Filing an actual lawsuit would probably be more costly than the sum of the games left unclaimed in their library, just from lawyers costs and fees but I don't think IGN want to risk a class action lawsuit from a consumer organization because they definitely have the funds and the lawyers on retainer so the threat is enough.
As for Canada, there is currently no such protection guaranteeing the right to resell digital goods (as they are considered "reproduction licenses" of software that expire after the "first sale", ie, you as a consumer.
I'm no lawyer but my girlfriend, while not Canadian, assured me that those ToS are still illegal as they would need to be able to prove in court that you sold the keys in exchange for currency. As you have not activated the keys, it's not illegal to give them away to people, and Humble even acknowledges that by providing the possibility to "gift to a friend". They cannot legally set the definition of "friend" to anything specific so if I make a GA and you win the game, they can't say we"re not "friends" just because we have never met.
Furthermore, gf was not able to find a specific article of Canadian law relating to that area that would allow Humble to ban you from using the keys you have already purchased. Refusing service, like not ever selling you keys again, is one thing, but locking you out of your account and keeping keys you have already paid but not activated seems to be against consumer laws.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that you can sue them and if you win make them pay all the court fees. and that's why they kinda hide their tail when you threathen them, since they would loose a lot
Comment has been collapsed.
In the US and Canada, they sure would. I'm not sure about the laws regarding lawsuits in all European countries but I do believe French law is very limiting in terms of what lawyers can get as a percentage of damages or settlements, and they are still required by law to get paid for their work, regardless of the results so you would still need to advance a substantial amount of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
In EU if a company has to pay billions for laws broken, the money goes to EU and/or EU countries, not the people discriminated against. You don't get 100 million if you pour a hot coffee on your lap by your own choice even if the store that sold you the coffee might potentially get fined 100 thousand. You might get 1-10 thousand in compensation for pain and medical bills, but even that would require some actual error endangering customers, not just the lack of warning texts on cups that "yes, hot coffee is hot and hurts if you pour it on yourself" like in USA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha nothing like a good old threat of lawsuit to get them to abandon their illegal ToS excuse.
I was wondering when someone would pull out the justice decision that struck Steam in European court a few months ago to shove it in IGN's face. Glad someone did.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, would you mind giving me some info about that incident with Steam you mentioned? I'd love to know more
Comment has been collapsed.
French court rules that Steam’s ban on reselling used games is contrary to European law
The decision is from September 2019 so in this particular case, the lawsuit lasted since 2015 so yeah it takes time. They were using a 2012 European court decision in a similar case (Oracle software) to argue their case
Comment has been collapsed.
sure, if they do not give me the possibility to trade, it's okay. However banning people for actually using one of the features you have implemented on your page is bullshit. Imagine that steam would ban you from using your entire library and steam account because you sold an item on steam market. makes no fucking sense
Comment has been collapsed.
Imagine if Steam would ban devs for actually using one of the features they have implemented on their page. Now stop imagining since it has happened already on a massive scale. For some reason they banned devs for just making couple cents profit selling keys, cards etc. Yet this made sense to most everyone who were just happy to get rid of the horrible shovelware. Now in this case what people are actually trying to get rid of is Humble Bundle selling in EU at all but they just don't realize it since the almighty EU law they even have no idea about is protecting their reselling business. I wonder if they are also filing profits for taxes or do they just take their rights and ignore all the responsibilities.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that. I mean, go, destroy the resellers. But people who give away without expecting anything in return, that's something different
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that was included in the reasoning with couple of fu's I gave for me quitting Humble for good. Like I said, they are now blocked from any purchases I make. Have you done that or just hiding behind EU while still supporting that business model?
It's not even Humble who care one bit about resellers. Why would they? Like the trader kids keep saying, it's all profit (or charity) for them. But when they ask a big distributor for AAA games if they can bundle some that's when it starts to matter. If they see their game sold for couple of bucks for years to come from all the bundled copies they will just say no. And then the same people will cry that bundles have bad games and repeats without even realizing that it's their own fault.
