id like to remind you that the tos in steams case keeps changing and the tos to renting of games indefintly is not something that have been there since the start of the steam platform.
There used to be a time on steam where you owned the games and were not renting them indefinitely
I joined steam before they changed the tos to renting of games in their wording in their so called contract.
You don't hv to remind me this. I remember these things very well.
From legal perspective what you bought before THE TOS change is technically what you OWN. So should Steam remove your access to it you then have all legal rights to take legal actions against them.
Also youre kinda implying here that as longh as you write under a contract you have no say
or that if you have accepted the new conditions or terms then the contract is more worth than other laws
I never said anything like that nor implied that. Don't try to put words that I have not said into my mouth.
I specificly said that most current laws are not well suited for indefinite time software rentals so therefore Steam case is FOR NOW legally covered.
its like saying that if you have written under a contract where its allowed to torture you then whoever you have written the contract for can torture you as much as they like.
Terms of service and similar things don't override laws. That's a fact.
So if TOS says something that is against a law then that TOS is automatically not legally binding.
Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property
You quote me some obscure international law yet you blissfully ignore that in the VERY QUOTE you used it says
subject to the conditions provided for by law
and by the general principles of international law
By law it doesn't mean just ANY law and certainly DOESN'T relate to INTERNATIONAL one (as the sentence goes on and lists the international one SEPARATELY) - it literally means "subject to national law". You quoted me an international placeholder law that redirects to national law. What you quoted does not mean much BY ITSELF.
This is broken countless times
therfore what you speak of is just pipe dreams and idealism
Excuse me. What? You are literally saying that just because costumers usually don't use their available protection laws then those laws just don't exist and they are "just ideals".
If NMS is fraud or isnt regarding to gog depends on how banking or justice system in that particulry contry define DRM
as i say yet again
the standards of such defintions are not the same in evry contry
And I say yet again that I NEVER SAID that the law is uniform across all countries. I pretty clearly said "varies depending on country".
so good luck to anyone that tries.
Sorry, but what the F are you talking about? "Law Z only exists in country X so 'good luck for anybody IN THE ENTIRE WORLD as surely they would be unable to use it'"?
Are you for real with this? Regardless of your answer I'm not going to invlove myself in this argument as it is so petty it's beyond my patience.
No game company have yet to be judged in a court of law becuase their game client suddenly disapeared.
"It's not a crime if you've not been caught" much?
And SO WHAT that they hv not been dragged to court yet.
You are making it sound like you imply that BECAUSE OF THAT nobody should even try to do so.
To the evidence you speak of
some courts can just claim that Gog or NSM devs have left the key to the locked house outside so whoever can just easaly lock themself in or open the dor
(Editing of the save file)
Or that the devs have left the oppertunity for community to just mod i.e edit the files withouth alot of restrictions.
and therefore not drm judged by that court.
But thats kinda hard to know before there have been such a case so it produces some kind of
It's pretty amusing how you draw that connection but fail to see very obvious:
For most existing jurisdictions it doesn't matter if you leave your spare home key under a carpet, or you leave open window for night - if burglar uses it - it is STILL a break and entry from perspective of most existing jurisdictions.
And removing DRM is seen as piracy by most existing jurisdictions as well. Even removing it BY YOURSELF for ONLY your own personal use (so making a crack and never sharing it with anybody) is a huge grey area.
By your definition Denuvo should not be seen as DRM because it can be defeated (costumer can "fix" his product).
Also, no costumer should be forced to modify game code to make it work as advertised (so for example for it to become DRM free AS ADVERTISED).
It's up to the company to deliver on their advertised promises.
In this case it really DOESN'T matter how country sees DRM itself to be perfectly honest.
No Mans Sky specificly on GOG is ADVERTISED as FULLY DRM-free product. It is clearly not one. Therefore GOG sells you something ELSE than advertised. Therefore it's false advertising. A type of fraud.
End of the story.
Do you know the deffnition of a burgalar and somone thats treespassing?
they are not the same
so before youre acusing and critizing other people they dont know what they are talking about you shoud examine yourself.
It woud only be a burglary if you said speccificly that no one was allowed to enter your house with the key or that no treespassing is allowed
'The devs have not said anything about this.
For all we know the devs coud have left the key outside for anyone to use.
So unless youre a mind reader you still have to prove your point that it was a burglary.
And besides nothing is stolen here in this example
so what the fuck are you on about?
The window comparison are stupid
People dont usally enter trhough the window especcially if the key is in plain sigth
i newer said anything about it beeing under a carpet.
modding is not seen as piracy
youre talking about removing of copy protection and duplicating of a whole product
thats a far cry editing an accessible save file
no diffrent than renaming your folders on your computer.
the denovo example is not a good example
Devs that use it and the makers of denovo have made it clear that they dont want people to hack the software
and they have not left the key to the house behind.
Also, first youre saying you know the laws and fraud protection isnt the same in evry contry
and then youre saying longer down that it doesnt matter.
Make up your mind.
Also youre talking bullshit
even regards to ownership of games regarding the steam platform even if they changed the tos
It doesnt fucking matter if they changed the tos later and changed the wording in the contract later
Im Pointing to this article since you dont get it https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/french-judge-reportedly-orders-valve-to-not-prohibit-re-selling-of-digital-games-on-steam
il write it in plain text
ToS or legal contracts can never, ever, ever be contradictory to the actual laws - the justice system of a country. You were always legally allowed to sell your physical copies. You are legally allowed to resell your licence keys, at least in Europe.
But no one have cared about it and thats the truth
Here's what we understand though. The Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) has made it clear that because Valve sells you the game for an unlimited time limit, it cannot be considered a subscription and therefore falls under the normal EU rules set in place for Copyright materials.
Finally, the" subscription "to the" subscription "(of a game) made by the user, which is mentioned in the conclusions of the company VALVE (...) is actually a purchase, the game being made available to said user for an unlimited period. It can not, therefore, be a "subscription" - in the usual sense of the term - but the sale of a copy of a video game, made for a price determined in advance and paid in one go by the user.
The international law is intigrated in the national one at least here In Norway
thers no division betwen them at least here
And the French example
is the same how the law shoud work here in Norway and i bet in alot of other contrys that are either in the Eu or have intigrated the international Human rigths in the national laws.
There are contrys that havent signed this or implemented it though
so perhaps you live in a contry where this is not implemented or not signed and therefore obscure where you live.
And im not talking about of consumers that dont want to use laws or dont want to use the justice system
But its not that simple
we are in most cases talking about people (game companys) with a lot of money here
against consumers with not much money or resources.
Valve can afford to hire many skilled lawyers
most consumers can not.
And in a lot of cases in euope the cases gets dismissed for a varity of reasons.
by the way
its not petty
when i with my writing sends out a signal out to people to lower their expectations intead of listening to one that make grand bold statements about making finalicial claims based on a vague deffiniton on what DRM is and maybe wasting their time.
Thats why im saying good luck to anyone that tries to win over the financial system or luck in getting them on their side.
i really doubt they get annywhere withouth some kind of precedent.