farmer must continue to purchase new seeds from the manufacturer.

Note: I am nether farmer nor lawyer so I am by no means an expert on the above topic

 

[CyberChrist]

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

As long as Civ5 is dependant on Steam to be able to function and as long as you are not in violation with the Civ5 EULA then Steam cannot legally block you acces to their services ... at least not for the functions required to use Civ5. Steam cannot detach themselves from the package agreement that Civ5+Steam is.

If you don't understand why this is so then reread my previous post again and again until you do.

Steam blacklisting your activation keys for piracy is completely legal.

Only as far as the law agrees with Steam that the activity in question is in fact illegal.

And this is where you turn Ferengi, because the second a company assumes someone to be guilty of Piracy you take them on their word and judge this to be the fact of the matter - and further goes on to claim that it would be ridiculous that anyone would want to test such a claim in a court of law.

 

[Sonereal]

It still all boils down to "don't buy the games if you don't feel like dealing with Steam and EULA".

 

[Rooftrellen]

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?

I have quite a sizable collection of books from Penguin. I can loan them out, sell them, or just throw them on the back of a shelf if I want. All of these are legal, and if Penguin contacted me and denied me the ability to read the books I bought just because I sold one, you better believe a judge would be involved quite quickly.

Funny thing is, I would easily win a lawsuit, and it would include a large amount for punitive damages, I am sure.

So, why is it ok with books and not games? Simple answer...it's not. It's ok with both, BY LAW. Your right to use/view/read/play/etc. can be sold or transfered. No contract can take taht from you any more than it can make you a slave.

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?

That would be like copying the book and putting it on the internet in whole, not like selling your rights to use a piece of software or read a book.

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.

The account, as far as I understand (having had Steam for all of two weeks and twice trying to uninstall without losing CiV in the process), is nothing more than a way to ensure that only the owner of the right to use the software at a given time can do so.

Steam can ask you not to share an account, and that is legal. However, if their rules get in the way of the law, they cannot legally enforce those rules. As I can lend a book to a friend, I can lend a game to a friend. If I cannot do this without allowing them into my Steam account, they cannot ban me for account sharing, because I am legally allowed to transfer my rights that I buy when I get the game.

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.

So long as only one person is on at one time, there is no duplication, only transfer. Again, this is like saying lending my friend a DVD or book is illegal because I have duplicated all the information on the physical material. I have not, only given someone else the right to it.

In fact, even if it IS more than one person at a time, I think a judge would look down on the suspension of service (as there is no way to loan or sell the right to use the material currently supported), but that would be more questionable. Certainly if I buy a DVD my friend and I can both watch it at the same time!

Legally, at least in America, a person would 100% have the right to sell CiV if they wanted. Ideally, Steam would be contacted first to either assist in the transfer. IF they were to say no or not help in a timely manner, suspension of the Steam account for transfer as a way of selling the game would end in the person getting the rights to the game and likely some hefty punitive damages.


None of this can be said for anything outside of America, as I don't know the laws of other countries.

However, I am 100% certain that in America, someone CAN sell CiV, and if the Steam account gets in the way, and Steam refuses to help, legal action could be taken against them...and trust me, plenty of lawyers would line up for a class action lawsuit on that one...the first would not be alone.

 

[esemjay]

As long as Civ5 is dependant on Steam to be able to function and as long as you are not in violation with the Civ5 EULA then Steam cannot legally block you acces to their services ... at least not for the functions required to use Civ5. Steam cannot detach themselves from the package agreement that Civ5+Steam is.

So, is this one of those cases where it's okay for the consumer to disregard copyright laws if it's not explicitly in the contract?

If you don't understand why this is so then reread my previous post again and again until you do.

<Insert similar unnecessary statement here.>

Only as far as the law agrees with Steam that the activity in question is in fact illegal.

Like where? Somalia? Most placed that I have heard about tend to consider "piracy" a crime.

And this is where you turn Ferengi, because the second a company assumes someone to be guilty of Piracy you take them on their word and judge this to be the fact of the matter - and further goes on to claim that it would be ridiculous that anyone would want to test such a claim in a court of law.

This brings me back to the point that I have made, and has yet to be challenged: "Is the DRM company supposed to take you at your word? That you really, really promise not to use the account anymore?" The same company that exists because of a history of consumer theft?

People seem to think that because you aren't stealing it out of a store it is somehow not a crime. The only difference between Digital and Material theft, is Digital is easier; and the company you are stealing from saves the cost of the CD. To refer again to the formula for Number of Pirated Copies:

Y=X(Z-1)
Y is Number of Pirated Copies
X is Number of Games on Account
Z is Number of People with Access

If you have even 4 games on that account, and share it with two people.... you have pirated 8 licenses. If your licenses are nullified due to piracy, are you truly justified in fighting it?

