Ok so Valve removes all assets it has in France - closes all offices, removes all servers, - end result - ZERO presence in France.
Again - lets say that Valve has absolutely no presence in France.
What happen when anybody in France goes and buys anything from Valve going to a US site? Hmm?
What France is going to ban access to Valve?
Ok so lets say they do that.
So French players decide to use proxies and they still buy stuff from Valve's US site?
Then what?
Frence is going to enforce the law because a French citizen bought something from a company that has zero presence in France?
Really?
Lets say Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain.... all of them come up with a different law for Valve, and every country in the world comes up with a different law for Valve - so Valve is going to change it's policy for every country in the world eventhough Valve *HAS NO PRESENCE IN THOSE COUNTRIES* - just because the citizens of those countries decide to go to a US site and buy games from a US company that has no presence outside US?
This is exactly how law works? Really?
DMKano as much as I respect your opinion on MMO related things, I think you may have this one wrong. Consumer law in France protects French consumers. Consumer law in Australia protects Australian consumers. So on. If you are selling directly to those consumers, you can expect those countries to try and hold you accountable under their laws. If you refuse to sell directly to those consumers, and they trick you into believing they are in some other country, that is their problem - but it does not apply here. Valve has their IPs and credit cards, they sell region locked games, they are aware they are directly selling to people in France
/snip
The key part in all of that is they will try and hold you accountable. As DMKano has said if valve had no footprint, so no offices, servers, etc. then they are shit out of luck. They can try to tell them we are fining you 1 million dollars and valve could just laugh at them because they have no way of actually enforcing it.
Opening a wasp nest here. Special concessions could be made for one specific territory, though not without cause and effect. It was some time ago that Valve said the reason they have such amazing 75% off deals is because there is no resale market and developers still make significant profit out of offering such once their initial sales have dried up.
Would people who fall under this law -- or areas that enforce it -- be willing to give up these sales for the ability to sell their games at 25% of what they bought it for? It will no longer be a buyer's market, as there will be limited sources to buy used copies at and supply and demand for the used copies will drive those prices up.
This will essentially be making a decision for people (without asking them) to give up one right for a law that has had little relevance due to the special treatment the digital market has been getting as a result. Not to mention the ability to refund your game being granted. In truth, this isn't what I'd call pro-consumerism; giving one the option to mark their account as a reseller account or a discount account would be. But this in it's current state is just a disaster waiting to happen and a selfish desire of some to both have their cake and eat it too (likely expecting 75% off just to flip flop it later on for potential profit).
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
So say Valve knows its gonna lose the case. Whats to stop them from banning all french accounts before the case is settled and changing all its regulations stating they no longer deal with accounts in france?
You can't just withdraw from France they would need to withdraw from the
entire EU to avoid these laws which means about a half billion less
potential customers and on top of that they route a large amount of the
money they make through Luxembourg for tax reasons so they'll owe a
fortune in taxes should they attempt to move.
Oops, Valve put a
big footprint in the EU to avoid paying US taxes and now it's stuck
having to abide by EU consumer protection laws. I feel sooooo very bad
for Valve...
If their only presence in the EU is via Luxembourg, then you can be sure that the powers that be in Luxembourg will ensure that it is not detrimental to the various companies that 'reside' there, if all the various multinationals etc withdrew their presence from there, then the country would probably bankrupt overnight. So accomodations will be made that favour them as much as possible, the thing to bear in mind is that Valve isn't actually selling things directly to anyone in france, instead they act as the middle men in a transaction between the developer, and the consumer, and take a cut of the proceeds in the process, all Valve/Steam are effectively doing, are providing a download and archive service for people who have bought a game from a developer through their service. It may well be possible that Valve/Steam could claim that they are only abiding by the games developers by not providing a service that allows consumers to carry out a further transaction with other undisclosed parties, What the french group may find themselves having to do, is to sue the developers either individually, or en mass, for the right to resell the games that consumers have purchased from them, via the Steam service. The possibility that the french consumer group will have to sue CIG for the right to resell their digital purchases of ships etc. is absolutely hillarious. The whole thing is an utter farce imo.
Yep, just like the Irish economy would collapse if all the businesses there couldn't use it to avoid taxes anymore. I doubt they're going to give up saving a fortune on taxes to avoid complying with EU regulation.
