Valve should block all French users and post the phone and address of the party behind the lawsuit in a login failed window- the matter would be solved within 48 hours
Yes, and then they must refund ALL every frenchie ever spent on steam, every single cent.
YOU have to abide the LAW in the county you do business. I wish all american companies close sevices to europe, just to see how long it would last before youd be coming back on your knees begging to let you back in.
Given how complicated the law is in any given country, combined with the internet making companies totally global, its inevitable that these law suits will pop up.
Its only complicated if the company has presence that is legally binding in another country.
Most online companies avoid this by having all authentication service present only in US for example therefore EU laws don't apply even if game servers are in EU.
Also if in game purchase transactions are back hauled to US - then an EU law won't apply because the customer is doing everything in US.
Lots of cool loopholes that many online business exploit
Yeah, no. IF you are selling games to EU customers, it doesn't matter where you sell them from, you need to comply with EU laws.
Nope.
If a French citizen willingly goes to a Chinese site to buy an account in China on Chinese servers - now this Chinese company (that has no assets, or servers or ANYTHING in France) has to follow French laws?
Yeah... good luck on that.
If a chinese wants to sell to frenchie in france he has to follow french law. How about me coming to your country selling crap and saying your law doesnt apply to me since im not from your country.
Given how complicated the law is in any given country, combined with the internet making companies totally global, its inevitable that these law suits will pop up.
Its only complicated if the company has presence that is legally binding in another country.
Most online companies avoid this by having all authentication service present only in US for example therefore EU laws don't apply even if game servers are in EU.
Also if in game purchase transactions are back hauled to US - then an EU law won't apply because the customer is doing everything in US.
Lots of cool loopholes that many online business exploit
Having the ability to resell digital goods is completely ridiculous. Which makes that consumer right completely ludicrous. Digital goods have no wear and tear, they have no decay. It is in the same conditional for eternity. How are digital content creators supposed to remain profitable if everyone could resell digital goods? Authors, game studios, entertainment companies, etc. would all go completely bankrupt overnight if this consumer protection law was followed the world over.
This law is fundamentally flawed and should be changed. If this lawsuit against valve actually goes through and valve loses they should block the entire french market.
you can go to any pawn shop and look at collection of 100's or 1000's of 8 tracks, records, tapes, cd's, beta maxx, vhs, dvd's, Blu-ray disc, and video games.
what makes digital media so special that who ever purchases it doesn't officially own it and cannot resell it? just because?
Because physical media has a shelf life. Some people prefer to buy new. It wears out, it breaks, it gets dirty, stained and stops working. With the case of digital media it is always new, always pristine.
If you were to write a novel and self publish it on the kindle platform, would you be ok with everyone that purchased your book to then go on and resell it to someone who would have otherwise bought it through the kindle store? Why would they bother? It's a digital product, buying it "used" from Joe Blow or "new" from the author you get the exact same thing with an infinite shelf life. However, in one case you, a struggling beginner author working a 9-5 writing on the weekends gets a share of the profit. However, whenever Joe Scumbag resells your digital book you get absolutely nothing. In fact, the only person benefitting from your hard work in that case is Joe Nobody.
Now, Jane Unsupportive over here, who purchased this digital book from Joe the Asshat, resells the book yet again, and once again a potential reader and purchaser of your work does not give you any money to support your dreams and hard work. It goes on and on and on.
Now, replace that book with any other kind of digital content, which will always be new, pristine, and never wear out or break. The original creator of this work never see's any profit from any resell that ever happens.
I don't know about you, but I want to support the development houses that create the games I enjoy. Just as I want to support the authors that write the books I like to read.
That law is literally screwing content creators.
Digital media is forever, which means that if reselling or trading is allowed that product could literally be resold and traded until the literal end of time.
The other thing people seem to not realize, is that a EULA or TOS only applies if the agreement itself is legally valid in the individual location. Even if someone agrees to it.
Any contract that violates any national consumer or other law, is not enforceable, just like any other illegal contract.
So, I have to agree, this is in no way bad for customers of Steam, I hope they win and that there are similar suits in the US.
What EULA from any major US video game company violates any US law?
in the end more laws like this only hurt consumers more.
Since it sounds like you actually mean that... care to explain how consumer protection laws hurt consumers?
Unless you're just saying what corporate lobbyists always threaten to try to defeat that type of legislation, that "it'll make everything more expensive," the whole idea of consumer protection hurting consumers is just too counter-intuitive for me to wrap my sober head around.
