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

[The Talking Tech]

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

Without consumer support ALL that wouldn't exist!

Simple as that!

 

[descarado]

To the fool who keeps talking about making copies. Nobody is talking about making copies but only keeping what you rightfully paid for you and your family whether digital or physical.

 

[Morphology]

Really isn’t.

Nonsense. That's what companies want you to believe.
1. Purchased product - you own a product - a flat, a copy of book, a copy of movie, etc. This is not rented product. A copy of movie on DVD or book is yours. A movie or book will not disappear from your shelf, unless stolen. A seller cannot take it away from you. A ripped file of movie or book if still yours, even if the media that physically carries it fails in any way.

2. Rented product - we used to pay a small fee to rent a game or BD/DVD, watch it or play it and return it after a day or two. You do not retain an item for your own use after rental is over. The same with rental flats. Digital media companies want you to believe that purchased licence to use movie or book is merely a rental. They spent billions lobbying for this to go into law books. They also want you to believe that products you own cannot be inherited by your spouse or family, because you merely rent a purchased product, according to them. Total BS. The Chinese court clearly stated that companies are wrong and MUST allow this, like any other traditional product. My spouse or child can inherit my books, movies, furniture and other goods. The same must apply to digitally purchased goods. Those are not non-transferable rentals. Well done to this court for clarifying the obvious, something that digital media companies have worked very hard to obfuscate and disallow. The reckoning is coming.

 

[Morphology]

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

I love when someone posts such blatant and oversimplified nonsense. Piracy is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Digital media companies are partially to blame for it, as they have put extraordinary effort into making you believe that you cannot download legitimately purchased product, such as movie or book, and save it for your own use. Instead, they prefer to rent to you purchased products, calling it 'licence', and remove it whenever they want. This is absolutely crazy.

We all know that both digital and physical media can be fragile and can fail. Every self-respected owner of movies or books on BD/DVD/CD will have a back-up copy of such product because disks do fail or break for variety of reasons. Physical players also fail. The only way to preserve purchased content is to have a back-up file. It's a responsible thing to do.

 

[LordVile95]

Nonsense. That's what companies want you to believe.
1. Purchased product - you own a product - a flat, a copy of book, a copy of movie, etc. This is not rented product. A copy of movie on DVD or book is yours. A movie or book will not disappear from your shelf, unless stolen. A seller cannot take it away from you. I ripped file of movie or book if still yours, even if the media that physically carries it fails in any way.

It’s not rented it’s bought under licence which is different and a concept you don’t seek to be able to grasp. The ability to remove access instantly or not does not change what it is.

2. Rented product - we used to pay a small fee to rent a game or BD/DVD, watch it or play it and return it after a day or two. You do not retain an item for your own use after rental is over. The same with rental flats. Digital media companies want you to believe that purchased licence to use movie or book is merely a rental. They spent billions lobbying for this to go into law books. They also want you to believe that products you own cannot be inherited by your spouse or family, because you merely rent a purchased product, according to them. Total BS. The Chinese court clearly stated that companies are wrong and MUST allow this, like any other traditional product. My spouse or child can inherit my books, movies, furniture and other goods. The same must apply to digitally purchased goods. Those are not non-transferable rentals. Well done to this court for clarifying the obvious, something that digital media companies have worked very hard to obfuscate and disallow. The reckoning is coming.

And rental copies require a specific licence from the owner to the renting party which is why if you ever went to blockbuster they had “RENTAL COPY” printed pretty much everywhere.

I don’t think you’re understanding the difference between ownership of software, licensing it and renting it.

The court decision hasn’t actually changed that much, you still don’t “own” the software it just states that the software licence is transferable as an inheritance. Again they are not rentals.

 

[LordVile95]

I love when someone posts such blatant and oversimplified nonsense. Piracy is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Digital media companies are partially to blame for it, as they have put extraordinary effort into making you believe that you cannot download legitimately purchased product, such as movie or book, and save it for your own use. Instead, they prefer to rent to you purchased products, calling it 'licence', and remove it whenever they want. This is absolutely crazy.

