Latest Steam update forces you to give up your legal rights

[dsheinem]

I'm not on Steam... But not 'cause of a EULA issue.
Of course an entity writing a contract will write in in their favor. It still doesn't mean that people should be screwed over because they have no choice, that is, until lots of people hear about it.
Then again, hasn't it been proven in courts that EULAs don't hold up as they aren't laws and "most" people don't read them anyways?

Short answer is it varies depending on the court you go to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enfor ... ted_States

The thing I'm having trouble with is that there was already verbage that said "We can change the EULA any time we want, and you have to agree to it to continue using our service." That was apparently acceptable to people; the likelyhood of them putting in anything actually bad was very low. Now this class action suit clause goes in and everyone is worried that they won't be able to get involved in a class action suit which likely wouldn't have happened in the first place. It really feels like a mountain out of a molehill considering that you were fine with them being able to amend the agreement in the first place.

Yup.

I'd also be shocked if/when Steam goes away that they would "unlock" everything for people who paid money for their rentals. I'd be willing to bet that their agreements with most content providers actually prohibit them from doing this.

[Hobie-wan]

Well maybe more like

Right now they're saying "Hey guy, we still want you to play, but you have to promise to not sit on the couch eating Cheetos while a lawyer is a dick on your and 50,000 other people's behalf so they can try to win you a coupon for your next bag of Cheetos and fund the five acre amusement park for their kids out back of the mansion."

[CRTGAMER]

I teased earlier about buying older PC games with EULA that can't force my hand even if I don't agree with it. The difference is newer software is now in full control by the company, a very ugly situation.

This is sooo ironic on the Doom 3 install. Ten years from now it can still be installed offline.

[nightrnr]

Plus, they've already gone on record that should anything happen to the company that they have methods in place to release everyone's games so they can still be played.

You really don't read those subscriber agreements updates, do you? For a while now it has said:

"Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet."

^^^This is what you have clicked an 'agree' button to if you are currently able to use Steam.

I'm pretty sure MOST people don't read the agreements (and why would they expect gamers, of all people, to have that kind of attention span?).
And the ones that do kind of do this .

Anyways, If I really am renting a license, it is with the understanding that it's for use for the duration of my life. Stupid "We-can-do-anything"-agreements or not, crap will hit the fan if millions of gamers ever truly lose access to their games without fair compensation.

That's how I see it. My perception is probably skewed, but it's what my $$$ expects out of the product/service, and that will always speak louder than legal BS.

[MrPopo]

I'm pretty sure MOST people don't read the agreements (and why would they expect gamers, of all people, to have that kind of attention span?).
And the ones that do kind of do this .

Anyways, If I really am renting a license, it is with the understanding that it's for use for the duration of my life. Stupid "We-can-do-anything"-agreements or not, crap will hit the fan if millions of gamers ever truly lose access to their games without fair compensation.

That's how I see it. My perception is probably skewed, but it's what my $$$ expects out of the product/service, and that will always speak louder than legal BS.

And I'm pretty sure most people don't read the various laws in their municipalities (to say nothing of state and national laws). It's still binding.

You're definitely right that if any of these companies suddenly decided to give a big middle finger to all their consumers that they'd lose a ton of business, which is why none of them have done it yet. As has been pointed out numerous times, this clause is not to screw over customers. If the clause was "you cannot sue us AT ALL", that would be a screw to the customers.

[nightrnr]

And I'm pretty sure most people don't read the various laws in their municipalities (to say nothing of state and national laws). It's still binding.

Yeah, I understand that. But I consider laws with regard to digital content to be still evolving (all laws are evolving, fine, but this is still in relative infancy). For me, it's hard to take something serious until there is a clear-cut solution/compromise that most everyone is happy with (fat chance, I know).
I think there is an endless war between company and consumer. That will never end. However, compromise is the great equalizer in the struggle. I just wonder how far our agreements will go to limit rights before people DO stop paying for content.