Suppose that widgets sell at retail for $100. Then some consumer protection laws pass that increase the cost of producing a widget by $10 each. What do you think is going to happen to the retail price tag of widgets? Once everyone involved takes their markup, the new price of widgets will probably be around $115.
Thus, customers who want to buy widgets have to pay an extra $15 each to do so as a result of the regulations. If the regulations mean that all widgets work properly rather than half of them malfunctioning, paying an extra $15 for that may well be a good deal. But if the regulations are a bunch of stupid paperwork that doesn't benefit consumers in any way, then I'd sure say that paying 15% more in exchange for no benefit hurts consumers.
When evaluating proposed regulations, one should start by ignoring the stated intent. All that matters is the real-world practical effects of the regulations. And not just the immediate, intended effect, but also unintended secondary and tertiary effects.
The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason more EULAs have not been challenged in US courts, is that most customers are not going to sue over a product class that only costs, say, up to $100 new.
It is well settled law in the US, that a private owner of a legally purchased, legitimately produced piece of media may resell that CD/DVD/book/game DVD etc as used (they tried to sue Gamestop into stopping the resale of used game DVDs for various consoles, and that didn't work, either: the court found that was legal and threw the case out after a preliminary hearing). And that is regardless of any additional conditions the original manufacture may put in any TOS.
That is a settled fact and beyond contestation.
What the "software" companies have thus far failed to do, is show in any meaningful way, how what is on a PC software DvD is materially different than what is on a music CD or movie DvD. There have been MANY cases brought by consumers against software companies, both business and entertainment, that have settled before this question was answered definitively, virtually all by the software companies. Because the companies are deathly afraid of the precedent that would be set by a verdict against them.
It is only one further step from that, to say that if someone buys a physical copy of a piece of software, and can resell it legally (which is almost certainly the correct legal interpretation), why should not someone be able to sell/trade a digital copy of that piece of software, when it is the same exact bits as appear on the DvD?
But the day will come, sooner or later, when the courts WILL answer this question, and chances are it will be going against the software companies in favor of the consumer/reseller.
Which makes this issue involving Steam a big deal.
Gamesrocket.de currently features a 25% price cut, selling it at €44,95. Funstockdigital do offer it with 18% off at $49.18 / €45,34 (base price: €54.96). Steam is not the first who offeres a discount, actually uses a higher base price then some others, and does cost more than Amazon right now.
Also, Steam likes to set €1 to $1, simply exchanging currency, but not adjusting the price. UK is usually cheaper than EU and often even than US. Steam also uses two tiers for EU, with countries like Italy or Serbia being in the "lower" tier. Fallout 4 is actually €59,99 in both do, whereas it is £39,99, so about €55 in the UK.
Currently, the biggest offender EU/US is Silent Hunter 5, with a price difference of 70%, being €29,99 and $9,99. It's actually even more pricy in the UK though, at £29,99 ($44,66).
Given that Valve does this for their own games, publishes by themselves, in their own store, too, you can't blame the publishers. Especially not when some stores somehow manage to make fair prices. Funstockdigital seems to adjust it a bit for Fallout 4, GOG.com generally gives you a store credit with the difference.
Tl,dr: Take your own advice
Yes, other people have occasional sales as does Steam. When you cherry pick sales and put them up against full prices on Steam, of course they will be lower. You should actually read all of what I wrote next time.
Having the ability to resell digital goods is completely ridiculous. Which makes that consumer right completely ludicrous. Digital goods have no wear and tear, they have no decay. It is in the same conditional for eternity. How are digital content creators supposed to remain profitable if everyone could resell digital goods? Authors, game studios, entertainment companies, etc. would all go completely bankrupt overnight if this consumer protection law was followed the world over.
This law is fundamentally flawed and should be changed. If this lawsuit against valve actually goes through and valve loses they should block the entire french market.
you can go to any pawn shop and look at collection of 100's or 1000's of 8 tracks, records, tapes, cd's, beta maxx, vhs, dvd's, Blu-ray disc, and video games.
what makes digital media so special that who ever purchases it doesn't officially own it and cannot resell it? just because?
Because physical media has a shelf life. Some people prefer to buy new. It wears out, it breaks, it gets dirty, stained and stops working. With the case of digital media it is always new, always pristine.
If you were to write a novel and self publish it on the kindle platform, would you be ok with everyone that purchased your book to then go on and resell it to someone who would have otherwise bought it through the kindle store? Why would they bother? It's a digital product, buying it "used" from Joe Blow or "new" from the author you get the exact same thing with an infinite shelf life. However, in one case you, a struggling beginner author working a 9-5 writing on the weekends gets a share of the profit. However, whenever Joe Scumbag resells your digital book you get absolutely nothing. In fact, the only person benefitting from your hard work in that case is Joe Nobody.