While yes Luxembourg would like to make things as attractive as possible to multinationals I'm assuming they can't just opt out of EU regulations or everyone would be opting out of some of the more ridiculous stuff like how curvy a banana needs to be in order to sell it.
In regards to CIG from what I've heard there is a fairly booming grey market for ships already and that CIG has no interest in blocking it.
Valve isn't actually selling things directly to anyone in france, instead they act as the middle men in a transaction between the developer, and the consumer, and take a cut of the proceeds in the process,
Fundamental error worthy of correction.
In all countries that have even basic consumer laws the retailer selling you the product - a car, a shirt, a game, whatever - has a contract with you the consumer. You also have an implied secondary contract with the retailer. Buy something that does not work you take it up with the retailer - and they have to deal with your problem. Under your interpretation - well I hope you never buy anything that doesn't work. (Sorry sir we - Amazon, Wal-Mart, whoever - are only the middleman, you need to take it up with the factory half way around the world.)
The fine points (and quirks) of this are as follows:
Steam (and the account used to access it) is a subscription service. There is no right for resale or transfer. The games that are purchased via Steam are owned by the user, and can be transferred.
The issue is that when the account is closed, access to the games is also lost. This results in a situation where the customer is denied access to their own goods. This is the issue that is in violation of the law for the EU.
I'm fairly certain that closed accounts in Steam only mean blocked access to the Steam store, not blocked access to previously purchased content. Is that not the case?
The only thing lost is access to a Steam wallet that has funds in it. So if you had $50 in your Steam wallet and your account was banned you would lose that $50 with no refund. You would still be able to access and play games that you have previously purchased.
No, if they close your account, you can no longer log in and lose access to all your games.
Basics. As others have said in years past if you bought a game on disc or floppy etc. (lets say non-online) you would expect to be able to re-sell it to e.g. Gamestop.
Even more fundamental - since software has been defined as a product - if you bought a car you would expect to be able to sell it to someone else? (Note laws also offer protection to products).
As Phry says all that Steam are doing is selling on the game - only the method of delivery has changed. So why should they be able to impose such conditions?
Valve isn't actually selling things directly to anyone in france, instead they act as the middle men in a transaction between the developer, and the consumer, and take a cut of the proceeds in the process,
Fundamental error worthy of correction.
In all countries that have even basic consumer laws the retailer selling you the product - a car, a shirt, a game, whatever - has a contract with you the consumer. You also have an implied secondary contract with the retailer. Buy something that does not work you take it up with the retailer - and they have to deal with your problem. Under your interpretation - well I hope you never buy anything that doesn't work. (Sorry sir we - Amazon, Wal-Mart, whoever - are only the middleman, you need to take it up with the factory half way around the world.)
It actually happens this way in stores now. lots of items you cannot take back to wallmart or amazon. you have to take it to the people who made it. its in a lot of warranties now. if the product doesnt work, do not take it back to the retailer, you have to take it back to CompanyB.
All i know is that if Steam loses a whole can of worms will be opened. things are going to get canceled, prices are going up, and a bunch of other things.
EDIT: 50% chance i dont know what im talking about
So any country can change the law to whatever they want and then online companies have to comply to 100 different laws in 100 different countries.
Yeah I don't think so.
Seriously, I am not sure why you are making these comments when you clearly no clue how law works.
What you described is EXACTLY how the real world works. Why should valve be able not to comply with those laws but other companies have to? Is valve are somehow special? Trust me if valve got banned from a large market like France, there will be others who will happily fill in their shoes.
/facepalm
Ok so Valve removes all assets it has in France - closes all offices, removes all servers, - end result - ZERO presence in France.
Again - lets say that Valve has absolutely no presence in France.
What happen when anybody in France goes and buys anything from Valve going to a US site? Hmm?
What France is going to ban access to Valve?
Ok so lets say they do that.
So French players decide to use proxies and they still buy stuff from Valve's US site?
Then what?
Frence is going to enforce the law because a French citizen bought something from a company that has zero presence in France?
Really?
Lets say Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain.... all of them come up with a different law for Valve, and every country in the world comes up with a different law for Valve - so Valve is going to change it's policy for every country in the world eventhough Valve *HAS NO PRESENCE IN THOSE COUNTRIES* - just because the citizens of those countries decide to go to a US site and buy games from a US company that has no presence outside US?
This is exactly how law works? Really?