Where's the line? and do we start resisting BEFORE we get to it?

You're definitely right that if any of these companies suddenly decided to give a big middle finger to all their consumers that they'd lose a ton of business, which is why none of them have done it yet. As has been pointed out numerous times, this clause is not to screw over customers. If the clause was "you cannot sue us AT ALL", that would be a screw to the customers.

Maybe I'm not so wound up about this case in particular. Really, I'm not crazy about Steam's methods in the 1st place (It often takes me a good extra minute or 2 on my PC just to get to my games). I was just enticed by the sales. But sale or not, that's money I payed for a product; and once you get a certain amount invested, you start to take notice of how little you are in control of everything.

...just makes a guy nervous.

[MrPopo]

...just makes a guy nervous.

So there's this great thing called the internet. On the internet you can find ways to circumvent the copy protection of EVERYTHING. Even online-only games like MMOs will get private servers set up. All it takes is time.

[nightrnr]

So there's this great thing called the internet. On the internet you can find ways to circumvent the copy protection of EVERYTHING. Even online-only games like MMOs will get private servers set up. All it takes is time.

Why pay for anything in the 1st place then? And why take ANY agreement seriously.

It's the "paid-for" content that I wish to address. If/when I have to resort to alternative measures, I of course know where to look. Piracy definitely has its place IMO.

I always find it ironic that piracy makes everything more accessible (and I refer to free use of the media rather than convenient access). That's why everything is so screwed up. Piracy offers more open and extended use than the companies that own the rights to something. If they want my dollar, they could at least try to match it.

It's a question of value.
In Steam's case, I do find some value in the easy access to the game selection. But why do I have to look elsewhere to make it more usable? I know there's no one stopping me, but why do they say that you can't have it both ways? (And what if they DO start stopping me?, You don't know how far they'll go in the future).

Also a question of principle. Why should I send the message that I'm perfectly okay with having my rights whittled away (insignificant as it is)?

I like to support business models that fit the consumer's needs (mp3's, GOG, anything that allows more open access to the product). The only exception is when the media is more disposable in the 1st place (like streaming movies).

My thoughts are a little random on the matter, so I apologize for that.

I'm probably getting too worked up about this though, so I'll stop my rant-ish rambling.
As long as Steam doesn't do something rash, like refusing to let me in unless I give up access to the rest of my PC (like PSN, or whatever Sony calls it now), I guess I'll be okay.

[J T]

Here's some more bullshit in the Subscriber Agreement I hadn't noticed until now:

"9. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT

Valve may amend this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use) at any time in its sole discretion. If Valve amends the Agreement, such amendment shall be effective thirty (30) days after your receiving notice of the amended Agreement, either via e-mail or as a notification within the Software. You can view the Agreement at any time at http://www.steampowered.com/. Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms. If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s). Valve shall not have any obligation to refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or cessation of use of any Subscription, nor shall Valve have any obligation to prorate any fees in such circumstances."

[Lokkenjawnz]

Plus, they've already gone on record that should anything happen to the company that they have methods in place to release everyone's games so they can still be played.

You really don't read those subscriber agreements updates, do you? For a while now it has said:

"Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet."

^^^This is what you have clicked an 'agree' button to if you are currently able to use Steam.

I used to think they would unlock your games if they went out of business too. People on online forums told me that would happen and it was one of the things that made me feel better about using Steam's service. But I never heard it from Valve directly, and you probably haven't either. Don't bank on it. They are letting you know in your Subscriber Agreement that you do not own your games and that they can terminate your license or shut off your account whenever. Steam is still in business and I can't access hundreds of games I've already paid for. Why would I expect to be able to access them if they went out of business?

I'm having a hell of a time pulling it up right now, but I swear I remember reading an interview with Gabe Newell or some other Steam exec confirming what I just said. I suppose I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty confident that I read it at one point. I just wish I could figure out some search terms to pull it up.