Now, Jane Unsupportive over here, who purchased this digital book from Joe the Asshat, resells the book yet again, and once again a potential reader and purchaser of your work does not give you any money to support your dreams and hard work. It goes on and on and on.
Now, replace that book with any other kind of digital content, which will always be new, pristine, and never wear out or break. The original creator of this work never see's any profit from any resell that ever happens.
I don't know about you, but I want to support the development houses that create the games I enjoy. Just as I want to support the authors that write the books I like to read.
That law is literally screwing content creators.
Digital media is forever, which means that if reselling or trading is allowed that product could literally be resold and traded until the literal end of time.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
Digital goods last forever, but the hardware that runs them doesn't. Games get dated compared to the hardware as the years go on. A good example of how people are solving that problem is Gog.com where they sell a lot of old games that they have to change to make work correctly with current hardware. People will often pay for a game that they already own so that it will work with their more modern hardware. So even with digital goods, it appears people do replace their old stuff sometimes.
I do get your point in general. I just don't think your argument to support your point is very strong and opinions on either side have valid points. I personally think the current system works great for software developers and software purchasers. Software is fairly cheap overall and the companies are making good money making software.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
I still own that tape. and it works. you don't think that 20 years now the digital media we "own" could possibly be obsolete? cause im pretty sure it will be. I can no longer play my copy of King's Quest III because it's obsolete. but that didn't stop me from buying it from a friend. and I don't think Roberta Williams got any money from that sale.
it's about Valve and most gaming companies (or any media for that matter) being greedy and the apparent majority that thinks it's ok for them to do so.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
Yeah with how much gaming industry relies on having robust sales 10 years after a game has been released having all those digital copies still floating around is really going to put the hurt on sales.
Given how complicated the law is in any given country, combined with the internet making companies totally global, its inevitable that these law suits will pop up.
Its only complicated if the company has presence that is legally binding in another country.
Most online companies avoid this by having all authentication service present only in US for example therefore EU laws don't apply even if game servers are in EU.
Also if in game purchase transactions are back hauled to US - then an EU law won't apply because the customer is doing everything in US.
Lots of cool loopholes that many online business exploit
Yeah, no. IF you are selling games to EU customers, it doesn't matter where you sell them from, you need to comply with EU laws.
Nope.
If a French citizen willingly goes to a Chinese site to buy an account in China on Chinese servers - now this Chinese company (that has no assets, or servers or ANYTHING in France) has to follow French laws?
Yeah... good luck on that.
If a chinese wants to sell to frenchie in france he has to follow french law. How about me coming to your country selling crap and saying your law doesnt apply to me since im not from your country.
How long would THAT last huh?
Or is it that someone in France wants to buy something from someone in China? That argument doesn't work because it's all a matter of perspective.
Unfortunately I don't study law so I don't have the answer but I've always thought it came down to trade agreements between individual countries/economic entities.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
Yeah with how much gaming industry relies on having robust sales 10 years after a game has been released having all those digital copies still floating around is really going to put the hurt on sales.
Open trading and reselling would mean that you could trade and resell digital content immediately after your initial purchase. So yes, reselling a game for $10 cheaper than the developers cost five days after launch would most definitely hurt sales, and this is what would happen. People would buy a game, kindle book or other digital media, finish them, then immediately sell them again while the content was still relevent.
Physical medium is different in that some people refuse to buy used.
it's about Valve and most gaming companies (or any media for that matter) being greedy and the apparent majority that thinks it's ok for them to do so.
How exactly is Valve greedy? They are a privately owned company that employs and pays many individuals. They provide an excellent service through the Steam platform to millions and millions of consumers. They charge for this service.
Valve single handedly saved PC gaming with the Steam distribution platform, to think otherwise is pure ignorance.
You also never answered my question. Do you as an individual expect to get paid when you go to work? Of course you do. Everyone is entitled to be compensated for services rendered. Whether that is for creating digital content or flipping burgers. Allowing trade and reselling of digital goods would be taking food directly from the mouths of indie devs, artists, and authors.
If you don't like the terms don't use Steam, it's simple. I hardly ever buy anything on Steam because the prices are crap, unless they have a sale on. I also find it satisfying to have a box to hold when I buy something.
I also don't like their no refund policy so I tend to buy elsewhere.
