Valve head talks digital ownership

[Dankk]

They are satellite. Latency is crap but I get pretty good bandwidth most of the time. Here's when I first had it installed:

Wow, you weren't kidding.

Sucks about the latency though. Would make online FPS games unplayable.

 

[lupi]

And the percentage of trips you go on that you bring physical game discs with in the off chance that you decide to install a game that you already do not have installed is....?

What's that? 0%? That's what I figured.

100%, but nice try.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

That might very well be the case. And the fact that they can track the digital rights via IP is merely a factor in used to track where the licenses are going.

but lets be reasonable about it. it is "Possible" that s/he is some rich philanthropist who hands out lots of games for free after purchasing them. but if it is the bulk majority of their purchases, how reasonable is that given all the other (hypothetical) facts? And even if it is reasonable, there are other factors in my argument above which make it less reasonable (at least).

"Yes, your Honor. I was found over the body holding the knife. I had blood all over my clothes, And I had a grudge against the victim. Yes i threatened to kill him in front of witnesses and we were the only two in the locked room at the time of the murder. But I didn't kill him."

the scenario I painted above is totally hypothetical on my part and I am not saying anything other than the facts presented in the RPS article are true. merely that given the facts, reasonable explanations can be made to support Valve's postion. and since we don't know all of the facts, should we judge?

Well, first of all: Can I not go down to the store and buy something, maybe an Xbox, then decide to sell it to someone else? It's not clear, but apparently(perhaps due to currency exchange rates), that guy was able to buy it, pass it on to the next guy for a small profit, and the guy he sold it to still paid less than he would have had to pay directly. You'd think Valve would be happy that a sale got facilitated that might not have happened at all due to exchange rates. Granted, that was NOT explained in the article so I'm theorizing.

Secondly, even if we were to agree that the guy has done something wrong by reselling for profit, it is my stance that the games the guy owns for himself should be sacrosanct and not subject to ban penalties. Ban the guy from gifting games if that's the violation, ban people from forums if they are trolling, ban them from specific multiplayer games if they are caught hacking. But...as I say, this is the only case with Valve I've ever heard of and they DID do this : they reinstated his games and only banned him from gifting. Thus: Valve policy 1, EA policy 0, unless someone can cite cases where they didn't handle it this well.

 

[thespyder]

Well, first of all: Can I not go down to the store and buy something, maybe an Xbox, then decide to sell it to someone else? It's not clear, but apparently(perhaps due to currency exchange rates), that guy was able to buy it, pass it on to the next guy for a small profit, and the guy he sold it to still paid less than he would have had to pay directly. You'd think Valve would be happy that a sale got facilitated that might not have happened at all due to exchange rates. Granted, that was NOT explained in the article so I'm theorizing.

well, now here is a sticky point. Personally, if I sold something to someone who, with all full intention, went down the street and sold it again at a profit, i would be pissed. is it illegal? maybe not. But if this guy is making a business of it, that is clearly illegal and an infringement not only of the TOS for Valve, but trade laws. This only an "If" scenario.

Secondly, even if we were to agree that the guy has done something wrong by reselling for profit, it is my stance that the games the guy owns for himself should be sacrosanct and not subject to ban penalties. Ban the guy from gifting games if that's the violation, ban people from forums if they are trolling, ban them from specific multiplayer games if they are caught hacking. But...as I say, this is the only case with Valve I've ever heard of and they DID do this : they reinstated his games and only banned him from gifting. Thus: Valve policy 1, EA policy 0, unless someone can cite cases where they didn't handle it this well.

You are assuming that Valve was able to determine absolutely what games he was using for himself (if any). And what games he intended to sell in the future. From their perspective, they were seeing him as "Stealing" their profits (right or wrong). And it would be the same as freezing someone's assets. You could even look at it as holding the games for ransom until he made appropriate reparations. In any event, we collectively might not agree with the steps they took, but can we now agree that there may at least be perfectly valid motivations behind those actions (even if the actions themselves may not be ones we would choose)?

As for the restoration of usage, I think that Valve wasn't interested in the bad press that went along with total revocation, but also wanted to stop what they saw as unsavory activity. The solution (return of use but prohibition of Gifting) seems to do that and still give Valve a positive spin (as evidence of your coment about Valve vs EA).

As a side note, I would be interested if this guy even plays games himself. I would bet he doesn't and that this was all about a money making venture. Again 100% speculation based on no facts.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

As for the restoration of usage, I think that Valve wasn't interested in the bad press that went along with total revocation, but also wanted to stop what they saw as unsavory activity. The solution (return of use but prohibition of Gifting) seems to do that and still give Valve a positive spin (as evidence of your coment about Valve vs EA).

