Slashdot Mirror


Valve Sued In Germany Over Game Ownership

An anonymous reader writes "The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZVB) has sued computer game distributor Valve because it prohibits Steam-gamers from reselling their games. Steam users own the games they purchase and should be able to resell them when they want to, just like owners of traditional card or board games can, said Carola Elbrecht, project manager for consumer rights in the digital world at the VZVB, on Thursday. But while those traditional game owners can resell their games whenever they like, Steam users often cannot, she said."

29 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shame I can't transfer it to another article...

    1. Re:First Post! by GiantMolecularCloud · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you purchase it?

    2. Re:First Post! by Translation+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, that's just what we need... Chinese first post farmers.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  2. Trade-offs by Bifurcati · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having strong property rights of "things" has always been a huge part of our culture. However, in the same way that piracy is hacking away at traditional entertainment business models, perhaps there needs to be some give & take here. For the prices Steam offers, I'm actually willing to give up my right to resell the games - as long the games were truly free of all other DRM (I hate it that they're not...).

    The biggest drawback, as I see it, is longer term not being able to pass the games on to family/friends to play. Perhaps an option is to have a higher tiered pricing which gives you the ability to resell the game later?

    1. Re:Trade-offs by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true here in the UK. Steam is often priced 10-15% higher than retail, both via mail-order (the kind that houses it's warehouse in a tax haven and ships small-value packages to avoid paying it in the target country) and, for the big titles, the big-box supermarkets (like Asda) often have a competitive price as well.

    2. Re:Trade-offs by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually here in Australia quite often the local store is cheaper. Current example - Far Cry 3 - $69.99 for digital download only Steam, vs $59.99 in the local store for the Insane Edition with the survival kit and bobble-head figurine... Assassins Creed 3 - $45 at the store, $69.99 on Steam.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    3. Re:Trade-offs by sheehaje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Steam has great sales - that's usually when I buy most of my games.

      A few years back I got Batman: Arkham Asylum with Lego Batman bundled in for $20 - a great steal for myself and my son.

      This past holiday sale - I got 12 games, ranging from Trine 2 and Torchlight, to Serious Sam 3 and Arkham City for $65 for everything - that's 12 games for a little over what I just spent on 1 game for the Wii U. And I can access them anywhere... Oh yeah, and a great active gaming community that I have instant visibility to while I'm playing on a proven platform. I don't know how many times I've tried games that come with a "social" component that is more a hindrance rather than something useful. Steam takes care of that problem.

      My biggest complaint about steam isn't the fact that I can't resell games - I like my collection in tact. It's the fact that they make it so hard for two people to play. I have a family of 4 - and it becomes a royal pain if my son wants to play Grid racing and I want to play Torchlight. Valve really needs to take a look at introducing a family account. Especially if they are going to start pushing Steam Boxes. What a nightmare it will be to have compartmentalized games for each user that has to be purchased for each individual that wants to play it. Yes, there is offline mode, and yes there are ways around most games for single player mode - but they are band-aides to a much more annoying issue.

    4. Re:Trade-offs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Physical copies of games over here (Poland) are always much cheaper than Steam ones. Especially with Steam's usual $1=E1 prices, the difference is often quite significant and for some reason Steam counts us among the same price region as Netherlands, Germany, e.t.c.

      Example: Far Cry 3. E49.99 on Steam, E31 in a shop right next to my flat and you get one extra DLC with it.

      Steam gets cheap only during sales.

      cya
      Raziel-chan

    5. Re:Trade-offs by Niedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple solution: They shouldn't try to fool people into thinking they are actually BUYING the game. Rename it to say "license the game" or "rent for an unlimited time" or whatever. I'm fine with their non-transferable model as long as they do not try to tell me I'm actually buying the game. Because if I buy something I expect to actually own it and be able to give it away anytime I want.

    6. Re:Trade-offs by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It honestly wouldn't surprise me if one day the bottles of Heinz Ketchup have a tiny-print on them that states that the product is licensed for home use only.
      At present, this is probably not legal, but laws change, and usually to favor big business who can buy lawmakers.