Comment has been collapsed.
the thing is, they have some nice bundles nonetheless. I do not approve of their practics but I am not a trader nor reseller. I am student, that's true, I do not have a lot of money, that's why I rely on bundles with games I want. I have traded in the past, but not anymore. I guess more than a year or 2 since my last trade. So yea. I don't know if I deserve to be banned and if I will be banned, I am okay with them refusing me a possibility to buy their bundles in the future, but I want access to everything I ever purchased. That's why I created this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
you are correct. but it's tempting :) and trading takes a lot of time, because people want to earn more than they have paid. That's how trading works. So if I want a tier one of a certain bundle, it costs me 0,85€ to buy the tier 1 but a trader wants 1€ for a single tier 1 game. For example.
And that's just more convenient. no mattre how much we hate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
French court is wrong tho, UsedSoft doesn't apply to games. So likely will be overruled by EU court (as they did for another case couple of days before French's steam judgement).
23 That finding is not weakened by the fact that Directive 2009/24 constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Directive 2001/29 (see Case C-128/11 UsedSoft [2012] ECR, paragraph 56). In accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, the protection offered by Directive 2009/24 is limited to computer programs. As is apparent from the order for reference, videogames, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitute complex matter comprising not only a computer program but also graphic and sound elements, which, although encrypted in computer language, have a unique creative value which cannot be reduced to that encryption. In so far as the parts of a videogame, in this case, the graphic and sound elements, are part of its originality, they are protected, together with the entire work, by copyright in the context of the system established by Directive 2001/29.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly I don't think it's fair to the devs if you're able to resell keys for games you have activated so i wouldn't have a problem with that.
I do find it hypocritical, however, from HB, to forbid people from giving keys away when they haven't been activated. They are pretending to be fighting the good fight for the gaming industry but they're really just bothered that people can split lousy bundles instead of buying copies of the same games again and again and letting them rot in their libraries.
They can't forbid people to resell on the gray market and I agree with that. They can't decide you're a trader or selling keys just because you gift link to more than the same 3 people, it's ludicrous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just read the Steam Subscriber Agreement: https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#2
You don't buy a game: "The Content and Services are licensed, not sold."
That's why GOG makes a valid claim when they say that they actually sell the games to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
The content is licensed to you, so a license (to use the content) is sold to you : you own a license you bought, but you don't own the content itself.
GOG is also selling you a license, not the content.
Likewise, when you buy a car, you own the car, and not the right to reproduce it : the content (the car's schematics) is not sold to you, only the car itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
The 'license' you 'buy' matters though. As in your car analogy can use the car in whatever way you like. Hence you own the car. You don't own a license on Steam. You are granted one. On GOG you can download every game and use it 'as is'. On Steam you can do that with certain games, but most will require you to use the Steam client. Case in point: You can store a game you bought on GOG and be sure to be able to use it (given software requirements) at any later date (even if GOG goes out of business). The same doesn't apply to games you bought on Steam, Uplay, Origin, EGS etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't own a license on Steam. You are granted one.
Nobody would buy anything from those DRM-stores if their granting service ends, or comes close to an end.
They're not selling because they're providing this granting service once and/or for a limited duration : instead, they're selling because they're offering to continue to provide this granting service with no planned end date.
Thus:
You really do own what is granted to you at a cost with no intent to take it back at a later date.
Comment has been collapsed.
You still don't make any valid point. But whatever, if you think that you own a game on Steam so be it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not begging for a point, but try it yourself instead of waiting for me to convince you:
Install Steam on your computer, connect your account.
Install and some games, and check each game is running with your internet connection.
Disconnect and go offline.
Make a backup of your computer.
Then, you'll be able forever to launch offline all your installed Steam games.
In the worst case, you only have to restore your backup.
