Germany makes Valve change HL2 box

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On that special day, Gandalf Parker,
(gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites) said...

> Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
> there can be fees to process a change of hands.

Yes, but that high? If I sell a car to another person, I have to pay a
fee in Germany, but not to the *manufacturer*, but to the *authorities*,
because I have to unregister and give back my license plate. And the
other one, who bought my plate, will have to register the car, and pay
another fee.

The fees seem to range between EUR 5 and EUR 10. Which means, I can
transfer a 13k item for ten bucks. A Valve game is considerably cheaper,
so why do I have to pay the same ten dollars? It can't be *that*
expensive, to run a user database.

And imagine people handing down the game after playing it through (the
single playing mission), from friend to brother, to room mate, which
happens quite often, and should be legal, as long as the former owners
don't play it (ie a pirated copy) any more. You pay thirty bucks, which
is more than half of the original price, only to allow for more than one
person to play it.

I tell you what: they want to force us to pay for the game, each single
person. Regardless of the real number of copies sold.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
just so, at no cost.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in
news:nyMQd.14146$4I5.777236@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Simon Nejmann" wrote:
>> You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
>> Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
>> agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
>> the CDs.
>
> False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
> purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular,
> legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has
> been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright
> holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."

Valve is in no-way restricting your right to sell your CD to other people.
You can do whatever you want with it. That being said, just because you
have sold it to someone else, they don't have the obligation to
automatically give your registration to somebody else so that they can play
the game.

--
Marcel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message
> Valve is in no-way restricting your right to sell your CD to other people.

Yeah, except for publicly threatening to close the accounts of copies of
Half Life 2 being sold on eBay, charging $10 to transfer accounts, and
linking games to 1 steam account.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:49:16 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>"Simon Nejmann" wrote:
>> You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
>> Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
>> agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
>> the CDs.
>
>False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
>purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular, legally
>acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been
>obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on
>that particular copy once the copy is sold."
>
>When I buy a microwave, I own the plastic, not the firmware that operates
>the machinery. Sure, but what the hell does that have to do with my right
>to resell the microwave I bought? I can only sell the plastic case; the
>buyer does not have right to operate the machinery because Generical
>Electric owns the firmware?
>I need to pay GE to sell the microwave?

Sure he can operate the microwave, but the warrenty or service
agreement on it is not transferred just by that - you need to have it
transferred (and most likely for a fee).

Can you go buy a cell phone with subscription (correct word?), and
then just sell the phone and subscription to somebody else, or will
the provider require some transfer fee on the subscription?

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Simon Nejmann" wrote
> Sure he can operate the microwave, but the warrenty or service
> agreement on it is not transferred just by that

Yes it is, only now there is one extra party who is liable in the event of a
product failure - the guy who made the original retail purchase. If I sell
my microwave without notifying the retailer, it does not free the retailer
from liability in the event of product failure. The new owner can sue me,
the retailer, the distributor, and the manufacturer.

- you need to have it
> transferred (and most likely for a fee).

Just give the buyer the original receipt. If it breaks, he can take it back
to Wal Mart and get a refund. Or, he can return it to me; i'll bring it back
to Wal Mart, or the
manufacturer, and pass over the refund. I don't need to notify anyone about
who was using the product.

> Can you go buy a cell phone with subscription (correct word?), and
> then just sell the phone and subscription to somebody else, or will
> the provider require some transfer fee on the subscription?

I just watched a show about this. It was complaining about how Canadian
service providers charge a fee for changing cell phone subscriptions, unlike
most other countries. It serves as an incentive to stick with your service
provider, which increases the barrier to entry for new companies and results
in less competition. Canadian cell phone rates are among the highest in the
world, which, it was argued, is no coincidence.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in
news:rhOQd.14854$4I5.800572@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message
>> Valve is in no-way restricting your right to sell your CD to other
>> people.
>
> Yeah, except for publicly threatening to close the accounts of copies
> of Half Life 2 being sold on eBay

Are people selling the game, or are they selling their account with Valve??
(honestly curious)

>, charging $10 to transfer accounts,

Nothing wrong with that at all. They have every right to charge for work
that they are being asked to do.

