Speaking of fallacy, you just took my words to the other extreme. Class action lawsuits HAVE been hurting Valve, and have been doing so even when they're not in the wrong. If you want to sue them as an individual, go ahead. If you don't want to deal with them, don't use their service. If you are angry because you have invested money into their company by buying games through them and feel that this one issue is too much to bear, I'm sorry you feel that way. I felt that way at first when I read the TOS changes. I was pissed about it for a week - I didn't accept the agreement and didn't play anything on Steam. Then I realized that I'd rather play my games than stay angry over this whole issue.
tl;dr: you still have plenty of remedies, just not the ability to bully them via class action suit. If they do something truly worthy of class action, then I suppose I'll have to eat my words. I'm comfortable with that.
Steam not being douches? And what about when they say "accept our new licence agreement, the one where you we decide that you can't sue us no matter what, our we take back all the games you bought from us and all your games you bought elsewhere and which use our DRM" ?
Not allowing me to buy any new game from them if I don't accept their new licence is faire. Stealing the game I already bought because I don't like the idea of being assrape by a company is not. Steam are not only douches, they are crooks.
While I agree in principle that "holding one's games hostage" was a bad thing, you should listen to Gabe Newell's reasoning behind the TOS change here (fast forward to about 8:15). If you read the TOS, it doesn't talk about not being able to sue them, it's about not being able to start a class action suit against them. As Gabe Newell (briefly) explains in the video, the class action suits they face start out very one-sided in favor of the suing attorney. It costs them a ton of money just to go through the motions for the court, no matter if they're completely in the right or not. That's not exactly fair, regardless of how much money anyone thinks Valve has. As it was put in the video, "it's a shakedown."
The same excuse we always get. If Bush were still in charge, the
I don't remember where I first heard it, and I'm pretty sure I'm not saying it correctly, but "Politicians are like litter boxes - they need frequent changing, and for the same reasons." Similar sentiment.
One approach that might work is to focus instead on newcomers - all the people with a band practicing in the garage or writing music in their bedroom. The vast majority of it will be utter crap, of course - but there is potentially a great deal of it, so all you need is a good recormendation and social networking engine that can filter out the good stuff from the rest, and ensure only the former ever makes the front page.
That's almost exactly what the original www.mp3.com was (circa 1998), and it was awesome. It was a very sad day when they were purchased / taken over / whatever and turned into a crap site.
Remember, you have a choice not to support private business intrusion, you don't have a choice not to support government intrusion.
Sure you have a choice whether you support government intrusion or not. The penalties might just be a bit harsher if you choose not to. But you always have a choice.
I find it hard to believe that there is a situation where being able to run 100m in less than 10 seconds is a survival skill.
It seems to me that running 100m in less than 10 seconds could be a great survival skill - akin to climbing the nearest tree in under 10 seconds - as we haven't always been at the top of the food chain.
I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato