Giving away Steam keys from Humble and playing the DRM-free copy - acceptable or not?

It’s free. There is no per-copy activation charge or bandwidth fee.

SteamWorks

There's nothing moral in denying yourself happiness. Morality is helping others become happier. Not playing a game you own doesn't help achieve that.

Let's see. When I buy a game from humble bundle (or any other site) and the game has a drm-free version and a Steam key, is it considered as one license, or two licenses? I see that OP and you are saying you only get one license for the game with different ways to access the content. I can't find any source that states that you only get one license. If that is the case humblebundle should remove the possibility to gift keys individually (the gift icon next to the Steam key)

Very likely HB won't mind at all. Not their business afterall...

Onus probandi

You're not arguing for buying another copy though. You're arguing for simply not using the copy you own. The developer gains money when you buy their game, but they don't lose money when you play it. If you weren't gonna buy 2 copies anyway, they couldn't care less if you play the version you have left or not --- or actually, they could care, and if so they'd prefer you to play it and give them a larger playerbase.

It's like if you buy a physical game (back in the day) and it came with Mac and Windows CDs. Can you give/sell/trade the Mac CD if you only own a Windows machine? I would say no-- you bought the game once, but can play it on multiple platforms.

Er. Yes, yes you can. In fact, that's what most of us did, AND the courts ruled it as legal, AND publishers kept that in mind, usually offering seperate versions of the two OSes, or even charging extra if both were included.

That was my very own example FOR it being two copies, rather than one, in fact..

But again, our simple disagreement is how many licenses you buy when you buy at HB. To me, it's logical that if you buy it once, then you own it once...but because HB is awesome, they let you play it on multiple platforms (where available) or DRM-free if you want to avoid Steam.
Preclusion. Any seller is required to make you make a decision on purchase if only a single purchase is intended. At the point that two purchases are provided, without one precluding the other, you in fact do obtain two copies.
Moreover, while the DRM-Free can be considered a 'personal backup copy', there are no limitations on the steam key.
In essence, you're given a personal physical copy of the game that you can trade, sell, etc; as well as a backup service allowing you to play the game even if you traded it, 'accidentally sold it', regretted selling it, et al.

The thing is, it's INCREDIBLY easy to limit people to a single copy, or to tie copies to one another [at least, up until the point that piracy is considered].

The fact that they don't limit people, and that legality states clearly that consumers have full rights over purchases [excluding explicit illegal usage, such as making duplicate copies] indicates that yes, you get two copies.

In fact, EVERYTHING indicates that, from how previous muli-platform games were treated, to how other sites treat it, to how Humble itself makes it clear DRM-Free can't be gifted, but Steam can be.

The problem here is that what you're assuming flies in the face of previous practices and legal freedoms currently in place. That doesn't mean the current system is RIGHT, or that you're WRONG, it's that you have no basis for arguing the point so long as you can't point to where the seller (Humble) or publishers or courts state something new on the matter, contrary to established practices.

You are, of course, still free to feel disdainful for others' interpretations, that's totally your prerogative. You should nevertheless still consider that people aren't necessarily doing things to exploit a system, but because of perceived legitimacy, as it is supported by all the existing foundations relevant to it.

Unlimited personal use of a game would seem to preclude sharing it with friends and family "as you please," or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. Can you let them use the game at your household? Of course. If you're at a friend's house, can you download the game and use it there? Of course-- though the game should be deleted when you leave. Is there more to it than that?

That's basically it, yeah. You're technically not supposed to install it on a friend's computer or share it outside of your household, but if you, say, install it on a laptop and let them borrow it, it amounts to much the same thing.

My point wasn't that you could freely give copies away [to the contrary] but that there's an understanding that people other than you may be playing the game [such as family members and friends who are visiting].
This is in line with traditional expectations on how games are used [or, really, how any commercial product is used- you may buy a leafblower, but you may not be the only one in the family using it, and you may loan it out to a neighbor (but you can't somehow make an exact duplicate of it to give to a neighbor permanently).

Humble DRM-Free technically works the same way, but also adds a steam key.

So, point being-
Imagine if you bought a non-DRM game (they do exist).
If you installed the game, could you then sell the physical installer?
One might argue yes, since you're selling the backup installer, and only retaining the installation. IE, the reverse of the keeping of DRM-Free and giving away Steam.

If you ignore temporal factors, whether you play that installation before selling the physical copy, or after, the actual end effects are the same.

Ergo, no matter what arguments you make, you can't claim the approach of holding on to it before affects the developers any differently than holding on to it after.

To me, it's logical that if you buy it once, then you own it once
But.. I bought it twice? I got DRM-Free for 1 cent, then bought keys for 99 cents or $1.
Humble makes it clear they're ADDING steam keys to your purchase [their phrasing], not 'unlocking' or 'converting' your purchase to allow for steam activation.
And, again, you're griping about holding on to a 1 cent purchase, even if you did buy it bundled in with a $1 one, rather than buying an additional copy of it [which, by the way, I tried, Humble wouldn't even let me, if I tried doing that after purchasing the steam key version first (though they would if I bought the 1 cent purchase first)]

You're attributing a whole lot of financial loss and woe to something the developers are giving away for 1 cent.

although even then, I think that perspective/policy is more pro-HB than pro-developer. And yes, the dev can always choose not to sell via Humble.

Agh, again:
Humble doesn't build the bundles, they only host them. So you can't blame humble for it, no matter what humble's policies are. If the developers decide to include DRM-free, or not, that's WHOLLY on them. Likewise if they decide to include complex mechanisms to prevent you from activating more than one copy- which Humble WOULD allow, by the way.
So again, don't blame this on humble, it's a conscious decision by the developers/publishers.

What is a fact, though, is that the only valid way to gift keys is by checking the box and purchasing the bundle/game as a gift. That way, they at least get the recipient's email address... ;-)

Well, that we'll agree on :)

I read it all and agreed with some points and didn't with others... sorry for a VERY late reply but I got a judicial inventory that took all my time past days. sometimes I'm very interested in US legal system because, the same time it is similar with brazilian one, it is different... for example, we don't have this fee settings that you mentioned... they (devs and sellers) just simply agree what how much they will receive as well as sellers and resellers.
I'll not extend much but we should not apply different rules for similar situations saying that one is ilegal or irregular (g2a) when others (ebay) is not. they can be forbidden or ilegal in some countries, but not in all of them. what I usualy see here is that most people call them ilegal or irregular or gray or whatever because they don't know how DRM works, they don't know how resell works and so on. they just spread unfounded non-sense off of any regulation or law ignoring that there's a LOT of other sites on internet that do the same situation that is largely used by its own country.

I'll make these my final words since I don't want to clutter up this thread too much. While I agree with you wholeheartedly, unfortunately you can sue for just about any reason if you find a lawyer willing to put their bar certification on the line. To be successful in that suit you'd have to prove damages, but unfortunately baseless lawsuits are at times used by wealthy plaintiffs solely to put defendants in a financial stranglehold by burying them in a long, drawn-out legal battle (and appealing if/when they lose) causing massive attorney fees for both parties which the aggressor willfully absorbs. The right to sell copyrighted work you purchase is known as the "First-sale doctrine". It was ruled in European court to apply to apply to software licenses, but to my knowledge the issue has never been brought forth to the supreme court in the United States.