The prices on Steam are often amazing and they also have an amazing refund policy. Full refund, no question asked if you've played under 2 hours or it's been under 2 weeks. The reasons you list, at least for me, are the best reasons to use Steam.
Actually the refund policy is a recent thing. Valve didn't use to allow refund until recently. I am not sure what made them change their stance. Maybe another lawsuite?
Prices on steam are not amazing. They are actually more expensive if we are looking at games that recently launched, especially AAA games.
Now if you buy games from over a year ago, then they go on 50-75% sale but that's like geting a game from the bargain bucket lol.
I am rom the UK but just looking at the euro stteam store, Fallout 4 is 60 euros. Same game can be found on amazon for 35 euros. So that's 25 euros more. And that's one example. IF you look at more recent AAA games you will see the same thing.
If you look at the UK store, Fallout 4 is £40 whereas it's £25. Hell I even got it much cheaper on my XBOX for £30, still £10 cheper than steam.
New street fighter 5 retails for £35-40 on PC/PS4. it's £45 on steam.
SO yeah steam is not cheaper.
Yes, AAA games that just came out are often full retail (or %10 off for a pre-purchase). That completely ignores the amazing sales they have on games regularly. Getting 50-75% off of a game that is a year old is a great way to buy games. It's rare to find these types of sales anywhere else after such a short amount of time.
You also ignore the myriad of non-AAA games that they sell at great prices even new. I can't count how many great games I've bought for under $5 from Steam.
Also, you are comparing cross platform. Why you think that would be valid in the discussion is beyond me, but I will just say that I expect there to be differing prices across platforms.
One last thing, and probably the most damning to your argument, is that you are comparing sale prices from sites to full prices on Steam. Instead, you should be comparing full prices on Steam to full prices on sites. As well, you should compare sale prices on Steam to sale prices on other sites.
Another thing I would point you toward is some hard data about it. It supports both of our points of view in different ways, but at least there are some numbers to look at. Steam games go on sale faster and more often than any other retailer (by a good margin), however, when you combine all other common places to buy games, it gets beat out.
Steam is a really solid place overall to find good deals and to argue otherwise would be ignoring facts. They especially shine during holiday deals and tend to destroy other retailers during those times. In general, it is a good idea to look everywhere for deals, but odds are that when you do, especially during a holiday sale, Steam is more likely to have a better price than any other single site on its own.
You picked USA for your example I picked, France. In France and the U.K it seems fallout 4 is much cheaper than on steam. We are not talking about a sale here. The regular price of fallout 4 was much lower than on steam from the start. Fallout 4 currently is £25 on Amazon and £40 on steam. None of the two have the game on sale. Fallout 4 used to be £30 on Amazon at launch and £40 on steam.
for France it seems there is a much bigger difference.
now obviously it's just one example and I am sure that different games have different points and some games will be cheaper on steam others will be cheaper elsewhere. But from my experience AAA releases are often cheaper at other places which are not steam.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
Because that single was a physical medium that will eventually wear out and become unusable. Whereas a digital game will literally last forever. Tell me, do you expect to get paid when you go to work?
Yeah with how much gaming industry relies on having robust sales 10 years after a game has been released having all those digital copies still floating around is really going to put the hurt on sales.
Abandonware.
Digital goods do have "expiration date". Just like any other goods.
Printed books are being resold on daily basis.
Games on physical media are being resold on daily basis.
Online space being unregulated and companies using loopholes will get fixed eventually.
What I'm saying is that despite all the bitching and moaning by the auto industry in response to all the proposed regulations triggered by consumer demands, the end result was that cars became both safer AND cheaper.
Of course cost relates to prices but by how much is routinely exaggerated by anti consumer protection lobbyists. They always cry wolf and more often than not there is no wolf.
Of course you can choose to believe their exaggerations if you're so inclined, but I've seen it be bullshit often enough to be skeptical. When the price of goods is not set through collusion it's supply and demand much more than any regulations that will dictate the prices.
And for every Steam price there will always be a Greenmangaming that will undercut them. Do you think that this is because of the cost of the item? It's simply that someone is always willing to make a lower profit as long as there is a profit to be made.
This isn't a safety issue though. This is about people consuming an entertainment product and reselling it. I do see what you're saying and not all regulation is bad, but there are some potentially bad side effects to this.
For one, the auto industry charges a lot of money for a vehicle, way more than production costs, because they know that an individual isn't going to buy a new car often.
I think if the industry sees a deeper cut into profits, beyond the current piracy, they will find ways to pass that along to the consumer. Larger publishers can absorb a transition like this, but the smaller pubs and indie devs will have a much harder time, if at all.
