Steam Subscriber Agreement

[Jstn7477]

The Steam Subscriber Agreement was last updated in 2005, so you already agreed to an agreement anyway. They have the right to update it.

You must not use iTunes because I swear their agreement changes almost every time I update the apps on my iPod touch. Steam's last agreement went untouched for just under 7 years.

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

this was added to prevent abuse by idiots

this clause was Probably added to prevent the people that got VAC'd or where caught tampering with there/other peoples accounts from going crying to the court over there access being terminated
if at some point valve Fucks up and leaks like CC or paypal info you can bet your ass that the EULA won't save them from a class action because any court worth there hammer will throw the binding out the window in a instant

Imho the question should be how fair is it to change things like this, If something was reasonably and legitimately your right before why are they allowed to change it, and how fair is it that you could buy 50 or so games over the last few years only to have this choice or play none of your games.

If we all were told we had to work weekends , flatrate with no short day and no excemptions due to your boss changeing your contract via a loop in the prior contract , say no and this months and future wages are docked, i am damn sure i know what any person would say

[qubit]

@OP

Yeah, these big companies are asshats.

Holding you to ransom and not letting you even play your games without "agreement", is well below the belt. Remember, the law is drafted by rich people for rich people, which is why they get away with crap like this.

[FordGT90Concept]

...what "law?" An EULA is not a law.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

...what "law?" An EULA is not a law.

Indeed not, but in some cases it can legally force you to waive your rights under the law. I'm hardly an expert on this and the USA and UK handle this a bit differently, but I know that this is done and stands up in court, unfortunately.

[TheMailMan78]

Another person doesn't know what a "right" is.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Another person doesn't know what a "right" is.

Then explain it smartypants.

I've openly said I'm not an expert on this, but I have seen it reported in quite a few places that contracts can twist arms in this way and this is what I'm going by.

[Mr McC]

The degree to which a EULA is binding is a matter of jurisprudence, what is clear is that it is in the companies' interests to have you undersign one: presumably the permission you grant allows them to behave in a manner thet would be legally questionable in the absence of your permission.

[NdMk2o1o]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Another person doesn't know what a "right" is.

Ah TMM who is all for freedom of speech and gun laws yet at the same time doesn't even know when his "constitutionaly given rights" and freedom of speech are being swiped from under his nose, and when he doesn't even realise it or care....

You contridict yourself so often it hurts, you would die for your right to bear arms from what I have seen yes? and believe in the constitution when it suits you though when your brothers in arms raise an issue with privacy you sheepishly hide under your cushion of they must be being paranoid and there is nothing to hide so have my details

So you want to keep your "constitutional" right to bear arms yet on the other hand you are happy for the corporates and government to monitor every other aspect of your life and don't give a shit? glad you're not my countryman!

[Raw]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Another person doesn't know what a "right" is.

Can't let it go, can you?
Sure sign of your superior intellect. What else is festering in that superior mind of yours?

Man, you just give EVERONE shit around these here parts hombre.
I thought I served you pretty good the other day.
Seems you don't even realize that (or have a hard time with reading comprehension)!

[Raw]

Originally Posted by NdMk2o1o

Ah TMM who is all for freedom of speech and gun laws yet at the same time doesn't even know when his "constitutionaly given rights" and freedom of speech are being swiped from under his nose, and when he doesn't even realise it or care....

You contridict yourself so often it hurts, you would die for your right to bear arms from what I have seen yes? and believe in the constitution when it suits you though when your brothers in arms raise an issue with privacy you sheepishly hide under your cushion of they must be being paranoid and there is nothing to hide so have my details

So you want to keep your "constitutional" right to bear arms yet on the other hand you are happy for the corporates and government to monitor every other aspect of your life and don't give a shit? glad you're not my countryman!

Well said and accurate.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by NdMk2o1o

Ah TMM who is all for freedom of speech and gun laws yet at the same time doesn't even know when his "constitutionaly given rights" and freedom of speech are being swiped from under his nose, and when he doesn't even realise it or care....

You contridict yourself so often it hurts, you would die for your right to bear arms from what I have seen yes? and believe in the constitution when it suits you though when your brothers in arms raise an issue with privacy you sheepishly hide under your cushion of they must be being paranoid and there is nothing to hide so have my details

So you want to keep your "constitutional" right to bear arms yet on the other hand you are happy for the corporates and government to monitor every other aspect of your life and don't give a shit? glad you're not my countryman!

My rights are fully intact as the current law stands. The government is not taking away from my privacy. Do I want the government to peek into my computer. No. Honestly under the originally written Constitution they cannot without probable cause (Never mind the Patriot Act). However this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT. This has to do with a private company and a EULA. If I don't want them to look into my computer simply don't press "I agree". Problem solved. No ones rights are being violated. You do not have a right to video games or to play EA games. You also do not have a right to drive. Again learn what a right is before you cry you are losing them.

Originally Posted by Raw

Can't let it go, can you?
Sure sign of your superior intellect. What else is festering in that superior mind of yours?

Man, you just give EVERONE shit around these here parts hombre.
I thought I served you pretty good the other day.
Seems you don't even realize that (or have a hard time with reading comprehension)!

I owned you so bad in that thread it wasn't even funny. I felt bad for you honestly. Did you go back and read it again? I sure hope so.

Oh and just in case you blocked it out like a molestation here it is again.....

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=16

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

My rights are fully intact as the current law stands. The government is not taking away from my privacy. Do I want the government to peek into my computer. No. Honestly under the originally written Constitution they cannot without probable cause (Never mind the Patriot Act). However this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT. This has to do with a private company and a EULA. If I don't want them to look into my computer simply don't press "I agree". Problem solved. No ones rights are being violated. You do not have a right to video games or to play EA games. You also do not have a right to drive. Again learn what a right is before you cry you are losing them.

