next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

Please help keep (=WDG=) alive

• Server rules
• Forum rules
• Join us
  
• Clan members
• About the clan
• Server stats
• WDG YouTube Channel
• WDG Downloads
• IRC Webchat

Steam groups:

• WDG community
• WDG clan group
• WDG Battlelog Platoon

Our allies:

• [NuB] TF2 clan
• Velocity Gamers Hub
• Destination Gamer

GoG Links:

• Wix Discord
• Wix IRC channel

TF2 Links:

• Official TF2 Blog
• TF2 Steam Forum
• The Fort 2

October 2025

Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
	Birthdays
Uzz919 (29), FlowingEye (36), Karthus (35)
	Upcoming Events
Upcoming Birthdays: Uzz919 (29), FlowingEye (36), Karthus (35)

[CruelCow]

http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523/

EU office and dispute resolution process sounds good, but then again it's a carefully crafted PR release.
They try to sell the anti-classaction clause as pro-consumer, that's quite rich.

[discordance]

licenses are always full of damn lies.

The steam subscriber agreement says it sells you a limited license to the games. But then later on it says the license term is indefinite until terminated. = sold wholly as a product under the new EU ruling. Licensing is ridiculous especially given the amount of lies and the sheer unenforceability of a lot of the claims made in them. Hence why everyone ignores them and sues each other outside of the terms anyway.

[Jebus]

There is no conflict between a limited license and an indefinite term.

Although Steam have said they are basically going to ignore the ruling (which I expect will not be challenged) the wording of the EU ruling would suggest that if a distributor were to sell license with a limited term then the consumer's ownership would remain equitable and therefore would not be able to resell - which would potentially be even worse for the consumer as you would lose the right to use the software after a period of time.

[discordance]

There is no conflict between a limited license and an indefinite term.

From my limited understanding of the ruling, an indefinite term does not qualify as a limited term license (Effectively games on steam are sold for continuous use they just reserve the right to kick you off the service for non-payment and other breaches, which is spurious on its own). The standard limited license prevents resale and the right to make further copies, which the court found to be inapplicable to unlimited term licenses? I've not done a great deal of reading in this so perhaps its just wishful thinking on my part.

[Jebus]

The 'limited' part refers to restrictions on what you can do with it (e.g. one user, can't transfer or resell etc) with an unlimited license being the opposite. The term is how long the limited or unlimited license lasts.

My understanding of the ruling was that by selling an unlimited license, the distributor exhausts its distribution right on that item and therefore can not restrict future distribution of that item. That doesn't make license unlimited i.e. you still will not be able to sell copies etc.

[discordance]

The standard limited license prevents resale and the right to make further copies, which the court found to be inapplicable to unlimited term licenses?

It doesn't help that terms can be described as unlimited/limited as well but yes I know the difference between those. I think we are arguing different points here jebus. Yes the rights are exhausted and the license does not become unlimited but thats not what I was referring to.

The court said limited license conditions (arrrgh could also use terms here for more confusion) cannot be applied to software sold under license for continuous use. Companies cannot insert nonsense into their license to disguise if software is sold for continuous use what matters is how the courts view the sale. Steam games are sold for effective continuous use (subject to a few fair use, and penalties). Unless steam actually fixed the license term to a fixed and known period (50 years even), then they can't avoid being classified as software sold for continuous use, and trying to impose limited license conditions is totally unenforceable (if the ruling is upheld).

I'm also fairly sure they can't retroactively change the license to a fixed term now, the software was sold with an indefinite term and such a change would probably be grounds to sue the shit out of valve. Which may partly explain their sudden banning of class action law suits (which only works in america anyway).

[Jebus]

I don't see where the courts said that limited license conditions cannot be applied to software sold under license for continuous use?

The ruling (as far as I can see) was purely to do with enforcement of distribution rights. By selling the software with an unlimited term they exhaust their distribution right and therefore cannot restrict future transfer.

I'm also fairly sure they can't retroactively change the license to a fixed term now, the software was sold with an indefinite term and such a change would probably be grounds to sue the shit out of valve. Which may partly explain their sudden banning of class action law suits (which only works in america anyway).

