Some software is offered free for charities, or discounted for students, etc. That doesn't mean you should be able to get the same deal (there is no right to buy stuff cheap), or the company would still be making a profit if they did the same for everyone.
A more apt analogy would be buying goods smuggled into a country to avoid taxes. If a farm subsidy program sells gas to farmers at a discount, do you figure it is your consumer right to buy and use that fuel? Such a program exists in western Canada, purple dye is added to the fuel, and good luck claiming consumer rights if you get caught with it in a non-farming vehicle.
Well, let's get the semantics out of the way first: while there is no right to buy stuff cheap, there is a right to buy as cheap as legally possible. Do we agree on that? Than the matter simply turns into a question whether it's legal. Now, to establish the legality, one needs laws, and to determine WHAT laws we need, we can't just use the goals of companies (like maximising their profits, and gaining marketshare). The moment we let companies decide (or make) our laws, that moment we're screwed. Since the goal of a company is NOT helping consumers, let alone 'poor people', but simply: their profit.
Which, I repeat, is normal, and is what companies should do. Only, I'm saying we shouldn't let them decide what is allowed or not, based on these criteria.
Now, there is a general consensus (within society) to let the state advantage some subcategory of people whom have it harder, for reasons of geo-political interest, out of charity, or out of national interest. There is even a willingness to allow private companies do charity, under *well defined* constraints.
However, there is no such consent when it comes to self-protectionism without such constraints by a private firm seeking to maximise their profit and marketshare. This does NOT fall under 'charity', and a private firm has no inherent right to make their own rules legally binding, as does the state.
And, well, let's not beat around the bush, here. Larian, nor any other company, is selling their products there cheaper out of charity. It's not because they want to help the poor people and bring some joy in their lives. If that were true, one would check how poor somebody would be, *before* selling it. Just like, with MS, you need to BE a student, before you can enjoy the student-reduction. But being poor is not mentioned anywhere as being a requirement for being able to buy it cheap there. So the analogy doesn't fly at all with the examples you gave. In fact, multi-millionaires - even ones that are a hundredfold more rich than the average Westerner - who live there, can buy it as cheap as the rest.
So let's drop the act and pretend it's some sort of charity, meant to help the poor. It's not. If you want to do charity, then say so in front, and tell the rich people that they are paying more because you want to help poor people, also in front. Do it like humblebundle then (where you linked to); there it's clearly indicated *which* part goes to charity.
But one isn't, so it has *nothing* to do with the reason people accept price-differences, like in the case of charity. It's not charity. Therefore it can't lean on the arguments of why charity is allowed to do so. You're also not a state which has to protect national (aka: every citizens', not just the profits of one company) interests. It gets that right by the democratic vote of the people who imbue it with that power. I don't think Larian or EA, or Ubisoft, etc., and their rules and price-settings, has ever been democratically chosen and been endorsed by vote. So it can't argue it has the same rights as a state has neither.
import duties and taxes on physical goods is not the same as violating the terms of service with a digital distributor.
And that's exactly the point I'm making. One has those rights with physical goods, why wouldn't you have them with digital goods? 'Because our terms of service does not allow it'?
That's a tautology. OF COURSE your terms of service doesn't allow it, but why would that be of any importance in determining whether those terms are acceptable, let alone reasonable? You need arguments to substantiate such a vision, and I haven't seen any from the standpoint of a consumers' rights.
There is no objective rationale for it.
If we have the rights with physical goods, why wouldn't we have them for digital goods? there is no *real* answer to that, because one clearly should have the same rights, but the companies are trying. And why are they trying? Because of profit and control. But that's NOT a valid reason for consumers to lose their rights, at least not from the consumers' perspective, and society at large.
If one wants to argument WHY it should be so, than you can't just say 'because it's in our terms of service'. That doesn't argument anything. If you put in your term of service that I loose the right on my first born child, than that's all fine and well, but why would that matter?
So the question remains exactly the same: why would we lose our rights that we had with physical goods because you (companies) said so, 'terms of service' or not? Why should we accept restrictions on our use of legally bought digital works, when similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?
Either there are regional prices, which obviously require regional restrictions, or there are not, which puts games out of reach for many people in poorer countries.
With Steam and GOG, the former is the case. Debating this here is not going to change that.
Wait... 'obviously'? Why obviously? It's *only* 'obvious' if you take it for a given that a company can , by their own choice, compete with itself be introducing cheaper versions of their own, same products, without having to deal with the natural consequence of competition, namely, reduced profits? It's only obvious if you follow the premise of a company wanting to maximise their profits and augment their marketshare.