      The first sale doctrine is being eroded, and not all that slow either. It's not that long ago that it was self-evident that the buyer could do whatever he wanted with his purchase, and it required a double signed contract to impose clauses. First, the contract became a one-way contract, not signed by the seller. Then the buyer's signature was no longer needed - breaking a seal or clicking a button was enough. Now, licensing has become the standard for digital goods, even delivered in physical form, and you have to hunt with a microscope to find the legalese that tells you that you're not buying anything, just paying.

      Scary, indeed. Greed breeds greed.

    7. Re:Trade-offs by Loosifur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It honestly wouldn't surprise me if one day the bottles of Heinz Ketchup have a tiny-print on them that states that the product is licensed for home use only."

      You mean like the "Not For Individual Sale" labels on most bulk-packaged items?

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    8. Re:Trade-offs by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean like the "Not For Individual Sale" labels on most bulk-packaged items?

      No, that is for a company to avoid labeling each unit individually. I.e. improving profits by cutting costs.
      The buyer can still sell the individual packages, he just has to provide the next customer with the mandated labeling.

      What I'm talking about is a future where a restaurant (or soup kitchen) can get sued because they served soup licensed for home use only, without paying extra licensing fees.
      It's not as far-fetched as you might think - the beer and soda industry already tried it a few years ago, suing a pub that bought bottled beverages cheaper at a local supermarket, arguing that those cheaper bottles were not intended for re-sale. A few more battles, and big business might even start winning. Because the general public can't be arsed to care, as long as it doesn't appear to affect them.

  3. Being able to transfer games would be awesome by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the days when you bought games individually, you could share them around the household. So if I had bought say, a copy of unreal tournament 3 and call of duty 2, I could play one, and my wife could play the other on her pc (real example! if you prefer, substitute mate or brother for same effect)

    Now, with two online game equivalents on my steam account, we can only play one, as both require being online. Even if it came in a box from retail for cash, you often still end up with a steamworks copy. Just giving my wife access to my steam account so we can juggle offline mode between us violates the ToS which theoretically means they can shut down my account and deny access to all my games, or make most of them non playable online with a VAC ban. Same applies for creating a new steam account for each game; not only would that be a giant pain in the ass, but trying to register the same card for multiple accounts risks the lot getting disabled.

    They already have the ability to transfer licences between accounts with the gifting system, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to transfer my games to my wife so she can play them when I'm done with them, other than greed.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    1. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The simple answer is boycott products with DRM. Don't give those companies any money otherwise they will think DRM is acceptable.

    2. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suck it up. Seriously, are people today so pathetic that they can't go without playing some games?

    3. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's ok, because 75-80% of today's games are crap anyway.

  4. Even Worse with Physical Media by ghotihed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it's even worse when they're disallowing physical media. I specifically purchased a game for my son (Portal) so that when he was finished playing it, I could uninstall it from his computer and install it on mine so I could play. But, even though it was purchased at a store (Wal-Mart, Target, something like that), and it came on a physical disc, uninstalling it from his computer is not enough. It's already been registered and locked to his Steam account, and after several communications with Valve, they refuse to disassociate it from his account.

    If it was just a download, then I could sort of, kind of see the restriction. But purchasing a physical object, like a book or a DVD or a CD-ROM, should allow one to disassociate the application from one account and sell it on to the next person to associate with their account.

    --
    I'm not an actor, but I play one on television.
  5. The worst kind of corporatism by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the west, Communism is decried in part because it doesn't respect the concept of personal property. None of 'your' stuff is owned by you. So why, given that, should we accept for even one second a culture where we only rent and license things from corporate owners? We can't even be said to own the license since there are so many ways a 'permanent' license can just evaporate.

    1. Re:The worst kind of corporatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Communism didn't quite work in the material world, but for digital things it's just what the doctor ordered: everyone gives what they can, everyone gets what they want, since there is no scarcity coming from limited nature of natural resources.