> and linking games to 1 steam account.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

--
Marcel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in message
news:nyMQd.14146$4I5.777236@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Simon Nejmann" wrote:
> > You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
> > Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
> > agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
> > the CDs.
>
> False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
> purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular,
legally
> acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been
> obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on
> that particular copy once the copy is sold."
>
> When I buy a microwave, I own the plastic, not the firmware that operates
> the machinery. Sure, but what the hell does that have to do with my
right
> to resell the microwave I bought? I can only sell the plastic case; the
> buyer does not have right to operate the machinery because Generical
> Electric owns the firmware?
> I need to pay GE to sell the microwave?
>
>

While "the doctrine of first sale" worked in the old days with things like
books, cars, radios, ... where the person that sold the item usually no
longer held a copy of it. (Unless he went thru the trouble of copying
every page out a book).

The problem now is the digital age. Where a user can easily and quickly
copy a piece of software and send out thousands of copies to friends and
family memebers within minutes. The delicate balance between developers
and users has been tipped. Or in this case, knocked off the table and onto
the floor.

From reading the web, it appears that software developers are allowed to
encrypt, encode, and protect their software. If what Valve is doing is
illegal (prohibiting the sale of HL2 on CD), then users should be able to
take them to court.

But the problem with the courts is that they can't decide how to treat
digital medium. Having said that, section 1201 of the DMCA known as the
"anticircumvention provision," prohibits copyright users from circumventing
technological measures controlling access to a copyrighted work. So this
sounds like Steam is valid. But I'm no lawyer. And you would think that
the lawyers for Valve would have looked at the legal issues surrounding
this.


http://www.mttlr.org/volnine/Calaba.pdf (Recommended reading)

IV. Why the First Sale Doctrine Ceases to Exist
With Respect to Digital Works

Why doesn't the first sale doctrine apply to the copy of "Riding the
Bullet" (ebook by Stephen King) you purchased? A combination of three
factors limits application
of the first sale doctrine to digital works: first, license agreements
imposed by software manufacturers typically prohibit exercise of the
first sale doctrine; second, traditional copyright law may not support
application
of the first sale doctrine to digital works; finally, the DMCA
functionally prevents users from making copies of digitized works and
prohibits the necessary bypassing of access control mechanisms to facilitate
a transfer.

.......
C. A Central Registration System for Digital Copyrighted Works
Another technological means of facilitating a digital first sale doctrine
is the use of a registration system that records both the serial
number of the work and the serial number of the computer's processor
used to open the file. To use the digital work, a user would log on to the
system whereupon the registry would check to make sure that the serial
number of the work matches the processor number. Upon making this
determination, the system would then grant the user an access key to
view, play or use the work


http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/44_2/09_TXT.htm

In August 2001, the Copyright Office issued its DMCA Section 104 Report.19
For the most part, the Copyright Office recommended no changes to the first
sale doctrine for the moment. With respect to the effect of the DMCA's
provisions, the report essentially concluded that the use of technological
protection measures either had not yet become widespread enough to have any
measurable impact on the first sale doctrine or, where such measures were in
widespread use, the possibility of reduction or elimination of a resale
market for copies did not constitute interference with the operation of the
first sale doctrine.20 As for the impact of electronic commerce and
associated technology on the first sale doctrine, the report focused on the
scenario raised in 1995 in the White Paper, and rejected proposals to amend
the law expressly to allow the owner of a lawfully made copy of a
copyrighted work to transmit the work to another person, as long as the
transmitting owner destroyed her own copy once the transmission was complete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

According to the two separate EULAs (disregarding their enforceability
for the moment), you are allowed to sell your copy of HL2 with the
usual caveat that you totally destroy your copy and pass on everything
to do with the game, including the CD-Key.

You cannot sell your Steam account.

