Valve to Steam users: no class-action suits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unruly

Sony's lawsuits about the hacking of the PS3 were basically copyright lawsuits though. GeoHot and the rest of the hackers were using, modifying, and distributing Sony's code in a way that wasn't permitted by the license. As much as I disagree with the current state of copyright law, I have to grudgingly give Sony a pass on that particular case. It was one of those "legally right, morally wrong" things. If GeoHot et al had fully written their own custom firmware for the PS3, completely from scratch, and Sony managed to win, then I'd be much more outraged. But that wasn't the case. As the case actually was, it was more along the lines of a case where someone released a GPL-derivative product under a non-GPL license. The people involved were given the right to use the code under a certain set of circumstances, and by violating those circumstances they lost their right to use the software. The Free Software Foundation uses similar arguments all the time in enforcing the GPL on companies that modify GPL-licensed software but then don't release the source code.

---

And here I've been using that as my major "how not to do business" cases. See, to my understanding, all that happened is one kid reverse-engineered something to find out a single code, which unlocked something or other, and then never was able to actually distribute any more than info on how he did it because Sony sued/cease-and-desisted him before he could. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with a "how I did it" because it assumes that so many consumers are actually going to be willing to go through that crap, and then there's a margin for error from people who just don't know what they're doing, etc. Then there's the fact that someone could be doing exactly what they were, except in secret, who's potentially at a much more dangerous stage, that isn't getting sued.

Either way, thanks for clearing that up.

That said, I think that any software distributed with the hardware should be fair game, if only because it's on the hardware. You can't modify the hardware without inversely affecting the software in some manner, be it performance, or some other manner. The way it works now is rather stupid.

I guess whether this is good or not depends on how fair and reasonable individual arbitration actually is. If it's quite fair then I probably would be in favour of using this for free over any other method of resolution.

I guess it probably doesn't matter much to me in Europeland anyway.

Two things.
1) I'll just choose the courts to be my arbitrator (zing!)
2) Valve don't get to state the law in this country, the law peoples do.

So I guess I'm quite safe. It's still a rough move from Valve. I might go to Indies direct from now on. Plus limit my Steam purchases to less than a fiver. Oh wait, I already am. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypernetic

A contract or EULA doesn't protect them from anything if they break the law in some way.

---

Indeed. I hate to beat this point to death, but EULA's treading on basic consumer rights only work in some countries (probably the United States), where as in most of Europe these contracts wouldn't be worth the pixels they're written on.

In any case, as companies do more to protect themselves, they're pushing us closer and closer to that inevitable war in the courts which will decide if they're allowed to write their own laws, and other stuff like can digital games be resold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unruly

What I meant by that was that we'd have Sony, or Apple, or AT&T hiring Blackwater as a private army in much the way that the US has used them in Iraq, and it being legal. I wasn't meaning that Blackwater would be used as "public"(i.e. state-contracted) extension of law enforcement/military despite being a private company. As an example of what I was meaning, you'd have Kaz Hirai being escorted around LA by a Sony-branded military convoy, shooting anyone who looked at the convoy funny, during E3. And no murder charges or anything would be pressed against any of the operators because Sony would have some form of sovereign immunity or whatever the bullshit excuses the US keeps using for Blackwater in Iraq are. Using Blackwater as an extension of the police force is yet another step towards that end though.

---

Well, at least if EA got that they would be able to make something more true to the Syndicate roots then the last game.
Sorry for that, continue with serious talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Sigar

In any case, as companies do more to protect themselves, they're pushing us closer and closer to that inevitable war in the courts which will decide if they're allowed to write their own laws, and other stuff like can digital games be resold.

---

Pretty much this.

Plus, if we can wrap it into a giant clusterfuck along with copyright and internet privacy laws, we might just start legal Armageddon!

See I can't really get that bothered about this, as I wasn't bothered when PlayStation did it (not just because they pay my wages).

a) in the EU the strong consumer laws still trump it anyway.
b) Pretty sure class actions never existed in the UK so I've hardly lost any right.
c) Valve are at least attempting to sweeten it by offering to pay for the arbitration.
d) There are clauses in there saying the ability to go through small claims courts is agreed to (not that they can take that basic right off me anyway.)

So it mostly seems to apply to US consumers. I think the problem really seems to be that US consumer protection law appears to be much weaker than in the EU pushing people towards class actions as their other rights to redress seem to be weaker. But against that Class Actions as far as I understand primarily help lawyers to the detriment of business, as they can get quite hefty shares of the money when it is settled. I'm fairly sure in the UK lawyers are only allowed to ask for their standard fee twice over (or something) and can't offer to do it for free so the incentive for the lawyer to start spurious class actions, if they existed, would be quite low. Whereas in the US they're a massive money spinner for the lawyers.

Anyway no expert, but does seem a storm in a teacup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soldant

Legal arbitration is generally preferable to dragging things through the courts these days,

---

For companies. Not for consumer rights.

Quote:

---

so that the courts can deal with stuff that really matters (like, oh I don't know, serious crimes of murder or rape or what have you).

---

In the US, civil and criminal courts usually aren't even in the same building. Lawyers generally handle one or the other, not both. So that's just a ludicrous statement.

