China's courts say your digital game items are inheritable – Steam and The West disagree

[DragonSlayer101]

What just happened? A court in China has ruled that online gaming accounts are inheritable assets, reshaping how digital property is treated in the country after a person's death. This is not the first time that Chinese courts have ruled in favor of a deceased gamer's next of kin in similar cases, allowing them to legally inherit their late relatives' virtual assets.

According to a post by Redditor Slawrfp on the PC master race subreddit, multiple courts in China have recently ruled in favor of the family members of deceased gamers, finding that legal heirs have rights to the game accounts of their relatives or partners because game purchases and in-game microtransactions carry real-world monetary value.

In one of the cases highlighted by Slawrfp, a woman sought to inherit an ultra-expensive weapon in the game Zhengtu from her deceased husband. However, she was opposed by his "in-game romantic partner," who argued that the item could only be obtained through collaborative gameplay between players with linked accounts.

The weapon – a rare knife – was valued at a whopping 50,000 yuan (around $7,375), leading the court to conclude that it was inheritable like any other property because of its real-world market value. However, the judge ruled that the widow was only entitled to 50% of the item's value after it was sold, while the in-game partner was awarded the remaining 50%.

In another case, a court in Beijing ordered a gaming company to hand over 87 accounts belonging to a deceased gamer to his mother, ruling that accounts, character data, virtual items, and other in-game assets are inheritable because they have real-world monetary value. The company eventually cooperated with the mother and granted her access to all virtual assets held by her deceased son.

The verdicts on digital inheritance in China have extended far beyond gaming, with courts also issuing similar rulings in cases involving cryptocurrencies and social media accounts. The decisions have dealt a major blow to internet companies that claim they have the right to "bequeath and inherit" users' digital assets after their death.

The rulings issued by Chinese courts stand in stark contrast to decisions in the US and Europe, where courts have sided with game companies such as Valve, ruling that digital licenses on platforms like Steam are non-transferable. In reaching those decisions, courts noted that the Steam Subscriber Agreement explicitly prohibits the transfer, sale, or trading of accounts.

Permalink to story:

China's courts say your digital game items are inheritable – Steam and The West disagree

 

[The Talking Tech]

Digital purchases should be inheritable, sellable, transferrable and at all times redownloadable.

Anything less than that it's a robbery and a scam.

 

[MiqWalsh]

Digital purchases should be inheritable, sellable, transferrable and at all times redownloadable.

Anything less than that it's a robbery and a scam.

Same old, same old. Welcome to the capitalist Western world (where making money "trumps" literally everything else..!)

Miq.

 

[maxxcool7421]

China to the defense of the working american ... boy thats gotta wrankle 'some people'

 

[brucek]

In the US, we need digital "licenses" to catch up to the 100+ year old First Sale doctrine: if you bought it as a consumer, you can transfer it. This matter of social policy was settled for decades until digital publishers found an end-run around it because judges decided a book, record, movie etc. was somehow different in digital form than on physical paper, vinyl, or optical disc. I understand our legal system moves slowly but it's been quite a few decades now, I think we should expect our legislators to get around to fixing this.

btw this would also largely fix the issue with Sony stopping physical disks for playstations, which would be fine for most people if there was a functioning market for trading the digital versions.

 

[LordVile95]

In the US, we need digital "licenses" to catch up to the 100+ year old First Sale doctrine: if you bought it as a consumer, you can transfer it. This matter of social policy was settled for decades until digital publishers found an end-run around it because judges decided a book, record, movie etc. was somehow different in digital form than on physical paper, vinyl, or optical disc. I understand our legal system moves slowly but it's been quite a few decades now, I think we should expect our legislators to get around to fixing this.

btw this would also largely fix the issue with Sony stopping physical disks for playstations, which would be fine for most people if there was a functioning market for trading the digital versions.

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

 

[The Talking Tech]

Same old, same old. Welcome to the capitalist Western world (where making money "trumps" literally everything else..!)

Miq.

It's pretty sad that something that is considered a purchased people don't have any control over it....

The consumer is to blame for it by giving corporations that much power and not finding ways to gain that power back.

 

[brucek]

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

This entire concept is bogus and needs to go away. It snuck under people's noses at a time when most people in politics and law barely understood what a personal computer was and never got looked at again.

The paper form of the book already understood you were purchasing a readable copy, not the master copyright to publish it yourself. And way back in the day we already went through the debate as a society as to whether the first purchaser should be able to sell that readable copy to a second person, or a library should be able to share it's copies with whoever wanted to borrow them. After the initial debate was settled it stayed settled for decades.