Yes, that's a bit more tedious than with DRM-free games (like you said on GOG), but the technical differences between DRM-stores and DRM-free-stores are not enough to conclude one doesn't own his/her game licenses bought on DRM-stores : both types of stores are selling game licenses.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have over 8000 games on my Steam account. Trust me that I'm well aware of what I'm entitled to do with them and what not. If you want to have a tiny taste of what I mean just buy Jade Empire on Steam and try to run it.
Comment has been collapsed.
« Hey, I've found one bug in one line of code as a consequence no line of code shall ever be working! »
>> let error = (GameName) => error(); error('Jade Empire');
Uncaught InternalError: too much recursion
error debugger eval code:1
debugger eval code:1:19Comment has been collapsed.
Starwhite is right. You are buying yourself a license to use it. You are not buying yourself a copy, you are just buying a licence that allows you to download certain software and use it freely. It's in Steam's subscribers agreement you agreed to when you were creating your steam account.
Actually, you do not own your steam profile, it is all possession of Valve and they can basically deny you access to your steam account if they wanted to. You own nothing. You are paying one-time rent/licence fee for a software and then you are given access to cloud from where you can download said software.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, Starwhite is wrong, and LordXenon is right : a rental needs to end, and when it ends needs to be clearly stated, it cannot be implied by other obscure terms leading one thinking he's buying when one is not.
On the Steam Store, and other stores also, there's written "BUY" on the big green button when you pay, that's not written "RENT".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, in my fantasy world, a debit is different than a credit. But in your reality, that's arguing semantics to make a difference between such words, that bankster owns all: easier that way, isn't it ?
Have you even read what you have agreed to?
Have you even read all the laws of your country ? plus all European laws ?
For example, have you even read the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 97/2010 of 4 February 2010 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed Pizza Napoletana TSG ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, debit and credit actually work in different ways. If you pay for the right to use something without actually ever owning it, would you call it buying or renting yourself? We can call it a license to use if that makes the facts clearer to you. Renting applies just fine to that case too and is shorter which is why I used it, sorry if it confused you that badly.
I don't need to read all of them, but I'm able to read them when needed and understand what they mean without taking some unrelated parts out of context just to suit my argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you pay for the right to use something without actually ever owning it, would you call it buying or renting yourself?
Steam Store:
I click on "ADD TO CART" button then on "BUY..." button. Since it's written "BUY", I would call it "BUYING".
Epic Store:
I click on "GET" button then on "CONFIRM..." button, then the "GET" button says "OWNED". Since it's written "OWNED", I would say "I OWN IT".
Renting applies just fine to that case too
Not at all. There's no "RENT" button. Nowhere. Never.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sigh, you're talking about what a button says,
No, I'm telling you what I bought... You're like "It was written green car but I provided you purple car, there's no problem bro ?" For sure the problem is not you're not my brother...
I'm talking about how it actually works.
You're mostly mixing up things from various points of views, technically and legally all in one single bowl!
If Steam and Epic go down tomorrow, what do you own exactly?
None of those stores will go down tomorrow, so there's time for such a debate.
There's musicians publishing their music using what we call here "independent labels", a "label" being like a producer, but smaller, much smaller. It happens that those "labels" are closing their doors, sometimes after only one EP release (not even a full album!).
What happens to people that did bought their CDs ? They obviously doesn't own the music itself, only a license to play it for their personal or familial pleasure, the CD being the physical vessel for this audio license.
Thus, they're still owning the audio license they bought : the fact that the seller of this license did closed doors after the license was sold has nothing to do with the fact the license was legally bought before doors closed.
What was it that was yours to own?
Well, the game license. That's why I'm not renting such things.
Technically speaking, unless those stores provide me an updated download without DRM before closing their doors, I think I would download myself any hacked copy of the game because I do own the license, legally bought!
That's also why I'm casually saying it would be a great idea to separate the activities of "game licenses management" from "game download service providing" : this would protect the consumer from loosing access to his licenses in case a store closes its doors. But such a law doesn't exist as of today AFAICT... maybe someday...?
