Yep, you're right. I was distracted...

You don't own games no matter where you buy them... it's always a license. Steam is only different in that it has the tools needed to thoroughly enforce that.

I'm not talking about owning the content, as in "i can do whatever I want with it" I mean I own it as in, I have a cd copy, and access to it wherever I go.

It's always a real pleasure to hear that.
See now why so many people refuse to use this? An error, and you can't access games you've bought.
This should happen to every Steam user at least one time. May be a way to wake up everybody...

They don't even tell you why they did what they did? That's like North Koreans kidnapping you without giving a reason. Good that you got your games game though. Shame they're missing out on business because I think you potentially would have bought even more games if it weren't for this.

I'm glad to hear you got your account back.
I stopped using Steam about a month or so ago and I've pretty much abandoned all other Digital Distrubution outlets because I think the service GOG provides is so superior that I can no longer stomach them.
I don't know if it is because i'm getting older or simply because I'm a little more aware of what goes on, but I feel very uncomfortable about the way Steam and others limit your use of the games you 'buy'. From not being able create a standalone backup or been required to install a seperate application such as Impulse in order to update your game, as well as all the other nonsense such as having to activate your install online and all the regional restrictions and pricing etc. I just find all of it wrong purely on principle.
Until, these other services can match GOG's level of value and service, I really see no need to use them. After all I only have time to play so many games, and between GOG and retail releases which are DRM free or at least DRM Lite I think I am sorted. I urge anybody else who feels uncomfortable about the level of control these services retain over the products they are buying to simply vote with there wallets, otherwise the future will be rental and subscription shaped.
Edit: Oooh sorry, just read that back and it sounds suspicously like a rant, although it is certainly not directed at your good self. I have nothing but sympathy for your situation and I have to add that the lack of any explanation is catastrophically poor customer service on the part of Valve. For Shame.

Not necessarily true. In two particular court cases, it has been held that buying software is treated as a sale, not a license, especially with regards to the first sale doctrine.
Quote:
District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The California District Court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that Californian consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
EDIT: Also, here's 2 more cases that find the same thing (a recent Autocad decision, and a prior circuit decision dealing with resale of film, that was held valid in the Autocad decision.):
http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-7F5HZD?OpenDocument
-----
The ability to disable my software is a primary reason that I'll never use Steam. Personal decision for everyone else though.

Wrong. The "licensed, not owned" terminology is done to ensure the copyright holder's rights are maintained and the extent of user rights is not misinterpreted, which can have complicated repercussions if a buyer's misuse ends up in court; caselaw has demonstrated that, legally speaking, you own any particular physical product--no matter what the medium is and no matter what the EULA/license (if any) says--and this ownership entitles you to certain rights (private backup, loaning to friends, etc.). Copyright holders have been trying to undermine these laws for years, but they are still very real and apply to any physical product in any medium.
Consumer laws become a bit muddier with things like Steam. You are paying for a "service" (i.e. an ongoing and non-permanent agreement that can be terminated under certain circumstances), not a "product" (i.e. a tangible, individual item that is yours forever and comes with no strings attached in regards to resale or continued use).
Make no mistake: you don't own or possess anything whatsoever when you "buy" through Steam, you are merely paying for the promise that you will be able to access that game for an undefined length of time. When something goes wrong, as it did for Weclock, your rights are nowhere near as strong as they are when you physically possess your purchase. This is completely different from GOG, where you can only lose access to the "service" portion, i.e. the ability to re-download your games (they cannot take away the "product" portion of your purchase, i.e. any files you have already downloaded). This is why many people view services such as Steam as "rentals".

...I just find all of it wrong purely on principle.
+1
Until, these other services can match GOG's level of value and service, I really see no need to use them. After all I only have time to play so many games, and between GOG and retail releases which are DRM free or at least DRM Lite I think I am sorted. I urge anybody else who feels uncomfortable about the level of control these services retain over the products they are buying to simply vote with there wallets, otherwise the future will be rental and subscription shaped.
+2 (i wish i could)
Aside from GOG i'm only using Metaboli right now, but at least with Meta i'm fully aware from the start that i'm just paying for a subscription and that i don't really own anything, meaning that the service they advertise is exactly the service they provide.
The similarities between Meta and Steam are actually quite funny when one considers that we're talkin about a supposed retailer and an on-demand service provider...

I've decided that if there's a game that comes out only on steam, I'm more likely to pirate it than to buy it, just because it's only on steam.

Don't do that, just don't buy it. Spend your money (and time) on games and retailers that aren't as hostile towards customers. Get yourself out of the mindset that you have to have any particular game.

Oh, I didn't said I would pirate it, I just said that I'm more likely to pirate it than to buy it, I don't pirate games.

Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Interesting.
I personally fear it is a moot point though, unfortunately, given where we are headed with account based games due to this legal question. This ruling in the meantime though presents two seperate issues:
1) Digitial distribution on an account-based basis will almost surely become standard at some point. The companies want it for obvious reasons, and the vast amount of consumers accept it for whatever reason. It's sort of a pointless battle, sadly, as if I want to play games I would bet in no time I will have to accept their rules.
2) Wouldn't this make SecuROM and other programs that limit my access to my software, when purchased retail and considered a sale, illegal? If I own my copy of Mass Effect outright, doesn't EA later limiting my access to the game constitute theft?
On a side note, I am actually against reselling media for multiple resons, but I still am a firm believer in being able to play my games whenever and however I want.