The two products (Steam and HL2) are treated as two separate entities.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Werner Spahl wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chadwick wrote:
>
> > According to the two separate EULAs (disregarding their
enforceability
> > for the moment), you are allowed to sell your copy of HL2 with the
> > usual caveat that you totally destroy your copy and pass on
everything
> > to do with the game, including the CD-Key.
> >
> > You cannot sell your Steam account.
> >
> > The two products (Steam and HL2) are treated as two separate
entities.
>
> But this is not correct as selling HL2 makes no sense without selling
the
> connected Steam account. This is like selling a car and not being
allowed
> to sell the ignition key, without paying more money to the car
company...


Yup. You need to have your CD-Key removed from your Steam Account, and
Valve will provide this service for $10.

You can pay up, and sell a useable version of HL2.
Or you can not pay up, and sell an unusable version. Caveat emptor

Legal or ilegal? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm inclined to side with other
posters who say Valve are providing a service, maintaining your
authorisation data, and can legally charge for that.

Right or wrong? I think wrong. You should be able to do this for free
in the same way that you can de-register your email address from a a
website to stop receiving their email adverts. I would welcome
something along the lines of:
1) You log in/authenticate and go to your Account Settings, or maybe
the game properties in Steam.
2) Select the game and click a button to "Uninstall"
3) A dialog box warns that you will not be able to play the game unless
you reinstall it and download all the updates again - are you sure you
want to continue?
4) Click OK and a dialog box (maybe an email too?) confirms that the
game is no longer registered and will not work any more unless you
re-register. The software is still on your PC and you now are in the
same position as the poeople who pre-loaded it through Steam ahead of
the official release date and just needed to enter the CD-Key to
register the game onto their Steam Account.

Valve are charging $10 to do the above (without the dialog boxes).

Legal or illegal?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 16 Feb 2005 19:17:39 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in
>news:nyMQd.14146$4I5.777236@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> "Simon Nejmann" wrote:
>>> You are in every way entiteled to sell your Half-Life 2 CDs - neither
>>> Valve or anybody else can interfere with that. But their service
>>> agreement is still tied to you - even if it becomes useless without
>>> the CDs.
>>
>> False. From US copyright law: "The doctrine of first sale allows the
>> purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell, rent, or give away) a particular,
>> legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has
>> been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright
>> holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."
>
>Valve is in no-way restricting your right to sell your CD to other people.
Not true.

>You can do whatever you want with it. That being said, just because you
>have sold it to someone else, they don't have the obligation to
>automatically give your registration to somebody else so that they can play
>the game.

Then they shouldn't have imposed themselves on my games, even my older
games that I bought years before Steam. The same old games that I
unwittingly entered, their CD keys, during registration. They should
have at least explained to the user that they are about to take
control of your software, preventing resell without a fee, and should
consider whether the user really wants to tie it to an account.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 16 Feb 2005 21:06:34 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in
>news:rhOQd.14854$4I5.800572@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message
>>> Valve is in no-way restricting your right to sell your CD to other
>>> people.
>>
>> Yeah, except for publicly threatening to close the accounts of copies
>> of Half Life 2 being sold on eBay
>
>Are people selling the game, or are they selling their account with Valve??
>(honestly curious)
>
>>, charging $10 to transfer accounts,
>
>Nothing wrong with that at all. They have every right to charge for work
>that they are being asked to do.

They're being ask to do it, they are forcing it on us.
>
>> and linking games to 1 steam account.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Marcel Beaudoin" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95FFA3CD59F26mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4...

> > Yeah, except for publicly threatening to close the accounts of copies
> > of Half Life 2 being sold on eBay
> Are people selling the game, or are they selling their account with
Valve??
> (honestly curious)
>
> >, charging $10 to transfer accounts,
>
> Nothing wrong with that at all. They have every right to charge for work
> that they are being asked to do.

