Steam TOS Leads to Trouble in Germany

[njrk97]

You actually buy a license to play them. You don't own the game.

Actually in the EU you own the game (regardless of any EULA's or altered TOS's).

Wouldn't it be nice of the US had laws that protects the rights of consumers too? Although I don't think such a law would fly since most conservatives would just go "Nooo that's communism!"

wait wait let me get this straight.
The new TOS means that you cant sue them
People who don't want to agree not to sue them are now sueing them for not letting them sue them?
uhhhhh

Nnno.

The new TOS say consumers can't bring class action lawsuits. A class action lawsuit is a suit wherein multiple individuals bring a collective complaint against a defendant. They pool their resources to hire attorneys, lend weight to their case and split the payoff between them. This type of suit is much more effective against large companies than a lawsuit by an individual consumer, because it collectivises. It has a lot of weight (because hey, suddenly there's a hundred plaintiffs rather than just one), which means that courts, juries and the media take it that much more seriously, it encourages participation (people who wouldn't want to go through the trouble of suing valve individually might participate in a collective, streamlined action) and, through pooled resources, a class action suit can match a corporation's legal resources, improving their chance of success.

That's just one type of suit, though. Valve in general can still get their ass sued off. Particularly since the people suing aren't valve consumers, but are a consumer interest group. The people demanding these changes never signed any terms of service. They're a non-governmental agency (representing both government and non-government agencies) who police corporate practices to make sure they aren't harmful to consumers. This can include anything from false advertising to terms and conditions. And now they're going after valve.

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

 

[MrFalconfly]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

 

[Epona]

Except that Valve can't just shut down all your games you purchased. You see the word purchased? You can't just take back or disable what you sold, that's theft.

You actually buy a license to play them. You don't own the game.

No, they have some null-and-void rubbish in their EULA which claims that. Obviously, any terms and conditions that violate laws are null and void.

No, that's how video games work. You don't actually own the game. If you did, then you would be free to copy and distribute it as you see fit.

No, owning something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You can own a car but you can't go around hitting people with it. You can own a house but you can't burn it down at your leisure. You can own a baseball bat but you can't use it as a weapon.

Likewise, you can own a videogame but not have the legal right to copy it. That's what copyright is, it defines who can make copies.

 

[lacktheknack]

They changed the terms so I can't participate in a class-action suit.

How does this affect my already-purchased games, oh grand guru-above-all-idiots? Don't forget, if I violate the terms and they freeze my account, I can still play my games.

The only recent changes that directly affect my already-purchased games was making it so I could still play them post-freeze. I'm happy with that, as is every other sane human being.

It effects your games because they have come right out and said they are gonna do whatever the hell they want and if you disagree with with them they will deactivate your account and you will lose your games.

You seem to be extremely confused since everything you say contradicts what steam has been saying.

Please explain where they said that.

They're covering against class-action suits. If I have beef with them, they'll PAY ME to go to small-claims court.

"Do whatever the hell they want" is what YOU said.

 

[Burninator]

No, owning something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You can own a car but you can't go around hitting people with it. You can own a house but you can't burn it down at your leisure. You can own a baseball bat but you can't use it as a weapon.

Likewise, you can own a videogame but not have the legal right to copy it. That's what copyright is, it defines who can make copies.

Precisely. It's not like this doesn't have precedent. I'm willing to bet that at least 25% of the people in this thread own an iphone. That iphone is filled to the brim with patented technologies and designs, as Samsung recently found out. Now, does the fact that someone owns an iphone give them the right to copy it? No. No it does not. They have the right to use a thing, not the right to infringe upon someone else's intellectual property.

The only difference between this model and digital distribution is that there's no thing. What you're paying comes in the form of information, not matter. But it's still perfectly possible to rule that a purchase over steam constitutes a virtual sale, and that a steam customer should have the same rights as a customer who's bought a game on a disk from a store. Which I believe is what EU courts said in their general ruling.

So yeah, you can totally own a game without having the right to make copies of it.

 

[lacktheknack]

They changed the terms so I can't participate in a class-action suit.

How does this affect my already-purchased games, oh grand guru-above-all-idiots? Don't forget, if I violate the terms and they freeze my account, I can still play my games.

The only recent changes that directly affect my already-purchased games was making it so I could still play them post-freeze. I'm happy with that, as is every other sane human being.

It effects your games because they have come right out and said they are gonna do whatever the hell they want and if you disagree with with them they will deactivate your account and you will lose your games.

You seem to be extremely confused since everything you say contradicts what steam has been saying.

Please explain where they said that.

They're covering against class-action suits. If I have beef with them, they'll PAY ME to go to small-claims court.

"Do whatever the hell they want" is what YOU said.

