subscriber agreement loophole?

[TeatimeWithToby]

ive been studying the subscriber agreement after trying to get a refund on a faulty game and have come accross something which worries me slightly!

2. LICENSES

A. General Software License

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms) in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

does this section mean that steam/valve can revoke our licence.(Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software) is this even legal? we have paid for the game yet we dont own it ?

[TeatimeWithToby]

my point is that we have paid for the game, if we had bought a hard copy we would own that game forever, why should it be different for a digital download. in theory steam could sell for example hl3 at £29.99 a pop and then a week later revoke the license keep the money and leave thousands of users without the product they have paid money for!

[Discussions_Acc]

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

my point is that we have paid for the game

You paid for a license.

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

if we had bought a hard copy we would own that game forever

That's still only a license you bought there.

[TeatimeWithToby]

Originally posted by Discussions_Acc:

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

my point is that we have paid for the game

You paid for a license.

ok fair enough weve paid for a license theres nothing in the agreement that says steam cant revoke a license a week after sale

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

if we had bought a hard copy we would own that game forever

That's still only a license you bought there.

i beg to differ id like to see ea stop me from playing battle for middle earth of my disk, or c&c generals (both hard copys bought from a store)

[Discussions_Acc]

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

Originally posted by Discussions_Acc:

You paid for a license.

ok fair enough weve paid for a license theres nothing in the agreement that says steam cant revoke a license a week after sale


That's still only a license you bought there.

i beg to differ id like to see ea stop me from playing battle for middle earth of my disk, or c&c generals (both hard copys bought from a store)

It's still just a license.

And if you don't agree with the SSA then why did you accept it in the first place?

[Satoru]

3. BILLING, PAYMENT AND OTHER SUBSCRIPTIONS

ALL CHARGES INCURRED ON STEAM, AND ALL PURCHASES MADE WITH THE STEAM WALLET, ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, REGARDLESS OF THE PAYMENT METHOD, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.

All sales are final

Plus there's a resonalbe registry fix for your issue. Your game isn't 'broken'

[Tito Shivan]

Steam can pretty much cancel your whole account if they want to.
And they usually did on people who issued chargebacks time before.

[TeatimeWithToby]

1.And if you don't agree with the SSA then why did you accept it in the first place?
- i agreed to it 6 years ago before i really understood consumer laws. did you honestly read it all the way through before agreeing?

2.Plus there's a resonalbe registry fix for your issue. Your game isn't 'broken'
-not broken in the sense that it does not work atall, but if you bought a car and the garage owner told you to repair the exhaust yourself would you stand for that?

the point im trying to make is in a modern society where more and more of the things we buy are digital content there should be more protection for the consumer, just because the item we are paying for isnt physical doesnt make the ownership of the item any less legitimate.

and if we are only renting the games from steam not buying to own then surely it should be the rental section and not a store as store implies ownership of purchase,
for example you go to clothes store and buy a jumper, you own said jumper.
you go to steam store and buy a game, your only really renting it.

[ KARR™]

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

i beg to differ id like to see ea stop me from playing battle for middle earth of my disk, or c&c generals (both hard copys bought from a store)

They may not able to (unless the game tries to connect to the EA server at some point and deactivates it etc.).... but regardless if you read the paperwork that comes with most software it says you own the physical media, but the software remains the property of the company that made it and you don't own that.

If you use windows for example, you'll notice it says:

SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement.

[TeatimeWithToby]

so basically noone has ever actually owned any computer software or games we are merely renting it form the companies that make them? then surely at the steam store checkout it should say rent license for my self/gift license to friend as purchase implies ownership. and we return to my point that consumers need more protection from digital products, as the current laws could allow steam to knowingly sell broken games that the majority wont play or know how to fix and refuse refunds and make a killing. (obviously this is unlikely as everyone affected would leave steam) but do you understand my point?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

then surely at the steam store checkout it should say rent license for my self/gift license to friend as purchase implies ownership.

You have ownership. Of a license. :P

[TeatimeWithToby]

but do you understand my point?

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

You have ownership. Of a license. :P [/quote]


evidently not :)

[Gus the Crocodile]

Not agreeing with your point (which point, anyway? you're saying more than one thing, and I was only addressing the part I quoted) is not the same as not understanding it.

[TeatimeWithToby]

my main point is consumer law needs to be updated to cover the new digital sales of almost everything. and paying for a license and a product is two seperate things if its a license should say license not give the impression your buying the product

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by ivegotacold:

my main point is consumer law needs to be updated to cover the new digital sales of almost everything. and paying for a license and a product is two seperate things if its a license should say license not give the impression your buying the product

You are buying a limited license to play the game. Buying is not the same as owning.

No update needed. Digital media uses the same laws that the physical media used. It is just easier to enforce the TOS/SSA with Digital then it was with physical.

And yes, I read the SSA when I made my Steam account. After you read a few TOS/TOU it becomes easier to read and you get faster at it.

[EchoStar]

I'd like to come into this convo. Here's the bottom line, it's a legal grey area and hasn't been tested in courts. I was reading a paper that was talking about whether EULAs are actually able to hold up in court and whether or not they actually can legally do those things. So the truth is, anybody who says it's "renting the software" or one way or the other, isn't correct or factual because NONE of it has been tested in court on whether these games companies can do this. So there's your answer. It's all to be determined when someone actually has the funds and a decent lawyer to test it all.