There IS something wrong with that - the work is only required because Valve
is FORCING you to use Steam, therefore locking your copy's CD key to the
Steam account, therefore requiring that the Steam account be transferred for
the game to work. The main issue with this is that if Steam was optional
like it should be, there wouldn't be a need to transfer or even create a
Steam account in the first place.

Valve is even threatening to disable the Steam account of transferred games
to anybody that doesn't pay them a $10 fee. Valve have already received
money for the game, they have no "right" to charge MORE money because the
original buyer decided (as a free person can do) to sell the game.

How can you people possibly defend Valve in this situation?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

GFree wrote:
> alexti wrote:
> > "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
> > news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:
> >
> >
> >>No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke,
direct
> >>from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account
blocked
> >>because selling the game is "against the EULA".
> >
> > I'm curious about what happens if the person A wants to sell
"steamed" game
> > B, but keep another "steamed" game C...
>
> Simple answer: you can't (at least with the same Steam account).
>
> The only way (currently) is to foresee this eventuality by making TWO

> Steam accounts and registering the games separately. Don't know many
> people who'd bother with that though.

I thought the $10 fee was to transfer the CD-Key to another account,
not to transfer the whole Steam account.

In which case the answer to the ABC question is - you pay Valve $10 and
they either de-register game B's CD-Key from person A's Steam account,
or transfer it to person D(the buyer)'s Steam Account. I'm not sure
whether the $10 gets you a deregistration or a transfer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns95FF43A3A172gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>,
Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>
>Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
>there can be fees to process a change of hands. With a washer/dryer still
>on warranty there can be a fee to transfer that warranty to a new owner
>or you can just void the warranty/support. With a car its abit less
>sensible since most of the use of that database is "their" use (state,
>taxes, police, etc) and not much for the owner who must pay for the
>database change. But at least it could be said that it avoids the car
>appearing stolen.
>
>As I understand it, Steam provides the ability to download patches and
>provides for multiplayer support so if you want to get their database
>updated for continued support, and not appear as a "stolen" account, then
>you pay a fee for updating.
> (...)

It doesn't seem to me that the two are directly comparable then.
Presumably, if I purchase a second-hand hair dryer without paying the
fee, the hair dryer is still going to be functional for drying hair. I
might get some additional support or service or whatever if I pay the
fee, but if I'm happy with just having a working hair dryer, I'm home
free. Or in other words, the primary function of a second-hand hair
dryer is still going to be operational without paying a fee.

HL2 would have been in this category if you could play the
single-player game (or a multi-player game on a non-Valve server)
without having to pay a transfer fee. As it is, however, the product
is completely useless unless you pay the fee. There is no technical
reason why the single-player experience (or multi-play on third-party
servers) should necessitate any kind of Valve subscription or service
beyond the purchase of the software and it is the primary function of
the product so you'd expect it work. At least if the doctrine of first
sale was meant to be something worth wasting ink on.

This, to me, seems to be the distinguishing feature. With HL2 you
cannot opt to drop the fee in exchange for dropping any extras the fee
might have bought you. In stead, the fee is required in order for you
to use the primary function of a second-hand product.

I consider govt mandated fees to be a different ballpark altogether
(indeed, a whole different ballgame on a whole different planet with
unpredictable local gravitic anomalies etc.). The govt can mostly do
whatever it likes anyway - the issue at hand is what a corp can and
cannot do to its customers.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chadwick wrote:

> According to the two separate EULAs (disregarding their enforceability
> for the moment), you are allowed to sell your copy of HL2 with the
> usual caveat that you totally destroy your copy and pass on everything
> to do with the game, including the CD-Key.
>
> You cannot sell your Steam account.
>
> The two products (Steam and HL2) are treated as two separate entities.

But this is not correct as selling HL2 makes no sense without selling the
connected Steam account. This is like selling a car and not being allowed
to sell the ignition key, without paying more money to the car company...