As we to move to digital readable copies, nothing as far as societal tradeoffs has changed. It was always a "license" in the form that mattered, meaning it was for one person's use at a time and not giving them rights to reproduce. We can still have that exact situation in digital form. What changed is that digital only publishers were allowed to reset the First Sale doctrine largely over a practical vs legal difference, which they never should have been.

Congress should require that these digital assets be subject to first sale doctrine.

 

[LordVile95]

This entire concept is bogus and needs to go away. It snuck under people's noses at a time when most people in politics and law barely understood what a personal computer was and never got looked at again.

The paper form of the book already understood you were purchasing a readable copy, not the master copyright to publish it yourself. And way back in the day we already went through the debate as a society as to whether the first purchaser should be able to sell that readable copy to a second person, or a library should be able to share it's copies with whoever wanted to borrow them. After the initial debate was settled it stayed settled for decades.

As we to move to digital readable copies, nothing as far as societal tradeoffs has changed. It was always a "license" in the form that mattered, meaning it was for one person's use at a time and not giving them rights to reproduce. We can still have that exact situation in digital form. What changed is that digital only publishers were allowed to reset the First Sale doctrine largely over a practical vs legal difference, which they never should have been.

Congress should require that these digital assets be subject to first sale doctrine.

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

 

[brucek]

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

You conveniently left out the exact part I was highlighting, that you were always allowed to sell that book and lend that book.

I am not arguing that you should be able to make unlimited copies and sell those. You bought one copy, you should be allowed to sell that one copy to someone else, after which you no longer have it yourself. The way it has worked for over 100 years. (and much longer than that if you go by the common law this descends from if I understand it correctly, although I'm no legal scholar.)

 

[NumberNine]

Ownership is such a pesky concept to those who seek gains with little to offer in return.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

No, you bought access to a copy under the license to NOT use it in a specific way: you could not make copies of it and sell them.

You could sell your book, doodle in it, use it as kindling, loan it to friends and family, use it as a doorstop, use it as inspiration, and so on. There are infinite ways you could use that book.

That is ownership. Going *nerrrr whell ackshually you loisenced it neeeeeer* doesnt change that fact you owned that book and could do as you see fit.

We only ahve to give out our rights to ownership if we choose to allow it.

 

[bviktor]

It's a weird, twisted world we're living in, where China is becoming the most pro-consumer state.

They also ban flush door handles on cars, mandate physical buttons for the most crucial tasks, strictly restrict children's video game playtime, etc.

 

[LordVile95]

No, you bought access to a copy under the license to NOT use it in a specific way: you could not make copies of it and sell them.

You could sell your book, doodle in it, use it as kindling, loan it to friends and family, use it as a doorstop, use it as inspiration, and so on. There are infinite ways you could use that book.

That is ownership. Going *nerrrr whell ackshually you loisenced it neeeeeer* doesnt change that fact you owned that book and could do as you see fit.

We only ahve to give out our rights to ownership if we choose to allow it.

It’s not ownership and no you didn’t own it. Argue all you want but it’s still sold under licence

 

[Morphology]

It’s not ownership and no you didn’t own it. Argue all you want but it’s still sold under licence

Dude, stop this nonsense and start thinking critically instead of gaslighting the comment section. It's the legislator in specific countries that is willing or not willing to allow companies, in the written law, to sell a 'licence' to digital products rather than ownership to such a product, therefore all complaints for the mess go to politicians who are willing or not willing to protect the idea of citizens owning what they purchase, rather than merely renting it until taken away.

Digital companies have spent BILLIONS lobbying to rig the letter of law in their favour, so that a digital copy of a movie, book or game you purchased could 'suddenly' be removed from your digital library. Imagine a book publisher who sold you a physical book decides to come to your home and take that book away from your shelf. You'd be barking mad, wouldn't you. It does not really matter if a purchased item is material or digital.

A game purchased on a disk can be sold if I don't need it any more. I am the owner of a copy of a game and I can sell it, gift it or break it. It's my copy. The same must apply to digital copies or purchased goods, including inheritance rights. The Chinese court was ABSOLUTELY correct to grant inheritance right to digital library to next of kin or spouse. I hope this verdict is now digested and applied across Western societies.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Dude, stop this nonsense and start thinking critically instead of gaslighting the comment section. It's the legislator in specific countries that is willing or not willing to allow companies, in the written law, to sell a 'licence' to digital products rather than ownership to such a product, therefore all complaints for the mess go to politicians who are willing or not willing to protect the idea of citizens owning what they purchase, rather than merely renting it until taken away.

