Support NeoGAF

[NickFire]

I have zero sympathy for anyone buying a key from somewhere other than an official retailer. I don't fault anyone for trying to get a deal, but when you put your foot in grey areas and buy fraudulently obtained or stolen property the loss is on you and it's not fair to expect the company that invested its resources into making the game to essentially give you a free key when they have to refund the money they received.

Seriously, if you buy a car from a crackhead and a day later the cops show up and tell you it's stolen, you don't get to keep it. This is no different in my mind.

 

[Silent Chief]

It's kind of a grey area, there are a bunch of legitimate resellers like GMG, Gamersgate, Nuuvem, etc who have better deals than Steam most of the time.

Then there are sites masquerading as legitimate resellers.

I don't believe resellers are selling those keys at a loss.

A grey market is when someone import without authorization goods from a country where they are cheaper into a country where they are more expensive. That's the reason why Persona 4 Arena was region locked.

 

[iLLmAtlc]

Might work in the UK as I don't know the laws there. In the USA it wouldn't work. Stolen property is stolen. You can't sell something you don't own, and ownership cannot be transferred without the actual owner.

Not sure how right it is but the law draws a distinction between truly stolen goods (void) and voluntary transfers involving fraud (voidable).

most commonwealth jurisdictions based their sale of goods law from uk. The same rule exists in the USA under the Uniform Commercial Code:

(1) ... A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faithpurchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though

(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403

To me what the tc is describing is much more analogous to (b) dishonored check than stolen goods.

But there is still whether a purchaser is acting in good faith in tc's example. I'm leaning towards yes for reasons I outlined in my previous post, but I'm obviously selfish towards my own consumer interests.

 

[IvorB]

I would certainly think twice before entering into any sales contract with an outlet called "gamesdeals.com".

 

[The Red Wizard]

We need to put this on a banner at the top of the site TBH. I dont even use authorized resellers anymore. Not worth the damn headache and risk of this stuff happening. Buy for the normal price FROM the game company directly or go buy a physical version.

This nonsense with bad keys has become an epidemic.

The irony is that there have been banner ads for resellers, like G2A, at the top of the site.

 

[Duster]

The onus should not be on the customer to be aware of reselling sites. There are vast swathes of members of Gaf that aren't aware of it being legally gray at the best of times, how would you expect everyone outside of the immediate core of games coverage to make an informed decission on that matter either? Its not like mainstream media particularly picks up on it.

Yep if many here don't even know about the problem then the bigger companies should be doing more to raise awareness of the issue.
Maybe a big clear warning when you first sign-up to their service, not a paragraph buried deep within a long EULA. Actually use their PR people, emails, advertising, cosy relationships with the press and all the other resources for good.

The government too seeing as they're keen to block websites that host illegal content like football streams, admittedly with limited success.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Yep if many here don't even know about the problem then the bigger companies should be doing more to raise awareness of the issue.
Maybe a big clear warning when you first sign-up to their service, not a paragraph buried deep within a long EULA. Actually use their PR people, emails, advertising, cosy relationships with the press and all the other resources for good.

People randomly entering their payment details into obviously shady random websites are going to learn they shouldn't fucking do that the hard way sooner or later.

Better they lose access to a videogame than some of the possible alternatives.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Now I end up without my game and possibly without my money back, thanks Bethesda.

YEAH, AND THANKS OBAMA.

 

[Alo0oy]

Why is it that every time a thread like this pops up, people derail it by shitting on the "digital future"?

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Why is it that every time a thread like this pops up, people derail it by shitting on the "digital future"?

Where did that even happen? I'm sure I read the whole thing, but the only things of criticism was grey area keysellers and maybe the OPs ideas of "fair".

 

[Alo0oy]

Where did that even happen? I'm sure I read the whole thing, but the only things of criticism was grey area keysellers and maybe the OPs ideas of "fair".

It was on the first page.

 

[warheat]

Got my key from gamesdeal.com

Yes, that's your problem, not Bethesda. Maybe avoid buying from unauthorized seller next time.

 

[Arksy]

No, this is an illegal move by Bethesda. You are a BFPVWN. Anyone claiming that the EULA overrides this doesn't know much about equity.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Where did that even happen? I'm sure I read the whole thing, but the only things of criticism was grey area keysellers and maybe the OPs ideas of "fair".

