Slashdot Mirror
German Court Forbids Resale of Valve Games
sfcrazy writes "A German court has dismissed a 'reselling' case in favor of Valve Software, the maker of Steam OS. German consumer group Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv) had filed a complaint against Valve as Valve's EULA (End User License Agreement) prohibits users from re-selling their games. What it means is that German users can't resell their Steam Games."
I feel that it is a bad ruling. Typically EULAs aren't shown to the user until the purchase has been done. Shit like that should not be tolerated in contract law.
If you want to put restrictions on you customer, not only should you be required to show the contract before purchase. Just like with regular contracts you should have verified that the other part is mentally sane and have read through the contract.
Yes, you will get less sales if customers can't just ignore the EULA but if your business model depends on people not taking the time to read the EULA every time then you shouldn't have one.
That's not the legal situation within the E.U.. The European High Court has actually ruled that it makes no difference if there is a physical medium or not, a sale is a sale, and the First Sale doctrin applies. Thus, lets wait for the appeal. (The article actually mentions the decision about downloaded software, if you are interested, it's UsedSoft vs. Oracle C-128/11.)
Valve has the right? Valve does not. Except now in Germany apparently they do. But in the US they are still skirting around the law and the first sale doctrine by using digital locks. Imagine if you had a physical board game that came with a license forbidding you from playing it outside your home, or from regifting it to someone else. But the fans will step forward and defend Steam over this, thinking it's just another form of copy protection.
I don't think Valve should be forced to make the changes necessary to make individual games transferrable, but I think they should have to make it clear that you do not have the right to do as you please with your "copy." I know it's in the EULA, but they should stop calling them "sales" and "purchases" and call them what they are: rentals. That said, they can't stop you from selling your entire account and giving over your login/password. In the US, the first amendment would protect your right to divulge that information no matter what the EULA says.
For a german, that is trivial to pronounce and no native german will have the slightest difficulty.
Welsh names, on the other hand... "Gwrhyr Gwastawd Icithoedd" - yeah, right. Did your cat jump on the keyboard? No, that's actually some real welsh name.
Then again, I assume native welsh speakers now think "uh, what's the deal? That's easy, it's pronounced ..."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Not rented - licensed.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
[ Still using Slashdot until beta takes over, then I'll dump it. ]
It's an interesting ruling. While Steam's lack of support for re-sale of games may run into legal issues, their willingness to keep games available at lower and lower price points as games get older shows that they're not abusing the privilege. If you can wait a while, the price will come down to a reasonable point and the game is available for people who'd have otherwise needed to buy the game used. And I've been delighted to see old games that I've enjoyed, such as the original Doom or Thief or X-com games, be available on Steam. It's helped me avoid having to recover and old games and simply pray that they'd be playable on modern operating systems: I'm very pleased with Steam for making older games available at very reasonable prices. We're actually getting something from them in return for their exclusive licensing.
The correct headline would be:
German court refuses to force Valve Steam to allow resale of games
Too complicated?
Except when a sale is a rental under a lease agreement, which is basically what the Steam EULA is.
The question is not "whether you own something you've bought" but "did you *buy* it, or just agree to a copyright-usage license?"
Pretty much, we know how the answer should go in law (the same way this article says they've gone). Yes, it would be lovely to "own" a game. But you don't. You don't own a movie, or many other things either.
Like the GPL, the law is only going to give one answer, it just takes several people with lots of money with ideas otherwise to actually make the courts bother to state it explicitly in certain cases.
This is a decision by a regional court. They universally suck at rulings regarding any technology invented after 1900. A state court recently held a domain registrar responsible for copyright infringement. And nevermind the treasure trove of truly grotesque copyright-related rulings coming out of the city-state of Hamburg - they are legendary here in Germany, similar to patent cases in Texas.
This is bound to be appealed, and our higher courts usually fare better when it comes to dealing with Das Internet.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Not rented - licensed.
Is that that was claimed during the purchase?
Usually when I see advertisements for games they encourage me to buy the game, not license, rent or lease it.
