You obviously are not well versed in the law. I suspect you think downloading copyrighted material is illegal as well.

Selling your Steam account is a contract violation in Germany and makes you liabel for damages. I don't know anything about swiss law, but I assume it is somewhat similar.

And downloading copyrighted material is not only illegal but a crime in Germany, whenever the source of the material is "obviously not legit".

I can't say with complete certainty, but I really don't think Germany has laws that specify what you can and can't do with a Steam account. Perhaps you're referring to the ULA or ToS or SSA or whatever Steam like to call it.

In that case, Germany, along with pretty much every country I can think of (even Cambodia) have laws that prevent consumers from giving up their legal rights through such contracts. If consumer protection laws state that you have a right to do something with your purchased product, then the company and it's contracts can't stop you.

A well publicized example of this would be back in 2010 when a US judge ruled that once you've paid for an iPhone, you can jailbreak it no matter what apple might try to tell you.

As has been noted in the media, it's questionable whether the same legal arguments would apply in the case of a Steam account, but it hasn't been tested in a court yet because all the people who get banned spent their money on games already so they can't afford a proper lawyer :P

You signed a contract with Steam. That's it. Steam is not a good or anything remotly to it, therefore most consumer protection laws don't apply. And the concept of "no reselling" isn't something "not to be exspected" as it is layed down in our copyright laws.(Which I personally consider somehting of a stretch, because the Steam service itself has nothing to do with copyrighted material, but it is just a mere service on top of that. But I'm wasn't asked). Therefore the clause in question wasn't "voided" and remains binding. Which opens yourself up to contractual damages.

You can resell retail Steam games. Which isn't of any use to anybody, because you can't sell the account.

Well, the verdict was made with the game Half Life 2 being resold, not an actuall account selling as the main focus of the verdict, but for now, that is how it is in Germany.

downloading, maybe not, but using copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner?

Again, without being able to be specific about Germany, almost all consumer protection laws apply to goods and services. Steam is a service through which you purchase goods, so fits into both categories.

Given that legal precedent carries a lot of weight, note that the exact wording of the verdict issued against Apple by Federal regulators in the US was (and I quote): "There is no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model."

It wouldn't take much of an imagination to work out a way of using that same principle against Steam.

First of all, games aren't goods. At least in a legal sense, as all goods must be physical (If I would get a dime for everytime I've typed this sentence ;-)).

The point is, you made a direct contract with Steam when you accepted their SSA. It still is a TOS and there applicable for the usual scrutiny. But that doesn't go through, because the denial of reselling isn't something that "surprises" the contractual partner. Personally I agree, that this was handled poorly by the court. But the points fits. e.g. could you sell your electricity contract to another person without the consent of Cambodia Electrics? Or your ISP agreement? Services aren't usually transferable (also in the case of Steam that could be debated) The point is, Steam itself is a legal chimera.

And yes, I agree that Steam might get into some deep trouble in the future because of this and similar problems. But this is "gaming" lawmakers are rather slow to catch up. Apple jumped ship seconds (imo) before the bust and went DRM free to avoid legal trouble. Steam might do the same.

I hope this doesn't sound to snarky, but I can't be funny or charming on legal topics. If you want I can give you the verdict in english ;-).

My point is that no matter what you sign, there are rights that can't be given up through a contract, known in legal terms as Inalienable Rights. And yes, they can apply to services as well as goods.

For example, you could pay someone $10 to sign a contract allowing you to kill them (which I guess would count as a service as there's no actual product), but that doesn't give you the legal right to kill them, or for them to force you to.

Sorry, that just might be the most ridiculous example I've ever used, but you get my point.

But the right to transfer a service contract without the agreement of the other service party to a third person is hardly what I would call an "Inalienable Right".

Just so you don't have to repeat it so often anymore, can we go a bit deeper maybe?

Some questions:

- Is a book with a lot of printed letters a good?
- Is a disk with a lot of bits and bytes a good?
- Is a file that can be stored anywhere a good?
- Is a file that needs a one time activation a good?
- Is a stream that is a file that is stored only for a very short time a good?

And if not all are goods, where is the difference in each case?

Thank you.

Well, ownership of IP isn't an Inalienable Right, but as I already said, the previous verdict against apple with regards to jailbreaking (which btw doesn't affect the physical product, only the services you get out of it), was "There is no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model". What strikes me most about that verdict is how abundantly clear they make it.
Paypal talks a lot about "digital goods", though I don't know whether it's an accepted legal term. As I said, usually consumer protection laws cover both goods and services, so the difference is irrelevant.

Because goods are always physical. Even if you take that weird second meaning. I can understand that this is very weird for somebody without legal training (and still for some with). But games aren't, weren't, will never be, have never been, will never have been, goods.

That being said, in some cases laws applicable to goods can also be applicable to (retail) games ;-P.( Because people make that mistake very often.)

=====
I'm not quoting this, as it is above my leet skillz


- Is a book with a lot of printed letters a good?
yes
- Is a disk with a lot of bits and bytes a good?
yes (only the disk, not the data)
- Is a file that can be stored anywhere a good?
no (not physical)
- Is a file that needs a one time activation a good?
no
- Is a stream that is a file that is stored only for a very short time a good?
no

And if not all are goods, where is the difference in each case?

physicality (is that a word?)

Thank you.

No problem at all ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29

Hmmm, they list also e.g. "information" and "news" as goods, albeit intangible ones.

But they argue with reality, I mean, really? Reality!?

On a aserious note, isn't that what wikipedia calls "original research?". The economic definition is based of the "physicality" or "tangibility".