I assume he was talking about this

The digital online future man! Remember you have no control so your best just to bend over and take it like a man lol

 

[binarymelon]

I don't see how going after the consumer is going to help things here. If the sellers reputation does get affected they will just launch the same service under another name.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

I assume he was talking about this

Huh. Completely missed that post o.o Alrighty then, sorry Alo0oy

 

[Arksy]

Yes, that's your problem, not Bethesda. Maybe avoid buying from unauthorized seller next time.

This is nonsense, you don't need authorisation from anyone to sell it.

 

[Lothars]

GMG already got into hot shit with CD Projekt over Witcher 3 over where they got the keys from, and then changed their price back up to the usual price in other stores which implied they might have been doing something shady actually by getting the keys illegitimately or then they would've gone whole hog on that case to show CD Projekt might have been price fixing. In fact, the keys seemed to have been invalid for quite a few.

Cdpr is at fault for that one and deserves to be blamed for that instance. Now the site the op used is at fault in this thread and the op shouldn't have used them.

 

[Chariot]

This is nonsense, you don't need authorisation from anyone to sell it.

Even if you stole it?

 

[Arksy]

Even if you stole it?

You fall foul of other laws such as dishonest dealing, but you never need authorisation to sell anything unless the law explicitly says so. (Hint: It doesn't matter what the EULA says, it can not circumvent privity of contract, nor can it be valid before it has been electronically signed, nor can it bind behaviour in a retrospective fashion).

The buyer didn't steal anything, nor had any notice that they were buying stolen goods. Everyone affected by this should start a class action (to stop this crap from happening over and over again, and to recoup their money) because it's a pretty clear breach of the law in my own eyes.

 

[CaptainGyro]

You fall foul of other laws such as dishonest dealing, but you never need authorisation to sell anything unless the law explicitly says so.

The buyer didn't steal anything, nor had any notice that they were buying stolen goods. Everyone affected by this should start a class action, because it's a pretty clear breach of the law in my own eyes.

a class action lawsuit against who? Bethesda? what law was broken?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

You fall foul of other laws such as dishonest dealing, but you never need authorisation to sell anything unless the law explicitly says so. (Hint: It doesn't matter what the EULA says, it can not circumvent privity of contract, nor can it be valid before it has been electronically signed, nor can it bind behaviour in a retrospective fashion).

The buyer didn't steal anything, nor had any notice that they were buying stolen goods. Everyone affected by this should start a class action, because it's a pretty clear breach of the law in my own eyes.

Strangely the law doesn't protect the culprits of credit card fraud or their enablers, it sides with the victim.

 

[Hektor]

You fall foul of other laws such as dishonest dealing, but you never need authorisation to sell anything unless the law explicitly says so. (Hint: It doesn't matter what the EULA says, it can not circumvent privity of contract, nor can it be valid before it has been electronically signed, nor can it bind behaviour in a retrospective fashion).

The buyer didn't steal anything, nor had any notice that they were buying stolen goods. Everyone affected by this should start a class action, because it's a pretty clear breach of the law in my own eyes.

The only one who broke the law was the shop selling stolen copys dude.
The only one you can sue here is the Shop. But that most likely will do nothing since the store is based in

22/F., Hang Seng Bank North Point Branch Building, 339 King's Road,
North Point, Hong Kong.

 

[Arksy]

a class action lawsuit against who? Bethesda? what law was broken?

The OP bought a key, and it worked. Bethesda then decided that their key wasn't valid and shut it off. The law (in reality: equity) treats his purchase as valid (because of BFP) and Bethesda decided that they were going to punish him for the illegal acts of the seller. There are about half a dozen laws broken here, including problems in equity with BFP, and restraint of trade laws.

You can't just remotely shut down someone's car because you don't like the dealer they bought it from, or that it was stolen and traded in without anyone's knowledge.

The only one who broke the law was the shop selling stolen copys dude.
The only one you can sue here is the Shop. But that most likely will do nothing since the store is based in

22/F., Hang Seng Bank North Point Branch Building, 339 King's Road,
North Point, Hong Kong.

Both Bethesda and the shop did. There is nothing the consumer can do against the shop because they sold them a valid key. It was Bethesda that decided after the fact that it wasn't valid. The shop that stole the keys is liable for criminal acts and that's a police matter, not much that the consumer can do except ask for a refund that might validly be refused (depending on jurisdiction of course)

 

[Arksy]

oops double.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

The OP bought a key, and it worked. Bethesda then decided that their key wasn't valid and shut it off. The law (in reality: equity) treats his purchase as valid (because of BFP) and Bethesda decided that they were going to punish him for the illegal acts of the seller. There are about half a dozen laws broken here, including problems in equity with BFP, and restraint of trade laws.

