Undercover_Man

I have a question. Let's say there is this product being sold by a store or diretly from a company. Now At that time that one product you have your eyes on belongs to that store/company 100% right? Now let's say you pay for the product. Would it be legal in any way for that store or company to decide to (or even have the ABILITY to) take away that product you bought whether you used the product illegally or not?

Answer this question and I will get to the next part of my question.

EDIT: I'm rephrasing that last sentence in my first "paragraph" to the following: Would it be legal in any way for that store or company to decide to (or even have the ABILITY to) take away that product you bought whether you acquired the product legally or not?

Rlyss

As far as I can see the company has no right to take it away from you. The police can probably confiscate it if you're using it illegally or it's something used in a crime, obviously, but I can't for the life of me figure out a way that Target or Sony or Nokia could take away your t-shirt or your stereo or your mobile phone just because you used it incorrectly.

Once you pay for it you own it and nobody but the police can take it away, I think. Apologies if you're looking for a legal viewpoint here, I'm just some guy.

The Prophet

I don't know how they would have that right. And presumably you would have to relinquish the item. If it were a service on the other hand. . .

But certainly not without reimbursement.

__________________
"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

thingstodo

I would think if you bought it, it is your item. Taking it would be theft - unless that was somehow part of the deal and this is some silly trick question.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

maleficent

If you are renting the product, the store might have a case.

__________________

f6twister

A purchase means ownership of the item transfers to the buyer unless stated contractually. Rylss is correct, the police have the right to take anything they need as evidence of a crime and hold it until no longer needed for the case or ordered to release it by a judge. The district attorney also has a say when evidence can be released. Having worked for department store security, I can't think of any way the store would have any say in it.

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

quadro2000

come clean: what are you scamming?

__________________
You have to laugh at yourself...because you'd cry your eyes out if you didn't. - Emily Saliers

Bill O'Rights

Ummm...yeah. What he said.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

tropple

You should have read the EULA ;-)

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Nefir

This is going to be an intellectual property thread, isn't it?

It depends on the conditions you accepted when you paid for the product. Since you specifically said you "bought" the product, and not under some license of acceptable use, this cuts down significantly on what the store can do to you.

If, however, there is a license involved, you're out of luck (ie: you can buy a Windows XP box, but you don't really OWN the Windows XP software inside it).

__________________
You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy
Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy
Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants
Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

clavus

Quit being clever and get to the point.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

denim

Depends on the software license. They never actually sell "ownership".

animosity

I'm confused on how there could be any doubt that the company is not allowed to take what is yours.

what is the point? or next question.

I'm assuming you are doing something underhanded.

Undercover_Man

OK. My question is about Steam. IF they wanted to they have the ability to shut its doors or turn authentication off at the flip of a switch leaving HL2 (and any other games that may use Steam at the time) non-playable. You bought the game(s) legally yet they have the power to take that ownership away. It's almost like you didn't even pay for the game(s) in the first place. I'm wondering how they can legally do that. They don't say "rent HL2". They say BUY HL2.

Now that I think of it. Microsoft and Norton have software authentication too. But they're HUGE multi-million (-billion for Microsoft?) companies and I know if they decided to turn off their authentication rendering their software unauthenticationable (I love making up words) then they would most likely be sued by MANY companies and ppl.

But I don't think their reasons for their authentication was primarily to prevent piracy. And their software was meant for companies too. And they have corporate versions that don't even NEED authentication which makes me think that their authentication wasn't meant to stop piracy cause it's only a matter of time before one of their corporate versions gets leaked to the pirates.

Steam's games aren't for the corporate world which would make their software different than Microsofts and Nortons software. Their authentication (and the Steam service itself) unlike, Microsoft and Norton, have created some major problems with its end-users.

I was just wondering how Steam, or ANY company/store, can have the ability to take away something that you have purchased. That's essentially what they would be doing if they went out of business or "flipped the switch" so no one can authenticate their game(s). Doesn't that defeat the whole meaning of purchasing something? They still have control over what you purchased.

That's what I'm wondering about. How can they have so much power over something that you already bought? They can ban your account whenever they want rendering your product useless. They can go out of business rendering your product useless. They can turn off authentication for whatever reason rendering your product useless. They might have server problems rendering your product useless. Someone might even hack into their system which could screw the whole system up possibly rendering your product useless.

How is Steam protecting themselves from being sued or getting into other legal problems? How can ANY company/store have this kind of power over something you bought. Over something your purchased lkegally with your own money? Don't limit your response to Steam. These questions aply to ANY company/store.

- Undercover_Man

P.S.: No this is not meant to be a flame. I am just curious about the legalities of the amount of power that Steam and any other company/store can have over a product that you purchase

denim

As I said, read your license. If you're not a programmer, I doubt you've ever owned software. You've owned a license to software; there's a difference.

Samalie

It all comes down to the licensing.

You pretty much don't ever BUY software - you buy a license to use.

99.9% of the time that license will have a provision for termination.

If you in some way, shape or form broke the EULA, and the EULA has a termination clause, you are farked. Completely.

Silvy

This is exactly what I was wondering when considering purchasing HL2.
Though my reasoning was a little more sinister: what happens when HL3 is released?
Will authentication (needed for a reinstallation) be switched off for legacy games? Or is there a 'play' limit printed on the box saying that there is only a playable time of say 3 years?