The questions that I have posed repeatedly, without answer, is "If you are caught pirating software licenses, or attempting to pirate software licenses, are you justified in claiming that Valve is in the wrong for freezing your accounts?"

Sure, you can fight that they had no right to lock you out of the game you want to play. However... Steam, in a nutshell, is an anti-piracy software. You make an account, any game licenses you purchase are tied to that account. It's a digital record of what games you have licenses to play. Their EULA may as well say, "Don't Steal Games, or we'll turn them off."

Are they sneaky? Yes. Could their method be borderline illegal? Yes. But the point is... It's effective. The only way you wind up in a position to be "screwed" by Steam, is if you are:

1. Trying to pirate a license
2. Trying to help someone else pirate a license
3. Doing something that Steam recognizes as 1 or 2

If you are innocent, the problem could be cleared up with a simple phone-call or email. If you are not, you deserve to have your account frozen until you purchase licenses for all of the pirated copies.

To say "I definitely stole the game, but they terminated my account without proof" is exactly what's wrong with the copyright system. I don't blame the corporation at all for aggressive DRM; after all, it IS just a response to "consumers" trying to cheat the system.

 

[Rooftrellen]

So, is this one of those cases where it's okay for the consumer to disregard copyright laws if it's not explicitly in the contract?

Like where? Somalia?

Copyright laws GIVE the owner the right to transfer their rights with regards to a product like this, at least in America.

The contract makes a claim that you cannot transfer the product to another person, which is illegal in America.

I don't know about other countries, but I imagine it is mostly the same all around the world.

In America it is about rights (copyRIGHT, eh?) The rights granted by law are there in spite of a contract.

If the contract does not specifically say it's not ok, it IS ok.

If the contract does specifically say it's not ok, it's still ok...

 

[CyberChrist]

@esemjay:
Your arguments are flawed and your conclusions are just plain wrong - and no amount of repeating them will take them any closer to being true. I for one won't waste anymore of my own or anyone elses time trying to make you see the error of your beliefs.

 

[esemjay]

I have quite a sizable collection of books from Penguin. I can loan them out, sell them, or just throw them on the back of a shelf if I want. All of these are legal, and if Penguin contacted me and denied me the ability to read the books I bought just because I sold one, you better believe a judge would be involved quite quickly.

Funny thing is, I would easily win a lawsuit, and it would include a large amount for punitive damages, I am sure.

So, why is it ok with books and not games? Simple answer...it's not. It's ok with both, BY LAW. Your right to use/view/read/play/etc. can be sold or transfered. No contract can take taht from you any more than it can make you a slave.

A game isn't a book; a book is a physical object. You purchased that book, and now you can do whatever you want with it. EXCEPT (!) Copy it for distribution. If you photocopy the entire book, and start distributing that, you are infringing on the copyright. You own the book. Not the content contained within the book.

You can do whatever you want with the books- you can even open a library and let people read the books all day long. However, sharing an account (as I've said several times) is less along the lines of loaning a book- and more along the lines of photo-copying that book, and giving that copy away. Conceptually, this is no different than walking into the publishing office, swiping a book, and giving it away.

That would be like copying the book and putting it on the internet in whole, not like selling your rights to use a piece of software or read a book.

This sounds a lot like agreement... I'm getting the impression we are arguing a very similar point.

The account, as far as I understand (having had Steam for all of two weeks and twice trying to uninstall without losing CiV in the process), is nothing more than a way to ensure that only the owner of the right to use the software at a given time can do so.

Exactly. Steam is a DRM company.

Steam can ask you not to share an account, and that is legal. However, if their rules get in the way of the law, they cannot legally enforce those rules. As I can lend a book to a friend, I can lend a game to a friend. If I cannot do this without allowing them into my Steam account, they cannot ban me for account sharing, because I am legally allowed to transfer my rights that I buy when I get the game.

So long as only one person is on at one time, there is no duplication, only transfer. Again, this is like saying lending my friend a DVD or book is illegal because I have duplicated all the information on the physical material. I have not, only given someone else the right to it.

If you want to let your friend use the game- the best course of action is to purchase in CD form. As it stands, Steam would be able to prove that you had the game active on multiple computers- you would then have to be able to prove that you weren't using the accounts simultaneously. I don't think Steam would care about this particular case of account sharing- you're costing them, what? US$30-50?

If you went and opened an account, with the intent to use that account to let people play Steam games for free, then the "pirated copies" formula grows very quickly. As few as 10 games, and 10 people sharing an account:

Y=10(10-1)=10(9)=90 Illegal Copies. Even if those games were US$5, you have pirated
US$450 from the company. These are the people that Steam is likely trying to intimidate- but, how can you write a contract to punish the $450 guys without punishing the $30 guy... while not simultaneously creating a loophole?