We all know that both digital and physical media can be fragile and can fail. Every self-respected owner of movies or books on BD/DVD/CD will have a back-up copy of such product because disks do fail or break for variety of reasons. Physical players also fail. The only way to preserve purchased content is to have a back-up file. It's a responsible thing to do.

No piracy is the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, downloading, or streaming of intellectual property. It’s fairly black and white.

Ripping DVDs etc that are protected by DRM is piracy basically everywhere.

Just because you lack the mental capacity to understand the concept of licensing doesn’t change what it is.

 

[Morphology]

It’s not rented it’s bought under licence which is different and a concept you don’t seek to be able to grasp. The ability to remove access instantly or not does not change what it is.

Just because you lack the mental capacity to understand the concept of licensing doesn’t change what it is.

Please don't patronise members before you check with them. It's arrogant. You are not going to get far with derogatory replies about someone's "mental capacity". It shows that you actually did not put a significant effort to understand the perspective from which I was arguing.

The court decision hasn’t actually changed that much, you still don’t “own” the software it just states that the software licence is transferable as an inheritance.

Are you also going to preach to the judge that they did not "grasp" existing licensing agreement when reaching the verdict and that their verdict did not honour existing licensing agreement? Is this what you would tell them?

The judge essentially told companies to rewrite their bogus licensing agreement and include inheritance. That's a small win in a good direction in the ocean of unfair and anti-consumer restrictions in licensing agreements worldwide. That's what it is.

 

[LordVile95]

Please don't patronise members before you check with them. It's arrogant. You are not going to get far with derogatory replies about someone's "mental capacity". It shows that you actually did not put a significant effort to understand the perspective from which I was arguing.

You keep repeating points that are factually incorrect, you don’t understand the concept.

Are you also going to preach to the judge that they did not "grasp" existing licensing agreement when reaching the verdict and that their verdict did not honour existing licensing agreement? Is this what you would tell them?

You mean the licensing agreement that was already judged to be illegal that valve keep because they’re a monopoly so what else are the consumer going to do?

The judge essentially told companies to rewrite their bogus licensing agreement and include inheritance. That's a small win in a good direction in the ocean of unfair and anti-consumer restrictions in licensing agreements worldwide. That's what it is.

Which they’ve already done and no-one changed it. Doesn’t stop it being a license though does it.

 

[Morphology]

You keep repeating points that are factually incorrect, you don’t understand the concept.

Not really. Numerous examples were given as to why some articles written in legalese within licensing agreements are anti-consumer and will need to change. The verdict of Chinese court is just a drop in the ocean towards more changes.

Doesn’t stop it being a license though does it.

You are talking to yourself here, like a broken record. The argument is about changing some articles within licensing agreements so that those become more pro-consumer. The argument is not about the existence of licensing agreement per se.

 

[Hecate91]

Really isn’t.

When you click "buy" on something that should imply you're owning it, simple as that.

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

Piracy is a service problem, not a cost problem.
If the company selling the game doesn't respect me as a customer allowing me to own and transfer games, then they don't deserve my money.

 

[LordVile95]

When you click "buy" on something that should imply you're owning it, simple as that.

You should really look at what you’re buying. You’re buying a licence, you own the licence.

Piracy is a service problem, not a cost problem.
If the company selling the game doesn't respect me as a customer allowing me to own and transfer games, then they don't deserve my money.

No piracy is an entitlement problem. You don’t have to play a game, you want to. If you don’t want to pay the price asked for the product then do not steal the product.

 

[LordVile95]

Not really. Numerous examples were given as to why some articles written in legalese within licensing agreements are anti-consumer and will need to change. The verdict of Chinese court is just a drop in the ocean towards more changes.

No you’re continuing to misunderstand the difference between a licence and a rental. They also have changed laws but valve would rather pay fines.

