Valve Censoring Torrent References In Steam Chat

dotarray writes It seems Valve is restricting just what you can talk about when using the Steam chat service. Specifically, any reference to a particular torrent site is being stripped from conversation, while mentions of other pages trigger a warning that the site is "potentially malicious." In the wake of website KickassTorrents being taken offline earlier this week, people quickly noticed that references to the torrent site were being stripped from chat - with no warning, notificiation, or acknowledgement that anything is missing. We've seen censorship before, with chat providers blocking certain words, replacing key letters with asterisks or simply substituting inoffensive words for those considered 'problematic.' That's not what Valve is doing here though - the entire message is disappearing, not just the troublesome domain.

Comments

Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Most pirated games go through the Steam client. Valve obviously wants people to buy games on Steam, not use Steam to play pirated games.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Steam is a cloud-based service. Steam cannot be used to distribute piracy torrents. We are only talking about sharing external KAT links in the chat.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I don't see what the problem is here. If one really wants to have KickassTorrents conversations, I'm sure he can find some other channel to do it.

Do you really think they implemented that filtering function specifically to remove texts containing "KickassTorrents" and that it is hardcoded to that?
The problem isn't that they are removing texts containing "KickassTorrents", the problem is the ones we don't know about.
So, they don't want people to find out about pirated games. How do they feel about people saying bad things about their own games, like informing other users about bugs? What do they think about competitors games, are any of those censored?
If they want to censor the chat, fine, but at least provide us with a list of the words that aren't allowed.
It's like the ESL statement "If we told you what the chat rules were it would be easier for you to circumvent them."

Re:Well duh

[hairyfeet]

So in other words you are this guy and are so clueless about the subject you think Steam is a MSFT product....well thx for wasting our time.

Re:Well duh

[drinkypoo]

Most pirated games go through the Steam client.

You try to play one of those games on the Steam network, you're gonna have a bad time. Valve will detect your sorry ass and you may lose your whole steam account.

Re: Well duh

[Bengie]

"The Cloud" is typically in reference to a resource pool where you don't care about "servers", you just care about resources. The GP seemed to be using the term a bit more generically to indicate that there is no "Steam server" that you connect to, just some notion of "Steam".

Re:Well duh

[Bengie]

You seem to have mixed up a few things, but I'll just focus on the main argument of a boycott. Those only work when you have a roughly equivalent alternative, and you speak as if there is no cost to not using Steam, when many users have a large investment that they'd be walking away from.

The logic you use is similar to that who is suicidal. I want to hurt you by hurting me.

Re:Well duh

[Sir_Substance]

Almost 100% of pirated games aren't sold, what are you talking about?

Re:Well duh

[matbury]

It's a reminder that we don't have the right to free speech on private corporate social networking services.

Re:Well duh

[Enfixed]

Steam has made buying games convenient and affordable, I don't even think about pirating a game anymore. Today I work along the lines of "if it's not on Steam I'm not going to bother buying / playing it". A reduction in piracy simply because a market started doing what the consumer wanted, you reading this music industry guys?

Re:Well duh

[rochrist]

It's not that hard. He's saying the majority of these pirated games have their legitimate retail version sold thru steam.

Re:Well duh

[PopeRatzo]

I find I'm waiting for the Christmas blowouts typically, and until them I'm loading up on the $20 indie titles.

Heck, last year I distinctly remember buying the new Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag for less than half the full price, and I had a great time with both of them. I don't have a problem with waiting a little while. Waiting also has two other big benefits for me. First, by the time I buy a game, it has been patched and tweaked and actually runs properly and second, it gives me a chance to upgrade my PC to play the game as it was meant to be played without getting fleeced for premium prices for new components.

Good for them

[Bovius]

It's interesting to see how Valve his handling being the titan in the game distributors market for several years running. I know that not everything they do is best for the long term health of the industry or their consumers, but this deterring piracy on communication channels they sponsor seems pretty reasonable, and overall they've handled things quite well.

Maybe they can come up with a better way of dealing with it instead of just silently removing messages, though. Maybe wag a finger disapprovingly at the person sending the message and don't even make it look like the message got sent from their end.