And I always thought Valve were really keen on Coop/Social stuff, bringing us all together and that. For shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unaco

And I always thought Valve were really keen on Coop/Social stuff, bringing us all together and that. For shame.

---

They're not a charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalano

They're not a charity.

---

That's all well and good. But what does it have to do with stopping Coop lawsuits?

Edit: They're also not a bagel shop, just while we're on the topic. Or a Pirate radio station. Nor are they a group of experienced mercenaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unaco

That's all well and good. But what does it have to do with stopping Coop lawsuits?

Edit: They're also not a bagel shop, just while we're on the topic. Or a Pirate radio station. Nor are they a group of experienced mercenaries.

---

All businesses are in the same business: To make money. If arbitration is cheaper than court battles, they'll do everything they can to force arbitration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalano

All businesses are in the same business: To make money. If arbitration is cheaper than court battles, they'll do everything they can to force arbitration.

---

What if they were a secret organisation dedicated to protecting the world from the secret threat of secret Vampires that have secretly existed for millennia without revealing themselves to the rest of the world?

I just think it's a shame that the company that, to an extent, popularised the coop model in gaming with Left4Dead say, that produced one of the biggest multiplayer games of the last decade (TF2), and the social gaming platform that is Steam (Friends, chat, gifting, trading, groups, workshop, Greenlight) has seen fit to remove the Coop/Multiplayer aspects of Lawsuits, and reduce them down to single player only. It's just not like the Valve I know...

It was the first time I agreed to one of these things actually knowing what it was about. It felt kind of weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unaco

What if they were a secret organisation dedicated to protecting the world from the secret threat of secret Vampires that have secretly existed for millennia without revealing themselves to the rest of the world?

I just think it's a shame that the company that, to an extent, popularised the coop model in gaming with Left4Dead say, that produced one of the biggest multiplayer games of the last decade (TF2), and the social gaming platform that is Steam (Friends, chat, gifting, trading, groups, workshop, Greenlight) has seen fit to remove the Coop/Multiplayer aspects of Lawsuits, and reduce them down to single player only. It's just not like the Valve I know...

---

What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalano

What the hell are you talking about?

---

It's a secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unaco

What if they were a secret organisation dedicated to protecting the world from the secret threat of secret Vampires that have secretly existed for millennia without revealing themselves to the rest of the world?

I just think it's a shame that the company that, to an extent, popularised the coop model in gaming with Left4Dead say, that produced one of the biggest multiplayer games of the last decade (TF2), and the social gaming platform that is Steam (Friends, chat, gifting, trading, groups, workshop, Greenlight) has seen fit to remove the Coop/Multiplayer aspects of Lawsuits, and reduce them down to single player only. It's just not like the Valve I know...

---

Maybe they are actually the secret vampire threat. See how often they brainwash their victims. Half this forum could be vampire thralls, just waiting for their masters to give the order to conquer the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalano

What the hell are you talking about?

---

Hope, hope for all mankind!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TillEulenspiegel

For companies. Not for consumer rights.

---

Arbitration outfits aren't a law unto themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TillEulenspiegel

In the US, civil and criminal courts usually aren't even in the same building. Lawyers generally handle one or the other, not both. So that's just a ludicrous statement.

---

That said the world would be a better place if judges (I understand that in the US a judge is a separate profession, over here a judge spent a billion years as a lawyer or something) weren't forced into civil courts for trivial "he said she said" issues and were primarily there to deal with criminal issues (i.e. crimes against the state/its people). Cutting the legal system right down the middle makes it conceptually easy to grasp but taken as a whole it isn't a ludicrous statement. (Also the building is irrelevant)


That said I'm generally surprised at the lack of outrage here and on the RPS comments thread. If EA or anyone else had tried this, whether it would actually result in any appreciable change or not (like that Origin 'spyware' EULA nonsense not too long ago), people would be enraged. A lot of you certainly were over anything and everything in Origin's EULA. But because it's Valve people seem to be going "Well, it probably won't make a difference" and ignoring it. Just another example of where Valve is the darling of the gaming industry who could tear off your arm while you smile at it like it's a cute but insolent child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soldant

Arbitration outfits aren't a law unto themselves.


That said the world would be a better place if judges (I understand that in the US a judge is a separate profession, over here a judge spent a billion years as a lawyer or something) weren't forced into civil courts for trivial "he said she said" issues and were primarily there to deal with criminal issues (i.e. crimes against the state/its people). Cutting the legal system right down the middle makes it conceptually easy to grasp but taken as a whole it isn't a ludicrous statement. (Also the building is irrelevant)


That said I'm generally surprised at the lack of outrage here and on the RPS comments thread. If EA or anyone else had tried this, whether it would actually result in any appreciable change or not (like that Origin 'spyware' EULA nonsense not too long ago), people would be enraged. A lot of you certainly were over anything and everything in Origin's EULA. But because it's Valve people seem to be going "Well, it probably won't make a difference" and ignoring it. Just another example of where Valve is the darling of the gaming industry who could tear off your arm while you smile at it like it's a cute but insolent child.

---

Judges are elected, so having a law background kind of helps. Federal judges are selected by the President and confirmed by Senate, so again having law experience definitely helps. It's not REQUIRED by law that you do, but you'd probably have a hard time being selected/elected if you didn't.