The simple answer is: You can't. If you said "You can pirate up to $100," then people would pirate $99- then USE the contract to defend themselves. As nice as it would be for laws and contracts to be interpreted with common sense, it often comes down to a battle of syntax and semantics. Unfortunately, that means that DRM has to assume that everyone has a hook-hand and an eye-patch.

In fact, even if it IS more than one person at a time, I think a judge would look down on the suspension of service (as there is no way to loan or sell the right to use the material currently supported), but that would be more questionable. Certainly if I buy a DVD my friend and I can both watch it at the same time!

Legally, at least in America, a person would 100% have the right to sell CiV if they wanted. Ideally, Steam would be contacted first to either assist in the transfer. IF they were to say no or not help in a timely manner, suspension of the Steam account for transfer as a way of selling the game would end in the person getting the rights to the game and likely some hefty punitive damages.

You could probably get away with the suit in this particular case. Steam does need to make transfers between accounts easier; it's an obvious attempt to make digital-rights transfer as difficult as possible. It's very shady... but it makes sense from a capitalist standpoint. I think they hope that the inconvenience of transfer makes purchasing a new game a better option.

My suggestion is, if you want to transfer a game someday... buy it on CD.

None of this can be said for anything outside of America, as I don't know the laws of other countries.

However, I am 100% certain that in America, someone CAN sell CiV, and if the Steam account gets in the way, and Steam refuses to help, legal action could be taken against them...and trust me, plenty of lawyers would line up for a class action lawsuit on that one...the first would not be alone.

This one is very true. In order to stand a respectable chance, however, you would have had to try transferring ownership through contractually approved channels. Otherwise, Steam can claim that they were tallying the number of pirated copies to charge to your account.

I won't say that Steam is wrong... but I will say that they need to make their system more convenient. At the very least, Steam needs to include an automated method for license-transfer between Steam accounts. The alternative would be to limit the number of times you can install the software... which is actually a lot less customer friendly.

I will take "No account sharing" over "5 installs per purchase" any day.

 

[Rooftrellen]

How is buying a book and owning the paper but not the content different from buying a game and owning the DVD but not the content?

Also, I do have a CD version. It states that I need to install Steam for the installation process. I complained when I found out that I had to keep Steam installed to play the game, not just for installation, as the case said, in fact.

I cannot sell my game. It has to be connected to a Steam account to work, and it cannot be removed by me. If I want to sell the game, which I have been close to doing (I have not sold more than 10 games in my 20 years of gaming), either the account will have to go with it, or Steam will have to release it from my account.

If I do decide to sell, and Steam does not allow me to do so, I will not hesitate to call a lawyer (better me get the punitive damages than the person who gets the game ).

I won't be making illegal copies of any game, but if I can't transfer the right to use it (using the books, but in an electronic form, something nook allows me to do, without needing a paper copy whatsoever), they are obviously stepping on MY RIGHTS as defined by law.

The whole idea of this kind of system is exactly to restrict your rights, in spite of the illegal nature of such a venture.

Lucky for consumers, when they finally push someone to court over the matter, the method of license transfer of which you speak will certainly be made...though games likely will end up not tied to such a system anyway, since the point is to try to force people to buy new copies, not from the "used book store" so to speak.

 

[esemjay]

Copyright laws GIVE the owner the right to transfer their rights with regards to a product like this, at least in America.

The contract makes a claim that you cannot transfer the product to another person, which is illegal in America.

I don't know about other countries, but I imagine it is mostly the same all around the world.

In America it is about rights (copyRIGHT, eh?) The rights granted by law are there in spite of a contract.

If the contract does not specifically say it's not ok, it IS ok.

If the contract does specifically say it's not ok, it's still ok...

In the case of a Steam account, you don't have any rights because you didn't purchase it. In this case, Steam owns the account- and have assigned it to you. You are told that you cannot share the account.

The account and the license are two very different things. Transferring the game, while inconvenient, is not illegal; and Steam makes no pretense of the contrary. Transferring the account is different, because of the action it implies.

On the server-end, account transfer and account sharing look identical; it is because of this transparency that Account Transfers are treated as Shared Accounts.

When sharing an account, you are providing another person unlimited access to your account. If you purchase 1 copy of the game, you own 1 copy of the game. In the case of a CD, this is enforced through the existence of a physical CD. Whoever is in possession of the CD is the one with rights to the software.

In the digital world, however, there is no CD to keep track of- there is a license, and no physical media to control it. A simplified representation of the model presented by Steam, is they put an ISO on a share-drive, and you purchase a CD Key for it. Now, instead of owning a physical CD that can be freely exchanged with friends... you have a "digital CD", in the form of your account. While it makes sense that you would be able to share this account, there is no way to prevent you from giving your username and password away to everyone. One... two... three people? Steam likely doesn't care about the little fish any more than the music industry cares about the guy who downloads 4 or 5 songs per week.