Unlike a physical product, like a car, video/comp games have a built in obsolescence: who plays civ3 any more, several years after civ 5 has been released? New versions sell.
Which is why the whole issue of "purely digital products never decaying" is really a non-issue. Game engines get better, graphics get better, and a whole lot more: the games always change to take advantage of new tech and new hardware, they always do and always have.
Who is playing 10 year old games in 640 x 480 anymore, even tho people have the disks? Very few. And such games are either stupidly cheap or free, now... so it is not like companies would be losing anything by people using/selling the copies they bought before.
So really, I still haven't heard a good answer as to why it is perfectly legal to sell a used movie DVD or music CD, but somehow selling a comp game, either on disk or purely digital is somehow different....
Personally, I don't think it is. (And neither did the judge that threw out the suit against Gamestop for selling used games.)
Everyone keeps mentioning 10 year old games. Does that consumer rights law say that you can only trade and/or resell digital media after it is ten years old? Didn't think so. Everyone would be reselling the games they just bought but have had their fill of. Play 60 hours in a few weeks and resell the game while it's still a hot item.
This would render game development for pc unsustainable.
Developers deserve your money. Authors deserve your money. Entertainment studios deserve your money.
That jackass that just decided he doesn't feel like playing The Witcher 3 anymore? He doesn't deserve your money.
I still play some old games but I am afraid that I can't play my digital games any more in the future thanks to online authentication. Authentication server are not running forever. Example: EA I am looking at you with your trashcan software which does not work anymore after a few years and they call that AAA games and at full price.
Thanks a lot!
Post edited by LoveRemovalMachine on
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
What I'm saying is that despite all the bitching and moaning by the auto industry in response to all the proposed regulations triggered by consumer demands, the end result was that cars became both safer AND cheaper.
Of course cost relates to prices but by how much is routinely exaggerated by anti consumer protection lobbyists. They always cry wolf and more often than not there is no wolf.
Of course you can choose to believe their exaggerations if you're so inclined, but I've seen it be bullshit often enough to be skeptical. When the price of goods is not set through collusion it's supply and demand much more than any regulations that will dictate the prices.
And for every Steam price there will always be a Greenmangaming that will undercut them. Do you think that this is because of the cost of the item? It's simply that someone is always willing to make a lower profit as long as there is a profit to be made.
This isn't a safety issue though. This is about people consuming an entertainment product and reselling it. I do see what you're saying and not all regulation is bad, but there are some potentially bad side effects to this.
For one, the auto industry charges a lot of money for a vehicle, way more than production costs, because they know that an individual isn't going to buy a new car often.
I think if the industry sees a deeper cut into profits, beyond the current piracy, they will find ways to pass that along to the consumer. Larger publishers can absorb a transition like this, but the smaller pubs and indie devs will have a much harder time, if at all.
What you're quoting there is a reply to a reply of a reply. My original response in this thread was to Dmkano's statement that consumer protection laws hurt consumers... which I still find a weird Orwellian concept in the same vein as the Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Peace.
... and then a reply to Quiz's statement that regulations always increase cost and they're passed on to the consumers. Which is more often than not, just an empty threat overused by lobbyists attempting to stop consumer protection regulations.
My reference to the auto industry was just to one of the best known examples of industry lobbying against regulations using scare mongering tactics which resulted in nothing like the picture they were painting in the 60's and 70's.
So don't make too much of the auto industry comparison to games... I didn't.
I personally believe that there is ample evidence that profit margins can absorb a lot more consumer protection than there currently exists. Profit margins are not about making an honest moderate profit - they are all about maximizing the return to attract investors who don't give a damn what they invest in as long as their return falls into the ridiculously profitable range. Lots of wiggle room there.
----------------
As to the other "starving artist" argument being thrown around, it's not like the big studios that used to have 99% control of the music industry didn't try the same shit when music went digital: feigning concern for the artists they had been screwing over for decades. End result of that one? Well despite all the piracy in the world that is nowhere else as common as with music tracks, the music kept right on going with more artists recording and making a living selling semi-directly to consumers without having to give most of their profits to the publishers.
Books and music have been re-sold by consumers for decades and books have been available in libraries for free. And yet neither books nor music ended because the artist (who, remember, was already getting screwed by the studios and publishers) didn't get a share of the resale from John Doe to Jane Smith.
So now we're being asked to believe that in a time where the potential market for a book or a song is bigger than it has ever been and the digital distribution instant and virtually cost-free, music and books are going to die because John can resell to Jane? Please...