The analogy suffers from the fact that the government provides driving licences. Moreover, I require a driving licence as proof that I am able to drive safely, what possible end can a licence to play video games serve?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

The analogy suffers from the fact that the government provides driving licences. Moreover, I require a driving licence as proof that I am able to drive safely, what possible end can a licence to play video games serve?

You don't have a right to drive in the US. You have to be certified to use the privilege IF you are deemed capable by the government. If it were a right you wouldn't need the governments permission. You also do not have a right to health care. I know its a scary world but yeah you don't have a right to everything. Just what the Constitution says (speaking if you are a US citizen).

This is in the US mind you. Dunno about your country.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

You don't have a right to drive in the US. You have to be certified to use the privilege IF you are deemed capable by the government. If it were a right you wouldn't need the governments permission. You also do not have a right to health care. I know its a scary world but yeah you don't have a right to everything. Just what the Constitution says (speaking if you are a US citizen).

This is in the US mind you. Dunno about your country.

We can certainly define driving or gaming as a privilege; however, we agree that the driving licence has a clear purpose in terms of accredition, leaving us with the question of the purpose of EULA's within the sphere of gaming.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

We can certainly define driving or gaming as a privilege; however, we agree that the driving licence has a clear purpose in terms of accredition, leaving us with the question of the purpose of EULA's within the sphere of gaming.

Its the "License" to use the software how the developers see fit. Like the government telling you that you cannot drive on its roads faster then 55MPH. However they can change that speed limit to 35MPH anytime and you must agree to those rules if you wish to keep driving on those streets.

ALSO you also do not need a license to drive on a privet track OR to buy car. Just to drive on public roads owned by the government.

Oh and this is for Raw.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Its the "License" to use the software how the developers see fit. Like the government telling you that you cannot drive on its roads faster then 55MPH. However they can change that speed limit to 35MPH anytime and you must agree to those rules if you wish to keep driving on those streets.

ALSO you also do not need a license to drive on a privet track OR to buy car. Just to drive on public roads owned by the government.

Whereby we have a private company postulating as a government, which to many minds is problematic. All relations with these companies are already covered by existing legislation.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Whereby we have a private company postulating as a government, which to many minds is problematic. All relations with these companies are already covered by existing legislation.

No its not. Its granting you permission to use their software how they deem. Don't like the rules? Don't play the game. Its their software. Not yours. If you don't like the rules make your own game and give it away free with the option to do whatever anyone likes.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

No its not. Its granting you permission to use their software how they deem. Don't like the rules? Don't play the game. Its their software. Not yours.

Why does the company require further definition of the rulles governing our relations in the form of a EULA when they are already legislatively defined? It appears to me that it is a case of the companies disliking the rules.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Why does the company require further definition of the rulles governing our relations in the form of a EULA when they are already legislatively defined? It appears to me that it is a case of the companies disliking the rules.

Because legislation allows them to make EULA's. If they were not legal they could not be sold.

[TheOne]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Why does the company require further definition of the rulles governing our relations in the form of a EULA when they are already legislatively defined? It appears to me that it is a case of the companies disliking the rules.

Given all the rage over the years over video games not going exactly the way some expected or were promised you would think it would be easy to understand, look at Mass Effect 3, the ending generated a lot of rage which led to hate mail, charities, threats of law suits, and claims against EA to the BBB.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by TheOne

Given all the rage over the years over video games not going exactly the way some expected or were promised you would think it would be easy to understand, look at Mass Effect 3, the ending generated a lot of rage which led to hate mail, charities, threats of law suits, and claims against EA to the BBB.

Certainly I understand that companies produce EULA's to protect themselves legally, particularly in America, a haven for lawsuits and lawyers, but what interests me is to what extent this protection occasions detriment to my standing before the law.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Certainly I understand that companies produce EULA's to protect themselves legally, particularly in America, a haven for lawsuits and lawyers, but what interests me is to what extent this protection occasions detriment to my standing before the law.

Most EULA's will not fully stand up in court. However the more they include, the more leeway it gives the defense. There are so many stupid lawsuits in the US man. Everyone sues everyone. If you have money you are a target. Hell even a simple fender bender could cost you tens of thousands.

EULA give the company a safety net. That's the reason its there. EULA's are fully legal man. If you don't like them call your Representative.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by parelem

That you can't start class action suits against them. However, if you do have an issue they'll go to arbitration with you and will play all your legal fees, if the sum of damages sought is <= 3000USD

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

I don't see why the average user would want to start a class action suit against them.

exactly, which is why their agreement is not bad for us in any way. it just blocks a loophole that cost them time and money and got us nothing. at least now there is a viable route for recourse.

Originally Posted by HossHuge

We (Steam and I) already have an agreement. They are changing it without consulting me first and not honouring the original agreement.

if you ever actually paid attention to the original agreement, the one that YOU agreed to - they reserved that right. you have no grounds to complain because you obviously never even read the first agreement!! you already agreed that they have the right to change the agreement whenever they want.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

exactly, which is why their agreement is not bad for us in any way. it just blocks a loophole that cost them time and money and got us nothing. at least now there is a viable route for recourse.


i understand the whole "they changed my agreement thing" but if you ever actually paid attention to the original agreement, the one that YOU agreed to - they reserved that right. you have no grounds to complain because you obviously never even read the first agreement!!

Its a tech forum. Logic need not apply. I should report your post for making to much logic. Hell I know my posts have been reported a few times already

People hate facts. Ive already told them all this yet they think they have grounds for a million man march for a violation of thier civil rights or something.