You are talking to yourself here, like a broken record. The argument is about changing some articles within licensing agreements so that those become more pro-consumer. The argument is not about the existence of licensing agreement per se.

You are imitating a brick wall rather well.

 

[Morphology]

No you’re continuing to misunderstand the difference between a licence and a rental.

Not really. License agreement stating that purchased digital movie file could be removed at any time from content library when a platform decides to do so is a bad license agreement for consumers. It will be further challenged in courts.

Current arrangement feels to the recipient more like uncertain-in-time rental than ownership of a movie file copy that is permanently present in their library. This is what you fail to recognise as a problem. What should be the case is that if a platform decides to remove a movie file from anyone's digital library, they must give consumers an option to download such file. It is as simple as that.

The uncertainty of permanent presence of purchased files in movie library is a key problem with those licensing agreements. To users, it feels less defined and less transparent than a rental of a movie, and it's a far cry from file copy ownership. Some articles in licensing agreements are the worst of both worlds and that's another reason why increasing number of people are challenging this in courts.

They also have changed laws but valve would rather pay fines.

The court also ruled that the platforms must cooperate with lawful successors in transferring or managing the inheritable digital assets. I cannot see an option to pay fines here.

 

[MiqWalsh]

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.

Don't entirely understand this.

I buy a copy of a well-known film on a DVD or BluRay. Of course I don't "own" the film itself, but I DO "own" that copy recorded onto my physical optical disc.

Some years later - for whatever reason - the film company that produced & released that film decides to remove it from their current- and back-catalogues. Effectively, no-one can "buy" an 'official' copy of that film again, unless they purchase one on the second-hand market. However:-

I STILL possess my copy of the film which was recorded onto the optical disc that I DO "own". What are the film company going to do.....come around to my house, try to go through my personal belongings & physically take it away from me?

I feel @Morphology has a perfectly valid point here. Endlessly arguing about "licensing" is - at best! - disingenuous.


Miq.

 

[LordVile95]

Don't entirely understand this.

I buy a copy of a well-known film on a DVD or BluRay. Of course I don't "own" the film itself, but I DO "own" that copy recorded onto my physical optical disc.

Some years later - for whatever reason - the film company that produced & released that film decides to remove it from their current- and back-catalogues. Effectively, no-one can "buy" an 'official' copy of that film again, unless they purchase one on the second-hand market. However:-

I STILL possess my copy of the film which was recorded onto the optical disc that I DO "own". What are the film company going to do.....come around to my house, try to go through my personal belongings & physically take it away from me?

No because they can’t change the terms after the fact unless stated in the EULA which DvDs are Blu rays generally don’t have, you have purchased that licence to use for home media use while the media still functions. Even digitally it depends on what licencing arrangement is, for example some will require it to be pulled from people downloading it, some will just not allow new purchases. I think with the shutdown of the old UV digital films you used to get as a triple play gave you a window to download them or transfer them to Google movies or something.

I feel @Morphology has a perfectly valid point here. Endlessly arguing about "licensing" is - at best! - disingenuous.


Miq.

Not really they’re not understanding that licensing and renting are two different things. For a start you need a specific licence to rent media.

 

[Xelions]

@LordVile95 you need to step off your high horse for a moment and read objectively what I've already said

Really isn’t.

Actually it is. You can preach what ever extra terms and imply whatever you want. There are some overarching protections of systems in society but thats it. Most courts and legal systems don't implement terms that are how do I say this NOT legal!

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

What total bullsh#$! I've lived through 20+ years of physical and digital media and all the events that took place in all the crevices you ain't seen or heard of. Piracy is the direct result of control, attempts of manipulation and extortion of the consumer. It wouldn't exist if you only had to pay for an item once - and don't get arrogant here either, if you don't understand what I'm implying well too bad. I understand the complexities far too well.

