The problem there is that you incentivize indie developers to make $1 mods that they can churn out in a few hours versus $15 games that took effort and passion. If the market tells developers that their time is more valuable producing trinkets than works of art, then that is what the market will gravitate towards.…

Another thing that might explain this concern about money: There is a defense known as “fair use” which can be invoked if you have infringed something but you have a recognized reason for doing so. You can not claim this defense if you have earned money for your product. If you are not infringing then fair use defense…

lol is that some kind of threat?

I just want to see how badly you need the last word right now. Your position is silly and naive

Simmer down now, grown ups are talking.

Nope, they are not entitled to a cool $30 for nothing. Your impotent rage, willful ignorance, and corporate reverence does not change the fact that your not entitled to take money, no matter how much you pay your lawyers.

All of your hypotheticals, especially this one, demonstrate your lack of comprehension of the issue. Users would not be entitled to refund of server fees for server use already done. I never said that in this case banned users should get a full refund, or that server costs and other costs associated with the ban could…

To state the obvious, if your mod contains Spiderman, the state of Morrowind, or Hogwarts, you are then infringing those respective copyrights and are liable for copyright infringement whether you charge for it or not. If you do charge for it, you are probably also liable for inducement of copyright infringement in…

It’s perfectly legal to sell mods that do not contain or are derived from any assets owned by Bethesda. It always has been. That means original textures, models, scripts, and other files.

Purely a cash grab by valve and Bethesda. Hopefully they get smackwd

I think restaurants are the one place where customers get away with saying whatever they want all the time and society in general reinforces the customer is always right attitude. But you are correct that occasionally the scenario you described may happen. I think in those isolated instances, there is more to do with…

That’s a legal conclusion, and a premature one at that. It’s not clear in the courts that you can indeed agree to and accept a contract under those precise conditions, or that it is legally binding. In any event, just putting something in an EULA doesn’t mean they actually have a legal right to do it, and it certainly…

It’s not the consumer’s problem that the company wants to enforce a policy that they have no tenable method of accomplishing. If they wanted to refuse service to individuals they should have included a reliable identification method. Korea has no trouble banning individuals. Not an excuse to keep the money.

It is never OK to take someone’s money and not give them what they paid for. Just because it’s common doesn’t make it right. Corporations put dozens of clauses in EULAs, many of them don’t hold up legally, and many of them are unscrupulous. This clause and others like it are not carte blanche to steal from players.…

Yes I agree and it is equally wrong for XBL and those others. At least these guys are being up front about it. These type of policies wouldn’t fly in most contexts (McDonald’s refuses to give you your food because you were rude about waiting for your order? That’d be all over the local news), but gamers are an easy…

And I agree with him that he is entitled to “ownership” of the product in that sense, and that it is morally wrong to ban a person and keep their money (as well as being a clear conflict of interest - if the process was transparent or with clear guidelines and process then it may be OK). That’s what he said anyway.…

He’s right though. It doesn’t matter if it’s licensed or owned. If they want to revoke your license then they should refund your money, less costs (server fees already used, etc.). If this is effectively zero in most cases, so be it, but they’re not entitled to my money and to not provide the service, even if I’m an…

“Steam defers to the creator.”

Now maybe we’re getting somewhere. Your points 1-4 almost look like law, but you haven’t substantiated them. Specifically point 4 is made up. If you are unsure whether you made it up, buy a buggy game from steam and request a refund to check.

I bought a prius and it said in the manual that I accept I will yield at all 4 way intersections to encourage a friendly driving community. I failed to yield last week and Toyota remotely disabled my car. Now I’m out $22,000