Read the actual statute. Also, note that the copyright office has not, as of today, made such an exception.

I'll have to test that someday. I have my doubts that it'll work... but who knows, I could well be wrong. I'd kind of like to be :)

I can foresee the network being bought by someone with short-term revenue farming in mind... who decides that Steam accounts shouldn't be free and starts charging a monthly fee using access to your games as leverage.

Yeah, there'd be a class action, but given an appropriate corporate structure (and bonuses/options to the leadership), I'd imagine that the ones driving the decision would come out far ahead even if thier "restructured company" came out far behind due to the resolution of the lawsuit.

My point is that while yes, there are scenarios where things stay good for the consumer, there are scenarios where things go bad for reasons outside of the consumers control.

With my old games, it's up to me if they still work or not. If I still have the installation media (and maybe the manual), I'm good. If I lost them, I'm hosed.

If the 3rd party escrow goes under, then Valve gets another. It's not a single point of failure; currently Valve is.

As for simultaniously playing one game on two machines... I have no sympathy with you being upset about not being able to do so. If you want to play with your kids, buy them thier own copy.

And that's just as illegal as pirating them in the first place...

I'd agree with you about offline mode if it served as a way to install. Most of my points would be moot. However it doesn't.

And when you get a new computer next year and Valve is no longer around?

mmm... good luck with that.

You're backing up the reason for my post... :)

What you're saying that you're willing to take them at thier word and believe that you are thus purchasing a product (albiet one where doctrine of first-sale does not apply...)

You're also saying that my position is equally as valid. That you can choose to distrust the fulfillment of thier promise, and not purchase based upon that distrust.

What the poster that I was replying to was saying is that I and the OP should be willing to buy the product because of an unsubstantiated promise, and that our position is one without merit.

You're saying something quite different :)

And to elaborate on my position, I feel that the people who made the promise have every intention of keeping it. However, what if the company is sold? What if it goes to bankruptcy and the creditors (and judge) rule that developing and/or releasing such a patch is a misuse of funds and not allowable? There's a lot of situations where such a patch is never released regardless of intentions. I'd like a guarantee. (such as a patch that's maintained in escrow)

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf

"Instead, CEG works in tandem with Steam authentication, enabling content access based on user accounts"

In other words, it still requires the server to be there.

And when Steam places an access-control removal patch under 3rd party escrow to be released upon loss of the servers due to whatever reason, or to be released upon a significant change in terms of access (such as going to a pay-per-month for Steam access scheme), then I would believe them.

Until then?

It's simply feel-good words with nothing to back them.

Since we started talking about the finland test?

It is a serious test that ensures you know how to control your car. As already mentioned, it includes all sorts of stuff that you'd only find in a performance driving school in the states. Ability to recover from spins, saloms on water covered asphalt, etc, etc... I fully agree with thier philosophy; a car is a dangerous weapon, and you should damn well know how to control it before you're allowed on public roads.

"carefully-controlled conditions will not fully prepare anybody for the stress of a likely imminent crash."

Why not?

When you're at the limits of your traction, you can *easily* spin a front wheel drive car by simply letting off the gas. It doesn't matter if you're out in traffic or practicing in a parking lot, if it happens, you're going to have that panicky butterfly feeling. In the latter case though, you don't risk killing anyone, and you get to learn what to do, and more importantly, make it your instinctual reaction.

Or are you going to fall back on your word "fully"? Personally I'd much rather drivers be much better prepared than not prepared at all. But hey, if they aren't "fully" prepared, it isn't worth anything, right?

Indeed.

Except for me it isn't concern of something "going wrong". It's a concern of an unscrupulous distributor disabling older games to push sales of thier newer ones. It's a concern of companies going bankrupt or getting bought out or or or... there's a lot of reasons why the distribution/activation servers can go away.

With games that I own a physical copy of (and that don't have nasty DRM requiring online activation), well, so-long as I can scroung appropriate hardware and an OS, I can play it. I still play MOO1 and MOO2... and those are quite old now with the publisher long gone.

Basically, with most forms of digital distribution out there you're not buying. You're renting for an unknown period of time.

I am not aware of a law that DISALLOWS it.

Do you require a law telling you that it's ok to take a piss? No. You have laws saying where and how you can't. Such as no pissing in the middle of a public resturant.

Considering that we've been able to artificially make sapphires for over 100 years now... and that things like the glass on your grocery-store's barcode scanner is probably made from sapphire glass (a thin wafer of cut sapphire)...

Well, I'm thinking that it's not that large of a problem.