Comment has been collapsed.
A rent is one thing, and a license fee is another thing. You people are just misusing the "rent" word.
You can't call something a rent when it doesn't have a stated and specific time termination. You can rent something for 1 day, for 1 month, for 10 years. A lifetime rent doesn't exist, per definition.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's not for a pre-established and fixed amount of time (it can be recurrent: you pay for 1 month, then for another month and so on), then it's not renting. If you have the right to use something forever, you just own it. In case of software, you own a license, and you buy a license. The software itself is licensed, not rented.
It may be a language barrier. Maybe in English is common to use "rent" colloquially for other cases than what it strictly means.
Comment has been collapsed.
No I'm just using a word that describes better what it actually happening even if it's not strictly right. Renting is still when you pay for the right to use something that is still owned by the renter. If you had bought it you could resell it, not lose it ever because the platform went down etc etc. Just makes things clearer so people don't imagine that it's exactly like owning a car. It's still quite pointless to argue semantics about a single word used.
Comment has been collapsed.
But rental implies you must return the goods after some time, which is false in the case of games, or software with lifetime licenses. Your miss-usage of rental is deliberately used to distort what buying a game really is. You're not expected to return it in the future (this is what people think when they hear "rental": having to return it, that's the main implication).
Comment has been collapsed.
No he is wrong.
It's right that you don'T OWN the software you buy, but you buy the PERMISSION to use it. Doesn't matter if it's per DvD or DLC etc. So why should there be a difference between a game(key) and a game-dvd for that purpose of selling? Right there is nothing. And linking it to an account would be just a grey-zone at best attempt to avoid the legal selling part of games. So stop dodging around and write why I can sell game-dvds but others can't sell their game(keys)???
Comment has been collapsed.
I do get your point but legally speaking it's not fully legal with CD/DVD. It's tolerated because it's harder to crack down on it but my point was it's a loss for devs and if most of the games traded on CD belong to the big publishers, reselling keys from indie games and small outfits have more of an impact on the gaming eco-system.
The gray market has pretty much destroyed bundles, which were a good way to discover games and spread the word for smaller publishers. So being able to resell keys that have already been used legally would probably kill a lot of publishers altogether.
Comment has been collapsed.
Selling games existed way before it became common to download them. So the excuse of resellermarket destroying games/devs is false. They are just pure financial idiots selling their product way under value for some quick buck and then suddenly discover that their product don't magically vanish(unlike food etc.) and can saturate their market.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bookmarking this because you never know, haha. While I do give some leftovers away on SG, I also give a lot of giftlinks to friends directly. I mean what else am I gonna do with keys of games I already own, right? In my mind, they're always a gift, be it directly or SG, so in the end it comes down to interpretation of ToS. As it always does lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all I dont support resellers as they indirectly influence other users situation (worse more strict policy of Steam or sellers, probably less bundled content). Also I am against banning ppl for GAs - not even saying taking away bought keys are against law in most countries.
But in your post is a interesting theoretical idea which is not used in bundles and which would negate some negative impact of resellers. Of course I am not a fan of such rule (prefer to not rush with games I bought) but theoretically speaking I would prefer in some cases this solution than banning ordinary users (not resellers) for GA already owned games (especially if this would really encourage devs for doing better bundles - but I am not sure if it would have such effect anyway). If devs or HB want so much to cut resellers they could do it partially by settings time for redeeming for some games (of course reasonable time longer then bundle duration). Of course maybe some ppl would not buy such bundles, but is there a reason why they did not try it? Maybe it is also against a law or they fear about sales or it is too much work?
Comment has been collapsed.
Using BS examples make you a troll. Concert tickes have a date they happen. That's not with a game.
