• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Valve sued by French consumer association

S

Spirited

Mine is pretty and pink
UFC-Que choisir, a French consumer association, has sued Valve over some clauses in their subscriber agreement that they consider illegal or abusive.
Source (in French): http://www.quechoisir.org/telecom-m...am-l-ufc-que-choisir-assigne-la-societe-valve
UFC think the following things are problematic:

  • Steam's Subscriber Agreement explicitely forbids users to sell their games, despite the transfer of ownership of digital products/licenses being legal
  • Valve declines any responsibility in case they get hacked and users' personal info get stolen
  • Valve claims ownership on the rights of any user-created content uploaded on Steam
  • It is impossible to get the money on your Steam Wallet back if your account is closed/deleted/banned
  • Valve applies Luxembourg's consumer law regardless of the user's country

Credit goes to some dude on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/3x871m/valve_sued_by_french_consumer_association/

Discuss this since the sell your digital software could end up being bad for both consumers and for the companies that will get less money.
As according to me selling digital goods wouuld start a chain reaction where you sell the game for more, never discount and fill the game with mcrotransactions and DLC to recoup costs.
It would also probably be the end of many indie devs, because who doesn't have a lot of indie games lying in their inventory that you don't want anymore.

Sell me like digital software if old.
 
Bboy AJ

Bboy AJ

My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Excellent news. Keep pushing for consumer rights. Next, let's address why companies can take advantage of a global marketplace but consumers are region limited.
 
Jawmuncher

Jawmuncher

Member
Would be pretty interesting to see any of that change. Though if they were to lose the lawsuit, I could see them just changing the terms for that area.
 
jshackles

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jawmuncher said:
Would be pretty interesting to see any of that change. Though if they were to lose the lawsuit, I could see them just changing the terms for that area.
Click to expand...

That's being a bit naive Jaw. Because of all the publishers involved, I can only imagine it would mean Steam purchases, gifting, account setup, etc would no longer be possible in France.
 
Robot Pants

Robot Pants

Member
inner-G said:
I would totally sell my Steam library if I could
Click to expand...


I don't understand why they wouldn't allow it. Only accept steam bucks to complete transactions and they are guaranteed to get that money one way or another someday since it can't be spent anywhere else.
 
LQX

LQX

Member
I dunno, the issue with selling Steam accounts is that scammers may then gain access to an account and sell it off from under the owner. Who will Valve then have to side with?

Speaking of that, a few years ago I bought a Gaffers Steam account. The fucker then gained access back to it a few months later even after I changed the email and pass. I emailed Steam and they told me to get the fuck out of here.
 
Y

YianGaruga

Banned
Didn't Germany try the same a while ago and nothing happened?

Selling digital licenses just doesn't work. There is no difference between new and used, it would completely change the market. I don't think there is a net benefit in it for consumers.
 
I

inner-G

Banned
LQX said:
I dunno, the issue with selling Steam accounts is that scammers may then gain access to an account and sell it off from under the owner. Who will Valve then have to side with?

Speaking of that, a few years ago I bought a Gaffers Steam account. The fucker then gained access back to it a few months later even after I changed the email and pass. I emailed Steam and they told me to get the fuck out of here.
Click to expand...
Don't want to sell account.

Would sell licenses to games tied to account if I could.
 
S

Spirited

Mine is pretty and pink
YianGaruga said:
Didn't Germany try the same a while ago and nothing happened?

Selling digital licenses just doesn't work. There is no difference between new and used, it would completely change the market. I don't think there is a net benefit in it for consumers.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with you.

Digital goods will forever be the same and won't deteriorate, there won't be any reason to buy new and pubs will have no reason to discount their games.
It won't be sustainable at all.
 
N

Nzyme32

Member
YianGaruga said:
Didn't Germany try the same a while ago and nothing happened?

Selling digital licenses just doesn't work. There is no difference between new and used, it would completely change the market. I don't think there is a net benefit in it for consumers.
Click to expand...

In Germany, Valve won the case, but I don't think info was given as to why and how. But yeah good point with the whole digital licence thing, but this is an area that still has a long way to go in terms of legislation and consumer rights.
 
J

jmga

Member
There is no point in selling digital goods because they don't devalute with use.

Also, this complaint applies to every digital store out there, including consoles, mobile, tvs and software like Windows, antivirus, etc
 
B

Blizzard

Banned
jmga said:
There is no point in selling digital goods because they don't devalute with use.

Also, this complaint applies to every digital store out there, including consoles, mobile, tvs and software like Windows, antivirus, etc
Click to expand...
Seriously. Someone could just set up a trading/sharing site to organize requests, and you could play virtually any title on Steam for free. Like a video/movie rental store except without a fee even being required.