Digital companies have spent BILLIONS lobbying to rig the letter of law in their favour, so that a digital copy of a movie, book or game you purchased could 'suddenly' be removed from your digital library. Imagine a book publisher who sold you a physical book decides to come to your home and take that book away from your shelf. You'd be barking mad, wouldn't you. It does not really matter if a purchased item is material or digital.

A game purchased on a disk can be sold if I don't need it any more. I am the owner of a copy of a game and I can sell it, gift it or break it. It's my copy. The same must apply to digital copies or purchased goods, including inheritance rights. The Chinese court was ABSOLUTELY correct to grant inheritance right to digital library to next of kin or spouse. I hope this verdict is now digested and applied across Western societies.

YOU signed the EULA when you bought it. Get over it.. also YOU VOTED for this this to be allowed over decades. you got what you voted for.

 

[LordVile95]

Dude, stop this nonsense and start thinking critically instead of gaslighting the comment section. It's the legislator in specific countries that is willing or not willing to allow companies, in the written law, to sell a 'licence' to digital products rather than ownership to such a product, therefore all complaints for the mess go to politicians who are willing or not willing to protect the idea of citizens owning what they purchase, rather than merely renting it until taken away.

Digital companies have spent BILLIONS lobbying to rig the letter of law in their favour, so that a digital copy of a movie, book or game you purchased could 'suddenly' be removed from your digital library. Imagine a book publisher who sold you a physical book decides to come to your home and take that book away from your shelf. You'd be barking mad, wouldn't you. It does not really matter if a purchased item is material or digital.

A game purchased on a disk can be sold if I don't need it any more. I am the owner of a copy of a game and I can sell it, gift it or break it. It's my copy. The same must apply to digital copies or purchased goods, including inheritance rights. The Chinese court was ABSOLUTELY correct to grant inheritance right to digital library to next of kin or spouse. I hope this verdict is now digested and applied across Western societies.

The letter of the law is gaslighting now?

You still are buying a licence to a physical disc it’s just a slightly different one to digital. That’s what you get for convenience and steam is the cause of most issues in gaming today. The anti consumer licence terms, the gambling, the battle passes, high prices for games, launchers not communicating with each other etc. It’s all down to Valve and them trying to maintain their monopoly and profits. Others have just copied the model

We can agree the licensing for digital media isn’t right and that physical media has better terms but you can’t pretend that they’re not both licensing. You don’t own the software on the disc you own a licence to use it under the agreed terms

 

[Morphology]

YOU signed the EULA when you bought it. Get over it.. also YOU VOTED for this this to be allowed over decades. you got what you voted for.

Perhaps you got what you voted for. I didn't vote for the idea of ownership being legally watered down merely into uncertain and slippery licencing. As an individual, I cannot stop ruling lawmakers getting corrupt by lobbying efforts of big companies to write law in their favour. I can change my vote every four years in a democratic society or report corruption or influence others through debates about ownership. I have no other instruments.

I did not sign EULA and I do not have any streaming subscriptions. I cancelled it all. Middle finger to all of them. I buy my stuff and I OWN my stuff, with copies of products on high-quality physical media.

I welcome wholeheartedly the verdict of Chinese court and truly hope that Western courts will finally notice this and start ruling in favour of real ownership of digital content, thus forcing politicians to change the letter of law, so that Sony and others cannot remove someone's purchased movies from their digital library. Consumers will fight this one hard.

Don't stand in their way with this EULA compliance nonsense. EULA will have to change, as it is anti-consumer and anti-inheritance. That's exactly what the Chinese court said. It's quite embarrassing for the West that it is Chinese court showing the world how to be pro-ownership in digital space.

 

[Morphology]

The letter of the law is gaslighting now?

Indeed. There are so many badly written laws in the world, in many countries, including developed democracies. Those laws serve someone's interest, such as powerful enterprises and corporate groups. So, yes, written law often gaslights ordinary citizens into thinking that they don't deserve or cannot have better protected rights of ownership, inheritance, warranty, etc. Luckily for the Chinese consumers, a clever judge ruled in favour of ordinary citizens, empowering their position against corporate behemoth. It's the most pro-consumer decision any just court could possibly make. And it makes sense, as the ruling shows, again, that it doesn't really matter if a product is physical or digital. And it shouldn't matter. A purchased book is still a book, whatever shape or form it was paid for to be consumed.

