Hacker News Reader

Comment by barkhausen | Hacker News Reader

Because, to be clear, what is being sold is a license, which is, in effect, simply permission to install and play the game. It is very much likened to a "subscription" because customers don't actually "own" any part of the game at all. They simply own "permission" to install and play the game. And there are all kinds of restrictions to the license which includes transferring the license, reselling it, etc. which are all covered in the license agreement at the time of purchase or prior to install, which of course, nobody reads. :)

View on HN

To be clear, what Valve wants and claims to sell is a license as you describe, and maybe that is the story they sell to the game publishers using their platform, and maybe it is all true in the US. What is actually being sold though depends on the jurisdiction, and Valve's bold claims have no teeth. It is common for US companies to learn the hard way that they cannot revoke legal rights in places like Australia and Europe. There is little point reading the license agreement when most of it is balderdash, falsely claiming a more limited agreement than that granted by law.

> And there are all kinds of restrictions to the license which includes transferring the license, reselling it, etc. which are all covered in the license agreement at the time of purchase or prior to install, which of course, nobody reads.

Most of those restrictions don't hold up under nations with significant Consumer Protection laws, like the EU and Australia.

Also, in those same jurisdictions, if a part of a contract is trying to enforce something illegal, like taking away a right, then the entire contract can often be considered void.

So if a Consumer Right is the transfer or reselling of the license, like it is here, then the contract is worth less than toilet paper.

> Also, in those same jurisdictions, if a part of a contract is trying to enforce something illegal, like taking away a right, then the entire contract can often be considered void.

Which would mean that nothing was transferred to the purchaser. What you seem to actually mean from the rest of your comment is that the illegal term can be excised leaving the rest of the contract in places rather than the contract being void (which may also be an option, but not one, in this situation, that would benefit the purchaser against whom the illegal term would apply were it not illegal.)

> What you seem to actually mean from the rest of your comment is that the illegal term can be excised leaving the rest of the contract in places rather than the contract being void

No. The contract is void. Which means the seller has no recourse, and no ability to rescind the product, etc, etc.

Which means that the transfer has happened without any obligations on the purchaser. The seller has transferred it to them, without a valid agreement in place.

If only the term itself was all that was made invalid, then the seller could hold the purchaser to account for other parts of the contract - but the contract itself is considered void.

In practice, this usually means that the purchaser has received the equivalent of an unlimited license grant. They can copy, disassemble, and so on, without limitation.

> The contract is void. Which means the seller has no recourse, and no ability to rescind the product, etc, etc.

That's not what a void contract would mean; a void contract would mean the seller and buyer have no obligations to each other, particularly, if the product required some interaction with the seller's servers to function (as much software does these days), the seller would have no obligation to continue such service to the buyer, as that obligation is rooted in the contract.

While use the language of a void contract, you seem to be suggesting that the contract would be valid in all respects against the seller but the buyer’s obligations would be voided. I'm not going to argue that there aren't legal systems that take that remedy for an unconscionable contract term, but it is not the same as voiding the contract. (It would be indistinguishable from voiding the contract in the exceptional case where the only obligations not already fully executed ran from the buyer to the seller.)

> In practice, this usually means that the purchaser has received the equivalent of an unlimited license grant. They can copy, disassemble, and so on, without limitation.

A substantial grant of rights that would not exist without the contract and which also weren't present in the contract is a radically different remedy than simply voiding the contract.

> the seller would have no obligation to continue such service to the buyer, as that obligation is rooted in the contract.

Ah. That's where you're getting stuck. No, that obligation is rooted in the Consumer Protection laws that supersede all contracts, not the contract itself.

> all kinds of restrictions to the license

are toilet paper in EU. Thanks to UsedSoft v Oracle I can go to the recycling center and pick up $5 copy of Windows 10 and Microsoft cant deny activation.

In my European country precent has no power. Does in Europe as a whole?

While in most European countries, precedent doesn't have much power, it can still be used as an indicator on how to interpret law or judge how a court case would go. There is also the higher courts in most countries, which don't set precedent but can set a modus operandi for courts to follow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com