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

emilo@comcast.com wrote in news:hgo611pp317u40ijm7r95jnidbdetrs2d6@4ax.com:

> This is what really gets me is that Valve can take control of old
> games that you may have bought years before Steam and now can't be
> sold or given away, thus ending second hand sales unless Valve gets a
> cut... I mean transfer fee.
>
> It's just not right IMO

That would be very rude. Are they offering none of the "benefits" with
that? No download manager for updates and patches?

Gandalf Parker

 

[jeff]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <bf0911p8ah3kq93lkb9nld2i7m8qia38mp@4ax.com>, emilo@comcast.com wrote:

>Then they shouldn't have imposed themselves on my games, even my older
>games that I bought years before Steam. The same old games that I
>unwittingly entered, their CD keys, during registration. They should
>have at least explained to the user that they are about to take
>control of your software, preventing resell without a fee, and should
>consider whether the user really wants to tie it to an account.

How does that work exactly? You can't reinstall from the original CD's
anymore? Or are you talking about multiplayer?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Gabriele Neukam <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de> wrote in
news:cuvttl$g6f$05$3@news.t-online.com:

> On that special day, Gandalf Parker,
> (gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites) said...
>
>> Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
>> there can be fees to process a change of hands.
>
> Yes, but that high? If I sell a car to another person, I have to pay a
> fee in Germany, but not to the *manufacturer*, but to the
> *authorities*, because I have to unregister and give back my license
> plate. And the other one, who bought my plate, will have to register
> the car, and pay another fee.

Actually that makes less sense to me than this. I dont mind when its a
database for me such as support and warranty. But when its a database
being kept for someone else (even the government) and has no benefit to
me then I should gripe about having to pay a transfer fee.

> The fees seem to range between EUR 5 and EUR 10. Which means, I can
> transfer a 13k item for ten bucks. A Valve game is considerably
> cheaper, so why do I have to pay the same ten dollars? It can't be
> *that* expensive, to run a user database.

Why would it be cheaper? I do admin work for ISPs and I know that the
cost of many things we did was directly impacted by a need to have people
updating a database. It didnt matter if it was a cheap thing or a high
cost thing. It only mattered how much info, how stable and accessable it
had to be, and how often it had to be accessed. So far I havent heard
anyone say that Steam does it badly or has access problems so they must
have put enough into it.

> And imagine people handing down the game after playing it through (the
> single playing mission), from friend to brother, to room mate, which
> happens quite often, and should be legal, as long as the former owners
> don't play it (ie a pirated copy) any more. You pay thirty bucks,
> which is more than half of the original price, only to allow for more
> than one person to play it.

Of course the "as long as the former owners dont play it" is a good part
of the reason behind Steam existing. The "good buddy" copies have always
been much MUCH higher than real pirating.

> I tell you what: they want to force us to pay for the game, each
> single person. Regardless of the real number of copies sold.

Right. Thats the idea of it. Various companies have tried in the past to
make it against the EULA to resell a game. But those failed. Its illegal
to try and restrict resale that way. Splitting the "game" from the
"service" (online servers, support accounts, patch/upgrade accounts, etc)
is another way of doing the same thing. Its not good, but it does look
like it will be considered legal if they cover their asses.

The ways it can be screwed up is by NOT telling the customer important
things about it BEFORE he buys it, and NOT providing for certain legal
requirements such as a way to get a "backup" (or replacement) copy if the
original is destroyed.

Gandalf Parker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> wrote in
news:MyMQd.14147$4I5.777250@news20.bellglobal.com:

> "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote
>> Anywhere there are ongoing support issues which requires a database,
>> there can be fees to process a change of hands.
>
> There doesn't need to be any fee for this; processing can be done via
> an automated form which the buyer fills out. I can sell my copy of
> World of Warcraft, and the buyer can change the email address
> associated with the account whenever he wants, free of charge. When I
> move, I fill out automated forms for my internet service provider, my
> bank, etc, to update my address, all free of charge.

Thats completely true. There does not need to be a fee. But there is a
service there of having someone input that information to the database.
Ive worked for an ISP and we did charge a fee for forwarding. 10$ to
update the info and maintain it for 6 months after deleting the account
would have wiped all that out. We could also have decided not to offer
the service at all, or make it free.