I've bought the same content from VHS, to DVD, to Blu-Ray, to 4K and I do so cause I'm getting a better quality copy each time. Make no mistake that when I purchased said copy, I will run it however I see fit for personal use, eg, off my NAS, a copy on a tablet not connected to the network or internet, back it up in any format I see fit. If at any point I decide to sell the original item, all copies will be deleted or destroyed from wherever. Use of said copy will fall within general terms of usage.

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.

Ownership is straightforward, you can not imply extraneous terms on something purchased. Digital licenses are different to physical items but they are still not "rented" items. When I purchase a digital item I own it indefinitely. You can state whatever bullsh#$ you want but if I paid for it I'm getting my copy 1 way or another. Otherwise you'll be issuing a refund for breach of a purchase contract. There are basic laws in the legal system that protect purchases whether physical or digital and any business must follow them.

Aside from the majority that do sure

Most EULAs don't stand up (period!) - outside of that I just don't care. Theres a legal system for a reason for IP. You can't write your own law or make up some bullsh#$ and this is exactly what companies try. Keep in mind if an EULA contains 1 invalid term the whole EULA is invalid.

For your peace of mind let's be absolutely crystal clear on my stance. Any "purchase" of anything I have made past, present or future entitles myself to use that item within the context of its usage to the degree I feel it's acceptable within the system of the law. If you think your discussion will impact my thought going forward your just wasting your time.

 

[LordVile95]

@LordVile95 you need to step off your high horse for a moment and read objectively what I've already said


Actually it is. You can preach what ever extra terms and imply whatever you want. There are some overarching protections of systems in society but thats it. Most courts and legal systems don't implement terms that are how do I say this NOT legal!

What total bullsh#$! I've lived through 20+ years of physical and digital media and all the events that took place in all the crevices you ain't seen or heard of. Piracy is the direct result of control, attempts of manipulation and extortion of the consumer. It wouldn't exist if you only had to pay for an item once - and don't get arrogant here either, if you don't understand what I'm implying well too bad. I understand the complexities far too well.

I've bought the same content from VHS, to DVD, to Blu-Ray, to 4K and I do so cause I'm getting a better quality copy each time. Make no mistake that when I purchased said copy, I will run it however I see fit for personal use, eg, off my NAS, a copy on a tablet not connected to the network or internet, back it up in any format I see fit. If at any point I decide to sell the original item, all copies will be deleted or destroyed from wherever. Use of said copy will fall within general terms of usage.


Ownership is straightforward, you can not imply extraneous terms on something purchased. Digital licenses are different to physical items but they are still not "rented" items. When I purchase a digital item I own it indefinitely. You can state whatever bullsh#$ you want but if I paid for it I'm getting my copy 1 way or another. Otherwise you'll be issuing a refund for breach of a purchase contract. There are basic laws in the legal system that protect purchases whether physical or digital and any business must follow them.


Most EULAs don't stand up (period!) - outside of that I just don't care. Theres a legal system for a reason for IP. You can't write your own law or make up some bullsh#$ and this is exactly what companies try. Keep in mind if an EULA contains 1 invalid term the whole EULA is invalid.

For your peace of mind let's be absolutely crystal clear on my stance. Any "purchase" of anything I have made past, present or future entitles myself to use that item within the context of its usage to the degree I feel it's acceptable within the system of the law. If you think your discussion will impact my thought going forward your just wasting your time.

You haven’t read the argument. Go read it and come back.

 

[Morphology]

they’re not understanding that licensing and renting are two different things.

BS! It was explained again, in recent posts. You either did not read it or you chose to ignore it.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Without consumer support ALL that wouldn't exist!

Simple as that!

You are predicating that on consumers all being highly educated, aware and coordinated ALL things that are completely impractical.

Basically "in my utopian reality consumers are in control of the situation" like no man. That place does not exist, is not close to existing.

 

[Endymio]

Nonsense. That's what companies want you to believe. [snip]

You're ignoring centuries of legal precedent, along with the entire basis of Western contract law. Buying a license is not the same thing as buying a product. A license is a contract, and you don't get to rewrite the contract simply because you don't agree with its terms.