Well, any games you hit Purchase for Myself, you can't trade those later, those are yours and are tied to your account. Those should be sacrosanct...now, if he gets caught reselling games for profit and has 50 gift versions of various games sitting on his account, then yes, I would say those are suspicious and subject to seizure.

 

[gothamhunter]

100%, but nice try.

So every single trip you take where you would bring your PC/Laptop you also bring your game discs so that you can re-install them on your trip as well?

Dear Lord

 

[thespyder]

Well, any games you hit Purchase for Myself, you can't trade those later, those are yours and are tied to your account. Those should be sacrosanct...now, if he gets caught reselling games for profit and has 50 gift versions of various games sitting on his account, then yes, I would say those are suspicious and subject to seizure.

Let me try this a different way. if someone goes in a candy store and buys $10 in candy, but the owner notices and catches the person stealing an additional $5 in candy, would that same store owner be justified in throwing out the thief and keeping all of the candy? I would, just to teach the thief a lesson.

 

[BoberFett]

Basically you pay a flat fee and in exchange you recieve a license to use said product for as long as the provider feels like allowing you use it, assuming you don't change the product in any way that would invalidate said license.

Fixed that for ya...

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Let me try this a different way. if someone goes in a candy store and buys $10 in candy, but the owner notices and catches the person stealing an additional $5 in candy, would that same store owner be justified in throwing out the thief and keeping all of the candy? I would, just to teach the thief a lesson.

Well, if both the theft and the rightful purchase occurred in the same visit to the store, no problem.

But if I buy all my games over a 2 year period, then go forum trolling/reselling gift games/etc after that, it's hardly the same thing.

 

[Anteaus]

Fixed that for ya...

Yeah thats the context of my post. My point was that there are no guarantees and that they can remove access whenever they feel like it.

 

[thespyder]

Well, if both the theft and the rightful purchase occurred in the same visit to the store, no problem.

But if I buy all my games over a 2 year period, then go forum trolling/reselling gift games/etc after that, it's hardly the same thing.

So you are using situational ethics to make your point. It's OK in one scenario but not OK in another.

My point is simply that we don't know all of the facts. And by your own admission, there are circumstances where what Valve did was reasonable and warrented. Therefore, sans the full facts, we shouldn't be praising or condemning Valve.

And the RPS article is creating fervor over the issue without all (or even most) of the facts. Which I find journalistically unprofessional.

at the end of the day, I think there is a LOT about Digital rights management that is unclear and that most companies have got it wrong. But then i also believe that most gamers have a heavy dose of entitlement that THEY should be curbing. Yes, taking the entire library may have been a bit excessive. But no, just because he purchased some stuff and stole others, doesn't protect what he purchased. That guy stole, plain and simple, and should therefore expect that the victim can reasonably expect some recompense. And if he picked someone that had the power to really hurt him, all the more reason NOT TO STEAL FROM THEM.

To make one side out to be the bad guy in all of this, and based on a scenario that is unclear at best, serves no ones interest.

all I have to say on the matter.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Let me try this a different way. if someone goes in a candy store and buys $10 in candy, but the owner notices and catches the person stealing an additional $5 in candy, would that same store owner be justified in throwing out the thief and keeping all of the candy? I would, just to teach the thief a lesson.

No, if the store owner sold him $10 worth of candy, then that $10 worth of candy belongs to the customer now. To take that candy from him would be theft, no matter what else that customer does. It is the laws job to judge and punish him, not the store owners. Simply put, two wrongs do not make a right.

But we are not talking about purchases or products, we are talking about licensing agreements. It is contract law not property law we are talking about. It is impossible to compare the two in any meaningful way. The owner of the IP has ever right to revoke the license if the terms of the license are not met, and in this case that includes all sorts of slippery language that gives the IP owner almost unlimited power to revoke license for any reason.

Personally, I think that this is a prime example of the worst case use of DRM. This is DRM being used as a tool for anti-competitive practices. Valve does not want to compete with different markets in a global economy all the while still getting the benefits of globalizing into those differing markets, so it uses it's stranglehold on the IP though the DRM to kill any form of market competition.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

So you are using situational ethics to make your point. It's OK in one scenario but not OK in another.

My point is simply that we don't know all of the facts. And by your own admission, there are circumstances where what Valve did was reasonable and warrented. Therefore, sans the full facts, we shouldn't be praising or condemning Valve.