DMKano as much as I respect your opinion on MMO related things, I think you may have this one wrong. Consumer law in France protects French consumers. Consumer law in Australia protects Australian consumers. So on. If you are selling directly to those consumers, you can expect those countries to try and hold you accountable under their laws. If you refuse to sell directly to those consumers, and they trick you into believing they are in some other country, that is their problem - but it does not apply here. Valve has their IPs and credit cards, they sell region locked games, they are aware they are directly selling to people in France
As I referenced before, right now Facebook is getting sued around the world because of their data retention policies. They are losing those fights as well. This is the same thing. A user clicking "I Agree" does not trump their countries laws, and if a country catches you trying to violate their laws, they may attempt to get some kind of financial retribution. Whether or not they are successful depends on several other things, but they can attempt to.
The Facebook case is interesting here. They were successfully sued in Belgium for tracking non-users. Their response was to make all Belgians log in with an account to view Facebook.
Valve will either need to abandon their attempt at a blanket terms and conditions for every country, or give us all the rights that French citizens have.
A French person in France might reasonably expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he travels to the United States? Would he still expect French laws to apply to the Americans he deals with in the United States? I'd hope not. While in the United States, he'd be protected by American laws, but French laws would not apply to the Americans he meets.
A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site. Can he still expect to be protected by French laws even there? Would he expect to be protected by American laws? Both sets of laws? What happens if American laws and French laws contradict each other so that it's impossible for a company to simultaneously comply with both?
What if he sues the American web site in a French court and the court delivers a verdict ordering the American site to pay him a bunch of Euros? Can a French court order an American company with no contact with France to pay? Some of the things they could do to try to collect payment would basically constitute the government of France picking a fight with the US government--the sort of thing that countries have fought wars over.
Extradition treaties typically have a dual illegality requirement. In other words, country A will only extradite someone to country B for crimes committed in country B if those actions would also have been illegal in country A. But would you really expect the US government to punish American companies for complying with American laws but not French laws while in the United States? And how would a French court expect to enforce a judgment against an American company while the US government fights against the ruling as having no jurisdiction here?
Now, if Valve is present in France, that changes everything dramatically. If they have offices in France or employees in France or what not, then they're in France and whatever they do there has to comply with French laws. But if that's the hook for the lawsuit and they lose badly enough, then perhaps they ought to get out of France.
Quizzical said: A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site.
He hasn't left France. He resides within the EU single digital market, and he is granted privacy rights and consumer rights within that market.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
Well with all the (EULA / TOS nonsense) you really can't blame that people commit piracy on (Software) because if no one actually owns a copy then what is the point in even buying whatever the software or game is, the exception is content that can't be pirated.
I think the U.S should adapt Laws which allow people to actually (OWN) their copy of the software and be able to sell it possibly including (Game Accounts) (Legally) although that would somewhat fall under a different topic because the actual data isn't on the users PC but it would be nice being able to legally sell other copies of software which a person buys and no longer needs.
Perhaps Legally there isn't really anything that ca be done across countrties, however Legally (ISP's) can be "Required" to display a warning about services with redirect links, or block access to "Steam" from that specified country all together, obviously there are ways around such blocks like proxies, but the point is to inform legit customers who buy digital products know French Laws will not be enforced, and they do not own the software.
If someone in EU goes to a foreign website where the servers, logins, payment processing are all located outside of EU - EU customers are coming to their website to buy stuff.
EU laws cannot apply.
In this case the company is NOT on EU to do business, it's just that their website is online and anyone in the world can get to it and buy stuff.
If the person's money is in the country they reside there will be a trail - otherwise Steam gets no money
As I said in an earlier post there is the issue of "off-shore banking" - a topic of much international debate - but most payments will originate from the country of residence.
Now to what extent a country can enforce its laws - different issue. The bigger the country the bigger the stick in simple terms.
Quizzical said: A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site.
He hasn't left France. He resides within the EU single digital market, and he is granted privacy rights and consumer rights within that market.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
Except that he's now accessing an American web site in the United States that never asked to have anything to do with France. The logical consequence of that claim is that all rules by all governments apply universally to the entire Internet--and that would kill the Internet entirely. If that's not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
Valve isn't actually selling things directly to anyone in france, instead they act as the middle men in a transaction between the developer, and the consumer, and take a cut of the proceeds in the process,
Fundamental error worthy of correction.