>> With a washer/dryer still
>> on warranty there can be a fee to transfer that warranty to a new
>> owner or you can just void the warranty/support.
>
> By law, the product has to be fit for its intended use, for a
> reasonable period of time, regardless of whether it has been resold,
> or whether or not you mailed the warranty card when you bought it.
> "Registering" your washer is just a means for the manufacturer to
> collect information for marketing purposes; it does not affect the
> legal binding of your warranty.

Without proof of sale, or warranty, it would be difficult or impossible
for someone pursue that. If I buy a shirt from a store then I can return
it as a defective garment but not with some proof of purchase usually.

But you are correct. There is a period (usually much shorter than the
warranty) for which the product must live up to its written description.
Do you feel that Steam violates that?

Gandalf Parker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"T. Fink" <fink@freenet.de> wrote in news:cuuup8$ge2$04$2@news.t-
online.com:

> alexti wrote:
>
>> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
>> news:1114slrkq7jb218@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>>No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke, direct
>>>from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the account blocked
>>>because selling the game is "against the EULA".
>
> Might be interesting if someone here in Germany sues Valve then because
> EULAs (except when they are outside on the box) are not binding here
> since they are a belately introduced part of the general contract.

That already happened. Thats what started the thread. Hence the sublect
line of...
"Re: Germany makes Valve change HL2 box"

Gandalf Parker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote in news:cv257u$seh$1
@orkan.itea.ntnu.no:

> This, to me, seems to be the distinguishing feature. With HL2 you
> cannot opt to drop the fee in exchange for dropping any extras the fee
> might have bought you. In stead, the fee is required in order for you
> to use the primary function of a second-hand product.

I would agree with that but Im getting conflicting responses on the
details. Its said that with no internet connection you can play solo. I
havent heard anyone testing a local lan arrangment. And I may have to go
buy a copy of the game to find out what the box actually says about
internet requirement. But apparently (the subject line of thise thread) it
was lacking on the box and THAT was what the courts forced them to fix.

Gandalf Parker

 

[jeff]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns96003FB0442A2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>, Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>emilo@comcast.com wrote in news:hgo611pp317u40ijm7r95jnidbdetrs2d6@4ax.com:
>
>> This is what really gets me is that Valve can take control of old
>> games that you may have bought years before Steam and now can't be
>> sold or given away, thus ending second hand sales unless Valve gets a
>> cut... I mean transfer fee.
>>
>> It's just not right IMO
>
>That would be very rude. Are they offering none of the "benefits" with
>that? No download manager for updates and patches?
>
>Gandalf Parker

Such "benefits" aren't needed nor desireable for everyone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in
news:1116pu4mi9shp90@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Gandalf Parker" <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote in message
> news:Xns95FEA152D7A0Egandalfparker@208.201.224.154...
>
>> > No, you have to pay $10 to transfer a Steam account. No joke,
>> > direct from Valve. If you don't you run the risk of having the
>> > account blocked because selling the game is "against the EULA".
>> Yes I know. Thats what I said. A fee to transfer the account. Thats
>> not a new thing. Its done with cars, household appliances,
>> memberships in gyms, all kinds of things. Saying that its a "charge
>> to sell a game I bought" would indeed make it something illegal.
>> Saying its a fee to transfer the support to a new owner isnt.
>
> This is not an applicance, a membership, or a car; it's a damn $40-50
> boxed game. In any case I don't remember the last time I paid someone
> a "fee" to sell an appliance.

Then you never tried to transfer the support for one. The fees tend to be
the same since the requirement is pretty much the same no matter what
service database is involved. I agree that a $10 fee to transfer the
support contract of a $40-$50 dollar game is stupid but that cant change
the cost involved. And if it makes people more willing to buy a new one
instead of a used one then thats probably one of the reasons that game
publishers would use Steam.