Piracy is the direct result of control, attempts of manipulation and extortion of the consumer.

ALL theft is the direct result of property owners wanting the "control" of not having it stolen from them.

Keep in mind if an EULA contains 1 invalid term the whole EULA is invalid.

Who told you something so absurd? EULAs nearly always contain a severability clause for just this very reason.

 

[Morphology]

You're ignoring centuries of legal precedent, along with the entire basis of Western contract law. Buying a license is not the same thing as buying a product. A license is a contract, and you don't get to rewrite the contract simply because you don't agree with its terms.

I am not ignoring anything. License terms are an intimate part of purchasing a product, to the extent that you could often say that a license is the product. However, the key issue debated here is just how badly licensing agreements can possibly be written if even a court in a communist state must intervene to protect citizen rights.

There is no end to practices whereby companies try to twist arms of consumers and institutions with badly written contracts, favouring own corporate interests only, and often being contradictory to other laws protecting citizen rights. Both are true in this case. By default, in many contracts companies try to get away with as many things as possible, unless sued or fought against. There is endless river of stories and court cases about it globally.

The Chinese court ruling shows, in a very simple and direct way, that parts of contracts are bad and can be rewritten by court order. Those contracts often diminish citizen rights or are directly anti-consumer. Bad contracts should always be challenged and state institutions such as ombudsman or courts can help consumers who are by default far less powerful than global corporations.

Unfortunately, many contracts, aka licensing agreements, still contain anti-consumer text, often hidden in small print within gigantic documents written in legalese that few really have time to read, let alone analyse. Fortunately, you can go to court to fight for your rights, which was demonstrated in this case.

 

[Endymio]

I am not ignoring anything. License terms are an intimate part of purchasing a product, to the extent that you could often say that a license is the product.

Oops! It's not that "you could say" you're purchasing a license, you are purchasing a license. Period. Not a product. Don't beg the question by pretending otherwise.

...how badly licensing agreements can possibly be written if even a court in a communist state must intervene to protect citizen rights.

You're sadly naive if you believe the CCP respects property rights, or is "pro consumer", and this article has gaslit you over what the courts actually ruled here. This wasn't a dispute with a corporation over EULA terms, this was a civil case between two women: the man's wife, and his "in game" girlfriend. And the court didn't even make a sensible, consistent decision here, but merely used Babylonian-era "King Solomon" thinking, and gave half to each.

 

[Xelions]

ALL theft is the direct result of property owners wanting the "control" of not having it stolen from them.

Haha

Wait....

Read some history. It's all there. Nothing is black and white. It's all shades of grey!

Who told you something so absurd? EULAs nearly always contain a severability clause for just this very reason.

But there has been some EULAs in history that have fallen apart when challenged. Severability clauses absolutely laughable.

Some EULA enlightenment for the uninformed. *All extracted from search results

However, companies cannot use them to bypass local consumer protection laws, and unreasonable or illegal clauses will be thrown out.

Reasonableness: Courts only enforce fair terms. For example, a clause stating, "we can change the rules at any moment without telling you," often fails.

The Law Always Wins: A EULA cannot override the law. If a law says you are entitled to a refund for a broken product, a EULA stating "all sales are final" cannot take that right away.

 

[TempleOrion]

You honestly cannot help yourself, can you? Every day, another dumb slice of textual diarrhoea LMAO

 

[Endymio]

Haha

Wait....

Read some history. It's all there. Nothing is black and white. It's all shades of grey!


But there has been some EULAs in history that have fallen apart when challenged. Severability clauses absolutely laughable.

Oops! EULAs are often successful challenged because of "meeting of minds" failures and other problems -- issues I've documented myself here in other threads. Not because of severability, or because "one clause caused the entire thing to collapse". The search results you provided prove my point for me.

Also, I might suggest that hyperproliferation of emojis is best relegated to the texts of young teen girls, and not mature adult debate.