In all countries that have even basic consumer laws the retailer selling you the product - a car, a shirt, a game, whatever - has a contract with you the consumer. You also have an implied secondary contract with the retailer. Buy something that does not work you take it up with the retailer - and they have to deal with your problem. Under your interpretation - well I hope you never buy anything that doesn't work. (Sorry sir we - Amazon, Wal-Mart, whoever - are only the middleman, you need to take it up with the factory half way around the world.)
It actually happens this way in stores now. lots of items you cannot take back to wallmart or amazon. you have to take it to the people who made it. its in a lot of warranties now. if the product doesnt work, do not take it back to the retailer, you have to take it back to CompanyB.
There is the recent case of the Arkham Knight debacle on Steam, where so many people were asking for a refund, that it is reputed that WB were actually losing money, because Steam were taking a cut from the initial sales as normal, but WB were the ones who had to pay the full refund, Steam and the Consumer win... WB.. not so much, now, i have not much sympathy for WB because the game was released in a terrible state, and its not really been fixed to any great degree, which is why WB have offered refunds until i think, January, for those who bought the game on PC, but its just an example of why Steam is just the middle man in the transactions that took place through Steam. Steam refunds was a major achievement, and actually benefits the consumer, for Steam to enable the consumer to become themselves a 'retailer' would probably breach the TOS of the various Publishers/Developers that sell their games through Steam, i am pretty sure WB would take a huge interest if such a thing were to come to pass, they might even decide not to release their games through Steam in the future because of it, assuming they didn't sue Valve for allowing it to happen that is.
Perhaps Legally there isn't really anything that ca be done across countrties, however Legally (ISP's) can be "Required" to display a warning about services with redirect links, or block access to "Steam" from that specified country all together, obviously there are ways around such blocks like proxies, but the point is to inform legit customers who buy digital products know French Laws will not be enforced, and they do not own the software.
Countries can go that route. The Great Firewall of China tries to block all sorts of foreign sites. Do you really want to go that route, though, with the government of your country empowered to censor what you are and are not allowed to look up on the Internet?
Perhaps Legally there isn't really anything that ca be done across countrties, however Legally (ISP's) can be "Required" to display a warning about services with redirect links, or block access to "Steam" from that specified country all together, obviously there are ways around such blocks like proxies, but the point is to inform legit customers who buy digital products know French Laws will not be enforced, and they do not own the software.
Countries can go that route. The Great Firewall of China tries to block all sorts of foreign sites. Do you really want to go that route, though, with the government of your country empowered to censor what you are and are not allowed to look up on the Internet?
Quizzical said: A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site.
He hasn't left France. He resides within the EU single digital market, and he is granted privacy rights and consumer rights within that market.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
Except that he's now accessing an American web site in the United States that never asked to have anything to do with France. The logical consequence of that claim is that all rules by all governments apply universally to the entire Internet--and that would kill the Internet entirely. If that's not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
Well, there are American sites that sell to US consumers, and those sites don't need to worry about the EU single digital market, or EU consumer rights, because they don't sell to Europeans.
But if your site sells to Europeans, you are now entering the EU marketplace, and you are required to follow EU and local laws if you want to do business there and sell thing.
Perhaps Legally there isn't really anything that ca be done across countrties, however Legally (ISP's) can be "Required" to display a warning about services with redirect links, or block access to "Steam" from that specified country all together, obviously there are ways around such blocks like proxies, but the point is to inform legit customers who buy digital products know French Laws will not be enforced, and they do not own the software.
Countries can go that route. The Great Firewall of China tries to block all sorts of foreign sites. Do you really want to go that route, though, with the government of your country empowered to censor what you are and are not allowed to look up on the Internet?
Its not much different to the status of who owns the OS your computer is using, particularly if you have a copy of Windows, no matter the version, as you don't own it, its not yours, instead you have a 'licence' to use that software, and yes that licence can be revoked should you breach the terms of its useage and theres not much that can be done except purchase another licence should you somehow manage to find yourself in that predicament. i would like to see this french consumer group butt heads with Microsoft however.
Well with all the (EULA / TOS nonsense) you really can't blame that people commit piracy on (Software) because if no one actually owns a copy then what is the point in even buying whatever the software or game is, the exception is content that can't be pirated.