Decaying food is a different problem. It's simple nature. But the producer don't forbid to use it after the time or for the matter. It's an important info of the product itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're the one with BS excuses for not activating the key you just had to hoard to see if you can sell it for more later. If it clearly states that it needs to be activated within 30 days of purchase, how is it any different than the ticket?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't sell keys. And even when it can't be forbidden as keys are no different compared to the game itself.
And it's different than a ticket because the service itself take only place once there so it's a limited service. But you don't pay for a service - unlike subscriptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Legal guarantee of conformity
Both goods and services are required to fit for the usual purpose of goods or services of the same type ; and to have the qualities and attributes of other goods or services of the same type which the consumer can reasonably expect.
Applied example:
I'm buying a game key during summer sales to gift to someone during autumn. It is a reasonable expectation to think that the key will still be working, even if more than 30 days have elapsed.
Since sometimes life is not a bowl of cherries, my giftee has a serious accident before receiving the gift. Months later, even the year after, it is still a reasonable expectation to think that the key will still be working (that is, "out of the box", without the need to ask to a consumer's service because my life and the life of my giftee are both none of their business).
(-:
Comment has been collapsed.
It's completely unreasonable to expect something to work past the clearly stated end date.
Arbitrarily stating an end date that way is against this French law ; that's a very short reading, one single sentence.
You trader kids just keep making excuses while clearly not understanding what the laws actually mean.
Law is linked above, explain me what I misunderstood. Of course I don't know it all, but reading other sources makes me quite confident about what I'm telling here...
Comment has been collapsed.
Those laws apply to physical items if you're missing that fact as indicated by the replacement rate. You're confusing two very different things here. In this case it would mean that the key you already activated would stop working in a month and you would have to buy a new key every month and not a clearly stated deadline for the activation of the key. You're arguing that a concert ticket should be able to be used for every concert within a reasonable lifetime of let's say 2 years and thinking it makes sense. Or that the devs aren't allowed to make the next game in the series before the reasonable lifetime of the previous part is over because that would force you to replace the old with new.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those laws apply to physical items if you're missing that fact as indicated by the replacement rate.
Wrong: this law is about anything that can be sold & bought, then replaced.
An activated game key usually is not replaceable because one cannot activate a game twice on the same account.
But non-activated keys are of course replaceable.
You're confusing two very different things here.
I'm not, I'm only telling you game stores are not allowed to set expiry dates for the keys they sell only because they want to earn more money selling again keys after the previously sold ones have expired before activation. It would be unfair to the consumers, and it's unlawful.
In this case it would mean that the key you already activated would stop working in a month and you would have to buy a new key every month and not a clearly stated deadline for the activation of the key.
Wrong: an activated key usually is not replaceable. Of course a game license is replaceable if it expires : but there's a difference. You were talking about expiring keys and know you are talking about expiring games. You can't mix both topics, they're different!
You're arguing that a concert ticket should be able to be used for every concert within a reasonable lifetime of let's say 2 years and thinking it makes sense.
False: when you look at the ticket of a one-time-event, it's written it's a one-time-event and you can't choose freely the date of the event. When you buy a game key, even if it were expiring in 30 days like you said, you remain free to choose the date you'll activate the key for the game. You can't mix both topics, they're different!
Or that the devs aren't allowed to make the next game in the series before the reasonable lifetime of the previous part is over because that would force you to replace the old with new.
True: no seller shall lawfully comply someone to buy, but this is another topic than the expiration of game keys!
Comment has been collapsed.
Nonsense. Just read the actual laws before trying to use them wrong as an argument.
Every store is fully allowed to have limited time special offers and if you miss the timeline, it's all on you so stop crying.
Nice of you to figure out that your arguments are wrong and false because my equally silly counterarguments are, thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nonsense. Just read the actual laws before trying to use them wrong as an argument.
Gimme a link, a direct link to something relevant, with your explanations about why you think it is. I did that, you didn't. I won't did it each time.
Every store is fully allowed to have limited time special offers and if you miss the timeline, it's all on you so stop crying.
But I'm not stupid thus I've met the deadline, and bought my key before the end of the limited time offer. I was charged for it, paid the required amount, and received a key.