If every indication they gave was that the game was bought but all the customer got was a limited license then it is if not fraud then at least very shady behavior.
You can't sell a car for a price that the customer expects to buy a car for and then show up later and say that it was only a non-transferable license to drive that particular car.
Except that just because a contract says it's a rental does not make it a rental. I would expect certain terms for something to be considered a rental. In particular I would expect that the longer a person has the object or the mor he uses it, the more he pays.
The internet is not Germany.
Maybe you shouldn't be on a computer.
The European High Court applied the Duck Test on this one, and it found thus: If it is a one term payment and if there is no time limit to the usability, it's a sale, independent on what the contract says, and the First Sale doctrin applies.
their software. Not!
This follows a previous ruling:
The matter was litigated all the way to Germany’s highest civil court, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; "BGH"), which dismissed the suit in 2010, finding that while the doctrine of exhaustion limited the rights holders’ powers with regards to an individual DVD, it did not require them to design their business in a way that facilitated the sale of used games and therefore did not make the Steam terms of service unenforceable.
-- Osborne Clarke
This second suit was prompted by a court case which found that the first sale doctrine ("doctrine of exhaustion") did apply to digital goods. However, it's not surprising this case was dismissed because it is not a question of what rights the consumer has over software they have purchased, it is a matter of what duties the software provider must guarantee to continue providing.
IMHO it is perfectly reasonable that if it is a matter of online support (cost of server maintenance, etc.) that the one-time fee charged to one person does not in turn mean that person can give their support contract to someone else. The one time fee is presumably calculated based on typical use for a single account holder.
But the single-player package should remain fully transferrable.
And as for companies making games require internet connnections they really don't need to abuse the ambiguity here, let's just say I'm not going to cry when they complain about piracy.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Valve has the right? Valve does not. Except now in Germany apparently they do. But in the US they are still skirting around the law and the first sale doctrine by using digital locks. Imagine if you had a physical board game that came with a license forbidding you from playing it outside your home, or from regifting it to someone else. But the fans will step forward and defend Steam over this, thinking it's just another form of copy protection.
That's not the situation here. The court ruling didn't say you can't sell the game. The court ruling said that Valve isn't required to let the person who bought the game use their servers.
Let's say you buy a ticket that gives you unlimited entrance to the zoo for one year. After three months visiting the zoo every weekend, you've had enough of seeing animals. There is nothing that stops you from selling the ticket. There is also nothing that can force the zoo to let anyone else but you into the zoo for free with that ticket.
I'm not German, learned it when I was in mid 20th and I have no problem whatsoever pronouncing (or reading) it.
There are words I struggle with (e.g. Eichhörnchen) but these are none of them.
Also take into account that being long doesn't necessarily mean being complex, long German words are often combined out of very frequently used words, which are easy to recognize.
What you've cited are actually 4 words. Verbraucher-zentralle Bundes-verband.
Except when a sale is a rental under a lease agreement, which is basically what the Steam EULA is.
In Germany, if you paid money for it - you bought it.
Unlike USA, in Germany, EULA can't override the (consumer protection) law.
My reading of the RTFA (the only linked by Muktware) is that the issue isn't as singular as "enforce the EULA":
1. (The first case.) Valve isn't obliged to facilitate the resale of games.
2. (This, the second, case) The judge decision isn't yet public so it is unknown why/how it was reasoned.
3. (Another pending case) Games are not only software, but in larger part are art work. And art work has its own protection laws.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I remember reading an analysis a while back that actually does a bit of economic/game theory on this, and he found that forbidding resale actually has positive benefits for the *consumer*. Part of his analysis was looking at prices between console games, resellable computer games, and games bought via services like Steam. More specifically, he looked at games with online-playing modes that require servers.
What he found is that with resellable games, gaming companies typically only got that 'first bite' and continued play was essentially free through quite a number of customers. Remember that places like gamestop will buy the old games for a song, and sell them for almost as much as a new game.
