It's against Humble Bundle ToS, but it's not legally binding, nor is it against steamgifts rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
nor is it against steamgifts rules.
This part is incorrect. When gifting bundle keys was allowed, the announcement explicitly said the following:
"If you're gifting a game from a bundle, please review that bundle's terms of service to ensure you have permission to do so. If you believe a giveaway needs to be removed, please use the report button."
Comment has been collapsed.
Seriously guys? I'm going to have to repost this then:
It is up for debate. Giving away a 4 game bundle key represented as a single game may break the "Do not misrepresent the title being given away" rule, however, I would argue that this is incorrect. I have seen many giveaways that state "if you win this giveaway, I will also give you the DLC to this game." Is this also misrepresenting the giveaway because you get extras? In my interpretation of the rules, this rule is there to prevent guest passes, beta keys, etc masquerading as the real games.
I do know CG stated that we should "review that bundle's terms of service to ensure you have permission to do so." This is NOT an explicit statement that such giveaways are not allowed. I argue that this statement. In fact, that completely contradicts the first statement of the paragraph if it were true: "There's no longer a restriction on what games can be given away, assuming they're not guest passes or beta keys".
At any rate, the entire point of the contributor system overhaul was so that these kinds of giveaways could be created.
Thus, in my opinion, this type of giveaway is completely okay on steamgifts.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, what CG means is "you do so at your own risk". In other words, he's saving his hide from the HIB guys (or anyone else) coming after him instead of the individuals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, that's what I see it as. The Humble Bundle guys may go after the giveaway maker (pretty much 0% chance), but there's nothing in the rules against making giveaways here.
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case, could you explain why people are getting banned on SteamGifts for posting exploited keys? Shouldn't that be, using the reasoning you mentioned, also something purely between the giveaway creator and the game distributor?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's easy, the FAQ explicitly says "Do not submit what we consider exploited CD-keys. These are listed below." Once again, nowhere on this site does it say "Do not submit bundle keys if it is against the ToS." That is the key difference.
Explain to me why Dustforce and Cortex Command gifters are not being banned if you think they are against the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
exploited keys and individual bundle keys are completely different beasts. Exploited keys are ones that were botted, stolen, etc. They were never paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you can, but you wont receive the full game price in your contributor status
Comment has been collapsed.
I wont say to anybody that it comes from a bundle. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You aren't supposed to, its against rules on the Humble Indie Bundles itself.
But then, since when do people care about rules?
Comment has been collapsed.
Never. Its like when you see something shiny and you forget about everything.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a rule is unjust, it's your duty not to follow it.
Their rules attempt to control what I can do with a product I legally purchased, so screw 'em. That's what DRM is for and we all know what their stance on DRM is. It's enough for me to know whether or not I'm doing it in good faith.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh dear, this again...
'Their rules attempt to control what I can do with a product I legally purchased'
No, because you didn't by a product, you bought a license.
EDIT: Actually, you didn't even buy that - AFAIK the Coretx Command Steam key is a bonus that wasn't part of the bundle when you bought it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, hi, it's you again xD
"If a rule is unjust, it's your duty not to follow it."
I agree to some extent. There's a reason why laws, regulations, and rules are constantly evolving. For example, just look at this site itself - so many people were giving away bundle keys that the rules were changed so that they are allowed now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably a bad thing, eek. My apologies in advance for whatever I'm about to say that'll make me seem awful and/or irritate you.
For starters, when I said it was a ridiculous statement, I meant in general and not just as it applies to this situation.
I think my issue is that although there are things generally considered to be unjust according to said laws, regulations, and rules (false imprisonment for a crime someone didn't commit is generally considered unjust, for example), it can also be a very subjective thing. By definition what's just and what isn't is based on morals, which vary from person to person. Someone could very easily look at a rule and say "I personally find that unjust, therefore I shouldn't have to follow it".
That in mind, the notion that rules should be optional based on your own morals (seeing as they influence what someone finds unjust or not) would basically eliminate the need for rules altogether, since it's allowing people to choose whether they want to follow them or not anyhow. It's an invitation for complete anarchy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you, but there is always some room for error. If you personally find some rule offensive and/or unjust, you still have to follow the law, but if you get enough people to side with you (or be disruptive enough, which is not necessarily a good thing), that's when change can take place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right. I'm not objecting to change and evolution in rules and laws. If a large group of people find something wrong with something, obviously it's something that could potentially use improvement. People can make that known and work for changes. I'm just saying that "stop following the rules if you don't like them" (which was the basic implication of the original statement I commented on) is a ridiculous and terrible way of going about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If a rule is unjust, it's your duty not to follow it."
Indeed, but every action has a consequence....
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more like this:
People are giving away a game that they don't want for free to other people who could possibly like it. Seems like a good moral deed
Legally you are not allowed to give away the game though since you bought it for yourself.
More like a moral vs legal dilemma here. You can't do the same with Indie Royale games too apparently.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, you are legally allowed too. Termos of service are not legally binding.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it might depend on the country you live in. But in most of Europe, and USA, TOS are indeed not legally binding. Do not know if there actual countries that take TOS as a legally binding contract, but there is the possibility, yes.