I think the U.S should adapt Laws which allow people to actually (OWN) their copy of the software and be able to sell it possibly including (Game Accounts) (Legally) although that would somewhat fall under a different topic because the actual data isn't on the users PC but it would be nice being able to legally sell other copies of software which a person buys and no longer needs.
What do you think the consequences will be if revenues are dramatically reduced or cut in half because people can share games? Much like a pre-release game the idea sounds great on paper, but it rarely ever pans out like it was planned. Big companies will find other ways to get their revenue and small companies (indie devs) will not be able to compete.
People can already share games (Single Player Games) like (Dragon Age) even with DRM there are sites (not disclosed) due to forum rules where you can pirate the game for free fully working, and personally I own a hard copy of the original Dragon Age game for example ( I Should legally be allowed to give it away to a friend) if I want to or sell it.
When you walk into your local Game Stop for example (You are not told the Agreement) before you buy a product like the PS3 Jail Breaking and George Hotz where Sony Sued him you are lead to believe the product you are buying you own that physical copy, the exception to this is online games where (Registering an Account) is required, such as (World OF Warcraft) and Data is actually kept on Blizzards servers, the exception is DRM games which are easily cracked and shared anyways.
Honestly I don't feel bad for (Game Developers, Music Artists, or Movies) Because I feel the whole war on Piracy is just a bit too much too much enforcement, and I would personally as a consumer rather pay $30 for a few proxies per month to steam movies, and do whatever else I please than deal with the nonsense of EULA /TOS, not to say I just pirate my games I have over 200 Legally owned games on steam, I just do not legally feel like if I want to trade off my games to a friend that I no longer want that I should not be able to do such legally as a consumer, and on top of this the Movie Industry as an example telling people who own a public pub for example that they are not allowed to order a (PPV Title) and let everyone watch it because its (illegal) I call this out because I feel its too much legally that means that if I myself order a PPV Title, and let my family or kids watch it I am breaking their rules or law too, my point is legally the pub owner obviously pays for cable service and wants to order a movie, or event should be legal.
Indie Companies, I don't think would be a problem with creating games, for example on steam if the main concern is a bunch of people would just share and play the game then share it among friends and keep going the best solution would be to put Transfer Restrictions on the games of maybe 3-6 months once last played to prevent this, its not like these games can't be pirated anyways, but honestly if I like a Indie Game I just buy it because often they don't really cost this much anyways.
For example in Real Life I still own a lot of Physical Copies of games which go way back, and do not have any type of DRM on them talking about early 2004's and before I would love to see a lot more games like this and to ask how many copies of games I have actually given away without DRM to friends a few, and a lot of Extra Copies of old games I managed to pick up for almost nothing at the local Game Stops years ago.
A perfect example though of games I personally hate and dislike (Dragon Age 2) and above, (Bioware) (Call OF Duty Series) this is an example of (Greed) with the (COD) series not allowing people to trade off their old copies of games after buying the newest editions like seriously especially on steam or digital product.
Also on Steam I believe other family members can already share games with others on their account but all actions taken on that users account such as cheating still gets the main account holder in trouble not sure of this because I have never done it but I saw something about it anyways like allowing guests or something to play games on steam.
Oh and lets not forget that most Pirated Games today come from "Steam Itself" and steam encryption is easy to decrypt so perhaps its time game companies who want to take anti - piracy way seriously stop selling their products on Steam? I honestly don't think they will though because Steam has grown too big, and even they know its a loss of profit.
Quizzical said: A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site.
He hasn't left France. He resides within the EU single digital market, and he is granted privacy rights and consumer rights within that market.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
Except that he's now accessing an American web site in the United States that never asked to have anything to do with France. The logical consequence of that claim is that all rules by all governments apply universally to the entire Internet--and that would kill the Internet entirely. If that's not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
Well, there are American sites that sell to US consumers, and those sites don't need to worry about the EU single digital market, or EU consumer rights, because they don't sell to Europeans.
But if your site sells to Europeans, you are now entering the EU marketplace, and you are required to follow EU and local laws if you want to do business there and sell thing.
So where is the limiting principle? Are you saying that French laws are irrelevant to mmorpg.com because they're not selling things to consumers?
Now let's suppose that a site does sell things. Do all sites in the world that sell anything have to comply with all laws in the world because someone from anywhere in the world could conceivably buy something from the site? That would basically be a blanket ban on Internet commerce. Remember that Valve doesn't have to ship goods to a mailing address; we're talking about purely digital things. If banning all Internet commerce is not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
So any country can change the law to whatever they want and then online companies have to comply to 100 different laws in 100 different countries.