With games that can't be resold they're able to price the initial game lower, and keep the profit flowing in. It removes places like gamestop from the equation(so they hate it, of course). Consider that I can buy many year old initially $60 games from steam for like $10. Because the game is still being sold, there's still incentive to fix/patch/expand the game.
Roughly speaking, the results were that new game consumers don't pay any more(the new game is slightly cheaper, on average, by about the same amount as what they'd be able to sell it to gamestop for), used game consumers don't pay more, and the studios get more money vs resellers, increasing their profits and encouraging more/bigger games.
I don't read AC A human right
Oh and yes, and obviously /. headline is load of bull. In the first case, court hasn't said that resale is forbidden - it has said that Valve isn't obliged to facilitate it. I doubt very much that the second case arguments would be of much different character.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Do the Germans have a single, very long, really angry-sounding, word for 'this software is licensed, not sold'? Inquiring minds want to know.
it is impossible to resell, since I'm renting the game, but never "own" it.
Indeed. I think Steam should stop using the word Buy (which they currently do).
but if Steam goes down the path of DRM
Steam has been DRM since before Half-Life 2.
Try it when you've leased your car, though.
The whole argument is really a question of whether you're "renting" or "buying", not what you can do with it after. And it's hard to "buy" a copyrighted work of any kind without buying the FULL rights, which include the right to redistribute (i.e. selling the game as your own).
Games, movies, books are much closer to "renting" rights than an outright purchase. It's like trying to "sell" your leased car. The people with the lease agreement with you will come looking for their car and/or cash equivalent via the courts.
I find myself curious - you're not German, and referring to your age as "mid 20th" (instead of mid 20's) suggests you're not American. So what are you?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Read the terms of the sale. It is quite explicit that you only licensed it.
No. But you can do that with a drivers license ;-)
You can "buy" a license to drive a car from your local driving school, but you cannot give that license to another person and by that action grant them the legal right to operate a car. They need to go get their own license, subject to many restrictions, and issued by an organization which has the "monopoly" for issuing such licenses in your regtion.
That is the nature of licenses. All licenses.
I am not saying we should like it. There is a healthy debate to be had over immaterial property and rights. But to compare the purchase of games/software with a physical product is a mistake. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to other licenses in life. :-)
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
There are several ways around it. The link in my sig uses hosts file redirection, but I've heard some people have luck doing things other ways.
You are implying that everyone on /. is either American or German? Now that's a wild assumption. I think you forgot that there are approximately 195 other nations on this planet, a sizable fraction of which have sizable populations able to converse in English (albeit perhaps with some mistakes, which I'm SURE native speakers also do).
Also note GOG games are ancient(although I do love them), Steam not only has modern games but massively discounts those games and its DRM is mild. Once youve downloaded the game from steam you can switch to offline mode and never contact steam again. If Valve dies switch to offline mode. Steam also supports independent software developers and charities with humble bundle(I had already bought half the games in the bundle so steam lets me gift the codes to someone else).
"Steam has been DRM since before Half-Life 2." Anyone who thinks Steam isn't DRM is an idiot.
With that being said, Steam is the example of "good" DRM. As good as you can get atleast. Sure you can't resell your games, but you can download games you bought any time, on any number of computers without having to dance "Authorize/Deauthorize" dance. It also handles connecting to servers, game saves, friends lists, audio chatting...
Steam is pretty much the ONLY DRM service to get remotely close to right.
If you are militantly against DRM, then of course Steam can't do ANYTHING to win you over. For the other 99.9% of humans who understand compromise has to happen some time... Steam is a good product.
First, I'm going to operate under the assumption that proprietary software is considered ethical; if you disagree you may have some valid points but we're just going to have to disagree.
With digitally distributed software, the per-unit cost is negligible - the cost to the seller is almost entirely the cost to produce the "first copy". The ideal method of funding games entirely would reflect this fully, but I think it's going to take a while for crowd-funding to reach that level of cultural acceptance. Until then we'll continue with the selling a completed product at an arbitrary price to recover costs. But the point is, software is not a physical product - it is information.