The Class-action suits themselves aren't the issue. The issue is that Valve can change its ToS, and everybody either has to accept it, or lose their account and thus their games. Changing the ToS to prevent class-action suits was just the form it happened to take this time. It's about the principle of the matter, not the specifics.

I don't view it that way. It's all about the specifics from where I stand.

I didn't have an issue with the TOS change this time, so I accepted.

And if they make a change I dislike, I accept the terms but simply don't purchase anything else, thus avoiding more or less any problems I might have. I can't imagine what they'd do that would actively stop me from accessing my library. They'd have to demand my personal information and bank information before I'd click "I do not agree".

If they DID do something like demand my bank information (SPOILER ALERT: They won't), then I'll take my business elsewhere. I've always been aware that abandoning my Steam account means losing my games, and I've always been OK with that. I'm sitting comfortably in the knowledge that there's nothing they will do that will make me click "I Disagree".

 

[Lopende Paddo]

I do wonder what would happen if they had to drop Steam in Germany, though. After all, tons of people supposedly "bought" games under false pretenses and misleading advertisement (now it's a "subscription service" and the words "buy" or "purchase" appear nowhere anymore last I've checked)

"All digital goods are delivered via the Steam desktop application.
Steam and your games will be available for download at the end of the purchase.
Is this a purchase for yourself or is it a gift? Select one to continue to checkout."

it says "your games" and "purchase" on my steam account...
I would say that would suggest I would own the games I "bought" permanently doesn't it?

if all else fails we can always switch to DESURA as our on line game provider

 

[Little Gray]

Please explain where they said that.

They're covering against class-action suits. If I have beef with them, they'll PAY ME to go to small-claims court.

"Do whatever the hell they want" is what YOU said.

I guess since you cant be bothered to actually read the terms of service there is no point in even talking to you.

 

[lacktheknack]

Please explain where they said that.

They're covering against class-action suits. If I have beef with them, they'll PAY ME to go to small-claims court.

"Do whatever the hell they want" is what YOU said.

I guess since you cant be bothered to actually read the terms of service there is no point in even talking to you.

I have read them.

And as I've said before, I'm perfectly OK with them.

Maybe this will blow your mind, but Valve does not terrify me. I trust them to not try to shaft me. And if they do, they will currently pay me to take them to small claims court.

 

[njrk97]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

What? the laws that basically allow a bunch of people to sue a legitimately fair company that has viewers best interest and profit within the same margin.

Yeah i get it the law will allow people to sue massive companies that are being dicks and rally against them but its seems that the only people who are against this TOS are people who seem to be a little to sue happy. This isn't an issue for everyone else. i can just imagine
"What? valve how dare you don't let us rally up a group to sue you this is unacceptable I'm suing"

Anyone who doesn't want to sue valve now or within the future have no quarrel with this TOS.

I understand, its more of a principle if we allow one company to do this whats stops corporate giants like EA or activsion from putting up the same TOS for them so if they (or more when they) basically screw us over we cant stop them.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

What? the laws that basically allow a bunch of people to sue a legitimately fair company that has viewers best interest and profit within the same margin.

Yeah i get it the law will allow people to sue massive companies that are being dicks and rally against them but its seems that the only people who are against this TOS are people who seem to be a little to sue happy. This isn't an issue for everyone else. i can just imagine
"What? valve how dare you don't let us rally up a group to sue you this is unacceptable I'm suing"

Anyone who doesn't want to sue valve now or within the future have no quarrel with this TOS.

I understand, its more of a principle if we allow one company to do this whats stops corporate giants like EA or activsion from putting up the same TOS for them so if they (or more when they) basically screw us over we cant stop them.

It is not about the class-action lawsuit (which isn't even applicable in the EU).

It's about the fact that Valve can change their TOS and hold your already bought games hostage.

 

[Skeleon]

"All digital goods are delivered via the Steam desktop application.
Steam and your games will be available for download at the end of the purchase.
Is this a purchase for yourself or is it a gift? Select one to continue to checkout."

it says "your games" and "purchase" on my steam account...
I would say that would suggest I would own the games I "bought" permanently doesn't it?

You're a bit late in pointing that out. That said...

if all else fails we can always switch to DESURA as our on line game provider

...I largely use gog.com now and download and backup all my games just in case. But unfortunately there are a number of Steam-exclusive games that I really want to play, so I still have to use it for now...

 

[Epona]

Another terrible article from The Escapist's resident terrible writer, Andy Chalk.

The "response" to the Steam TOS change is muted because there has been no change. The TOS, like EVERY other service, is "subject to change". Do you use Google Play? Do you use the App Store? Amazon Prime? All these content delivery services have the same type of "we can change the TOS at anytime, for any reason, and you don't get a say except to stop using our service", for better or for worse this is SOP, standard operating procedure.