Then, I have no known deadline to activate the key. You're telling it would be rightful the key has an "activation deadline" after it was bought (and of only 30 days), but you're wrong, and I've already explained why with enough details (to which you're not even bothering to try to answer, always you divert to something else).
Nice of you to figure out that your arguments are wrong and false because my equally silly counterarguments are, thanks.
Tell me where instead of always diverting to something else... I can already tell you that, about promotions, there's a non-negligible difference between the laws of the USA and our French laws, less permissive to what the stores are allowed to do (both physical and digital), and there's public debates about those laws, which are evolving... even recently, to become even less permissive because we're many to be fed up by some abusively economically aggressive stores practices : where's the real freedom of choice between different products when the store is trying to induce the consumer to choose about the price? It's at least reduced, and that's a non-negligible problem you're not willing to hear.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes? Limited time special offers decay if you don't act within the limited time. How is still fully legal and commonly used practice so hard to understand to you? If you think all laws are nonsense stop trying use wrong parts of them and read what actually is related.
Comment has been collapsed.
You confuse the offer and the product/service to decay. That you can't buy a product etc. for the same price/at all after the offer period is normal, that the product/whatever DECAY is not. And a key has no nature to decay just because you don't use it right away. So it's arbitrary forced on it for no use except to scam people who either forget or wait to long for activating it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it clearly states that it needs to be activated within 30 days of purchase, how is it any different than the ticket?
There's a big difference: it's an artificial arbitrary limitation. There's no reason a key would last only for 30 days (artificial) and, why exactly 30 days and not some other number? (arbitrary). All your other "analogies" have neither artificial nor arbitrary limits.
I don't get why you keep using the ticket as an analogy, because it doesn't make any sense. Really, why are people so bad at analogies? I keep asking this myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason for the limited time is that it's a special offer. You can always buy it at full price and it will last longer. By paying less you agree that you will activate within the time that the offer is valid. Let's pick a law that is even a bit related to the issue, expiring gift cards:
This is what trader kids pick from it without reading it:
Gift vouchers must now remain valid for five years after purchase, unless the gift voucher is not subject to an expiry date.
This is what actually applies if you read it:
There are number of exceptions to the Act, notably: coupons for a specific good at a specific price during specified dates
I keep using it just for that reason because other people imagine laws about physical products are the exact same as the laws for digital items. That it makes no sense is my whole point, why do you get one but not the other?
Comment has been collapsed.
Again that's false. It's not a coupon it's a game(key). A coupon is way different than buying a game(key). And just because it's a gamekey(and not the game) it's not different as it's just the way the game is offered to get(like CD/DVD long time ago for games).
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason for the limited time is that it's a special offer. You can always buy it at full price and it will last longer. By paying less you agree that you will activate within the time that the offer is valid. Let's pick a law that is even a bit related to the issue, expiring gift cards:
That reason is still artificial. A ticked has an "expiration" time because the concert happens at a given time (that's a must, it's physically impossible to have a concert that goes on forever), so it's not an artificial limit. That's why the analogy is bad and you can't compare one thing with the other. Note that I'm only arguing about your analogies, and stating why you can't use those for your case (which doesn't mean I agree or disagree with you).
Really, 99% of times analogies are a detriment for a conversation. They can help you explain something so people understand better what you mean, but they should never ever be used as the base of your reasoning (which is what you're doing).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes all digital products are artificial and so are special offers for a limited time. None of those occur in nature on their own.
Your excuses for not understanding that are artificial. My analogies are still there just to show how silly the analogies other people make are. They imagine a game key is a car and I'm saying that it's more like a concert ticket or a special offer coupon than a car. But yet you only imagine my analogy is bad thus implying that you imagine a game key is exactly like a car.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes all digital products are artificial and so are special offers for a limited time. None of those occur in nature on their own.
