Valve slapped with lawsuit over 'unfair' Steam game resale ban

[OLDMAN🎅]

A French consumer association, steamed up at the way major online game platforms prohibit the resale of games, is seeking to make an example of Valve Software, operator of the Steam platform.

UFC-Que Choisir has asked the High Court of Paris to rule that certain terms of Valve's user agreement are unfair and in breach of European Union law.

Resale rights are not the association's only concern: In all, it considers 12 of Valve's contract clauses unfair or illegal. The others in dispute concern Valve's refusal to convert virtual, in-game currencies back into the real money they were bought with, and Valve's attempts to absolve itself of legal responsibility for, well, pretty much anything, according to Justine Massera, a spokeswoman for the association.

As a processor of personal information, the company should take steps to secure the data, she said, but in the contract Valve says it takes no responsibility if accounts are hacked -- even though, by Valve's own admission, 77,000 Steam accounts are hijacked and pillaged each month.

Valve also reserves the right to change the contract terms unilaterally. Players who don't want to accept them have no recourse but to close their account.

And, said Massera, because of the resale ban, "If a player closes his account, he loses all his games."

UFC-Que Choisir sees this as unfair because if the games were bought on physical media, resale would be allowed -- and there is no reason not to allow resale since the physical and downloadable games are often the same price.

The association is asking for clarification from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether the doctrine of first sale applies to downloaded games as it does to physical copies. This provision of copyright law allows the buyer of a copy of a copyright work to sell that copy without the rights-holder's approval.

Valve and games companies like it maintain that they are not selling a game, but merely licensing the right to use it.

The CJEU ruled in July 2012 that the resale of software licenses is legal, in a case involving Oracle and German software reseller UsedSoft that began over a decade earlier, when software was distributed on CDs.

But the question of video game resales is more complex, as their publishers claim that they consist not only of software, but also of audiovisual elements and scenarios, all of which are protected by copyright, making it difficult to directly apply the Oracle ruling, Massera said.

"It's the argument that all the platforms have used," she said.

But the question is crucial for online games stores: "If the Court of Justice allows resale, it will disrupt all their business models," she said. "It would apply to all things digital: music, e-books...."

If the association wins its case, then the unfair contract terms will be declared void for all Steam users.

Valve is not the only company blocking the resale of downloaded games: UFC-Que Choisir also reviewed terms and conditions imposed on gamers by Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts and Blizzard, finding similar problems with all of them.

Those companies have dodged a legal bullet, for now, as UFC-Que Choisir decided to take Valve to court first because its online sales platform was the biggest.

The association expects the official copy of its complaint to reach Valve's European headquarters in Luxembourg next week, but it has already sent a courtesy copy to the company's Paris lawyer.

Valve's press spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3017060/software-games/the-french-are-steamed-about-valves-unfair-game-resale-ban.html

[eram]

Good thing this only applies to males. He will lose all his games. Not they or he/she, just he. Will be interesting to see the result. Will probably end with no changes made at all. Or better still ban all of france from Steam. :)

Suppose the French courts won for a moment, Steam could just pull out of France all together. I bet gamers really would like that? No of course not. Im betting given the option how it is now or no steam at all they will pick as it is now.

[🌴Phil337™🌴]

True

[Ganger]

From my stand point...I would love to resell out digital games and music and movies and its sounds like a great idea.

But from a business point of view...... it makes bad business, bad business to the point of making firms who sell digital goods go bankrupht.

Think of it like this, if you having buying a copy of fallout 4 and don't want to pay steams prices but user A is selling his copy for $20, then you going to buy his copy, meaning lost revenue for both valve and bethesda. you finish it and resell the game again for $15 and so on. It could mean 30 people might be using one copy with no money given to bethesda and valve.

I can see this case being fought over for years in the european courts, in the united states I believe the case would be lost due to the nature of the american system. In europe tho, you never know.

[eram]

You do know in Europe, America, Australia and the rest of the world. Germany tried. Australia tried. I think some of these are still with the courts and undecided/unfinished.

[Ganger]

If this did come to pass lets say, could valve retreat to only selling in america. Meaning all european users would have to buy their games via the US, using dollars and paying american taxes. It be interesting to know.

[cinedine]

Sounds pretty much the same what the German VZBV tried. I fully expect them to fail.

The main problem is that Valve doesn't directly sell the games but a license to use THEIR serivce. So you do not lose access to anything but their service upon account closure while still holding the licenses to your games. If they are DRM free, you can still continue to use them.

And frankly, we (as gamers) brought this whole mess upon us ourselves. Since the days floppy disc based games people copied games and resold them, so measurements against it was implemented. People cracked them, so they got tighter. We are now at a state where each party blames the other and sees themselves to be in absolute right. And so we're slapping each other silly with lawsuits.

That's what makes CD Project Red so special. They try to break the status quo and try to accomodate us. And *gasp* communicate. But how do people thank them? Still pirating and whining.