Re:Good for them

[mvdwege]

So you are using their chat app to talk about how to infringe their copyright, and you think they are in the wrong?

Entitled little bitch much?

Re:Good for them

[smooth wombat]

it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.

False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.

Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.

Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.

Re:Good for them

[GrumpySteen]

In America we have free speech. it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.

You need to re-read the constitution. It's against the constitution for the US government to censor speech. The first amendment does not apply to communication channels provided by a corporation like Valve.

Re:Good for them

[Bengie]

They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property.

You over simplify. Can banks just decide to not do business with you and keep your money? There are also laws against discrimination because a business can't just do anything it wants with its property, like put up a sign that says "No Blacks or Jews".

But you are correct about the main premise of your argument, the 1st Amendment applies to the Government or other government regulated entities like common carriers.

Re:Good for them

[Bacon Bits]

Can banks just decide to not do business with you

Yes. That's how credit cards get cancelled and mortgages get foreclosed on. Don't you think the bank would just rather you paid them? Because that interest is how they make money.

and keep your money?

No, because that is theft. As parent said: "with their property." The money in a bank isn't owned by the bank. It's owned by it's customers. If the bank decides not to do business with you, they must return your property.

There are also laws against discrimination because a business can't just do anything it wants with its property, like put up a sign that says "No Blacks or Jews".

Yes, because discrimination on the basis of race or religion is specifically banned. But it's that category that is banned, not discrimination as a whole. Nearly every business has a "right to refuse service" clause or sign. You ever know anybody to get thrown out of a place for being an asshole? Right to refuse service. You just can't refuse service because of age, disability, gender, race, national origin, or religion (among a few other things), but you absolutely can refuse service for nearly everything else. "We don't serve people who are rude." "We don't serve people who bounce checks." "We don't serve people who complain for petty reasons." "We don't serve people without shirt and shoes." "We don't allow food in here." "We don't allow children into R-rated movies."

You know the Soup Nazi? That is not illegal.

Businesses usually have little interest in refusing services in general because it's -- quite literally -- turning money away, but that doesn't mean they don't get to decide who they do business with.

I don't see the problem

[tsotha]

Would you go to Walmart's site and leave links pointing to instructions for shoplifting at Walmart? Valve's site; Valve's rules.

Re:I don't see the problem

[thegarbz]

Do you expect to walk into a Walmart and shout out instructions for shoplifting but have people mysteriously unable to hear you?

The problem is not the censorship, it's the covert censorship. With any kind of chat system we expect acknowledgement of a message. I don't care if the message doesn't get through as long as I know about it and as long as I know why.

Re:I don't see the problem

[gl4ss]

Valves site, Valves rules, so next week don't be so surprised when a friend messages you back that they bought a game they thought you recommended to them.

it's valves site after all so why not?

Re:I don't see the problem

[Jack Griffin]

True, this is the benefit of a free market. Another benefit is it's my money so I get to choose where I spend it, so guess what? Not another dollar off mine will go through Steam. I have no problem with santising comms, but the nature of blind censorship just reeks of abuse. I can't support such behaviour.

Re: I don't see the problem

[ihtoit]

would you rather I sourced from the MPAA, the BPI, the New York Chamber of Commerce? Because they would get exactly the same data from exactly the same source - and cherrypick that which suits their agenda.

TPB, as has been proved time and again, do not host infringing files. The FI says that's not true. What they mean is it's not convenient. What is convenient for them is the claim that they do, so that is the lie (as in claim proven to not fit the facts) that they push as truth. TPB host infinging files as much as Google host kiddie porn. Why isn't the FBI going after Google for *linking* to kiddie porn?

Re: I don't see the problem

[fuzznutz]

You're not allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowd,
you're not allowed to "dirty talk" to a minor,
you're not allowed to lie in court,
... and that list goes on and on.

Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.

[...] most people who complain about the restriction of their free speech either have no clue, or forcefully refuse to acknowledge that that freedom is only valid against the gouverment (sic), not their fellow man.