I do not seriously expect such definite problems to occur anytime soon, but the control that Valve has over HL2 is keeping me from purchasing the game, as a matter or principle.

This is tightly related to MS's product activation (which is even worse!), and the main reason I semi-switched to Linux, and fully switched to Open Office.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

ObieX

Well thats the thing with contracts and EULAs. There always that little line that says that they can change ANYTHNIG they want in the agreement WHENEVER they want, and you can't. Meaning even if you sign on the dotted line on a contract that says you get to do this and that, they can change it to read whatever they want and screw you.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Silvy

The question was regarding to legitimate/legal use in compliance with the EULA. So, while your statement is correct, it is not the point.

(unless the EULA states that "the USER shall not use the PRODUCT for longer than THREE (3) years after purchase" or something like that)

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

clavus

You would still possess the software you bought. All the little ones and zeros are still on your machine (or on the CD). But M$ or STEAM or whomever could make it tough to use in the manner in which you are accustomed.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

Rlyss

I wouldn't worry too much about them shutting off Steam in the future, I think it's highly likely that they'll release a patch in a year or two that unlocks the game and makes it installable and playable offline.

Right now it's all about preventing piracy of their latest and greatest game and the online authentication is a way of doing that. Once the game is a few years old and sales fall (happens to any product) they'll probably release a patch to change it.

This may not be true, I'm just making it up as I go along, but it makes sense to me and is consistent with many other game patches in the past that give you the ability to play with no CD in the drive, no CD key authentication, etc.

bookiebye

It seems to me that if we are talking about a physical product and a completed transaction with proof of purchase, then I can't see how the seller can take the product back. They are able to ask for it, with compensation, but it is up to the purchaser to keep it or give it back.
It's a whole other kettle of fish if it's obtained illegally. In this case it doesn't actually belong to you and the authourities have the right to confiscate the item in question.

__________________
Get it done!

Undercover_Man

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe EULA's hold much water in court. I mean there's not even a physical signature. Not a bit of evidence that that person was the one who installed it. More than one person can use a single computer ya know. One could argue that s/he wasn't the one who installed the software and "signed" it. Has a EULA even been challenged in court and won? You could also install software manually therefore bypassing the EULA. I doubt there's a "rule" that you absolutely HAVE to use their installer to install the software.

Rlyss

Wouldn't the End User Licence Agreement mean that it's the end user, not necessarily the one who purchases it, that has to abide by it? So even if it's a public computer and I do something against the EULA, I'm still agreeing to i by using it?

But then I suppose if I'm using MS Word at an Internet Cafe then I've never read or clicked the 'I Agree' button so maybe I'm not bound by it?

MooseMan3000

Alright, just to set the record straight here, Undercover.

Steam is run by Valve. They want to use it to distribute their products directly to the consumer in order to increase their profit margins.

Vivendi is Valve's distributor, and they brought a lawsuit against Valve claiming that Steam violates their contract with Valve to be the exclusive distributor of the product. I am inclined to agree with them (legally speaking), but that's not the point.

The point is, you bought a product that was NOT being marketed by the person who was SUPPOSED to be marketing it. You bought from Valve, not from Vivendi. Valve sold you the product AFTER they signed a contract with Vivendi that says "Only Vivendi can distribute our products." In effect, you bought stolen merchandise, and Vivendi has every right to take it back.

However, the lawsuit is still pending, due to many other legal issues. (Example: Valve's countersuit claiming that Vivendi maliciously delayed production and shipment of the game, and Vivendi's counter-countersuit that claims Valve delayed HL2 on purpose. Seriously.)

This could go either way, but eventually you will have your product. It would just be bad business to do anything else.

AngelicVampire

EULAs will hold up in court, they are legal binding contracts for all users of a particular computer (running that software). They include an option to allow you to disagree with them, as each EULA will include a phrase similar to:

"If you do not, or cannot, agree to this EULA the please return this software to the vendor for full reimbursement."

If you get the software, read the EULA and decide you don't like it you can return it. Otherwise the company can specify anything they like in that EULA and you are agreeing to it. You cannot "accidentally" install the software as the next button does not work until you have agreed in the installer (unless you have a hacked installer!).

Software companies sell you one "license" to use their software when you buy a CD (though this is never explicitly stated on the outside of the box). This means that you do not actually own the software and so really have no rights concerning it (its like buying the right to eat 1 ice cream, the vender does not need to support Ice Creams or give you advice eating ice cream etc...)

denim

I once managed to use a EULA in reverse.

I purchased MacOS 8.1 from the (then) only Apple Store, meaning the one at Apple HQ. Then I found out I could upgrade to it for free 'cause my computer was new. So I went to return it. They had signs there saying they didn't take returns. So I told the sales droid that, since they wouldn't honor their license, I would feel free to distribute their software as I wished.

Oh, they didn't like that at ALL! Nope. Too bad. They had the choice of accepting the return, or violating their own EULA, which said that if I didn't accept the license, I could return the product for a full refund. Accept it and refund the money, or the EULA is DEAD and I can do whatever I want with the product. I got my money, you bet.

OTOH, I don't know what happened internally afterwards...