Do sites like Amazon let you "sell" your purchased streaming licenses for movies and songs?
 
Northeastmonk

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
jmga said:
There is no point in selling digital goods because they don't devalute with use.

Also, this complaint applies to every digital store out there, including consoles, mobile, tvs...
Click to expand...

Renting isn't exactly the best thing since slice bread either. I'd say you have more control over your content than you do during your rental period.
 
jshackles

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
YianGaruga said:
Didn't Germany try the same a while ago and nothing happened?
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a consumer group in Germany (similar to this one) called Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (VZBV) that filed a very similar suit twice and failed both times in court. Maybe third time is a charm?

On a side note, it'd be really interesting to see Valve actually come up to a consumer-friendly provision here like they did with Steam refunds and apply it globally across the board. I think a "buyback" program would technically meet the legal requirements here, yes? You'd be "selling" your games back to Valve, just like some people do when they sell their games to Gamestop.

They do have 30% of a claim in each sale. What if you could "sell" your Steam games (if they were actually purchased on Steam, not off site) back to Valve for 5% of what you paid? 10%? 15%? Maybe a sliding scale based on the amount of time played? Valve takes the hit but still walks away with a profit while the companies themselves take no loss. You get to "trade-in" (aka transfer owners of your digital license) to a source that essentially destroys it. Publishers are happy because it doesn't create a second-hand digital marketplace that's competing with them.

Seems like a win/win situation for everyone involved except maybe Valve, but I think even they might be willing to take a 5%-10% hit on a certain percentage of sales in order to build consumer confidence in their storefront.
 
Northeastmonk

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
jmga said:
Renting requires special licenses several times the cost of a single copy.
Click to expand...

It's ownership with a Terms of Service attached. The only way I see them getting away from these accusations, would be to do something like GOG and have a DRM download for every game. I would say the appeal to having a service such as Steam would come with these tight policies. Not saying they cannot improve upon them, but once they say it's part of your library then I assume you own the content.

You're allowed permanent access to that game and the files that make that game run. It's going into that ban that stops players from playing a game. They violate the ToS and they can't play online anymore. I'd say ownership and an active client that can always be connected to the internet will have some sorta policy preventing someone from selling their game, receiving funds, or letting Valve have control over the mod. Once it's uploaded it's Valve's responsibility for the content. They already have to fight the ESRB, PEGI, etc if you ask me and whatever policy that lies under.
 
L

Lucumo

Member
jshackles said:
Yes, there was a consumer group in Germany (similar to this one) called Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (VZBV) that filed a very similar suit twice and failed both times in court. Maybe third time is a charm?
Click to expand...

What were the reasons for failing?
 
B

Blizzard

Banned
Northeastmonk said:
It's ownership with a Terms of Service attached. The only way I see them getting away from these accusations, would be to do something like GOG and have a DRM download for every game. I would say the appeal to having a service such as Steam would come with these tight policies. Not saying they cannot improve upon them, but once they say it's part of your library then I assume you own the content.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Steam or the renting situation? I'm like 90% sure the Steam agreement explicitly makes it clear it's a license, and you don't even virtually "own" anything.
 
N

NaDannMaGoGo

Member
The day steam is forced to allow people to sell their digital games purchases to other users I'll declare single player games dead.

I just can't see the benefits of enforcing this for digital goods. Even the consumers won't have much in the end when those digital goods they could theoretically resell cease to exist.
 
old

old

Member
Hope Valve loses. Those are bullshit clauses and they only put them in there because they think they can get away with it.
 
jshackles

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Lucumo said:
What were the reasons for failing?
Click to expand...

From here:

A Bit of Background
German law has strict rules on what is permitted and what is not in standard contracts. One of the general limits – giving considerable power to the courts – is that clauses are unenforceable if they deviate from essential principles of a statutory provision in a way that puts customers at an unreasonable disadvantage. One such essential statutory principle, consumer activists have been arguing for years, is the doctrine of exhaustion. Put simply, this doctrine limits a copyright owner’s right to control individual copies of their material once distributed. The distribution right in any one copy of a protected work, in other words, is exhausted once it has been exercised. Originally, this rule was developed to enable purchasers to resell their tangible copies of a work (like books or paintings), and today it is codified - albeit with slightly diverging wording - in the EU directives, dealing with copyright in general (2001/29/EC) and copyright in computer software in particular (2009/24/EC).