For example, American law allows big tech companies a lot of highly questionable freedoms, to exploit consumers on many levels. The EU law doesn't allow such level of nonsense. That's why Microsoft, Apple, Google and others must provide different (read: better) level of service in the EU. Those big companies are constantly at real risk of paying multi-billion euro fines if they step over the line in Europe. Numerous court cases that they have lost clearly show this.

Individual citizen is usually powerless against the giants in busines world. The only good representation of citizen interests against such overwhelming power of corporations is good layer of protective consumer law and institutions ready to fight to uphold it to minimise monopolistic and predatory practices.

You still are buying a licence to a physical disc it’s just a slightly different one to digital. That’s what you get for convenience...

You are playing with words and distracting. Physical disk with a copy of movie or other product is mine. Yes, it is a purchased licence to use a product, but this licence cannot be taken away. I own it and it cannot be taken away from my library by a company that sold it to me. That's why Sony will be going to court in several counties, for removing digital movies from users' libraries. Sony will pay a price for this anti-consumer and anti-product-onwership behaviour. The tide is turning.

We can agree the licensing for digital media isn’t right and that physical media has better terms but you can’t pretend that they’re not both licensing.

I don't pretend. Do you pretend that you understood fully what I wrote?

You don’t own the software on the disc you own a licence to use it under the agreed terms

Nobody claimed that we own underlying software, a book story or movie plot. You own a purchased copy of publicly published product, in perpetuity. It is yours and sellers cannot take it away from you. Is there anything else you need to clarify?

 

[LordVile95]

Indeed. There are so many badly written laws in the world, in many countries, incliding developed democracies. Those laws serve someone's interest, such as powerful enterprises and corporate groups. So, yes, written law often gaslights ordinary citizens into thinking that they don't deserve or cannot have better protected rights of ownership, inheritance, warranty, etc. Luckily for the Chinese consumers, a clever judge ruled in favour of ordinary citizens, empowering their position against corporate behemoth. It's the most pro-consumer decision any just court could possibly make. And it makes sense, as the ruling shows, again, that it doesn't really matter if a product is physical or digital. And it shouldn't matter. A purchased book is still a book, whatever shape or form it was paid for to be consumed.

For example, American law allows big tech companies a lot of highly questionable freedoms, to exploit consumers on many levels. The EU law doesn't allow such level of nonsense. That's why Microsoft, Apple, Google and others must provide different (read: better) level of service in the EU. Those big companies are constantly at real risk of paying multi-billion euro fines if they step over the line in Europe. Numerous court cases that they have lost clearly show this.

You are ware that the EU has more anti consumer DRM laws right? And they don’t enforce the ones they have as dumb as they are. For example steam can’t stop you selling your digitally outraced games but they also aren’t obliged to give you a means to do so making it pointless.

Individual citizen is usually powerless against the giants in busines world. The only good representation of citizen interests against such overwhelming power of corporations is good layer of protective consumer law and institutions ready to fight to uphold it to minimise monopolistic and predatory practices.

You are playing with words and distracting. Physical disk with a copy of movie or other product is mine. Yes, it is a purchased licence to use a product, but this licence cannot be taken away. I own it and it cannot be taken away from my library by a company that sold it to me. That's why Sony will be going to court in several counties, for removing digital movies from users' libraries. Sony will pay a price for this anti-consumer and anti-product-onwership behaviour. The tide is turning.

The licence is yours yes, the ownership of the movie is not.

StudioCanal, the owner, removed the films.

I don't pretend. Do you pretend that you understood fully what I wrote?

Nobody claimed that we own underlying software, a book story or movie plot. You own a purchased copy of publicly published product, in perpetuity. It is yours and sellers cannot take it away from you. Is there anything else you need to clarify?

Again no you own a licence to that copy and you are lower to use it under than licence. With a book it’s wider copyright and IP law, with other media be it VHS, DVD, Blu Ray, a cartridge or a digital platform the terms are the EULA ontop of that wider law. On physical media it’s typically written on the box before you buy it. Some allow resale, other don’t.

 

[Morphology]

You are ware that the EU has more anti consumer DRM laws right? And they don’t enforce the ones they have as dumb as they are. For example steam can’t stop you selling your digitally outraced games but they also aren’t obliged to give you a means to do so making it pointless.