Console software handled that by trying to emulate physical software. They tied to software to a specific disc (or earlier, cartridge) that did have a non-negligible per-unit cost. This was mainly a piracy-prevention system, but it made reselling games both possible (from a technical perspective) and sensible (from a consumer perspective).
Steam, and similar programs, does not tie games to a physical product. Even if you buy retail, you basically just get a Steam code to add the game to your account, and a physical copy of whatever the latest patch was when the disc was burned, so you only have to update from there (not that it always helps much - I think HL2 has more patches now than the original game occupied). From a legal perspective, they handwave it as a rental - of indefinite duration, and with no ongoing cost, but your "purchase" is just adding the game to your rental list. IMO that's bullshittery that's only necessary because the law hasn't caught up with reality yet.
Laws made for physical products make sense for physical products. They rarely make sense for virtual ones. We've seen this with "piracy" being made equivalent to theft - which /. regularly decries as being false because making a new copy does not deprive someone of their copy, merely the opportunity to have sold it. However, the same applies to reselling - you cannot be sure that the reseller will have removed all their copies (even with Steam's DRM, I can see ways to do keep a copy of a game playable after reselling). Further, because of the pressure of piracy, Steam has very low prices (with some exceptions - Activision seems to insist on keeping their games at $60 for years), which reduces or even eliminates the benefit to the consumer of reselling.
Yes, this is siding with a corporation over user rights. I don't like that much either, just on principle, since user rights are an endangered species these days. But they seem to actually be in the right on this.
I do think that they need to add refunds, though, for games that you purchase but then find either will not run, or do not work as advertized. I would like to think that the only reason they have not is because of the holes that would leave in their DRM.
You are implying that everyone on /. is either American or German? Now that's a wild assumption. I think you forgot that there are approximately 195 other nations on this planet, a sizable fraction of which have sizable populations able to converse in English (albeit perhaps with some mistakes, which I'm SURE native speakers also do).
Whoa, a little defensive there, aren't you mate? There was no implication that everyone on /. is either American or German, and no slight in the GP's post against the other 193 countries. The poster said he wasn't German, and the GP who apparently is American, noted that the description of the GGP as "in mid 20th" is not a common American phrasing. So he was, in fact, deducing the poster was neither American or German and asking which of the OTHER 193 countries was that person's home.
Why do some people go out of their way to find U.S.-centric prejudice where it doesn't exist?
It's more of a perpetual lease. Rental implies that you must return it at some point. Ownership implies that you have full, uncontested control over the item. But a lease means that it's "yours", but that you don't have full control over it. And legally, you can call the process of leasing something, "buying" it. You're buying the lease, with the item attached to it as a condition.
also... what about transfer or gift ? I do have some games that I could give on my list to my friends...but i can't. Re-sell i could understand and I would like to resell my games but transfer or gift on my current list should be allowed and available
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Steam is the biggest DRM platform that exist on the Internet. It's almost impossible to play games without being connected even with the offline mode available.
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
That's why Valve says your buying software and it's not a rental. Well on paper and my receipts I receive says its a sale and I never saw rental anywhere
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Because 'Murica?
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
This is digital content. There's nothing for you to "sell" and nothing requiring Valve to allow anyone but you to use it.
Seems this case and the headline is a bit misleading. The title should be "German court refuses to force Valve to implement third party sale capabilities for their digital content."
I imagine you can still sell any physical item you may possess including but not limited to DVDs with games on them.
The court didn't "forbid" anything like reselling games. They simply agreed with the EULA stipulation that you're not allowed to transfer ownership of an *account*. This actually makes perfect sense.
The fact that Steam also disallows/lacks the functionality for the transfer (gifting or resale) of used games on Steam, simply means there's a market for other providers to start a platform that would allow sale and resale of games. Of course, they might have some trouble attracting large game publishers, but that's another matter altogether.
Pointing it out where it doesn't exist just makes you look stupid.
It's not clear that this is "consumer protection". If the resales actually lower a company's profits, they are going to raise prices to make up for it. In essence, the EU is forcing some group of users to subsidize another group of users. The same is true for a lot of these other "consumer protection laws".
...use is what would apply on a lease.