But that's not what the discussion is about? WTH that has to do with anything I've said? Anyway, artificial has other meanings than "made by human": "made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily;". The limit of 30 days is what is artificial, it'd be an arbitrary imposition, unlike the time of a concert ticket.
But yet you only imagine my analogy is bad thus implying that you imagine a game key is exactly like a car.
I've never mentioned any other analogy, so again I don't know now what you're talking about. I'm implying a game key is like a car? Where the hell did I say that?
Comment has been collapsed.
The limited time special offer that law allows is artificial in all senses, yet you use this as some kind of argument for it's illegality. If it's clearly allowed by law, why does it matter? Stop using words that aren't related to the legality if you want to stay on the issue. Without the limited time special offer you would pay full retail price and it would not expire. But because the fully legal limited time special offer clearly states and warns you that it will expire in 30 days how can it be illegal? Did I remember to say fully legal limited time special offer yet?
Other people in this thread have made such analogies that every law about selling physical products must apply to every other type of product as well including limited time special offer coupons for digitally licensed rights to use something you don't own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Other people in this thread have made such analogies that every law about selling physical products must apply to every other type of product as well including limited time special offer coupons for digitally licensed rights to use something you don't own.
But I'm talking with you, not with those other people.
And the first paragraph, I'm honestly completely lost now. You're now talking about legality, when the discussion with you was about an analogy. This doesn't make sense, I think you're mixing other conversations with mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you came here only to talk about analogies.
And you agreed to the moment you answered, and this branch of the thread is about that, not some other random stuff you come up with. But when things don't go as well for you as you'd like then you just start trying to focus the conversation to something different. You answer my post with something that's completely unrelated and out of context.
Maybe you should make a new thread for those, this topic is about illegality of selling bundles because they are limited time special offers.
Oh, so it's not about talking about what rent means then, either? Maybe you should apply your recommendations to yourself, too, and start a new thread to talk about that ;)
[edit]
BTW, I just answered to your question. You're really the one who started this subtopic.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont think it will be against a law if it would be clearly stated when you buy bundle, but I am not a expert for law and of course not completely sure how it can be interpreted (maybe someone will find reasons it is against a law).
IMHO: it would be more correct then taking away keys someone bought with real cash. They can ban for future buys but I not for previous which was already paid unless they will return cash (I guess they would lose in court in most countries).
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the path I chose.
Until I find a really interesting bundle, my spine may not be strong enough to always resist ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
You could also buy bundles and give all to a charity that you pick (the default charity is probably not the best idea).
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree on the principle, but not on the method :-)
When "you" give to charity, HB is actually the giver from the US tax administration point of view, so HB/IGN group is entitled to a tax reduction. In other words, giving to charity when buying from HB is just taking money from american citizens and give it to IGN.
The only method that hurts HB a bit is to give all to publisher.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well actually if I understand correctly, the tax deduction is only for the amount you pay. So HB gets nothing from your payment, but doesn't get any extra deduction either: it's neutral, as if you didn't buy.
Giving all to publisher would work too, but also encourages publishers to keep working with HB (rather than maybe alternatives that are more consumer-friendly?)
Edit: actually, now that you mention it, not too sure about the tax deduction thing... do they get to deduct what "they" give from their gross revenue or directly from their taxes?
Comment has been collapsed.
same story as we had with Steam years ago. due to the EU Law they changed their whole policy and thanks to that we are able to refund any game now.
Comment has been collapsed.
that is actually interesting but i highly doubt it. guess you need to enfore the law using a lawyer or at least use it to threaten them
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you need to figure out that it doesn't apply to for example used underwear or digital items you could make copies of before refunding. So there are limitations and exceptions to these laws which must me taken into accord if using the laws as an argument. The 2h limit on Steam is comparable to the using underwear even once, but a more generous limit allowing to test if the game actually works.
Comment has been collapsed.
EU law about digital goods(games, music, movies etc) refunds is little different
Comment has been collapsed.
