Family sharing, one-game-at-a-time limit doesn't make sense

[gamegame44332211]

When the steam library is shared, only one game can be played at the same time.
So if A is play in PC-A then B on PC-B cannot play any other games at the same time.

That doesn't make sense.

If I owned a physical copies of all those games, I should be able to share those games freely with my friends and family. The only limit would be not able to play the same game at the same time.

What happen now is as if I lent one of my game-disc to my friend, then when he/she is playing that single game, all my other game-disc are mysteriously locked, wth?

[bones3dfc]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από brian9824:

Not only that it's supported by the supreme court and over 60 years of unanimous backing and it effects the entire software industry

Now there's a bit of trivia this thread desperately needed.

[Boblin the Goblin]

https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/17_U.S.C._%C2%A7_117

This is the closest thing I could find in reference to the legality of owning only a license and the company you purchased the license from being able to control how you use it.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/17_U.S.C._%C2%A7_117

This is the closest thing I could find in reference to the legality of owning only a license and the company you purchased the license from being able to control how you use it.

That's not a court case.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/17_U.S.C._%C2%A7_117

This is the closest thing I could find in reference to the legality of owning only a license and the company you purchased the license from being able to control how you use it.

That's not a court case.

It has cases linked in the bottom.

I also just said it was the closest thing I could find, didn't say it was a case.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Quint the Alligator Snapper:

That's not a court case.

It has cases linked in the bottom.

I also just said it was the closest thing I could find, didn't say it was a case.

Have any of them been a ruling on Steam's current terms, or more generally on digital game sales and things like the ownership and/or usage rights conferred thereby?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

It has cases linked in the bottom.

I also just said it was the closest thing I could find, didn't say it was a case.

Have any of them been a ruling on Steam's current terms, or even on digital game sales and things like the ownership and/or usage rights conferred thereby?

They are rulings about software, which includes games, and about the purchase of license for the software.

Which is what Steam does, sell the license.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Have any of them been a ruling on Steam's current terms, or even on digital game sales and things like the ownership and/or usage rights conferred thereby?

They are rulings about software, which includes games, and about the purchase of license for the software.

Which is what Steam does, sell the license.

The cited cases are as follows:

See Micro-Sparc, Inc. v. Amtype Corp., 592 F.Supp. 33 (D. Mass. 1984) (holding that purchasers of programs sold in printed form do not infringe copyright by typing the code into a computer in order to use the programs); Summit Tech., Inc. v. High-Line Med. Instrs. Co., 922 F.Supp. 299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (holding that owners of opthamological laser system did not infringe copyright by turning on system to use it, causing a copy of the manufacturer's data table to be loaded into system 's RAM). Cf. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that loading of copyrighted software into RAM by a service company constitutes reproduction).

17 U.S.C. §117(c); see also Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc., 431 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

You can find the details of this one here[itlaw.fandom.com].

Compare Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding client to be an "owner," for §117(a) purposes, of copies of computer programs written for it by consultant despite lack of formal title in copies, because it had paid consultant to develop programs for its sole benefit, copies were stored on client's server, and client had right to use or discard copies as it saw fit) with CMAX/Cleveland, Inc. v. UCR, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 337 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (holding that a licensee of a copyrighted computer software system and its employees were not entitled to computer program owner's defense to copyright holder's copyright infringement action, because the licensee and employees never "owned" the copy of the program, and there was evidence that the licensee was going to market the program); cf. ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp. v. Altech, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1310 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to §117 exception because it acquired the copy from competitor and its possession was unauthorized).

Only the last one is about licensing and it's a commercial license. None of these have to do with (non-commercial) consumer use of software, much less games, much less Steam, much less whether it's okay for a family member to play games on one's Steam account.

[bones3dfc]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από KittenGrindr:

https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/17_U.S.C._%C2%A7_117

This is the closest thing I could find in reference to the legality of owning only a license and the company you purchased the license from being able to control how you use it.

Now we're getting somewhere and I just want to thank everyone for helping to keep this thread alive. People who want change will always be here.

"company you purchased the license from being able to control how you use it."
And I'm telling Valve (not you) I want a change in how they are controlling how I use it.

"Which is what Steam does, sell the license."
And I'm telling Steam (not you) to change how they sell the license - even if it involves a tiers membership program. It doesn't matter if you currently enjoy the way things are.

Coincidentally - I'm looking at purchasing DisplayFusion for my new, multi-monitor system. It can actually be purchased through Steam though for obvious reasons I won't be going that route.
For $49 I can purchase a license which allows me to put DisplayFusion on as many of my home computers as I want - and even one work computer that only I use - and everybody in my house can use these computers - all at the same time.

I'm not arguing court cases and laws and licenses. I'm saying to Valve: Steam needs to change.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από bones3dfc:

I'm not arguing court cases and laws and licenses. I'm saying to Valve: Steam needs to change.

I honestly doubt there's any existing jurisprudence on letting family members play the games that one has bought. If someone can dig up relevant case law, please let me know, but I haven't heard of any. Much less anything that has reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

But, you make an important point: the whole argument behind citing legal precedent -- assuming it exists at all -- is solely an argument based in justifying the status quo.

It's not an argument against asking for a change to the status quo, such as rewriting license terms or the SSA.

(And no, "it's never gonna happen" is also not an argument against changing the status quo either.)

[Paratech2008]

Valve can't force the gaming industry to change. No videogame publisher would accept that policy. Many refuse to sell games on GOG due to piracy concerns as-is.

[cinedine]

All those arguing about licensing ...

The one-game-at-time restriction is a STEAM restriction. If the license is transferrable, doesn't mention restrictions or even allow sharing, STEAM still restricts you. Likewise Steam does allow installation of several copies when the license explicitely forbids it (like older Square Enix games).

So all those rambling about licenses are null and void because Steam doesn't bother to adhere to them and imposes their own terms of use.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Paratech2008:

Many refuse to sell games on GOG due to piracy concerns as-is.

Which is actually quite funny. According to CDPR the copies of The Wticher 3 that are sailing the high seas are mostly cracked Steam version and not the DRM-free offline installers from GOG.

[bones3dfc]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Paratech2008:

Valve can't force the gaming industry to change. No videogame publisher would accept that policy. Many refuse to sell games on GOG due to piracy concerns as-is.

Right. Well. As foreboding as "the gaming industry" sounds - that's for Valve to let them know, not me. And I'm not sure if I feel saddened that game companies are losing revenue by refusing to sell on "GOG."

[Paratech2008]

You do know Valve can't even force gaming companies to use family sharing right?

[Brian9824]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Paratech2008:

You seriously think Valve can force the gaming industry to do what you want?

Its the entire software industry, not just the gaming industry. There is also a reason individual developers can opt out of family sharing alltogethor and steam has no say in it.

[Paratech2008]

I was trying to explain that to the person who posted above the 2 comments I replied with.