You can't just remotely shut down someone's car because you don't like the dealer they bought it from, or that it was stolen and traded in without anyone's knowledge.

You can confiscate and possibly charge someone for passing counterfeit bank notes even if they weren't the counterfeiter though.

EDIT:

Both Bethesda and the shop did. There is nothing the consumer can do against the shop because they sold them a valid key. It was Bethesda that decided after the fact that it wasn't valid. The shop that stole the keys is liable for criminal acts and that's a police matter, not much that the consumer can do except ask for a refund that might validly be refused (depending on jurisdiction of course)

You are not a lawyer, your legal advice is terrible, and you have at best a tangential understanding of credit card fraud.
the key was at no point "valid", it was from a stolen credit card, and when the lawful owner of the credit card disputed the charges it was revoked.

 

[Arksy]

You can confiscate and possibly charge someone for passing counterfeit bank notes even if they weren't the counterfeiter though.

That's criminal law, which is both enabled and validated through legislation. We're talking about contract law and equity here.

You are not a lawyer, your legal advice is terrible, and you have at best a tangential understanding of credit card fraud.
the key was at no point "valid", it was from a stolen credit card, and when the lawful owner of the credit card disputed the charges it was revoked.

I am, actually. Credit card fraud has nothing to do with this case. You're talking about a case that's not at all analogous that uses completely separate areas of law that have nothing to do with the present case.

 

[Koren]

My wife had her credit card number stolen before... we bought alcohol at a store, months later they were burglarized and some how those credit cards made it from NJ to Russia, and people started charging up digital goods to resale. All of this was told to us by the Police after they finished their investigation along with the credit card company.

To answer your question, YES. They absolutely reimbursed us for 100% of the money that was taken from the account, the overcharge fees and they might have even gave is extra money for the issues. Once credit card companies are notified, they generally go to work and do all the leg work to get their customers money back. Aka, refunds.

No, you misunderstood me.

I have no doubt that the one owning the card will be reinbursed fraudulents charges. There're insurances involved there, and law protect the card owners. In fact, the card issuers prefer reimbursing people to up the security on cards, because it's expensive, and more important, it could become less easy to use a card, which could drive customers away from credit cards.

It's even more stupid when you see that some websites ask for the card number, the card holder name, the 3 additional digits and the card date, and only check the number (paiements are accepted even if all other informations are false). Of course that legit customers are reimbursed.


What I meant is... the sellers that sold goods to someone with a stolen credit card are not the ones that reimbursed the customers. The credit card insurance do.


In this case, Bethesda/Valve may have pocketed the money from the fraudulent paiements, kept it, and still invalidate the keys. If that's the case, I find that a bit shady.

(but I think that most digital business is shady, so that doesn't come as a surprise)

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

That's criminal law, which is both enabled and validated through legislation. We're talking about contract law and equity here.

No contract law in any jurisprudence is enforced over actual criminal law.
Paying for a service using fraudulent means in no way shape or form leaves the provider of the service under any obligation - legal, moral or ethical - to continue providing a service.

Buyers of stolen or fraudulent goods are always going to lose those goods in the event the crime is discovered.

what you are suggesting is a safe harbor protection for those benefiting from criminal proceeds, and my credit card APRs are already fucking high enough thank you

In this case, Bethesda/Valve may have pocketed the money from the fraudulent paiements, kept it, and still invalidate the keys. If that's the case, I find that a bit shady.

In the event of a credit card chargeback;
- the money you took is taken away from you
- you are fined a penalty fine for having incurred a chargeback
- you are issued a credit card penalty notice for not taking enough measures to prevent against credit card fraud
- at a certain number of penalty notices, you incur a lump sum fine from credit card providers, which increases with the number of notices you have recived
- at a certain volume of chargebacks, a credit card company will decide it will no longer deal with you at all as a business

 

[Koren]

You can confiscate and possibly charge someone for passing counterfeit bank notes even if they weren't the counterfeiter though.

But the keys are not counterfeit, if I'm not mistaken... At most, they were "region-locked" and used in the wrong region.

Can you confiscate goods that were bought to someone that bought them with counterfeit money?

 

[Walshicus]

months later they were burglarized

Burgled, surely.