[Puggles123654]

I think the whole argument is going to be a tuff one since valve only sells licenses of games. Thats why you don't see people giving lawsuits over mac 10.6.8 update.

[gmodgamer36]

TRRUUUE

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 cinedine：

Sounds pretty much the same what the German VZBV tried. I fully expect them to fail.

It's basically the same as far as I read.
If I recall correctly (I'm missing the source now) the german courts refused the VZVB case because games were not just software (As Word, or Photoshop are) but also pieces of entertainment (Like movies/music) As games fall on this grey area (Are software made to entertain or entertaiment pieces delivered on software?) the famous Oracle ruling couldn't be applied.

I expect this to go through the same process. It's another case of 'you can't have the cake and eat it too'

引用自 Ganger：

From my stand point...I would love to resell out digital games and music and movies and its sounds like a great idea.

Sure from the user perspective sounds great. But think on how it sounds from the business perspective.

Let's say court forces tomorrow for all digital games to be resold/transfered.

Look at every steam user library. Count the very millions upon millions of titles these libraries hold.

Now all of them are a floating supply of game copies that can be instantly transfered anywhere in the world where a user wants to play game X and returned into that pile once the game is played or said user gets bored of it.

There's enough games on people's libraries right now to 'feed' the world hunger for games for a looooong time.

That's a industry crasher. That's killing the game development industry overnight...Or taking it through a very dark alley (P2W F2Ps, Microtransactions...)
EA isn't going to invest millions to make CoD BO IV if a single $60 copy can hop forever and ever around the globe being played by millions of users until boredom, cashing millions of hours of playitme.

It's like we magically had 600 billion magical meals that can be sent instantly anywhere, anytime someome on the world is hungry. And the meal isn't even consumed after you eat it! You can get a meal as soon as you fancy eating one, eat it until you feel you're going to burst and then transfer it to someone else as fresh, meaty and juice as new!

This is a choice gamers need to consider really carefully. This is not just a case of 'You can't have your cake and eat it too' this is a case of 'Beware what you choose because you can end up with no cake to eat'

[cinedine]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

It's basically the same as far as I read.
If I recall correctly (I'm missing the source now) the german courts refused the VZVB case because games were not just software (As Word, or Photoshop are) but also pieces of entertainment (Like movies/music) As games fall on this grey area (Are software made to entertain or entertaiment pieces delivered on software?) the famous Oracle ruling couldn't be applied.

Nah, the whole "more than just software" was the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Rockstar's lawyers pulled. But I don't even remember for what case. There was a thread here by Tux (IIRC) called something like "Games are not software" where he linked to a source for it.

The Oracle ruling was based on the fact that the CD holds a self-contained software which you can uninstall without remains, thus fulfilling the doctrine of exhaustion (you fully trade one existing copy).
Steam sells licenses (Steam subscriptions not! game licenses) which cannot be used without the service providing ... the service x). And those license are non-transferable which is in compliance with the law. I can't remember why, but it might be because the performance is instant and non-revertable. Same thing that got them out of the 14-day return policy from the EU novelle.

---

I think used games could work perfectly well in digital. But it requires that both sides (see my previous post) don't act like entitled brats. Online passes or the way Microsoft had planned it for the XBOne was good first draft. Get the (base) game cheaper, but pay an activation fee to make it attractive to the publishers.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 cinedine：

I think used games could work perfectly well in digital. But it requires that both sides (see my previous post) don't act like entitled brats

You seem to have more confidence in gamers than I do.

I've been following these subjects ever since the first Oracle ruling and it looks gamers won't take anything but full liberty to resale games with no counterpart (or price) everything else will be 'stomping on their rights' It's a mindset I've seen popping up every time this subject comes to surface.

The average gamer lacks perspective and empathy to look anywhere beyond their own noses.

[Wolf Knight]

Imagine the nightmare it would be if an account was compromised and all the games sold off. Currently, you only risk loosing access to VAC enabled game servers. If you could sell them, so could the hijackers. This would make those accounts that only game and dont play with the steam market or trade window valuable.

There would be some serious policy changes to protect accounts even more. Would anyone be happy with the new trade restrictions being applied to your selling a game off you account?

[fluxtorrent]

Better yet, Valve says screw it and if you let your account be compromised the games sold off are your problem not theirs. After all it was the "brilliant" gamers that wanted it amiright?

[Sludge Metal Mike]

引用自 fluxtorrent：

Better yet, Valve says screw it and if you let your account be compromised the games sold off are your problem not theirs. After all it was the "brilliant" gamers that wanted it amiright?

People should be responsible for their own accounts, it is YOUR account, not steam's, steam just offers the service.

[Gus the Crocodile]

引用自 eram：

You do know in Europe, America, Australia and the rest of the world. Germany tried. Australia tried. I think some of these are still with the courts and undecided/unfinished.

Quick note: "Australia" didn't try this. That case is basically all about refunds.