Once you reach into the truly ridiculous, blatant infringement (100 games, 100 users... each game being $30 is almost a $300K loss) then Steam probably cares a bit more. However, there is no way to write a contract prohibiting major-league pirates, while excluding casual or accidental violation, without creating a loophole. Unfortunately, they have to crack down on people or risk implying that a certain degree of piracy is ok.

@esemjay:
Your arguments are flawed and your conclusions are just plain wrong - and no amount of repeating them will take them any closer to being true. I for one won't waste anymore of my own or anyone elses time trying to make you see the error of your beliefs.

I can live with that.

 

[esemjay]

How is buying a book and owning the paper but not the content different from buying a game and owning the DVD but not the content?

You own the book, but not the rights to distribute it. You can give away your copy... but you can't make copies for redistribution, because each copy you distribute is a copy that the author or publisher doesn't get paid for. When you buy 1 copy, you own 1 copy. You are legally allowed to make copies of the book for personal use; you can scan them, print them, copy them, destroy them... whatever you want to use them for. You just can't start giving them away without the publisher's permission.

In other words, you have the right to do whatever you want with any number of copies that you purchase. If you buy 3 books, you can give 3 away. If you buy 1 book, you can give 1 away. If you buy 1 book, and give 3 away... you are stealing 2 books from the publisher.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Data-Like products are easy to copy. If you buy a car, and then build another car just like it... all of those materials came from somewhere. The same isn't true with copying a digital media.

Also, I do have a CD version. It states that I need to install Steam for the installation process. I complained when I found out that I had to keep Steam installed to play the game, not just for installation, as the case said, in fact.

I cannot sell my game. It has to be connected to a Steam account to work, and it cannot be removed by me. If I want to sell the game, which I have been close to doing (I have not sold more than 10 games in my 20 years of gaming), either the account will have to go with it, or Steam will have to release it from my account.

If I do decide to sell, and Steam does not allow me to do so, I will not hesitate to call a lawyer (better me get the punitive damages than the person who gets the game ).

I won't be making illegal copies of any game, but if I can't transfer the right to use it (using the books, but in an electronic form, something nook allows me to do, without needing a paper copy whatsoever), they are obviously stepping on MY RIGHTS as defined by law.

The whole idea of this kind of system is exactly to restrict your rights, in spite of the illegal nature of such a venture.

Lucky for consumers, when they finally push someone to court over the matter, the method of license transfer of which you speak will certainly be made...though games likely will end up not tied to such a system anyway, since the point is to try to force people to buy new copies, not from the "used book store" so to speak.

I 100% agree with this statement. If you aren't doing anything illegal... you really don't have anything to worry about. While terminating your account is within their rights, and justifiable if they can prove you were trying to infringe on their rights... they need to find a way to make legal transfers convenient. If legal transfer is easy and convenient... there is no reason to transfer or share an account, and doing so would immediately demonstrate intent to pirate.

So, what it boils down to is:

1. Steam needs to implement an automated system for license transfer.
2. Steam needs to spell out, clearly, that account sharing is CD Key duplication and demonstrates intent to pirate.

If these two steps were already implemented, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

[Iranon]

We need to make a distinction between 'illegal' and 'not legally binding'. Selling someone into slavery tends to be both, locally invalid EULAs tend to be only the latter.
Attempting to enforce an EULA known to be invalid may be illegal (coercion?), but I'm not aware of any courts ruling that way.

*

'Don't like it, don't sign it' is a valid personal preference, but not the only one.

Some may be fine with signing an invalid agreement if the contract they *actually* enter is to their liking. Here it matters whether the other party has the means to enforce invalid parts of it - typically yes for Steam, no for traditional distribution methods.

Some go beyond practicality and enjoy baiting people and companies who do business in an unethical way. Given how pervasive dodgy business practices have become, I fully support this in the same way I support strigning along scammers for additional costs and humiliation.

 

[CyberChrist]

1. Steam needs to implement an automated system for license transfer.

Agreed.

2. Steam needs to spell out, clearly, that account sharing is CD Key duplication and demonstrates intent to pirate.

Utter nonsense and I sincerely hope - for the software industry as a whole and consumers alike - that it continues to be so in the future.

 

[QuantumProjects]

If Steam makes profit over my access to its 'free services', then it's a service nevertheless, and shall be ruled by consumer laws. They are not a charity foundation.

The assumption over which many countries legislate is that the consumer is the least powerful part on a contract. Steam dictates how you play a game, and even how you buy a game, and this is not subject to negotiation. Therefore, our power to dictate the contract is unequal, so countries give the consumers "more power" to balance this fact, by providing them with unalienable rights, such as those claimed by most here.


Also, if they're not selling games, but licenses to play a game as long as they want you to, then they should state that explicity and in bold, capital letters, because common sense dictates that, if you buy something, you own the rights to use it for your lifetime.