You are right. EU consumer law also has several areas to address. That's why the Chinese court ruling is important, to serve as an example of moving the needle in right direction. My example was linked to areas being addressed, such as Microsoft bundling unnecessary software components with MS Office (Teams) or Apple and Google being anti-competitive in their market places. Without lawmakers' help, ordinary consumer would remain powerless.

StudioCanal, the owner, removed the films.

That's Sony's problem to deal with and iron out content obtained from dodgy providers who dare to pull the plug on purchased content. Consumers bought a copy of movie and must have an access to it in perpetuity, as they own the copy. Imagine a book printing house wanting to remove all purchased books because they changed a title page. Would you allow their workers into your house to mess with your bookshelf and take older, purchased book away? Of course not.

You need to treat digitally purchased product like any other traditional product. The key issue with digital content is its materially intangible nature that some companies find profitable to abuse in order to remove your right to own a purchased copy. This would never be a problem if copy owners were allowed to download a movie file, store it and play it, but even this option was not provided before content removal. Things will have to change, I am afraid. Someone owns copies of movies on disks. What happens if their disk player dies? Should they not be allowed to play ripped files of purchased content? They paid for it. It's not their mistake if physical media is not durable or if it is broken to play content.

with other media be it VHS, DVD, Blu Ray, a cartridge or a digital platform the terms are the EULA ontop of that wider law.

EULA will have to change to be more pro-consumer. In the case of the Chinese court, judge literally forced respective companies to change EULA in China in order to accommodate the inheritance right. That's how you get change. If companies don't want to do it on their own, a court could force them to. The issue here is that consumers are forced to go through the pain of wasting time on court cases in order to get what they should have right to do automatically, like with traditional products that can be inherited.

 

[Xelions]

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

But your not renting it. The difference between purchase and rent/hire is blatantly obvious.

It's pretty sad that something that is considered a purchased people don't have any control over it....

The consumer is to blame for it by giving corporations that much power and not finding ways to gain that power back.

We do it's called piracy and it exists because people are fed up with..
1. Paying ridiculous prices
2. And not have access to something the way we have had traditionally
3. Extortion

It's just no criminal yet for corporations. Give that some time and it will be.

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

Yeh it's called if I don't want it anymore I'm selling it!

YOU signed the EULA when you bought it. Get over it.. also YOU VOTED for this this to be allowed over decades. you got what you voted for.

EULAs are absolute manipulative pieces of rubbish with no actual legality. There are so many out there that have not been proofed by a lawyer for that respective jurisdiction - they don't hold up in the system.

 

[Xelions]

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

But your not renting it. The difference between purchase and rent/hire is blatantly obvious.

It's pretty sad that something that is considered a purchased people don't have any control over it....

The consumer is to blame for it by giving corporations that much power and not finding ways to gain that power back.

We do it's called piracy and it exists because people are fed up with..
1. Paying ridiculous prices
2. Not having access to something the way we have had traditionally
3. Extortion

It's just not criminal yet for corporations. Give that some time and it will be.

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

Yeh it's called if I don't want it anymore I'm selling it!

YOU signed the EULA when you bought it. Get over it.. also YOU VOTED for this this to be allowed over decades. you got what you voted for.

EULAs are absolute manipulative pieces of rubbish with no actual legality. There are so many out there that have not been proofed by a lawyer for that respective jurisdiction - they don't hold up in the system.

 

[LordVile95]

But you’re not renting it. The difference between purchase and rent/hire is blatantly obvious.

Really isn’t.

We do it's called piracy and it exists because people are fed up with..
1. Paying ridiculous prices
2. And not have access to something the way we have had traditionally
3. Extortion

Piracy exists becaure people want some hung without paying for it. If you cannot afford something don’t have it.

It's just no criminal yet for corporations. Give that some time and it will be.


Yeh it's called if I don't want it anymore I'm selling it!

You can’t sell it if it’s against the terms of the licence. If you don’t like that then don’t buy or use it. You are not forced to play a game, just don’t play it.

EULAs are absolute manipulative pieces of rubbish with no actual legality. There are so many out there that have not been proofed by a lawyer for that respective jurisdiction - they don't hold up in the system.

Aside from the majority that do sure

 

[Darth Shiv]

It's pretty sad that something that is considered a purchased people don't have any control over it....

The consumer is to blame for it by giving corporations that much power and not finding ways to gain that power back.

What kind of clown argument is that? Consumers don't control the country, the market, the media or the policy.