 

[Arksy]

No contract law in any jurisprudence is enforced over actual criminal law.
Paying for a service using fraudulent means in no way shape or form leaves the provider of the service under any obligation - legal, moral or ethical - to continue providing a service.

Sigh, it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, so it's pointless to argue. Criminal law and civil law are not mutually exclusive. Falling foul of a criminal offense does not mean anything in regard to whether someone can exercise a right against you in civil law.

 

[akachan ningen]

I told you not to buy stuff from gamedeals.com

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

But the keys are not counterfeit, if I'm not mistaken... At most, they were "region-locked" and used in the wrong region.

Can you confiscate goods that were bought to someone that bought them with counterfeit money?

Credit card fraud is akin to passing counterfeit money.
Both are fraudulently obtaining goods and services.

Sigh, it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, so it's pointless to argue. Criminal law and civil law are not mutually exclusive. Falling foul of a criminal offense does not mean anything in regard to whether someone can exercise a right against you in civil law.

What right does someone buying stolen goods have to keep those goods?

 

[lifeexpectancy]

If you're going to pay full price ($40 in this instance) why bother going to some other site anyway? Shoulda just bought it direct from Steam, or at least a REPUTABLE 3rd party sight (aka direct from Amazon, not from a seller that uses Amazon, or from a retail outlet).

 

[KDR_11k]

Regarding "why doesn't Bethesda take it up with the reseller instead?", all Bethesda sees is that a key was bought using a stolen credit card and the OP activated said key. They don't know what path the key took in the meantime, they don't even know that the OP isn't the one who stole the CC in the first place but they're giving him the benefit of the doubt. They don't know which resellers, if any, were involved. Only the person who entered the code knows that.

 

[Arksy]

what you are suggesting is a safe harbor protection for those benefiting from criminal proceeds, and my credit card APRs are already fucking high enough thank you

Correct, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. That's how BFPVWN works.

Person A steals car from person B.

Person A sells car to person C. Let's assume Person C has no way of knowing that the car is stolen.

Person B finds out what has happened and sues person C when he finds out to get it back, court says NOPE. Because of BFPVWN.

Person C keeps the car.

 

[Koren]

Buyers of stolen or fraudulent goods are always going to lose those goods in the event the crime is discovered.

Not convinced about this in this case... Consider this:

Mr X steals money.

Mr X buys a house with the money from Mr Y (thus Mr Y receives stolen money for the house).

Mr Z legally buys the house with legal money to Mr X.


Police find that Mr X has stolen money. They'll try to make him reimburse the money, which is perfectly fine. Mr Y received money that has been stolen, and, I guess, could have problems.

But do you imply that Mr Z should have its house confiscated?


In this case, the ones that got stolen money are the keys sellers...

 

[Arksy]

Not convinced about this in this case... Consider this:

Mr X steals money.

Mr X buys a house with the money from Mr Y (thus Mr Y receives stolen money for the house).

Mr Z legally buys the house with legal money to Mr X.


Police find that Mr X has stolen money. They'll try to make him reimburse the money, which is perfectly fine. Mr Y received money that has been stolen, and, I guess, could have problems.

But do you imply that Mr Z should have its house confiscated?


In this case, the ones that got stolen money are the keys sellers...

For the same reason as my example, Mr Z keeps his house.

 

[CaptainGyro]

The OP bought a key, and it worked. Bethesda then decided that their key wasn't valid and shut it off. The law (in reality: equity) treats his purchase as valid (because of BFP) and Bethesda decided that they were going to punish him for the illegal acts of the seller. There are about half a dozen laws broken here, including problems in equity with BFP, and restraint of trade laws.

I'm not a lawyer but the things I am seeing about bona fide purchaser says stuff like "BFP is unaware of any fact which would cause a reasonable person to doubt on the right of the seller to have sold it in good faith.".
Didn't the Op already say he suspected there was something shady about the site before he bought from them?

 

[Hektor]

Regarding "why doesn't Bethesda take it up with the reseller instead?", all Bethesda sees is that a key was bought using a stolen credit card and the OP activated said key. They don't know what path the key took in the meantime, they don't even know that the OP isn't the one who stole the CC in the first place but they're giving him the benefit of the doubt. They don't know which resellers, if any, were involved. Only the person who entered the code knows that.

Exactly.

Correct, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. That's how BFPVWN works.

Person A steals car from person B.

Person A sells car to person C. Let's assume Person C has no way of knowing that the car is stolen.