Comment has been collapsed.
TOS are not legally binding. The worst Humble could legitimately do is cease their business with you int he future, and that's a huge stretch, they wouldn't really do that, at least not over this.
Morally and legally speaking, you own the copy, and you are damn well allowed to give it to others if you want. All they can reasonably ask is that you don't "split" the copy you bought (like keeping hte DRM free version for yourself and giving away the Steam key, thus generating two copies of the game from one).
Comment has been collapsed.
Really? I thought he was asserting facts 'TOS are not legally binding', 'Morally and legally speaking, you own the copy' without sharing any og his reasoning at how he arrived at that conclusion.
EDIT: Especially the 'you own the copy' part seems highly dubious, seeing as that the Cortex Command Steam key was not part of the bundle when he bought it...
Comment has been collapsed.
1) because a TOS is not a law, it is a contract. Laws = passed by the government, TOS = made up by some random guy. It only would if in the process of breaking the TOS you also broke some kind of law like say copyright law. But breaking the TOS in and of itself is not a legal matter, all they can do is refuse to provide the 'service' to you because you did not keep to its 'terms'
2) When you typically buy a game you are buying a 'license' (I say typically because Steam itself pulls shenanigans with 'subscriptions'). A license for a product is transferable provided you do not retain any copies. This is why you can resell dvds, or used books, a piece of software is exactly the same.
3) It was not part of the bundle back then, but we were promised that it would be given to us in the future. That time is now, so now owners have the additional license added to their bundle.
4) all this was pretty much mentioned before I'm just making it long winded and obvious, if you want to find proof for any of the basic assumptions made here, might I suggest checking google
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Contracts are legally binding, too. I invite you not to follow the terms of your work contract or rental agreement - you'll see quite soon that contracts are very much a legal matter.
2) Whether and how licenses are transferable or not depends on where you live.
3) Where and when exactly did they promise that ?
4) I didn't ask for proof of 'basic assumptions', I asked for his reasoning at arriving at his legal and moral points of view. Nothing you wrote, except maybe #3 (if they did indeed promise that at the time of purchase) helped in that matter in any way.
EDIT: The reason I asked for his reasoning, by the way, is that when dealing with these matters, most people seem to be talking out of their respective asses, regurgitating something they read in some online article somewhere. (I don't want to imply SandyGunfox is one of those people; if I thought he was, I wouldn't have bothered asking for his line of reasoning.)
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Perhaps you should try google or asking an actual lawyer instead of looking for legal advice on steamgifts and making strawman arguments. You know and I both know that rental agreements and other such "legal contracts" are completely different from ToS. And don't even try to argue this point.
2) Okay, and your point is? SandyGunfox, nosef and the OP all live in the US where this is true, so your point is not relevant.
3) Cortex Command was released in the Humble Bundle in beta stage and we were indeed promised the final version. From wiki "Steam and Desura redemption keys for all games, except Cortex Command and Revenge of the Titans (the latter two being addressed as being covered by the keys once the games were made available through Steam and Desura - as of May 2012, only Cortex Command is still unavailable)"
4) What the heck are you asking for? Legally, we have point 1 as reference, which you conveniently decided to ignore. For the morality point - are you serious? People have to explain their moral justifications for everything?
Comment has been collapsed.
1) I'm not looking for legal advice. I'm asking how SandyGunfox, who state his legal and moral opinions, on how he arrived at those. Google is not gonna help me with that. And no, I do not know that 'rental agreements and other such "legal contracts" are completely different from ToS'. Would you please tell me in what way and why they are totally different in your opinion (inb4 another 'try google': I did google , but I found nothing substantial.) ? I was under the impression that the principle of Pacta sunt servanda applied here, too ?
EDIT: As for your "don't even try to argue this point": What a cheap kind of trick is that ? I'll argue whatever point I feel is relevant to the subject. This definitely is.
2) Right, everything that isn't the US isn't relevant. What a great point.
3) I know there were promises of a final version. I still don't know whether there were promises of a Steam key, too, at the point of purchase. Your Wikipedia quote is hardly evidence that there was.
4) I didn't 'ignore' point one, I happen to disagree with it. And when people assert that you have a moral right to something, then yes, they should be able to explain that if asked for it. Everything else is just arbitrariness.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could see a moral issue in reselling the keys, but giving them away just doesn't seem like they would care that much about (I don't see how it is hurting anyone, and it is giving someone a chance to play these games (which is the whole point of these bundles)
Comment has been collapsed.
15,458 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by sviat
45 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Loukno
1,167 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Southrobin
24 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Raggart
21 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by WellKnownPlayer
253 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MXY
3,120 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by CommissarCiaphasCain
43 Comments - Last post 3 seconds ago by ELGADO26
79 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Raggart
5,751 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Oppenh4imer
787 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by loopers
219 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by Si9a
504 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by CarlosPotato
2 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by Adelion
I have a spare key for Cortex Command (one from the HIB2, one from the HIB3's Bundle-in-a-Bundle), and would happily make a giveaway for it, but I thought we couldn't do it because it came from a Humble Bundle, and we were only allowed to give those away as a whole?
Comment has been collapsed.