I know that in some segments of the Western world the popular political viewpoints are anti-government (which, if you think it through, is essentially anti-ourselves) and anti-regulation. Popular opinion is that governments lie and bungle... but not the corporations that bring us financial crises after financial crises?
We're being fed all kinds of BS by those who have a profit stake in selling that BS. One of those is that consumer protection hurts consumers... and some consumers actually believe that horseshit. The only difference between what's happening and what Orwell wrote about in 1984 is that it's not the ministries of truth and peace feeding us BS. It's the truth and peace corporations doing it instead.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Yes, music sales are still prolific, the same can be said for other digital media. However, giving people the right to resell digital content such as music, games and books will hurt indies, simple as that. They have the ability to make a living only because of the digital age. So lets take away their profits and give them to consumers? You must realize that I'm not defending corporations here, but the individual and the small dev team.
The other thing people seem to not realize, is that a EULA or TOS only applies if the agreement itself is legally valid in the individual location. Even if someone agrees to it.
Any contract that violates any national consumer or other law, is not enforceable, just like any other illegal contract.
So, I have to agree, this is in no way bad for customers of Steam, I hope they win and that there are similar suits in the US.
What EULA from any major US video game company violates any US law?
in the end more laws like this only hurt consumers more.
Since it sounds like you actually mean that... care to explain how consumer protection laws hurt consumers?
Unless you're just saying what corporate lobbyists always threaten to try to defeat that type of legislation, that "it'll make everything more expensive," the whole idea of consumer protection hurting consumers is just too counter-intuitive for me to wrap my sober head around.
Suppose that widgets sell at retail for $100. Then some consumer protection laws pass that increase the cost of producing a widget by $10 each. What do you think is going to happen to the retail price tag of widgets? Once everyone involved takes their markup, the new price of widgets will probably be around $115.
Thus, customers who want to buy widgets have to pay an extra $15 each to do so as a result of the regulations. If the regulations mean that all widgets work properly rather than half of them malfunctioning, paying an extra $15 for that may well be a good deal. But if the regulations are a bunch of stupid paperwork that doesn't benefit consumers in any way, then I'd sure say that paying 15% more in exchange for no benefit hurts consumers.
When evaluating proposed regulations, one should start by ignoring the stated intent. All that matters is the real-world practical effects of the regulations. And not just the immediate, intended effect, but also unintended secondary and tertiary effects.
The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason more EULAs have not been challenged in US courts, is that most customers are not going to sue over a product class that only costs, say, up to $100 new.
It is well settled law in the US, that a private owner of a legally purchased, legitimately produced piece of media may resell that CD/DVD/book/game DVD etc as used (they tried to sue Gamestop into stopping the resale of used game DVDs for various consoles, and that didn't work, either: the court found that was legal and threw the case out after a preliminary hearing). And that is regardless of any additional conditions the original manufacture may put in any TOS.
That is a settled fact and beyond contestation.
What the "software" companies have thus far failed to do, is show in any meaningful way, how what is on a PC software DvD is materially different than what is on a music CD or movie DvD. There have been MANY cases brought by consumers against software companies, both business and entertainment, that have settled before this question was answered definitively, virtually all by the software companies. Because the companies are deathly afraid of the precedent that would be set by a verdict against them.
It is only one further step from that, to say that if someone buys a physical copy of a piece of software, and can resell it legally (which is almost certainly the correct legal interpretation), why should not someone be able to sell/trade a digital copy of that piece of software, when it is the same exact bits as appear on the DvD?
But the day will come, sooner or later, when the courts WILL answer this question, and chances are it will be going against the software companies in favor of the consumer/reseller.
Which makes this issue involving Steam a big deal.
I'm not sure why you quoted me for your reply. Anyway:
If you buy a physical disk and want to resell it, the company doesn't have to do anything to faciliate that resale. For it to be legal to resell it does not force the company to do anything.
Now suppose that you have ten games on a steam account and want to resell one of them. But you want to keep your account with the other nine games on it. How do you do it? Even if you know that the government won't get you into trouble, that doesn't mean that the steam software is built to make it possible.
This is the difference between rights and liberties. Liberties are things that you can do without needing anyone else's help. Rights are things that you need someone else to actively help you for.
The existence of a liberty to do something does not imply a right to do the same thing. For example, freedom of speech is a liberty: you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you. But it's not a right, as you can't force newspapers or television channels to give you a highly visible platform to say whatever you want.