In the first case against Valve, litigated all the way to Germany’s highest civil court, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; "BGH"), vzbv argued that if copyright law, through the doctrine of exhaustion, allowed the resale of used computer game DVDs, then a clause in a standard contract restricting the transfer of the online account necessary to play the game was at odds with the basic principles of statutory law and therefore unenforceable. The suit was dismissed in 2010, the BGH 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.

Why Did They Try Again?
In July of 2012, the European Court of Justice decided in the famous UsedSoft case that the doctrine of exhaustion, traditionally only applicable to physical, tangible copies of works, also applied to digitally distributed computer software. The ECJ decided that regardless of how the provisions on exhaustion are worded in Directive 2001/29/EC, the special provisions in the computer software directive 2009/24/EC permitted its application to intangible copies, and the contemporary realities of digital distribution required such application if the doctrine of exhaustion applied to digitally distributed computer software. The German consumer watchdogs read the UsedSoft case to mean that the doctrine of exhaustion, by virtue of European law, had to be interpreted broadly to give it practical effect, and this could only mean that German courts now had to rethink their old stance.
Click to expand...

tl;dr version: First they tried to argue (unsuccessfully) that digitally distributed games should be treated with the same copyright laws, protections, and benefits as physical discs. Then UsedSoft v Oracle was ruled in the EU which a lot of people interpreted as an overruling of the idea in courts. They tried again to sue for the right but were denied because UsedSoft v Oracle ruling specifically stated that the "doctrine of exhaustion" doesn't apply in these cases and the courts upheld their previous judgement.
 
entremet

entremet

Member
NaDannMaGoGo said:
The day steam is forced to allow people to sell their digital games purchases to other users I'll declare single player games dead.

I just can't see the benefits of enforcing this for digital goods. Even the consumers won't have much in the end when those digital goods they could theoretically resell cease to exist.
Click to expand...

I just don't how you solve it.

Digital goods do not degrade like physicals goods.

What about indies?

This will kill them. People will just buy second hand versions. And what about pricing, since these goods don't degrade, will you sell them MSRP? Who sets the prices?

Where do you sell these digital goods and who gets a cut?

It's a tough problem.
 
C

Calabi

Member
YianGaruga said:
Didn't Germany try the same a while ago and nothing happened?

Selling digital licenses just doesn't work. There is no difference between new and used, it would completely change the market. I don't think there is a net benefit in it for consumers.
Click to expand...

That makes little difference. House rot and decay and yet they go up in price. As long as you cant duplicate them then it doesnt matter if they dont decay and exist forever. Of course having a used digital market cuts into Valves and everyone else's profits that's why they dont want it to happen.
 
1

10k

Banned
Keep fighting the good fight. Not being able to sell your digital games or trade them in is ridiculous and the largest reason I still buy physical games.
 
H

Henrar

Member
The idea of trading back digital licenses is on the most stupid shit I've ever heard of. There is no such thing as used digital copy of the game.
 
L

Lucumo

Member
jshackles said:
From here:



tl;dr version: First they tried to argue (unsuccessfully) that digitally distributed games should be treated with the same copyright laws, protections, and benefits as physical discs. Then UsedSoft v Oracle was ruled in the EU which a lot of people interpreted as an overruling of the idea in courts. They tried again to sue for the right but were denied because UsedSoft v Oracle ruling specifically stated that the "doctrine of exhaustion" doesn't apply in these cases and the courts upheld their previous judgement.
Click to expand...

Thanks. So the problems lies with the fact that digital games are tied to an account which is required to play said games. There are two possibilities: A.) Sell to a user with an existing account; B.) Sell to a person without an existing account and you can't transfer/sell your own account. And because there is B, it's unenforceable?
That's how I understand it (though, I'm extremely tired at the moment).
 
N

Nzyme32

Member
Lucumo said:
Thanks. So the problems lies with the fact that digital games are tied to an account which is required to play said games. There are two possibilities: A.) Sell to a user with an existing account; B.) Sell to a person without an existing account and you can't transfer/sell your own account. And because there is B, it's unenforceable?
That's how I understand it (though, I'm extremely tired at the moment).
Click to expand...

It is hard to make any sense of selling a digital licence. It can't be exhausted or deteriorate over time. The resold copy is identical to if bought new. Then you enter the territory of wondering who has the right to sell "new" copies other than the dev / pub / store, and how do you devalue what is "used". It would be nice for people to sell what they don't need anymore of course, but it gets so convoluted when you really think about it
 
A

Alej

Banned
Spirited said:
and the devs get no money from the second person onward in the chain of reselling.
Not only that the copy will forever be the same and can't deteriorate.
Click to expand...

