Hacker News Reader

Comment by zac23or | Hacker News Reader

That's theft. The theft pure and simple, ancient, which has been around forever. Nothing new.

Unfortunately, per Steam's TOS, you do not own anything you "purchase" on their platform. Instead you "subscribe" to access of whatever games/other content you've paid for:

...the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."

... The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement

To me, that's their business if they want to operate that way and folks can choose to accept that and be a customer if they so desire. I think what's really wrong is that nowhere on their store pages do they use the word "Subscription" and instead they use the word "Purchase". This should not be allowed and is false advertising, plain and simple.

> I think what's really wrong is that nowhere on their store pages do they use the word "Subscription" and instead they use the word "Purchase".

Perfect.

> This should not be allowed and is false advertising

The result of false advertising is theft.

the terms of service don't override the law

the consumer rights directive in the Uk/EU specifically states remedy (i.e.: refund) if vendors remove features from a purchased digital service

agreed, I didn't mean to imply that they did. merely that this is something that is inherent to Steam's platform meaning they as much a part of the problem as the publisher here

But also note that the limitation of liabilities section does not apply to UK, EU, Australian or New Zealand customers.

For example, the statement on Australia:

> FOR AUSTRALIAN SUBSCRIBERS, THIS SECTION 7 DOES NOT EXCLUDE, RESTRICT OR MODIFY THE APPLICATION OF ANY GUARANTEE, RIGHT OR REMEDY THAT CANNOT BE SO EXCLUDED, RESTRICTED OR MODIFIED, INCLUDING THOSE CONFERRED BY THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW (ACL). UNDER THE ACL, GOODS COME WITH GUARANTEES INCLUDING A GUARANTEE THAT GOODS ARE OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY. IF THERE IS A FAILURE OF THIS GUARANTEE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A REMEDY (WHICH MAY INCLUDE HAVING THE GOODS REPAIRED OR REPLACED OR A REFUND). IF A REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT CANNOT BE PROVIDED OR THERE IS A MAJOR FAILURE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A REFUND.

Which means that removing access to the purchased item, does in fact entitle you to a refund.

I understand one does not own the game as that entitles the user to additional rights. But I feel like the user should own the license and they should not be able to revoke your ability to download/play it barring they go out of business or something.

What, an unending subscription? If they want to end the subscription, then they can refund the person.

Unless your definition of "theft" is a very expansive one that covers everything from swiping something from a store to downloading movies, the act that ubisoft is doing really isn't comparable to anything that's "ancient, which has been around forever". Back in the "ancient" world there certainly wasn't pieces of software running on networked turing machines that required authentication servers to function. The closest analogy would be some sort of widget that required a proprietary input from the manufacturer to continue functioning (eg. a car that required OEM blinker fluid to work). The manufacturer refusing to provide such inputs to the end user would definitely be something that negatively affects the end user and might even be a tort and/or run afoul of anti-consumer laws, but it's certainly not comparable to someone breaking into your house and making off with your car. You still have the original physical disk and/or bits, after all.

If you SOLD something and somehow REMOVE or the ability to use it, it's theft. Whether it's done using modern technology (software) or old technology (crowbar) is not important.

>Whether it's done using modern technology (software) or old technology (crowbar) is not important

Even if you equate taking down DRM servers with breaking into someone's house and using a crowbar to break their widget, that's still a different crime than theft.

So if it turns out that your car dealer can remotely disable your car and they announce that starting September 1st, you will no longer be able to start it. You would not consider that theft? In this scenario it would also be very difficult and/or illegal to circumvent the disable-mechanism.

>So if it turns out that your car dealer can remotely disable your car and they announce that starting September 1st, you will no longer be able to start it. You would not consider that theft?

As mentioned in my previous comment, it would be wrong but not theft specifically. Someone breaking into my garage and smashing my car isn't theft, it's vandalism.

Fair enough. Can we meet in the middle and agree that this action, whatever the exact name, is of comparable moral badness as theft? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com