I find this whole issue very interesting though more in what I hope is the really long term. I personally have no interested in actually reselling any game I have on Steam, even those I have no intention of every playing (bought during Humble Bundle sales etc). I'm a hoarder/collector by nature.
However, what happens to my digital games, my digital music collection, my ebooks etc. when I die? All my physical possessions will likely pass on to my kids. I'd really like to pass my digital properties on as well. I've really only started buying pure digital stuff the last few years and this is only going to increase. Possibly more or less totally replace physical entertainment media in the pretty near future. The games are probably not that interesting since they may be more or less unplayable in a some decades. The books, music and films however are less likely to be obsolete.
Given the extremely long copyright terms publishers have at the moment this really is something that sort of worries me.
Fuck Beta!
Finally, someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
But the game was sold with a hidden provision disallowing reselling. The fact that servers have to be used is a side effect of their method of restricting buyer's rights.
When you buy that zoo ticket it is stated clearly up front that this ticket is only good for you (though practically speaking they don't check ID, I used to have a zoo pass myself). With Steam it is not so clear, except hidden away in a long EULA. Now maybe it is more clear is most games did this, but in this case most computer games freely allow passing around purchased products to other people, and the EULA only forbids running two copies at once.
There are games that come on physical media, on DVD, that require Steam and server access. In that case the DVD is just a convenience however it is not obvious in the store that there is a restriction here. Even if the buyer does see the tiny print "internet connection required" they still do not know that this means they are disallowed from exercising their right to resell the game. And this happened to me, I purchased a game online, had the box shipped to me, and only then discovered that it required Steam (the online store did not list the EULA or a magnification of the box cover).
Now this is fine with an online game, like an MMO or such. Because the inherent nature of those games requires an account. But for a single player game, no server access required for any features, it is ridiculous to forbid resales. This is only being done so that publishers can prop up their prices; they hate it when games are resold, however hatred of lost profits does not justify the removal of legally granted rights.
This is DRM pure and simple. It is not merely copy protection. How can slashdot readers keep bashing the MPAA and the like, raise an outcry when music or video comes with a DRM, but then turn a blind eye when it comes to games?
Buyer's remorse is enforceable if the buyer was not informed clearly of the state of the product at the time of purchase.
The court 'decission' is about a resale of a downloaded game, the decission is about selling a steam/valve account.
And: the court did not rule against the cunsumer or in favour of valve: the court dismissed the case!
Huge difference!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
the fact that you can just change the name of the thing and claim it to be anything else is why we have laws that define when something is a selling and when it is a rent. When someone pays for something once and gets a lifetime use of the good it is a selling, no matter how you decide to call it.
Fine logic. The best one money can buy.
The goal of the laws is to make sure that companies can't shaft the customers.
And yes, I agree, it would make business much much more profitable if law allowed them to rip off customers left and right.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Except no, you're full of shit, compromise doesn't have to happen. Humble Bundle games are sold DRM-free. Good Old Games sells all their games DRM-free, including ones that had DRM at initial release and even ones that are brand new, concurrently under sale through other vendors, and are DRMed there. Both of them allow unlimited re-downloading. There are other
Friends lists and audio chat and such have nothing to do with Steam. There's nothing very special about Steam's implementation of those features, either; I've been using online game services, with friends lists that tell me who is in what game and server lists and all that jazz, since the mid-90s. None of them required any DRM, either...
Steam doesn't allow re-sale, and it doesn't allow gifting. It doesn't allow sharing games (sharing *accounts* is not the same thing; even other DRM systems let me play X while my roommate plays Y even if we only have one copy of each between us). When (not if; it has happened multiple times) Steam servers go down, the games stop working. Steam can, at any time, modify or prohibit your access to their service and to the games you have "purchased". Steam can (and has before) modify their "license agreement" for the service - which of course means for all games running on it, as well - and there's fuck-all you can do about it except walk away and lose all your "investment".
SRM is shit. Steam is DRM. Steam is shit. QED.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
But the effect is that one group of customers shafts another, and often that companies can shaft their customers even more, both of which happens with abandon in Europe.
