Max

As far as I can tell, the lawsuit alleges that steam threatened pulling their (wolfire games) steam sales if they sold elsewhere for cheaper. Which would be bad if true. However, this does not appear to be anywhere in steam’s actual seller agreement. The only clause in that agreement is about steam keys being sold for cheaper, which is why the other poster was focusing on that.

That allegation seems to be that steam in practice is threatening things that are outside of the contract itself.

Edit: I read the emails from the lawsuit discovery (page 160–) and it seems like most of them are about steam keys and their policy on that, which seems more reasonable. But there are definitely a few emails that explicitly go beyond that

“You can definitely participate in sales off- steam, and we don’t want to discourage or prevent that. But in terms of promo visibility, regardless of Steam keys, we do try to think really hard about customers and put ourselves in their shoes. If the game is discounted down to $15 on Steam, and then it goes into a bundle or subscription with ten other games for $6 a few days or weeks later…, that really sucks for the people who bought at the way higher price! Why did you market me a $15 price if the game is actually selling for more like $1 somewhere else? For instance, we’d probably want to avoid running a 50% discount on a game if it was going to be a free giveaway on another store a week later, even if the giveaway had nothing to do with Steam Keys.”

Which seems pretty straightforward. Some of the other emails also imply that they might choose not to sell the game at all on steam if you do that.

I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can’t really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.

I agree, but NY is already RCV, which opens the door to better options

I still don’t think this is correct for two reasons. 1: I believe the DMCA and friends count as copyright law. 2: just reading the text of the law (#17 U.S. Code § 106):

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

It seems pretty clear that only the copyright owner has the rights to make copies, subject to a number of exemption.

Now IANAL so I could be missing something pretty huge, but my understanding was that this right to make copies (especially physical ones for physical media) is at the core of copyright law. Not just the distribution of those copies (which is captured by right 3)

I don’t think this is true. While copying might fall under fair use if used for some purpose, you definitely can get in trouble for copying even without distributing those copies.

For example, you can’t rent a library book and then photocopy the whole thing for yourself