It's not like they want people to use Origin because they invested and still are investing a shitload of money in it, that would be insane.

EA invented Origin, because they realised people like to pay for good service, like Steam. That people want something more than just a game. It has very little to do with DRM. Also, by buying on Origin, EA gets 100% of the revenue.
And I don't know if this works differently for new games, but I remember Demigod being released completely DRM free, and on the launch servers were swarmed with pirates, and the revenue was much much lower than expected.

Maybe people are less likely to pirate old stuff, or people who want to buy old stuff are more wealthy or whatever.

hehe. and that was the easy point

Oh, and I thought it was argued so many times here that the use of clients like Steam and Origin is to circumvent the bad connotations DRM has, but it is in fact DRM. To trick the customer. (I do not quite agree, the case with Steam the DRM is CEG, but even there almost all non-indies make use of it)

The big companies do not trust DRM free at all. So far it is only indies who do. For a larger uptake it needs to be shown as working more or less perfectly. I am not saying this is solely due to bundle abuse, but if GOG want to show that it is an approach which is working, then they need to be able to be seen as "spotless". Anything else is ammunition to show how it does not work.

In other words, allowing it is not helping GOG's cause at all.


(Who would have ever thought I would become a firebrand preacher in gOg's behalf :) )

In actual fact, I think GOG loses way more sales because many games only come here after they've been in at least one high-profile PWYW bundle. Then of course there was the Botanicula debacle, but that was (thankfully) a one-time occurence.
*shrug* You may be right, it may not mean anything to publishers. However, Firek has clearly stated GOG's opinion of bundle splitting, so I still think that continuing to defend your right as a GOG user to use the GOG forums to perpetuate a practice that GOG is officially against is incredibly disrespectful. As is the splitting of bundles that you agreed not to split when you bought them.

Note that I am in no way against splitting bundles from distributors which have officially stated that they are okay with it. It's not the splitting itself I am against (well, yes, when people keep the DRM free installers and give away the Steam codes, that I'm against), it's the breaking of the agreement. When people allow you to pay whatever you want if you'll just please follow a few simple rules, I can't see any valid ethical reason to break those rules. Quid pro quo.

Hey people, missed me? Sure you did. Anyway, after reading this fascinating thread there is one major misconception I need to make clear. Giving away those codes is not piracy because it is against the ToS. It is piracy because it is against the law. I won't go into all the ToS technicalities, but what is written in those ToS is just a "clarification" so to say. Like those signs in clubs where it says, "no smoking". Smoking isn't illegal because of those signs, but because smoking is no longer allowed in public areas by law (where applicable).

Remember, at the very core of licensing stands the owner of said creative work. He alone can "create" licenses. All those stores we used to buy our stuff just act on his behalf (That is also why GOG can't just "store" a bunch of licenses whenever a game gets pulled). To circumvent this shortcoming the "fist sale doctrine" was created, which allowed the capitalization of creative works by "bonding" the non-transferable license to very transferable physical goods. Now, in the digital age, there is due to the lack of physical media no more bonding. Therefore we directly aquire a license (either buy the owner directly, or buy via an "agent" like GOG, GG, Steam.)

Now onto Steam codes. As all those DRM free evangelist like to repeat on and on, the SSA clearly states that you subscribe to Steam. Which is correct. Because you already own the license. The SSA is another contract (legal DRM, if you will) that you sign onto. That is also the kicker with those HIB codes (or any Steam code, really). They are not a "license" they are just a proof that you own the license for Steam to give you access to the game. But, unlike car papers (Or GOG gift codes), there is no right coming directly from those codes. Hence, every copy redeem from a Steam key by a person who did not buy that key is legally an unlicensed copy. Just as one gotten from the Pirate Bay.

When, however, the creator (not the bundle sellers, but the actual owner of a game) gives you the ok to give away a Steam key (like Shadowrun is doing right now for their backers), you act as a "proxy" for the creator. The code itself is still "rightless" in regards of the actual game license. The "copyright" comes from the creator handed down to the code giver. Also, you cannot "bona fide" aquire license. That is simply impossible by law. Therefore, even if a person thinks and tells you that he is allowed to give you a license, but he really isn't, you still acquire an illegal copy.

(Now, you could have a fun debate about having a license for said game, but no Steam key and the getting a Steam key from another person. Imo, that would give you a legit Steam copy, but that really is a legal debate not suited for here and also irrelevant to the issue at hand. Especially as Steam copies divert more and more from DRM free copies by having a lot more legal rights associated with them, which in turn could make a Steam copy a completely new license.)

Now, that is the legal side of things. Morals everybody has to decide for himself.

"But what is the value of C?" is the real question in regards of PWYW bundles. I only pay an amount I consider fitting for the games I need from each bundle. And if I already have some of them, I pay less. And I think about 99% of all bundle buyers operate that way. Which means that the additional copy you've gotten has less value for the creator. And in giving that away, you take away a potential "full value" purchase by the person that received said game.