> Why would you pay Valve $10 just to transfer a Steam account (in order
> to fully sell the game) given that the only reason Steam exists is to
> make money this way *illegitamately*, using clauses from an
> unenforcable EULA.

Why does no one read the topic of the thread? I understand missing the
original post but the subject of the thread should give a hint. The first
post was about a news article saying that Germany had forced Steam to
change the box because the EULA didnt count.

> For someone who played the single player game and
> wants to sell it to somebody else that wants to play the single player
> game, there is no need for Steam at all. So I ask you how this is
> legal and / or legit?

Excellent question. And the answer is? Anyone? Anyone?
If you disconnect your internet connection, does HL2 refuse to play solo?
Or is there a seperate executable that can run the game without going
thru the steam checks?

>> Opt out to play solo would make sense to me in the argument of "I
>> bought the game". But opt out of their distrib system to get the
>> distribs without that system? So you just want them to give it all
>> the way you want? Alot of games use a distrib system without using
>> steam (like GalCiv does). And alot of games dont use such a system
>> for handling distribs. Why bother getting mad at their choice?
>
> Again, I do NOT CHOOSE to get this game through Steam. Why is it that
> one needs to deal with Steam at all if he/she purchases the retail
> boxed game?

According to the steam site its an online system for distribution of
patches and upgrades. Its the system they chose to use for that. Im still
trying to figure out how much forcing to use Steam there actually is but
Im thinking that you dont have to use it if you dont want the services it
offers.

Gandalf Parker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote in news:cv2b3m$sms$2@cronkite.cc.uga.edu:

> In article <Xns96003FB0442A2gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>, Gandalf
> Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
>>emilo@comcast.com wrote in
>>news:hgo611pp317u40ijm7r95jnidbdetrs2d6@4ax.com:
>>
>>> This is what really gets me is that Valve can take control of old
>>> games that you may have bought years before Steam and now can't be
>>> sold or given away, thus ending second hand sales unless Valve gets
>>> a cut... I mean transfer fee.
>>>
>>> It's just not right IMO
>>
>>That would be very rude. Are they offering none of the "benefits" with
>>that? No download manager for updates and patches?
>
> Such "benefits" aren't needed nor desireable for everyone.

Exactly. Thats why I asked. Im guessing that they are standing on a
platform of "fee for services and the transfer of such services". I hate
databases I have to pay to update when it serves me no purpose. That type
of tacked-on fee does happen alot and does get kicked out in court alot.

Gandalf Parker

 

[jeff]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns96004220BB8A9gandalfparker@208.201.224.154>, Gandalf Parker <gandalf@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:

>Why would it be cheaper? I do admin work for ISPs and I know that the
>cost of many things we did was directly impacted by a need to have people
>updating a database. It didnt matter if it was a cheap thing or a high
>cost thing. It only mattered how much info, how stable and accessable it
>had to be, and how often it had to be accessed. So far I havent heard

As far as I'm concerned, said database, like Steam, serves only Valve's
purposes. not mine. Therefore, any "transfer fees" to update that database
are just added bureaucracy slyly designed either to deter 2nd-hand sales or
allow Valve to profit from those sales from which they could not otherwise
profit.


>> And imagine people handing down the game after playing it through (the
>> single playing mission), from friend to brother, to room mate, which
>> happens quite often, and should be legal, as long as the former owners
>> don't play it (ie a pirated copy) any more. You pay thirty bucks,
>> which is more than half of the original price, only to allow for more
>> than one person to play it.
>
>Of course the "as long as the former owners dont play it" is a good part
>of the reason behind Steam existing. The "good buddy" copies have always
>been much MUCH higher than real pirating.

But, in truth, has Steam made this harder or easier?

I submit that, if anything, it's easier... since my "good buddy" can install
the game and play it offline just as I can if I give him the account info. He
can patch and update too. The only thing he might not be able to do is play
internet multiplayer at the same time as I, a restriction not unique to Steam
either. Not to mention the option of using the Steam emulator.

So there is actually very little "reason" behind Steam existing at all.