And the RPS article is creating fervor over the issue without all of the facts.

at the end of the day, I think there is a LOT about Digital rights management that is unclear and that most companies have got it wrong. But then i also believe that most gamers have a heavy dose of entitlement that THEY should be curbing. Yes, taking the entire library may have been a bit excessive. But no, just because you purchased some stuff and stole others, doesn't protect what you purchased. You stole, plain and simple, and should therefore expect that the victim can reasonably expect some recompense.

To make one side out to be the bad guy in all of this, and based on a scenario that is unclear at best, serves no ones interest.

all I have to say on the matter.

Actually, I'm saying that your games should never be taken away in any situation/scenario. Comparing a brick and mortar sales situation to an online situation is a bit difficult. All I'm really saying is that your own games should never be taken away. They may not be wrong for punishing the guy for reselling, but the games that a person may own for himself are completely separate from that in my opinion, and they become wrong by stepping over that line. Not wrong for punishing, but they become wrong by expanding the scope of punishment too far. It's like someone sues you for a civil matter and the civil court tries to give you a jail term for it. It shouldn't be within the scope of their power.

Taking a person's other games away isn't recompense, it's vengeance. Unless of course, the fact that a banned person has to repurchase the games is the recompense you're referring to but if it is, then that's a MAJOR moral hazard. Online sellers like that could (corruptly) develop ban quotas to help drive repurchases. No, we need to keep a person's own games out of it to avoid that risk of moral turpitude by the online seller.

 

[lupi]

So every single trip you take where you would bring your PC/Laptop you also bring your game discs so that you can re-install them on your trip as well?

Dear Lord

I know, a small stack of DVD disc, dear lord how would someone ever manage.

 

[Dankk]

I know, a small stack of DVD disc, dear lord how would someone ever manage.

Try 300 of those discs

 

[lupi]

http://www.caselogic.com/320_capaci...tail/index.cfm?modelid=42841&productid=454641

 

[Jovec]

I stopped caring about boxes when pubs stopped caring about putting in full game manuals, back story lore, (cloth) maps, jewel cases (instead of paper sleeves) and all the other cost saving BS they've done other the years.

I only buy on Steam now except for Blizzard games, and I am still selective on Steam too with regards to extra DRM. I almost always only buy during Steam sales too.

Digital distribution is a going to be even larger in the future, and I'm voting with my dollars on Steam because I trust Valve to "do the right thing" more than I trust all of the other major publishers. I have no doubt Call of Duty 10 will bill my CC by the bullet if the publisher could get away with it. Valve and Steam to me seem the most likely to have my interests at heart (or more correctly, the least likely to completely screw me over).

 

[PrayForDeath]

They are satellite. Latency is crap but I get pretty good bandwidth most of the time. Here's when I first had it installed:

Is there a monthly download cap?

 

[thespyder]

Actually, I'm saying that your games should never be taken away in any situation/scenario. Comparing a brick and mortar sales situation to an online situation is a bit difficult. All I'm really saying is that your own games should never be taken away. They may not be wrong for punishing the guy for reselling, but the games that a person may own for himself are completely separate from that in my opinion, and they become wrong by stepping over that line. Not wrong for punishing, but they become wrong by expanding the scope of punishment too far. It's like someone sues you for a civil matter and the civil court tries to give you a jail term for it. It shouldn't be within the scope of their power.

Taking a person's other games away isn't recompense, it's vengeance. Unless of course, the fact that a banned person has to repurchase the games is the recompense you're referring to but if it is, then that's a MAJOR moral hazard. Online sellers like that could (corruptly) develop ban quotas to help drive repurchases. No, we need to keep a person's own games out of it to avoid that risk of moral turpitude by the online seller.

It would appear that you have never had anything of significance stolen from you. Once that happens, your perspective changes on what rights the thief should and shouldn't have.

Also, you are again using situational ethics in saying that theft of digital media is any different than theft of tangable items in the physical world. They are the same. Theft is theft. period.

But we are not talking about purchases or products, we are talking about licensing agreements. It is contract law not property law we are talking about. It is impossible to compare the two in any meaningful way. The owner of the IP has ever right to revoke the license if the terms of the license are not met, and in this case that includes all sorts of slippery language that gives the IP owner almost unlimited power to revoke license for any reason.

No we aren't. this person purchased a product at a market low price with the full intent of reselling into a different market at a higher price. the intent was to steal profits from Valve and pocket them. It is theft pure and simple. The thief wants to HIDE behind contracts and licensing as that makes it easier to justify the theft. But it is theft just the same. And situational ethics don't change that.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

It would appear that you have never had anything of significance stolen from you. Once that happens, your perspective changes on what rights the thief should and shouldn't have.