So you refuse to even read what the laws say and just use a generic law that doesn't apply here for everything? Good luck in court with that. You're the one inventing things when the exceptions etc are clearly written in the laws if you would just bother to read a right one.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you refuse to even read what the laws say and just use a generic law that doesn't apply here for everything?
Gimme a link, a direct link to something relevant, with your explanations about why you think it is. I did that, you didn't. I won't did it each time. Thus yes I'm stating something that may looks like being generic at first read, but in fact I used the word "common-sense", which has a very specific meaning for each people!
Good luck in court with that.
I'm confident : if Jason Bull succeeds in court the way he does, so will I.
(-:
You're the one inventing things when the exceptions etc are clearly written in the laws if you would just bother to read a right one.
It looks like solendro.com, which sells underwear, does accept returns of products bought! I can't confirm nor deny that myself, but that is what is written on the site... Maybe in fact that's your exceptions that are unlawful? Or maybe it's more complex! I'm curious: Gimme a direct link to this "right law" !
Comment has been collapsed.
don't know, no one claims anything anywhere anymore. So I guess it kinda settled down
Comment has been collapsed.
Humblebundle do not inform about censoring, have customers not informed about the deal with IGN, made use of annoying Google Captchas (picture recognition and machine learning), sell overpriced stuff, mandatory for users to be crossovertracked and profiling... and more. Therefore they have absolutly no transparency.
For me this store is dead since a long time. The solution is easy. No HumbleBundle, no problems or any other concerns ;]
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the long dreaded message came after I foolishly reached to support for a problem in the payment of Humble Choice. They looked if something was wrong and this what they answered to me after:
"Hi there,
Thank you for reaching out. There appears to be some suspicious activity associated with this account and abuse of our subscription referral program. Due to this activity, the account has been flagged with a warning.
Unauthorized secondary distribution of games purchased through Humble Bundle is a violation of our Terms of Service. Future violations will lead to permanent deactivation of the account.
Thank you"
It's only a warning but it really rubs me the wrong way. The "referal program abuse" is using it one time to refer my brother account. And not being able to gift or trade leftover keys is laughable.
I don't know if answer telling them I know I have the right as a UE user to gift or trade those keys
Comment has been collapsed.
since it is just a warning, I wouldn't write anything. Just don't use links, unlink steam account from Humble Bundle and reveal all your unrevealed keys and download all books or comics you might have purchased etc. Do not add fuel to fire unless they lock you out completely.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get your point but I hate being meek with them. Not answering it will be like giving them the reason and agreeing with what they are saying :/
Definitely 100% with you with unlinking steam account from Humble Bundle and reveal all my unrevealed keys. It's a pity for all the DRM free games I have
Comment has been collapsed.
well you can say that you are not aware of any suspicious activity on your account made by you. You may say that you maybe were hacked by somebody or something like that. Ask to change password and maybe that will help you out. not really sure
Comment has been collapsed.
i got banned last month for buying my bundle and a friends bundle on his acc with the same card soooo GG no more humble bundle for me
Comment has been collapsed.
96 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Bigshrimp
60 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by xzysaber
43 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by BlazeHaze
18 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by FCX2K13
16,945 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Tsukichild
28 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by steveywonder75
335 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Atombomb2097
69 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by MellowOnline1
38 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Nogift4u
25 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Sakakino
310 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by UncleDilbert
737 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by arrownought
151 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by lordmonty3
140 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by g2gfast
Okay so I have just read a thread on r/humblebundles were a dude got banned and got a generic message where HB just tells you to basically fuck off. However, he is a German citizen aka EU citizen and he threatened them with a lawsuit. Suddenly they can check your account and speak with you like a decent human being. HB is one circus of clowns.
Do the image you wish yourself. Here is the reddit post
and here you can find some highlights
Feel free to share your opinion. I understand that on one hand, this can help out resellers and traders, but it can help people who got banned for giving away a game here for us.
Comment has been collapsed.