  6. Finally by pookie13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Finn I have waited for this to happen somewhere in Europe. I guess the legislators don't play games or at least buy them from Steam. I hope that this changes how digitally distributed games are seen in light of ownership before every purchase is somehow locked to buyers dna. Tinfoil hats ahoy! :)

    1. Re:Finally by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Informative

      EULAs have been challenged in courts multiple times here in Finland, every single time ending up in loss for the EULA-enforcer. The simple fact is that an EULA is covered by copyright laws, and copyright law cannot remove rights given by other laws. It most certainly is NOT covered by contract laws. That means that even if the EULA e.g. specifically said that you cannot sell the item after you're done with it the clause is invalid and you are perfectly within your rights to sell it.

  7. Re:Germans should read the license before suing. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Contrary to popular belief not all things put on licenses are enforceable and not all rights are possible to give up in exchange of a cheaper deal(essentially this is the whole basis of consumer protection laws).

    OTOH.. it's technically possible to sell your steam games. you just have to sell them all at once(sell the account. you can change the realname if you ever put one in..).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. Re:Germans should read the license before suing. by dkf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, but if the law in Germany says otherwise, then it is the law that applies. That's the difference between laws and contracts (of which a license agreement is just a small part) and it's actually impossible to have a contract to break the law; contracts must be lawful or they are simply not contracts by definition. Even if the agreement says that it is not conducted under German law, German consumers will have the right to use German law anyway. (Well, probably; I've not actually checked what the relevant law says, but there's a lot of similarity in this area across different EU members and I know that UK law is very clear on this point.)

    The real question is not whether there's recourse in law, but how any ensuing judgements would be enforced. An unenforceable ruling really isn't much use.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  9. Re:You can't have your cake ... by allo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a game is nothing you consume. Its like a book. you read/play it once, then you sell it to the next person for a cheaper price.

  10. Re:Digital Licenses are not physical media by Munchr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hurrah for posting before reading the whole article and the article's sources. So the ECJ (I guess Europe's equivalent of the US Supreme Court, correct me if wrong) determined that licenses can be transferred, even for downloaded software. The exclusive right to control distribution of a copy is exhausted on it's first sale. So even though this group suing Valve lost in 2010 over a very similar issue, they will likely prevail after this new ruling by the ECJ. Nice going Europe, I only wish we could convince US courts to follow the same reasoning.

  11. There is a bigger problem with Steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not being able to resell a game is nothing compared to the fact that we can lose all our games anytime with Steam. The license agreement say that Steam can change it whenever they want for whatever they want and if we refuse the new license agreement, then the only option is to close the account and lose all the games we "bought". No refund. We own nothing with steam and considering the current license agreement contains clauses which are clearly abusive (they can do whatever they want with whatever information they can gather from their spyware, err... I mean client software), I'd say Steam is one of the most evil company I ever saw.

  12. Re:Always Germany by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yup. We've got very strong customer rights in Germany. They have a very strong lobby. Multiple of them in fact. Its own fairly powerful ministry on a federal level even.
    Everybody still marvels why we haven't yet gone bankrupt. Quality products and quality service might actually be a good idea. Who knows?

    Also note the use of the word "customer". Being called a consumer is a bit ... insulting.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  13. Perfect Opportunity for Valve by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see this as an opportunity for Valve to get Steam installed on just about every PC. Make it so you can "gift" used copies of the game to other Steam accounts.

    This will ensure just about every gamer has Steam. The ability for a gamer to make an impulse purchase is now there. Increase in sales.

    Let's face it, if someone is looking for a used copy of a game, their urge to play it probably isn't real high.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  14. Re:inevitable by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. It's Germans who make a contract with a german outlet of Valve, following german law. If Valve's infrastructure is not able to handle the problem, they shouldn't do business in Germany. And a change in an EULA does neither change a court verdict nor a law in Germany. The new EULA has to adhere to german law too, and german law says that either Valve rents the game or it sells it, so either the legal framework of a rent or that of a sale applies. No EULA can change this legal fact.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*