Also, you are again using situational ethics in saying that theft of digital media is any different than theft of tangable items in the physical world. They are the same. Theft is theft. period.



No we aren't. this person purchased a product at a market low price with the full intent of reselling into a different market at a higher price. the intent was to steal profits from Valve and pocket them. It is theft pure and simple. The thief wants to HIDE behind contracts and licensing as that makes it easier to justify the theft. But it is theft just the same. And situational ethics don't change that.

My opinion on whether or not reselling is theft has ZERO to do with whether or not seizing a person's personal purchased games are theft. It's not situational ethics, it's separation of powers. These are two completely separate issues.

Since this is a complicated issue that to fully debate requires information we don't have access to, I will simply give in and accept that this reselling situation IS theft from Valve. OK, fine. But when you steal from someone, the victim's recourse is through the law. That means they can sue you for direct damages and they can press criminal charges that may result in jail time. What you cannot do, however, is break into the thief's home and steal from him in order to indemnify yourself. You are guilty of crimes yourself when you do that.

The unique aspect of this situation is that instead of the alleged perpetrator's existing property being located in his home, it's located on Valve's servers. That gives Valve the ability to deny him access to his rightfully purchased goods as vengeance for the reselling. What I don't know is whether the law condones that. My point, however, is that it should not allow that. Valve has the ability to ban people from the game trading aspect of their service, so the excuse cannot be made that they must ban from both.

If Valve has evidence that someone has stolen from them, they should file the appropriate civil and criminal charges. They should not be given free reign to commit theft themselves.

I would however say that you are using situational ethics. When the customer steals from Valve,you say it's theft. When Valve denies them access to their previously rightfully purchased games, which have nothing to do with the reselling, you say that's not theft.

 

[wanderer27]

It would appear that you have never had anything of significance stolen from you. Once that happens, your perspective changes on what rights the thief should and shouldn't have.

Also, you are again using situational ethics in saying that theft of digital media is any different than theft of tangable items in the physical world. They are the same. Theft is theft. period.



No we aren't. this person purchased a product at a market low price with the full intent of reselling into a different market at a higher price. the intent was to steal profits from Valve and pocket them. It is theft pure and simple. The thief wants to HIDE behind contracts and licensing as that makes it easier to justify the theft. But it is theft just the same. And situational ethics don't change that.

You seem to be taking both sides of the argument here.

In the first instance you're saying the digital media/IP is equivalent to physical property - fine.

Next you're saying that this guy is stealing from Valve by buying low and selling high?
If I buy a Widget from you for $x and I turn around and sell it for $(x+y), that's not stealing - it's called making a Market, and is how the Economy is supposed to work (unless you're in a Socialist/Communistic/etc. Economy).
If anyone's a thief here I'd have to say it's Valve for taking the guys property.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your second statement, but the guy's not stealing.
Sure, that's not the way Valve intends things to work, but it's perfectly legit.


.

 

[Anteaus]

You seem to be taking both sides of the argument here.

In the first instance you're saying the digital media/IP is equivalent to physical property - fine.

Next you're saying that this guy is stealing from Valve by buying low and selling high?
If I buy a Widget from you for $x and I turn around and sell it for $(x+y), that's not stealing - it's called making a Market, and is how the Economy is supposed to work (unless you're in a Socialist/Communistic/etc. Economy).
If anyone's a thief here I'd have to say it's Valve for taking the guys property.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your second statement, but the guy's not stealing.
Sure, that's not the way Valve intends things to work, but it's perfectly legit.


.

If it was just a matter of him gifting software, Steam wouldn't really care. If you pay for a $5 dollar game and gift it to your buddy, Steam still got the $5. I want to say that I don't have all the facts, but the article said that the guy was Russian, and if I got the context right he was gifting to people in other countries. If this is the case there could be a value disparity due to currency conversions and if this person was actively using this disparity to make money at the expense of Steam then I would definitely see Steams justification. Normally a company would just sue the offender if they felt they had a case, but in this situation Steam had the right to axe his account, so they did.

There are two different issues here. These are ethical questions, not legal ones as we already know the legal answers. First, should Steam have the right to cut access to your legally purchased software based on suspicion alone? Second, in the event there was fraud taking place, what mechanism is in place to deal with said fraud? If he is Russian, does that mean that Steam would then have to petition his government to allow a civil case, even though he broke no Russian law?

Personally, I think Steam should just stop allowing gifting of games to people who reside in different regions.

Again, I only know what I read on it so if someone has facts that are different than the way I understand it please post them.

