It is refreshingly simple. The game warns you that it is not to be discussed publicly and why. If you discuss it publicly, or write and publish an article about it (kek), you get banned from current and future participation. Open and shut.
The cat is out of the bag so there's no real reason for Valve to hold you under a legal threat. They're confident that news won't really hurt them, and participation would be desirable. So they invite you quietly, and allow you to invite your friends. And when you break the arrangement they just ban you.
I have to admire the elegance.
But what kind of nutcase are you to literally put the disclaimer of "Don't share any details about this game with anyone" that the game shows you on every launch IN YOUR ARTICLE, and then glibly assert "But I didn't press OK, I pressed Escape, ha HA!" You want to live in a society where nobody trusts anybody, and this is the attitude that makes it so.
"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
It is refreshingly simple. The game warns you that it is not to be discussed publicly and why. If you discuss it publicly, or write and publish an article about it (kek), you get banned from current and future participation. Open and shut.
The cat is out of the bag so there's no real reason for Valve to hold you under a legal threat. They're confident that news won't really hurt them, and participation would be desirable. So they invite you quietly, and allow you to invite your friends. And when you break the arrangement they just ban you.
I have to admire the elegance.
But what kind of nutcase are you to literally put the disclaimer of "Don't share any details about this game with anyone" that the game shows you on every launch IN YOUR ARTICLE, and then glibly assert "But I didn't press OK, I pressed Escape, ha HA!" You want to live in a society where nobody trusts anybody, and this is the attitude that makes it so.
That's some Kosher Oven logic.
Not really.
"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
That's sort of how contracts work in the first place. But you're also right about the ban.