This is also why I consider this kind of piracy worse than the torrent piracy. Because, unlike the seedy underbelly of torrents, the forum here is populated by potential buyers and by the code piracy there is actually the issue of a lost sale. (Which almost never happens due to torrent piracy). Also, costs for Valve and in case of MP servers hosted by the creator also costs for him. Which I also consider "not cool".

Therefore, imo, if somebody really can't afford the game, "torrent piracy" is the better option that "code piracy".

(phew. I am glad he did not notice the posts where I attempted legal speak. I may survive this as long no one brings attention to it)

My guess is it's one person using a bot and multiple accounts to downrep older posts of certain people.

B... But you said that yourself. Humble Bundle can't create licenses as well, right? So if HIB says "you can't give away your keys" and Dungeons of Dredmor dev says "sure you can", than I can, right? RIGHT?!

Because no matter how many indie devs I asked about what they think about sharing bundle keys with friends, they always said "why do you even ask? Sure you can!"

HIB is the only exception I ever encountered.

Also, your "first sale doctrine" being tied to a physical goods for some reason will not stand long. I can understand it's not possible for it to be fully transferred into digital distribution, but with steam keys, it's not that hard. You don't duplicate copies, one key can be redeemed only one time, just like only one person can use a physical CD at one time.

Steam key is an equivalent of transferring a CD, not a perfect equivalent, but an equivalent nonetheless. I really hoped Bruce Willis would sue Apple for him not being able to transfer his audio library on his daughter, but it didn't happen...

But it shows an ability to transfer your digital library of anything is a necessity. My father would pass his books onto me when he passes, so I would want to pass my library onto my children as well. It's only natural.

Yes, because then you are a proxy in this case. OTOH, HIB might have a claim against the devs for breaking their agreement, if there was one. But that is their problem. (I can think of a few more, rather outlandish, possibilities were it might be different, but they are mostly academic .)

If you have the go ahead by the owner of a game, there really isn't anything that you can do wrong. Well, there could be some "peer pressure" in that the dev doesn't want to look like an ass. But that is his problem not yours.

You still would need confirmation for every person giving it away and for each amount, strictly and technically speaking. Just saying "everybody with extra keys" does not cover the "definiteness" needed by law. Turning those copies, legally, again into illegal copies. But considering that the creator is the person primarily responsible for making claims due to illegal copies, this really is just a "legal technicality". Morally, of course, you are golden in those case, if you act with the will of the creator.

Still, there is to much "grey area" for my taste in this. Maybe the creator thought those extra copies where fully purchased, or "added in value" to the bundle price. In the end, why don't people just spend that 1$ for the bundle if they can't afford more.

In relation to GOG I am a bit surprised that they don't act to cover their own asses. After all, they are responsible what is happening here. And, in the end, better safe than sorry would be my motto.
If and when is not the point here. One of these days, goats and men might be able to marry. But for the time being, many welshman life in relationships not officially recognized.

The whole "transferability of digital goods" discussion is pretty much divided down the middle in just about every regard. Imo, the better arguments speak against it.

And the whole inheritance issue is actually quite simple in Germany. Here, by law, the heir completely takes over all rights and obligations of the deceased. Including personal copyrights. And that is not really something a ToS can change. But this is a transference by law, not by contract. No clue about US law however.

Inheritance and "used license trading" are completely different animals.

And remember, the ECJ saw the consumer in a disadvantage not because the transference is a god (EU) given right, but because the part of the price on every "first sale" affected license, which covers secondary purchases, was kept by the creator as a "bonus" so to say. That was the core issue.

You mean the fact it's priced exactly the same as the physical version? That's interesting, thanks.

The aim with any legislation, law or judgement is always to maintain a balance between all interests. Because that actually is the best for a healthy market environment. Usually it is very consumer friendly, as consumers carry, by nature "the short stick". But there are also cases the other way around. Eg. in Germany "New technology services" are allowed to change ToS to a certain degree without consent of their customers. Simply because all of this is still so new, that it is impossible to foresee everything already. (And consumers are well protected anyway.) Or that one judgement from a few years ago, that made most of the big EU consumer protection effectively pointless, as it shifted the the need to proof on the consumer. But all is good now again.

Finding that balance is very difficult, but at least here (and I would guess most of the EU) it works very well.

Edit:

Holy crap in the three hours, you lost 4 rep points! So business as usual here ;-).

I think I loose around 5 reps a day no matter if I post or not :P And I think I'm starting to get why some of the oldcomers decided to leave. Some opinions are not tolerated here.

I was around 860 few days ago :D

Already sorted this out with real.geizterfahr, but I was talking about the situation where multiple licences have been bought and one is being given away with the key. For example, someone had bought the game before the bundle and then they give away the key from the bundle. Two licences of the game have been bought and there are two copies.

It's still a breach of HB's terms of service but you can't compare that to actual copyright infringement. The only thing wrong with it is that HB asked you not to. It's not up to GOG to police this.