This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.

Not offline

[Meneth]

KickassTorrents is still online, though its address has changed back to the original (from .so).

They haven't learned the lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times do we have to teach idiots the lesson?

1. Create a service.
2. It gets popular.
3. Apply heavy handed censorship.
4. The Streisand Effect causes the censored items to propagate further (see: TFA)
5. Lose the damn service by hemorrhaging users due to bad press.

This day and age the profit step is Zeroth, gotta have money already to build popular platforms now.

Re:They haven't learned the lesson.

[Kjella]

How many times do we have to teach idiots the lesson?

1. Create a service.
2. It gets popular.
3. Apply heavy handed censorship.
4. The Streisand Effect causes the censored items to propagate further (see: TFA)
5. Lose the damn service by hemorrhaging users due to bad press.

This day and age the profit step is Zeroth, gotta have money already to build popular platforms now.

The story goes more like this:
1. Create a service based on user supplied content, everything from YouTube to TPB.
2. It gets popular because of illegally shared content, since most people ignore copyright law.
3. You get big enough to get noticed and they threaten you with very expensive lawsuits
4. You apply heavy handed censorship to keep them from putting the thumbscrews on you
5. Discover that your users are fleeing while the copyright goons are never happy.
6. Service collapses from dwindling income, high legal costs and closes doors.

The only exception is if you get bought out by someone with deep enough pockets, like when Google bought YouTube. I don't see Steam having the same problem though as they deliver games from publishers, who pick the channels they'd like to publish through. I expect that soon torrents will be known as t0rrents on Steam Chat and the world will carry on as before.

Re:They haven't learned the lesson.

[Sir_Substance]

Steam is not based on user supplied pirated content.

Re:They haven't learned the lesson.

[Sir_Substance]

If you removed that feature tomorrow it would have no noticeable impact on their business model.

Steam is not based on user supplied pirated content.

Censoring private messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this about public forum, or a private chat between two people? If it's the latter, I don't see how this is acceptable.

Re:Depends where you live

[ihtoit]

Doe lawsuits were massively dismissed by a judge last January. I wrote an article on it and it was buried to make way for Kim Kardashian's latest arse measurement.

Alpha [space] Papa India Tango Yankee

[Anonymous Coward]

Tango Hotel Alpha Tango [space] Sierra Uniform Charlie Kilo Sierra [Dot] [space] [space] India Foxtrot [space] Oscar November Lima Yankee [space] Tango Hotel Echo Romeo Echo [space] Whiskey Alpha Sierra [space] Alpha [space] Whiskey Alpha Yankee [space] Tango Oscar [space] Golf Echo Tango [space] Papa Alpha Sierra Tango [space] India Tango [Dot]

Copyright ifnrigement has a DEFINITION

[aepervius]

Copyright infringement is about the distribution of copyrighted material without the authorization of the original copyright holder. It has never been about posting instruction on how to get the file, which is what TPB is. The GP is correct : there is NO infringing file whatsoever, which is why the swedish prosecution tried to make up "an aiding" gambit, as no infringing file can be found on TPB server. As for traffic being majorly about copyrighted material or your pharmacy example, it is legally *irrelevant*, which is mostly why over the year TPB was not prosecuted successfully. You can legally tell people where to buy crack cocaine. That fall under free speech. Again, TPB is not the pharmacy selling the 1% crack, it is the street board telling you precise instruction on how to reach that pharmacy. Perfectly legal.

Re:Copyright ifnrigement has a DEFINITION

[bmo]

but the simple truth is that they are deliberately aiding and abetting criminal activity.

Copyright infringement is not a crime. It's a tort.

There is a gigantic difference between the two.

--
BMO

Torrent sites have a good reputation

[penguinoid]

The ratio of legal content vs illegal is 1 to 99%. This would be enough to have torrenting banned.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a torrent site that tries to install crap on your system (download manager, Mc-fee Virus, toolbars...). Even formerly reputable companies like Java and Adobe are doing that crap now. If people keep this up, the crowds will be turning to torrent sites for all their legit content. It's a reputation thing.