 

[wanderer27]

If it was just a matter of him gifting software, Steam wouldn't really care. If you pay for a $5 dollar game and gift it to your buddy, Steam still got the $5. I want to say that I don't have all the facts, but the article said that the guy was Russian, and if I got the context right he was gifting to people in other countries. If this is the case there could be a value disparity due to currency conversions and if this person was actively using this disparity to make money at the expense of Steam then I would definitely see Steams justification. Normally a company would just sue the offender if they felt they had a case, but in this situation Steam had the right to axe his account, so they did.

There are two different issues here. These are ethical questions, not legal ones as we already know the legal answers. First, should Steam have the right to cut access to your legally purchased software based on suspicion alone? Second, in the event there was fraud taking place, what mechanism is in place to deal with said fraud? If he is Russian, does that mean that Steam would then have to petition his government to allow a civil case, even though he broke no Russian law?

Personally, I think Steam should just stop allowing gifting of games to people who reside in different regions.

Again, I only know what I read on it so if someone has facts that are different than the way I understand it please post them.

What does it matter if he's in a different Country or there are Currency disparities?

Some people actually make a living trading Currency based on daily/hourly/etc changes in Currency value - perfectly legal.

Why can't I go down to Wally World, buy a game, and then sell to someone around the world for a profit?
It's the same thing here, even though it's not Valve's intent.
Valve is still making money, possibly even a sale they wouldn't have normally had, and the guy makes a few bucks as well.


This is the biggest issue I have with Steam.
Kill the Client software, remove their ability to arbitrarily nuke my property and I'm a likely customer.

I don't see that happening, they'd rather treat me as a criminal, so I'll do my business elsewhere . . . and FYI I do have quite a few digital titles - just no Steam.

 

[BergeLSU]

The only Steam positive I can see is the convenience of having all your games readily available in one place.

Aside from that:
- It's just another layer of DRM on top of what's already in the game.
- The only time it's cheaper is on rare sales, usually it costs more (new titles)
- Why would I want/need an Adware/Spyware client running full time while playing a SINGLE PLAYER OFFLINE game?

It never fails to amaze me at the blind support Steam garners on these forums

Blind support?

So, having a sale 4 times a year where a large chunk of their products can be bought for much less than market price is a rare sale?

I have the internet. I have reliable internet. I am willing to trade needing the internet to have all my games and most of my save files backed up at another location.

Anyone who complains about Steam and uses Windows is a hypocrite.

 

[thespyder]

You seem to be taking both sides of the argument here.

In the first instance you're saying the digital media/IP is equivalent to physical property - fine.

Next you're saying that this guy is stealing from Valve by buying low and selling high?
If I buy a Widget from you for $x and I turn around and sell it for $(x+y), that's not stealing - it's called making a Market, and is how the Economy is supposed to work (unless you're in a Socialist/Communistic/etc. Economy).
If anyone's a thief here I'd have to say it's Valve for taking the guys property.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your second statement, but the guy's not stealing.
Sure, that's not the way Valve intends things to work, but it's perfectly legit.

Yes, you are miss-understanding my point. Personally, I have no view on the topic at all, except that RPS article is painting a big red X on Valve for their stance without all (or even most) of the facts. Which is causing a big up-roar in the community.

What I was trying to point out is, that from Valve's perspective, THEY think they were robbed. Not just of the "Extra" money that the person selling the product made, but also from a full sale to the end purchaser at full price. I make no judgement as to if they are correct. merely that they probably feel that this is Fraud and therefore theft.

As such, and since we are talking about international sales and thus probably very VERY complecated Legal processing, Valve's probably figured that the best way to get the "Offender's" attention was to pull his account. A bit heavy handed, I agree. But from their perspective, probably not overly so.

They see that someone is gouging their profits and they want it stopped. Taking the action they did got lots of attention and told people who were on the fence that "If you mess with us and our TOS, we will REVOKE your game privilages.

But the community is taking a very "Entitlement" perspective in that they want to be able to claim ownership of the IP that is the game. and they want to limit reprocussions for "Gifting" games to other players (at a profit) without understanding that the Game Distributors might have an issue with that.

I don't think either side is in the right. I see it like this. If I sold both cars and gas, and then found that you were stealing gas and selling it somewhere else, I might very well feel perfectly justified in stoping selling you gas. without Gas, your car won't run. It gets your attention, and then we work things out (as happened with Valve). But the consumers are making it into "Valve broke into my house and STOLE my games. OK, I was stealing from them but that should be OK so long as they can't do it back to me."

And I really don't like the "Arm Chair Lawyers" who think that their interpratation based on situational ethics (even when they don't realize that they are being situational about it) should be the whole of the law.