So I could go to Blockbuster, rent a game for £5. Then stick it on eBay, and Blockbuster wouldn't be able to do a thing about it?
Steam Subscriber Argeement
- Thread starter Tobes
- Start date
So I could go to Blockbuster, rent a game for £5. Then stick it on eBay, and Blockbuster wouldn't be able to do a thing about it?
From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market
This could prove to be interesting.
Not really, all they then need to do is add an arbitrary time period, e.g. "you are renting this game for 10/15/20 years"
The key word there is ownership and buying something on Steam does not give you ownership, right?
I also think it is somewhat laughable the EU Court states that "You have to look at the reality, not the legal documentation"
I am all for breaking down legal speak mumbo jumbo and silly litigation but are the EU court saying the reality is you OWN games on Steam against absolutely everything Valve/Steam are selling you?
Do I own televised media on Sky if I pay for a subscription to the channels which broadcast them?
The EU court either need to get people who understand what they are drafting law for or they need to buy in people who do and properly understand the market. SOME Digital Distribution services sell you retail serial keys and merely give you the media digitally - The likes of Direct2Drive was for example. Steam DO NOT sell you the retail equivalent with a media download even if the game is the same as what you could buy in a bricks and mortar store. In some cases where Steam have done this you get given a serial key also to enter when launching the game (Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example).
The EU ruling needs to be VERY VERY clear, not just in what the consumers rights are but precisely what it applies to. The funny thing is that it might end up the EU courts actually precisely defining what a game is and applying the law to that IRRESPETIVE of how one accesses it, in which case the ruling would cover Onlive too.
I also think it is somewhat laughable the EU Court states that "You have to look at the reality, not the legal documentation"
I am all for breaking down legal speak mumbo jumbo and silly litigation but are the EU court saying the reality is you OWN games on Steam against absolutely everything Valve/Steam are selling you?
Do I own televised media on Sky if I pay for a subscription to the channels which broadcast them?
The EU court either need to get people who understand what they are drafting law for or they need to buy in people who do and properly understand the market. SOME Digital Distribution services sell you retail serial keys and merely give you the media digitally - The likes of Direct2Drive was for example. Steam DO NOT sell you the retail equivalent with a media download even if the game is the same as what you could buy in a bricks and mortar store. In some cases where Steam have done this you get given a serial key also to enter when launching the game (Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example).
The EU ruling needs to be VERY VERY clear, not just in what the consumers rights are but precisely what it applies to. The funny thing is that it might end up the EU courts actually precisely defining what a game is and applying the law to that IRRESPETIVE of how one accesses it, in which case the ruling would cover Onlive too.
Last edited:
The court ruling stated that such models did not classify pay as rental. Rendeering the Eula void. eU does not consider such models to be renting and as such are not protected. It does not follow the rental model.
I don't expect anything to happen any time soon. They can wait till someone takes them to court, they cnago to the appeals court, hack change he servic to true rental service or they can implement second hand sales.
This IMO is similar to the bank fees. It clearly stated. In the contract these fees existed, but it was against EU law, making that contract null and void.
Wrong. Read the outcome from the court case, they have not classed such models as rental. They've classed it as a void contract that breaks eu law and that it is a slae and the EULA is purly made to skirt their legal responsibilities. Now they haven't specifically said that to steam, but if that ruling stands and doesn't get over turned it will apply to them.
Sky, Netflix etc ISS different. That is a rental service and deemed a rental service legally. The court case said models like steam are not rental. Again no names just a general ruling.
Last edited:
Would that work? I don't know. The court could then rule that for the majority of its useful life the first owner has ownership and the ruling applies. This is why it's interesting, to see what happens next.
When a court rules that the reality applies not the legal terms it opens up a can of worms that applying additional T&Cs to won't necessarily help with.
So I could go to Blockbuster, rent a game for £5. Then stick it on eBay, and Blockbuster wouldn't be able to do a thing about it?
What would be interesting to see is when the rental period expires and Valve turn round and say "right, we're deactivating your game", do you then ring up the person you "sold" it to and explain that actually, it wasn't really yours to sell, and that they're no longer going to have use of it....
Last edited:
Bwahahaha, this is the finest example of corruption I've ever seen, I love how its usually the other way around, up until the point ignoring reality doesn't swing in their favor, and so they change it! I smell some serious fish all over that quote.
Of course not. The court is saying artificially calling something renting doesn't make it renting.
Wrong, I do have a serial key, I also have a physical copy.
They would set a precedence that steam do not sell games as subscriber service, whether or not that would be the outcome is another matter, but clear it is not.
How many other subscription services do you currently have where you pay an upfront cost to gain access to a single service? If you subscribe to a newspaper or magazine you pay them monthly or annually, same with most clubs, same with MMO's, steam and it's ilk are as far as I am aware (and of course I'm very likely to be wrong) are alone in offering a single payment subscription, how would you fancy paying £8k upfront for a car that is actually a subscription service and a year or two later the dealer comes and takes it away from you? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but there you go.
Until somebody forces the issue in a court of law we shall continue having these circular debates for no good reason, same with MS licencing too.
No and to think that is daft, that is rental model.
What steam is doing is not considered to be the legal definition of rental, but selling.
Now they can change it to a rental agreement, but that still leaves 100s of millions of games that were purchased before the change in t&cs
Oxford Dictionary definition of renting:
verb
[with object]
pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car):
they rented a house together in Sussex
(as adjective rented)
a rented apartment
(of an owner) allow someone to use (something) in return for payment
That's exactly what Steam is.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
In direct reply to your statement;
"The court is saying artificially calling something renting doesn't make it renting."
You could as easily say, artificially saying something isn't renting doesn't stop it being renting.
It's not daft at all.
For arguments sake, what if Blockbuster charged the retail cost of a game as a "Rent for as long as you want, return when you are finished" product.
Would EU court deem that not to be a rental service also or would it be because it was a boxed copy of a game?
When does a rental service not become a rental service? Blockbuster likely charge more for a rental of some games than they cost on Steam in a sale or after some years so it cannot be based on it's cost.
Lol, using a dictionary over the eu court, for something legal.
Eu courts have said that the steam model is not renting, end off. There still a long way to go, before anyone has to implement that ruling at any number of points steam can change or ruling overturned.
Eu courts have said that the steam model is not renting, end off. There still a long way to go, before anyone has to implement that ruling at any number of points steam can change or ruling overturned.
Read the court ruling, it's in plain English.
Steam is not a rental service.
As the court ruling says.
So when rentals are given to you for an unlimited time. It is no longer legally a rental.
Think of house sales, why do you think the non purchase ones are always like 999 years.
I just love how courts go along with using facts and technicalities to screw everything up, destroying morality. Then when something comes along that is morally correct but uses a technicality to work around the reality, they completely go the other way with it.
This is the bloody problem here.
This is the bloody problem here.
Wouldnt be able to do anything about getting the game back, but sure they would charge you £1 per day late fees for eterntity, ban your membership and you never know, might even get the baliffs onto you once your late fees reach £500+
Am I the only person that clicks agree to all these pop ups without reading them? Not even sure I knew I subscribed to Steam games rather than outright purchase.
But as long as it stays afloat, cant say im bothered
Derp derp.
That was in direct response to you thinking Blockbuster is a rental service without any clarification in comparison to Steam.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Kudus for you for having the patience to reply to all the really dumb arguments being put forward in this thread.
It's almost like people *want* to be taken advantage of.