Every time I leave this topic, it seems completely settled. Many people have explained how if the company is deliberately selling to a french consumer, then french laws apply. People still are coming in and making convoluted claims about how that is too complicated to work, despite that being precisely how it DOES work, and incredibly straightforward.
Valve is breaking French law. This is not the first time they got in trouble for their terms not agreeing with European law. Just like last time, they will need to adjust their stance. The end. All this pointless debate over how you can tell a customer is french (EASILY) and whether or not the business is located somewhere else (IT IS) is pointless. Debate over whether or not digital goods should be able to be traded or resold is irrelevant in this case as France has already decided.
It really is starting to feel almost like propaganda with how ridiculous some of these claims are.
Comments
YOU have to abide the LAW in the county you do business. I wish all american companies close sevices to europe, just to see how long it would last before youd be coming back on your knees begging to let you back in.
How long would THAT last huh?
If you were to write a novel and self publish it on the kindle platform, would you be ok with everyone that purchased your book to then go on and resell it to someone who would have otherwise bought it through the kindle store? Why would they bother? It's a digital product, buying it "used" from Joe Blow or "new" from the author you get the exact same thing with an infinite shelf life. However, in one case you, a struggling beginner author working a 9-5 writing on the weekends gets a share of the profit. However, whenever Joe Scumbag resells your digital book you get absolutely nothing. In fact, the only person benefitting from your hard work in that case is Joe Nobody.
Now, Jane Unsupportive over here, who purchased this digital book from Joe the Asshat, resells the book yet again, and once again a potential reader and purchaser of your work does not give you any money to support your dreams and hard work. It goes on and on and on.
Now, replace that book with any other kind of digital content, which will always be new, pristine, and never wear out or break. The original creator of this work never see's any profit from any resell that ever happens.
I don't know about you, but I want to support the development houses that create the games I enjoy. Just as I want to support the authors that write the books I like to read.
That law is literally screwing content creators.
Digital media is forever, which means that if reselling or trading is allowed that product could literally be resold and traded until the literal end of time.
It is well settled law in the US, that a private owner of a legally purchased, legitimately produced piece of media may resell that CD/DVD/book/game DVD etc as used (they tried to sue Gamestop into stopping the resale of used game DVDs for various consoles, and that didn't work, either: the court found that was legal and threw the case out after a preliminary hearing). And that is regardless of any additional conditions the original manufacture may put in any TOS.
That is a settled fact and beyond contestation.
What the "software" companies have thus far failed to do, is show in any meaningful way, how what is on a PC software DvD is materially different than what is on a music CD or movie DvD. There have been MANY cases brought by consumers against software companies, both business and entertainment, that have settled before this question was answered definitively, virtually all by the software companies. Because the companies are deathly afraid of the precedent that would be set by a verdict against them.
It is only one further step from that, to say that if someone buys a physical copy of a piece of software, and can resell it legally (which is almost certainly the correct legal interpretation), why should not someone be able to sell/trade a digital copy of that piece of software, when it is the same exact bits as appear on the DvD?
But the day will come, sooner or later, when the courts WILL answer this question, and chances are it will be going against the software companies in favor of the consumer/reseller.
Which makes this issue involving Steam a big deal.
how is that different then my best friend in 2nd grade selling me his single of milli vanilli - blame it on the rain?
artists and creators have been getting screwed for eternity. and they will continue to do so.
I am asking why there are so many entitled artists in the age of the internet?
because im pretty sure the beatles did complain about there music being passed along from friend to friend without them getting any royalties from the sale.
I do get your point in general. I just don't think your argument to support your point is very strong and opinions on either side have valid points. I personally think the current system works great for software developers and software purchasers. Software is fairly cheap overall and the companies are making good money making software.
I still own that tape. and it works. you don't think that 20 years now the digital media we "own" could possibly be obsolete? cause im pretty sure it will be. I can no longer play my copy of King's Quest III because it's obsolete. but that didn't stop me from buying it from a friend. and I don't think Roberta Williams got any money from that sale.
Unfortunately I don't study law so I don't have the answer but I've always thought it came down to trade agreements between individual countries/economic entities.
Physical medium is different in that some people refuse to buy used.
Valve single handedly saved PC gaming with the Steam distribution platform, to think otherwise is pure ignorance.