Person B finds out what has happened and sues person C when he finds out to get it back, court says NOPE. Because of BFPVWN.

Person C keeps the car.

You dont know how much i know about American law (Im not an expert), but what you're saying sounds honestly like horseshite to me.

If someone steals my pc and sells that to someone else, the rights of this someone else who maybe even knew the goods were stolen are above mine? If thats how it works than thats is bullshit.
Maybe you're right, i got no idea, but i cant believe that.

 

[Arksy]

I'm not a lawyer but the things I am seeing about bona fide purchaser says stuff like "BFP is unaware of any fact which would cause a reasonable person to doubt on the right of the seller to have sold it in good faith.".
Didn't the Op already say he suspected there was something shady about the site before he bought from them?

That may, depending, put any BFP claim in jeopardy....this is where it kind of gets a bit fuzzy and each different jurisdiction has different case law regarding what is notice, but the bare bones of BFP exist in every jurisdiction that has/had a Court of Chancery.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

He didn't buy a house or a car in good faith, he bought access to a service from a site he knew was shady.

You don't give a junkie on the street cash for a credit card in a name that clearly isn't his - for example in the name of a different gender - then pay up front on that card for a years stay in a 5* hotel, then expect the hotel not to kick you the fuck out when that credit card bounces.

 

[Alucrid]

Not convinced about this in this case... Consider this:

Mr X steals money.

Mr X buys a house with the money from Mr Y (thus Mr Y receives stolen money for the house).

Mr Z legally buys the house with legal money to Mr X.


Police find that Mr X has stolen money. They'll try to make him reimburse the money, which is perfectly fine. Mr Y received money that has been stolen, and, I guess, could have problems.

But do you imply that Mr Z should have its house confiscated?


In this case, the ones that got stolen money are the keys sellers...

They're not making money if the credit card company disputes the transaction and does a charge back.

 

[Koren]

Regarding "why doesn't Bethesda take it up with the reseller instead?", all Bethesda sees is that a key was bought using a stolen credit card and the OP activated said key.

You say they sell keys in bulk* without any way to know who bought them?

At best, it's really, really careless...

If someone buy a lot of keys, they must probably expect them to be a retailer, so they could refuse to sell the keys without knowing a bit more from the buyer than an email address... Especially when they have something like a list of "authorized resellers".


(* assuming that's the case here... but at least, it happened)

 

[Big_Al]

That may, depending, put any BFP claim in jeopardy....this is where it kind of gets a bit fuzzy and each different jurisdiction has different case law regarding what is notice, but the bare bones of BFP exist in every jurisdiction that has/had a Court of Chancery.

He did aye earlier in the thread.

 

[Arksy]

You dont know how much i know about American law (Im not an expert), but what you're saying sounds honestly like horseshite to me.

If someone steals my pc and sells that to someone else, the rights of this someone else who maybe even knew the goods were stolen are above mine? If thats how it works than thats is bullshit.
Maybe you're right, i got no idea, but i cant believe that.

LOL.

No. The full doctrine is called Bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Each jurisdiction treats those elements slightly differently but if he knew, or had notice, then it wouldn't work. He basically has to have no idea and be reasonably thinking that it was a legit sale.

If your PC gets stolen, you have every right to go after the person who stole it and claim compensation, it just doesn't allow you to get it back from someone he's sold it too that's completely innocent.

 

[Koren]

They're not making money if the credit card company disputes the transaction and does a charge back.

"IF"

Because if they retrieved all the informations correctly and followed the regulation, it's the financial institution that may bear the liability for the fraud, not the seller that can keep the money.

The fact that the credit card company disputes the transaction doesn't mean that the chargeback will occur. There's insurances for this.

I'd like to know who paid here...

 

[warheat]

This is nonsense, you don't need authorisation from anyone to sell it.

Zenimax Employee comment on reddit :

We want to remind gamers to shop wisely and only purchase online keys from a reputable source. Fraudulently obtained keys obtained via Steam and then re-sold via third-party websites is a violation of both our and Steam’s Terms of Service. We will be deactivating all game accounts created with such stolen keys starting on Tuesday, May 26th. Affected users will receive an email with instructions on how to regain access to their game account via a valid game purchase.

source

I don't know how the customer protection works in your country and I don't know much about the law but if you're going to pursue something like this in where I live, the lawyer is going to tell you "LOL no".

 

[GoonerTRON]

If you clicked a box that said "I agree to terms and conditions" then yes they can.