It is not just content delivery services, but even your bank has these types of conditions. The class action lawsuit issue is the court system's fault, or our legislator's fault, depending on how you view the decision reached by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility vs. Conception, in which by a 5-4 decision it was decided that existing federal law superseded state laws that prohibited clauses disallowing class action lawsuits.

So now everyone has rushed to put in clauses disallowing class action lawsuits into their TOS. The policy of closing your account if you don't accept their TOS is the way it has always been. This is not news. Instead of reporting on this, you should be reporting on the whole TOS clauses barring class action status, which is an interesting story that needs to be debated. Not the painfully obvious, "if you don't accept the TOS, you can't use Steam".

But Andy either does not any of the background, or he just wants to stir up the poop pot. I suspect a little of both is going for poor Mr. Chalk.

You seem to be saying "well, it's been that way for a long time so that automatically makes it ok".

Did I EVER say it was ok? Did I ever once imply I thought there was nothing wrong with it? If you actually read my post, which it seems you just skimmed it, I actually never said "its been that way for a long time", I said "Its been this way since a Supreme Court case in the last year".

I don't think it is ok but the only people who can change it now is our federal legislature. They won't of course, because too many of their campaign donors like these protections and average voters don't care enough to make it a voting issue.

But how about you actually read my post before you go making assumptions.

I read your wall of text.

I stand by my summary of it.

 

[njrk97]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

What? the laws that basically allow a bunch of people to sue a legitimately fair company that has viewers best interest and profit within the same margin.

Yeah i get it the law will allow people to sue massive companies that are being dicks and rally against them but its seems that the only people who are against this TOS are people who seem to be a little to sue happy. This isn't an issue for everyone else. i can just imagine
"What? valve how dare you don't let us rally up a group to sue you this is unacceptable I'm suing"

Anyone who doesn't want to sue valve now or within the future have no quarrel with this TOS.

I understand, its more of a principle if we allow one company to do this whats stops corporate giants like EA or activsion from putting up the same TOS for them so if they (or more when they) basically screw us over we cant stop them.

It is not about the class-action lawsuit (which isn't even applicable in the EU).

It's about the fact that Valve can change their TOS and hold your already bought games hostage.

So like what they have done with steam already?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

What? the laws that basically allow a bunch of people to sue a legitimately fair company that has viewers best interest and profit within the same margin.

Yeah i get it the law will allow people to sue massive companies that are being dicks and rally against them but its seems that the only people who are against this TOS are people who seem to be a little to sue happy. This isn't an issue for everyone else. i can just imagine
"What? valve how dare you don't let us rally up a group to sue you this is unacceptable I'm suing"

Anyone who doesn't want to sue valve now or within the future have no quarrel with this TOS.

I understand, its more of a principle if we allow one company to do this whats stops corporate giants like EA or activsion from putting up the same TOS for them so if they (or more when they) basically screw us over we cant stop them.

It is not about the class-action lawsuit (which isn't even applicable in the EU).

It's about the fact that Valve can change their TOS and hold your already bought games hostage.

So like what they have done with steam already?

I'm going to have to ask you to rephrase that question.

I don't quite understand what you are saying.

 

[njrk97]

Either way you look at this its valve their like the only big company that actually cares about it consumers now, Why the hell would you go sueing them anyway?

Now im no lawyer and in fact i know nothing about legal crap but from my stand point why these people needed to sue or would ever need to is just silly

Like i said VALVE, VALVE, their a good company

So you are going on a "lesser of two evils" basis huh?

Look I don't care if Valve donates their earnings to children's hospitals, they have to follow the rules. And in this case what Valve is doing is conflicting with the laws of EU.

What? the laws that basically allow a bunch of people to sue a legitimately fair company that has viewers best interest and profit within the same margin.

Yeah i get it the law will allow people to sue massive companies that are being dicks and rally against them but its seems that the only people who are against this TOS are people who seem to be a little to sue happy. This isn't an issue for everyone else. i can just imagine
"What? valve how dare you don't let us rally up a group to sue you this is unacceptable I'm suing"

Anyone who doesn't want to sue valve now or within the future have no quarrel with this TOS.

I understand, its more of a principle if we allow one company to do this whats stops corporate giants like EA or activsion from putting up the same TOS for them so if they (or more when they) basically screw us over we cant stop them.

It is not about the class-action lawsuit (which isn't even applicable in the EU).

It's about the fact that Valve can change their TOS and hold your already bought games hostage.

So like what they have done with steam already?

I'm going to have to ask you to rephrase that question.

I don't quite understand what you are saying.

Holding you already brought games hostage. Is that not what steam does already if you deactivate your steam account your games are gone, you can only play steam games when steam is working(which is pretty much always anyway) i was just saying that steam pretty much already holds your games but that being said it not too much trouble to play them even when they are being held.