You also never answered my question. Do you as an individual expect to get paid when you go to work? Of course you do. Everyone is entitled to be compensated for services rendered. Whether that is for creating digital content or flipping burgers. Allowing trade and reselling of digital goods would be taking food directly from the mouths of indie devs, artists, and authors.
for France it seems there is a much bigger difference.
now obviously it's just one example and I am sure that different games have different points and some games will be cheaper on steam others will be cheaper elsewhere. But from my experience AAA releases are often cheaper at other places which are not steam.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Digital goods do have "expiration date". Just like any other goods.
Printed books are being resold on daily basis.
Games on physical media are being resold on daily basis.
Online space being unregulated and companies using loopholes will get fixed eventually.
Which is why the whole issue of "purely digital products never decaying" is really a non-issue. Game engines get better, graphics get better, and a whole lot more: the games always change to take advantage of new tech and new hardware, they always do and always have.
Who is playing 10 year old games in 640 x 480 anymore, even tho people have the disks? Very few. And such games are either stupidly cheap or free, now... so it is not like companies would be losing anything by people using/selling the copies they bought before.
So really, I still haven't heard a good answer as to why it is perfectly legal to sell a used movie DVD or music CD, but somehow selling a comp game, either on disk or purely digital is somehow different....
Personally, I don't think it is. (And neither did the judge that threw out the suit against Gamestop for selling used games.)
This would render game development for pc unsustainable.
Developers deserve your money.
Authors deserve your money.
Entertainment studios deserve your money.
That jackass that just decided he doesn't feel like playing The Witcher 3 anymore? He doesn't deserve your money.
Thanks a lot!
... and then a reply to Quiz's statement that regulations always increase cost and they're passed on to the consumers. Which is more often than not, just an empty threat overused by lobbyists attempting to stop consumer protection regulations.
My reference to the auto industry was just to one of the best known examples of industry lobbying against regulations using scare mongering tactics which resulted in nothing like the picture they were painting in the 60's and 70's.
So don't make too much of the auto industry comparison to games... I didn't.
I personally believe that there is ample evidence that profit margins can absorb a lot more consumer protection than there currently exists. Profit margins are not about making an honest moderate profit - they are all about maximizing the return to attract investors who don't give a damn what they invest in as long as their return falls into the ridiculously profitable range. Lots of wiggle room there.
----------------
As to the other "starving artist" argument being thrown around, it's not like the big studios that used to have 99% control of the music industry didn't try the same shit when music went digital: feigning concern for the artists they had been screwing over for decades. End result of that one? Well despite all the piracy in the world that is nowhere else as common as with music tracks, the music kept right on going with more artists recording and making a living selling semi-directly to consumers without having to give most of their profits to the publishers.
Books and music have been re-sold by consumers for decades and books have been available in libraries for free. And yet neither books nor music ended because the artist (who, remember, was already getting screwed by the studios and publishers) didn't get a share of the resale from John Doe to Jane Smith.
So now we're being asked to believe that in a time where the potential market for a book or a song is bigger than it has ever been and the digital distribution instant and virtually cost-free, music and books are going to die because John can resell to Jane? Please...
I know that in some segments of the Western world the popular political viewpoints are anti-government (which, if you think it through, is essentially anti-ourselves) and anti-regulation. Popular opinion is that governments lie and bungle... but not the corporations that bring us financial crises after financial crises?
We're being fed all kinds of BS by those who have a profit stake in selling that BS. One of those is that consumer protection hurts consumers... and some consumers actually believe that horseshit. The only difference between what's happening and what Orwell wrote about in 1984 is that it's not the ministries of truth and peace feeding us BS. It's the truth and peace corporations doing it instead.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you buy a physical disk and want to resell it, the company doesn't have to do anything to faciliate that resale. For it to be legal to resell it does not force the company to do anything.
Now suppose that you have ten games on a steam account and want to resell one of them. But you want to keep your account with the other nine games on it. How do you do it? Even if you know that the government won't get you into trouble, that doesn't mean that the steam software is built to make it possible.
This is the difference between rights and liberties. Liberties are things that you can do without needing anyone else's help. Rights are things that you need someone else to actively help you for.
The existence of a liberty to do something does not imply a right to do the same thing. For example, freedom of speech is a liberty: you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you. But it's not a right, as you can't force newspapers or television channels to give you a highly visible platform to say whatever you want.
Valve is breaking French law. This is not the first time they got in trouble for their terms not agreeing with European law. Just like last time, they will need to adjust their stance. The end. All this pointless debate over how you can tell a customer is french (EASILY) and whether or not the business is located somewhere else (IT IS) is pointless. Debate over whether or not digital goods should be able to be traded or resold is irrelevant in this case as France has already decided.
It really is starting to feel almost like propaganda with how ridiculous some of these claims are.