So if buy something physical on eBay and pick it up at the seller's home, it's a service?

And this is why the ruling is still based on an understanding of physical media.

Some people can't handle other people's points of view.

I got a fanclub :)

What makes this post hilarious, is that it can be equally reasonably interpreted in two opposite ways xD.

I know the feeling :P I should be at around 700-750 rep by now, if I wouldn't lose 5 points of rep at least twice a week.

Because some people are vindictive and don't like being told that what they do is wrong. Especially if it is true.

There's no point in arguing further when people assume things I never said... I'm not talking about "I already have this game so you can have this key"". Quite the contrary. I'm talking about "Here, have my Steam key. I'm fine with the DRM-free installer". I thought i made this clear more than once (even in my post you first replied to). I even compared it with starting giveaways of The Witcher 2 backup keys (the GOG keys every Steam customer got when he bought The Witcher 2 on Steam) to make my point clear.

You're right. Giving away a single key because you already have this game, is "just" a breach of Humble's ToS. The terms you agreed to. It may be morally justified to give away those keys, but... Well... It's a strange behaviour nevertheless. Agree to something and then to ignore it... Just think about the situation:
Humble Bundle: "You can have those games and pay us whatever you want, as long as you don't give away individual keys."
You: "I agree. Here you are..."
5 minutes later...
You: "Gnah, fuck that shit. I can give those keys to whoever I want. I fucking paid for them!"

From a moral point of view, that's not piracy. That's just... discourteous, to say it nicely.

Well, you miss the point that you´re not allowed to set whatever TermsOfUse.
I could also write in my terms of use for *whatever* service:

"If you agree to my ToU, I´m allowed to kill you."

Even if you´d sign this I wouldn´t get right if I´d kill you afterwards:
It´s called "surprising terms" and that´s why I´d loose in front of a court!

Now there could be a discussion on the topic of "Are HumbleBundles ToU surprising or not?".


Oh, BTW:
I wouldn´t accept a GOG-Key of the Steam-Edtion:
That´s the wrong way round: Just from the moral point of view I think DRM-free duplicate keys should never be given away, only DRM-contaminated would fit in my understanding of morality!
And that´s why I´m up-repping you again:
I don´t like your point of view, but that changes nothing that you are not writing bad or doing spam.
And this shouldn´t be rewarded with neg rep, so I´m doing a bit compensation...
;)

Don't you think trying to force other people to do what you want is a little childish? Most people learn as they grow up that other people can have different opinions that are just as valid.

I think that the right question would be: "am I damaging someone with my behaviour?"

In this scenario, there could be four "victims":

- Steam: they're not getting damaged. Indeed, they earn exhibition of the platform, investment in terms of size of the collection and, ultimately, advertising;

- Humble Bundle and the developers: they are not getting damaged solely on the basis of what amok complains. Let me explain. You are given the choice to "pay what you want" for a product which has, in itself, several (two or more) copies of many games. You can realize it and decide to pay accordingly or you can evaluate the bundle the bare minimum (rephrased in a more correct fashion, "be a cheap ass and exploit the system to get the most with the least expense"). This COULD damage Humble Bundle AND the developers - it's an intrinsic fault of the system, and a matter of honor. They're, from the beginning, asking how much do you think the bundle is worth - you have the permission (not that this is correct nor desirable) to value an handful of games 1$;

- Charity: they're not getting damaged at all - for them, every dollar is a profit, after all.


This is what I think.

One thing is that it is OK to different opinions, that's not problem at all. We all do have different opinions.

But I also believe that you should stay your ground and fight for what you think is right. If I see something I think is wrong, then I am going to say so. And unless someone manages to let me know I am the one in the wrong, then I will continue to do so. Likewise, if I find myself in the wrong, then I am just as willing to apologise and make amends. In this matter, no one has managed to do so yet. And yes, I am the first to admit that I can be very stubborn.

And I am probably just too damned old fashioned, still believing in personal honor and integrity. I realise it is not worth a dam these days, I just can't let go of it.

Anyway, not sure why I am trying to justify myself to a random person on the interwebs. It is too late for this...

(and your silly stunt was pretty silly, no idea what it try to prove)

Honestly? I tried to get GoG's stance on it. What I really expected was to be met with silence, which in turn is an acceptance of the events. I would have stopped then. I could have done it in private, but I do not like that approach.

It is also something about gog and the values they stand for, I may not believe in all of them myself, and I can not quite put my finger on it, but it is a bit like swearing in church. I am not a religious person myself, but if someone was swearing in a church I was in, I would stare at them, harshly. It is about respect, I think. There is a right time and place for everything, and gog's forum is not the right place to showcase how much we disrespect our agreements. GoG should be a place which we should be able to point to and say "see it works, you can trust your customers", one of the few untarnished white spots... something like this... and it is seriously too late, I am rambling.

I think it would have been more appropriate to keep it a private conversation. This thread, at least to me, felt like an attempt at intimidation.