Yes, from that standpoint, it's obvious indeed, that you want to use protectionism and lock-ins. Similarly, it's also obvious that a monopolist wants to keep its monopoly, for that matter, and he will do exactly the same, thus. It's obvious that cartels are going to be formed, if companies see a way to augment their profit that way; they would even write it in their terms of service, if they dared.
All that, is obvious... for a private, commercial firm, and from their viewpoint and goal (profit).
It's not at all obvious from a user perspective, however. and, what's more, it's also not obvious from a societal context. Nor from the law(s) that a society creates. And that's not just me saying it. Look, I'll give you some examples:
http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/resale-rights-you-bought-own.htmlNow, do you note that it clearly says that people have a right to resell the goods they sold? So... what does it matter you (I'm not meaning you personally, of course, just as an interlude for 'commercial companies' ;-) claim something else in your terms of service?
As said, that's just something you came up with, but that doesn't mean it supersedes law, or that it somehow makes sense from anything but your own perspective. Nor that there is a rationale for it when you look at it objectively.
Ok, I hear you say, but that are physical goods. Digital goods are *TOTALLY* different! Is it? Are they? Who says so? You? Your terms of service? There is no inherent reason to think that digital goods suddenly wouldn't fall under the same laws that other goods do. That's just an excuse digital-selling companies came up with. And they came up with that for the same reason as always: profit and control.
So, let's see if it's a correct viewpoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrineWhere we can read:
"In Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first-sale doctrine is in force."
Well, there you have it. Contrary to all the claims of the contrary by companies who want to protect their own interests, it's clear that digital goods are no different to physical goods, when it comes to the (consumer) rights one have.
Of course - and you know this as well as I do - companies immediately sought to curb and get around this too. They started to say "ah, well, then we won't 'sell' them the good, we'll 'license' it instead.
Let's be honest here: they did NOT do that out of concern with the customer, nor because they wanted to help poor people, nor because they thought they could do more charity that way. No. They came up with it, because they found those rights an annoyance to their profit and control they wanted to have.
Luckily, to no avail:
"In the case UsedSoft v Oracle, the European Court of Justice ruled that the sale of a software product, either through a physical support or download, constituted a transfer of ownership in EU law, thus the first sale doctrine applies; the ruling thereby breaks the "licensed, not sold" legal theory"
So... what does that means? It means that most of the arguments one has been giving here as to why our rights should not apply as it does with physical goods, are invalid. Consequently, that all the 'terms of services' that claim it isn't valid anymore, are null and void. And lastly, that one can very much doubt the rationale offered by companies as to why they think they have the right to do something which we're supposed to find acceptable, when it otherwise wouldn't be deemed proper or acceptable.
In practise, this means that Larian, nor any other company, can prohibit people in India from buying up keys or games, and than resell them to others at a cheap price - REGARDLESS of what they put in their terms of service.
It also means that the parts of the term of service of steam and GOG, where they explicitly forbid to 'resell' their games, is ALSO null and void. GOG directly says this: "Also, please keep in mind that reselling codes purchased on GOG is forbidden according to our User Agreement (3.3). "
That like you saying and argumenting it's forbidden because it's in your terms of service. Ermm...yes...well... it still doesn't mean we should comply with it.
GOG and steam may claim what they want, they can NOT, at least in Europe, forbid someone to re-sell their game, even if (as they do) explicitly forbid it in their user agreements.
I mean, I know and understand, from their viewpoint, that they would rather see it otherwise. But, again, what would that be of a any importance to our rights? Those conditions are simply NOT enforceable, whether they like that or not.
Clearly, there are legitimate reasons why people and courts *do not* agree, nor go along, with the viewpoints commercial companies (like Larian, EA, Ubisoft, etc.) have on it. So acting as if your viewpoint is 'obviously' right and supersedes those of others, is incorrect. Therefore, Larian, or others, can NOT prevent people from selling and buying it at cheap prices. Period. Whether you put it in your terms of service or not.
Similarly, I also argue they should not be allowed to restrict the normal use of a legally bought good by imposing artificial restrictions like regional codes.
Can you still claim one can't make a good and reasonable case for that? Seen the above court-decisions, I would rather claim it should follow the same practises as physical goods, too. And I can certainly make a good case that, seen the precedents, it should rather be 'obvious' that such restrictions should be removed. The first link already indicated you can do with a bought good as you see fit, and thus, if you see fit to use it normally, you have that right.
Now, don't take me wrongly: I like Larian. I wish them success. I'm not dishing them, and I know full well there are a lot of players that are bigger and far worse than Larian. This is not specifically directed against them, it just happens that the discussion takes place in this forum.
But the point remains that, whether you like it or not, you can't just curb the rights of consumers, just because you want to. And one shouldn't even want to 'get around' the laws, rules and just commonly accepted behaviour, just because one wants to augment profits.