Okay then, that's a problem. Because then, if it can't be reselled or gift, what happen of that copy when you die or when you are physically unable to access them? Serious question.

Someone inherits them? If I turn blind tomorrow I can sell my TV, but not my digital games?
 
L

Lucumo

Member
Nzyme32 said:
It is hard to make any sense of selling a digital licence. It can't be exhausted or deteriorate over time. The resold copy is identical to if bought new.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with that. But it didn't fail because of this reason. Maybe, though, they are keeping this view on the issue for a possible next round.
 
A

Alo0oy

Banned
Bboy AJ said:
Excellent news. Keep pushing for consumer rights. Next, let's address why companies can take advantage of a global marketplace but consumers are region limited.
Click to expand...

THIS THIS THIS, Sony is the biggest offender in this, I'm so tired of their region locked DLC, & locking your account from changing region, what if a person moves to another country?

I hope some organization knocks some sense into them.
 
F

flux1

Member
Good.

I would have added in letting people still be able to access their games if they decline an EULA change, but whatever victory can be made in regards to digital rights for consumers is welcome.
 
Y

YianGaruga

Banned
Calabi said:
That makes little difference. House rot and decay and yet they go up in price. As long as you cant duplicate them then it doesnt matter if they dont decay and exist forever. Of course having a used digital market cuts into Valves and everyone else's profits that's why they dont want it to happen.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this comparison. Houses are about the most different market from consumable media you can find. Games are considered old and worthless by a huge part of the market a few weeks after they are out. Guess why people trade in games to GameStop for a few pennies. Apply this to the digital market where nothing ever physically degrades, and no one would ever buy any new copies of games, even at a 90% discount.

If you want those rights, you'll have to live with the fact that publishers will try to circumvent it. Probably with F2P, subscriptions and microtransactions turned up to 11, or even worse schemes we can't even imagine.
 
N

NaDannMaGoGo

Member
entremet said:
I just don't how you solve it.

Digital goods do not degrade like physicals goods.

What about indies?

This will kill them. People will just buy second hand versions. And what about pricing, since these goods don't degrade, will you sell them MSRP? Who sets the prices?

Where do you sell these digital goods and who gets a cut?

It's a tough problem.
Click to expand...

I don't even think this is a gray issue. It's clear that prices of single player games would deteriorate quickly on release. Say, Mirror's Edge releases with the SP campaign being its main attraction for the majority of consumers. People who buy the game upon release and pay through it immediately will simply sell it 24h later for 2$ less. As long as the interface comfort and visivility is there, every new costumer will now purchase these reselling games, as there's not a single reason not to with digital goods. The resellers just got the whole experience for 2$.

And then it just continues.. The same digital copy/liscence that got bought from the dev once is now cycling through many customers until the price has gotten down to a dollar or even less.

How quickly it happens will depend on some obvious factors. The shorter and more SP centric a game is the faster the price falls off. A major role is also how an informed user base behaves. If people are aware of all this, then they'd probably be more willing to wait for lower prices which in turn accelerates that process. If the people who bought the title for the original price can't sell it back quickly for a slightly lower price then they'll update with lower price offerings often as to not lose out too much because you waited when many others weren't.

The end result will undoubtedly far less revenue for SP titles, until it simply doesn't make financial sense to produce any more of them.
 
A

Alej

Banned
Nzyme32 said:
It is hard to make any sense of selling a digital licence. It can't be exhausted or deteriorate over time. The resold copy is identical to if bought new. Then you enter the territory of wondering who has the right to sell "new" copies other than the dev / pub / store, and how do you devalue what is "used". It would be nice for people to sell what they don't need anymore of course, but it gets so convoluted when you really think about it
Click to expand...

Not at all. The value of digital games does deteriorate over time.
Look at it, you don't buy full price on Steam a game from 3 years old. The price of a day one game isn't the same as the price of an older game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(Tokyo Game Show) Valve, Capcom, Bandai Namco discuss growth of Japan PC gaming (PC position now on par with console & smartphone)
30
2K
Hudo replied
Valve Loses Bid to End Antitrust Case Over Steam Gaming Platform
37
3K
DeepEnigma replied
As Microsoft and Sony target PC and mobile to grow their audiences, what does that mean for the future of the console? - GIBiz Opinion By Chris Dring
Opinion Astroturfing 2 3
139
7K
Topher replied
Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
6K
Kenneth Haight replied
  • Poll
SONY/SIE: The Balance Of Chasing Margins, Multiplat Expansion, And Maximizing The Console
Opinion Business Analysis 2 3
101
7K
vaibhavpisal replied
Top Bottom