I'm fairly sure Steam feel the same way about the EU ruling being retroactive

[discordance]

I am wording badly today but yes they exhaust their distribution rights, you cannot then try to reclaim those rights with license conditions, those distribution rights are irrecoverable. So the standard limited license conditions which valve claim under the steam subscriber agreement, specifically the right to restrict resale are not valid or enforceable.

I'm fairly sure Steam feel the same way about the EU ruling being retroactive

Unless the courts make allowances for business (a set date when licenses fall under the ruling) and further clarify the ruling, then they can bemoan it all they like but this was a ruling on existing sales. They could lobby for allowances etc but thats something they have to ask for.

[Rct33]

Valve give you a a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license. It is like renting the game for an indefinite amount of time. Valve says in their ToS that they can remove the license at any time they want so it is not unlimited. Also, the ToS isn't designed to work around this law either as Steam is a rental service, the new EU ruling does not oppose rental services.

Besides if they gave you an unlimited license they wouldn't be able to ban an account.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
I wonder why it doesn't mention 'indefinite' at all

[discordance]

The ruling applies to software licensed for continuous use, thats fairly nebulous but effectively covers steam as there is no fixed length term involved. I'll try to find the license that was ruled on later but the ability for the licensing company to terminate the license if they feel like it is a standard clause and probably in the relevant license. In which case the court felt that was not enough to imply a fixed and limited length to the license term.

[Rct33]

The ruling also did not mention, applying it to valve they they have a legal obligation to provide a service where you can sell your games/account. So if the ruling does apply to valve all it means is they can't take you to court for selling your steam account.

[Jebus]

Well the only part that is invalid in the EU now is that the 'subscriptions' are not transferable. The rest remains intact and therefore the license is still limited.

Whether it is enforceable is interesting given how complicated international law is when it comes to jurisdiction and Steam being a US company. I suppose the EU could ban Steam from selling to the EU but I think the result would harm consumers.

At the end of the day I suspect is publishers and not Steam who you need to be complaining about. I suspect Steam probably doesn't care whether it allows resells or not - it already has the facility to easily implement it with steam wallet, inventory etc. The people who lose out are the publishers and I suspect they are leaning heavily on the distributors.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
I wonder why it doesn't mention 'indefinite' at all

It does - "a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period"

The ruling also did not mention, applying it to valve they they have a legal obligation to provide a service where you can sell your games/account.

I agree, but they would have to implement some way of giving you a key or similar which you can sell.

[discordance]

Whether it is enforceable is interesting given how complicated international law is when it comes to jurisdiction and Steam being a US company. I suppose the EU could ban Steam from selling to the EU but I think the result would harm consumers.

The new steam SA specifically states that EU customers are under Luxembourg jurisdiction. Which is where all the big EU publishers like to hang out for some reason.

EDIT: Bleh the oracle license specifically gave an unlimited period in the license. Still I think you could challenge something like the steam subscriber agreement as being effectively an unlimited period given that indefinite is purposefully vague. You'd need ridiculously expensive lawyers though.

[Rct33]

I agree, but they would have to implement some way of giving you a key or similar which you can sell.

They don't have any legal obligation to have to do this

[Jebus]

Whether it is enforceable is interesting given how complicated international law is when it comes to jurisdiction and Steam being a US company. I suppose the EU could ban Steam from selling to the EU but I think the result would harm consumers.

The new steam SA specifically states that EU customers are under Luxembourg jurisdiction.

So they have chosen the forum but not the law - you can pick both and they don't have to be the same. Also if I remember correctly under the Rome Convention (or similar) the mere declaration of the parties of a particular law does not prejudice the use of law which cannot be separated from the contract (these are the law of seller's location, law of consumer's location and law of the location where the contract took place).

I agree, but they would have to implement some way of giving you a key or similar which you can sell.

They don't have any legal obligation to have to do this

My take is that they do. "Such  a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy" - as a legal owner you would be able to request the key they are holding.