Funny to hear about that "abandon", esp after in USA, you got shafted of your *own* *pensions*.
10+ years in Germany - and I see no abundance of the alleged behavior. Frankly, I like that I do not have to think about it and can concentrate on my own life. Yes, I do not have to think about it. Welcome to the social state!
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
The games have DRM if the studio decides they want it. Games like Kerbal Space Program do not have drm and can be copied and played on other computers.
There is no such thing as "good" DRM, any more than there is a "good" department within the MPAA and RIAA.
How is it that people will compromise quicly on games while still being adamant activists with music and video? Users rejected DRM outright with music, whereas with games they will quickly jump to the defense of DRM.
The difference is that licenses for pharmaceuticals, driving, etc all have some benefit to the public good. Whether that be not including arsenic in your pills or knowing which side of the road to drive on, it is beneficial for society to have you be licensed (also, those licenses are almost exclusively granted or required by the GOVERNMENT and do not really enter in to the discussion). Another way of viewing this is that those license grant an expansion of rights (or a privelege) normally restricted for the common good. Software licenses do not follow this analogy.
I believe they do. They are a mechanism to facilitate (limited) sales and the economic aspects of immaterial property - which are all regulated and enforced by the laws of society. Or in other words: immaterial property, licenses, and financial transactions are the three components of "software license sales" and they are provided/enforced by society because politicians believe they provide a benefit to society.
but I sure as heck can sell the license and the 'physical' bits that go with it as long as they are transferred to the new owner (i.e. I no longer have them).
First of all the fact that you "no longer have them" is not a transfer. A transfer is only possible if the license or local law grants you the right to do so. In the case of DVDs and Sodastream canisters I am confident local law grants you the right to pass them on. But do not mistake the ability to physically transfer an object for an actual "right" to transfer any licenses.
Digital makes this all quite convoluted, but if these were physical BD/DVD/CDs, no one would bat an eyelash (cf. music CDs, console games) because the license is more obvious when accompanied by a physical item.
Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right. But that is not the case with all things. For example, if you buy a license - including a DVD and a pile of manuals - for some advanced software, then the license to use that software may not be transferable to other users. This is common with lots of software like database applications, media editing suites, software development tools, server software, etc. The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
More like a library book. You can keep it for some unspecified amount of time, but eventually you must return the book. With Steam's DRM this means you lose it if they want to deny access, or you lose it eventually when Valve and Steam go out of business (unless you hack the game to keep it alive). The snag is that the vast majority of customers don't care about this, they have no interest in playing old games so by the time Valve goes out of business they won't mind if their library vanishes.
What if you lost all your DVDs when Blockbuster went out of business? Or you lose your Beatle's records when Tower Records stores when out of business? That's ok, the twenty somethings don't watch that stuff or listen to old people's music, and that's the only market that matters.
You didn't buy the license. The license is just permission to use a vehicle on the roads of that state. You know exactly what that license will allow you to do and what it forbids you to do long before you undertake the lengthy licensing procedure. This is not the same as a software license, especially not the same thing as a shrink-wrapped one-sided EULA.
When I first started in the industry it was standard to have real actual licenses to use software. This involved getting the legal department involved, with pieces of paper being signed. You always knew before you purchased what you would get, both parties were allowed to modify the terms of the deal, etc. With shrink wrapped EULAs however you don't know what they'll say until after a purchase, and if you reject it you have zero ability to modify the terms of the contract and are forced to drive back to the store and pleed with them to take it back. Many stores even reject it outright and tell you to mail back the software to the original publisher to get a refund. Online digital EULAs may be slightly more convenient in this case, except that you still can not modify the terms of the license through negotiation, and the EULAs are still longer than the early software licenses that involved using lawyers, and will sometimes include explicit provisions asking you waive your legally granted rights (arbitration clauses, etc).
While copyrighted materials might not be the most fungible goods(able to substitute for each other), as a simple example there's dozens of tower games out there, hundreds of first person shooters, etc...
As such, while my boycott of EA means that I'm not playing Mass Effect anytime soon, there are plenty of other games to occupy my time.
I don't read AC A human right
What do pensions have to do with consumer protection?
And, FWIW, Germany's mandatory annuity-based system screws people in a major way.
You mean customers getting screwed by companies? Excessively high prices (including for insurance), high penalties for switching or terminating contracts, price fixing, barriers to entry, etc. Of course you don't see it: it would be politically unpopular to make it obvious, but it's there.
Yes, you put your finger on it: free markets require people to think and make informed decisions; informed buyers in a free market is what keeps companies honest. People like you find that uncomfortable and don't like think, you don't like to do your part to keep society going, you just rather leave that to the experts.
There's nothing wrong with people like you choosing to live like zoo animals in well-tended cages. I think it's great that people like you have places like Germany and Massachusetts to move to. Just don't try to impose your preferences on the entire US (which is what Democrats have been trying to do).
You mean customers getting screwed by companies? Excessively high prices (including for insurance), high penalties for switching or terminating contracts, price fixing, barriers to entry, etc. Of course you don't see it: it would be politically unpopular to make it obvious, but it's there.
Concrete example? And the examples which are different to USA??
High price of insurance is probably the only one specific to Germany. Because Germans like to have everything ensured. Even their insurances.
Price fixing is probably the most ridiculous claim. Antitrust laws are pretty strict - and penalties are pretty high. In last 20 years I bet EU has prosecuted and forced into compliance with the law more USA corporations than the USA itself.
Yes, you put your finger on it: free markets require people to think and make informed decisions; informed buyers in a free market is what keeps companies honest.
That's just Ami talking. Trust nobody - be at each other's throat. Have them - before they can have you.
People like you find that uncomfortable and don't like think, you don't like to do your part to keep society going, you just rather leave that to the experts.
We have here a fully functional gov't so I really can rely on experts. And If that allows me to go with my own life - why not? Why should I care about every little piece of shit? - when there are people I can rely on? and who can rely on me? Oh wait, you gave the answer to that: "trust nobody!"
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
It's the other way around: I can transfer BD/DVD/CDs because local law does not prevent me from doing so.
Again, it's the other way around: Attaching a license to a product does not in any way restrict my actions unless the law recognizes that license as valid and binding.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Typical German [...]
LOL. I'm not even a German.
"Born in USSR!"
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Well, given that Russia copied much of its ideology and culture (such as it is) from Germany, German and Russian attitudes are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Both nations have a long history of totalitarianism, intolerance, and anti-Americanism. Both nations have middle classes born and bred to serve the state, while viewing business and trade with disdain. You sound like a typical representative.
Why should you care about "every little piece of shit"? Because if you leave that stuff to your elites, they will wreck your economies and eventually go on oppressing and killing their neighbors and their minorities, just like they have done time and time again.
This changes nothing. The fact that a few games opt-out of Steam's DRM doesn't change the fact that Steam is a DRM system.
Steam is also a distribution system, an update system, and a few other things (instant-messaging etc), but none of this matters. Steam is, or if you prefer, includes as a core component, a DRM system. This cannot be denied.
How can you say it is "core component" if it is purely optional?
There are studios that will not sell their games without a DRM system. This means that the fault lies in the hands of the studios demanding DRM and the consumers purchasing drm laden games. If you want to fault Steam for something fault them for not being upfront with the consumer with which games have DRM.
How can you say it is "core component" if it is purely optional?
Because it's one of the three main services Steam offer to publishers/developers, alongside distribution via download ('digital distribution' if you prefer tautologies) and game-updating.
I could say the Steam client includes a DRM system, used by nearly all games available from the Steam library. Better? It remains that Steam is DRM.
There are studios that will not sell their games without a DRM system. This means that the fault lies in the hands of the studios demanding DRM and the consumers purchasing drm laden games.
Sure. Valve is one such company.
If you want to fault Steam for something fault them for not being upfront with the consumer with which games have DRM.
They should be more upfront, but they do at least list an Internet connection in the System Requirements.