Yeah I don't think so.
No they don't have to comply they can chose not to do business in any country they don't agree with the laws of. Now they know how most gamers feel when we see page after page of TOS when we buy a game and have to agree to before we can play it. Why should they be treated any different?
So where is the limiting principle? Are you saying that French laws are irrelevant to mmorpg.com because they're not selling things to consumers?
Now let's suppose that a site does sell things. Do all sites in the world that sell anything have to comply with all laws in the world because someone from anywhere in the world could conceivably buy something from the site? That would basically be a blanket ban on Internet commerce. Remember that Valve doesn't have to ship goods to a mailing address; we're talking about purely digital things. If banning all Internet commerce is not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
No need to overcomplicate things. It really is very simple - Any entity that sell items (physical or digital) to EU customers need to adhere to EU legislation. An entity that refuses to adhere is banned from trading within the EU by "financial flagging" (just like someone trying to sell controlled substances.) = Stop dreaming - It is easy to prevent someone outside the EU to receive payments from customers within the EU.
IF this lawsuit ends like the 2012 "Oracle licenses" lawsuit Valve already have the systems in place (gifting?) and games have been more expensive on EU-Steam since forever so...
Next up is all the bought ingame "lotto" boxes: They are in direct violation of EU gambling legislation unless they (at the very least) show transparency on odds...
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
Quizzical said: A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site.
He hasn't left France. He resides within the EU single digital market, and he is granted privacy rights and consumer rights within that market.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
Except that he's now accessing an American web site in the United States that never asked to have anything to do with France. The logical consequence of that claim is that all rules by all governments apply universally to the entire Internet--and that would kill the Internet entirely. If that's not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
Well, there are American sites that sell to US consumers, and those sites don't need to worry about the EU single digital market, or EU consumer rights, because they don't sell to Europeans.
But if your site sells to Europeans, you are now entering the EU marketplace, and you are required to follow EU and local laws if you want to do business there and sell thing.
So where is the limiting principle? Are you saying that French laws are irrelevant to mmorpg.com because they're not selling things to consumers?
Now let's suppose that a site does sell things. Do all sites in the world that sell anything have to comply with all laws in the world because someone from anywhere in the world could conceivably buy something from the site? That would basically be a blanket ban on Internet commerce. Remember that Valve doesn't have to ship goods to a mailing address; we're talking about purely digital things. If banning all Internet commerce is not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
I think you understand completely at this point. Look at the repeated examples of Facebook. They are being sued around the world because they are serving customers around the world. They are having to change their policy to address each country.
If you are knowingly serving French customers, expect to follow French consumer protection laws.
You are not thinking your example through - if there is an online site that does not follow the laws, they simply cannot sell in that country. Simple as that. If the consumers deceive the site into thinking they are from a different country, that is the consumers problem. It is not complicated. Your imagining it as a ban on internet commerce is absurd. This is how it already works, and you can see it works just fine. When a company gets in trouble with the law in a country, they pay the fines and change their policy to keep in business.
If you are wondering what happens when a company tries to get by just ignoring the lawsuit, there are not many examples, but the most well known would be MegaUpload. The country pursuing the legal action gets help from the countries that actually have assets to be seized. As we saw (even though the case may be questionable, it is a good example) assets were immediately seized by governments around the world working with the US. You can't shit on the laws of a country and expect the rest of the world to ignore it. You have to respect the laws of each place you do business with.
You have never owned the game, the only have ever owned the medium.
Do you own your PC? Do you have decent storage? DL your games to your hard drive.
It's the same thing. Your PC hard drive is your medium. Re selling was always a grey area, due to you only having a limited license on the use of the data on the medium.
Sure, you have every right to sell the CD/ DVD/ whatever and it's packaging, I guess, but you never owned that game.
You have never owned the game, the only have ever owned the medium.
Do you own your PC? Do you have decent storage? DL your games to your hard drive.
It's the same thing. Your PC hard drive is your medium. Re selling was always a grey area, due to you only having a limited license on the use of the data on the medium.
Sure, you have every right to sell the CD/ DVD/ whatever and it's packaging, I guess, but you never owned that game.
In France, though, they do own that game. That is a large part of what this lawsuit is about. The lawsuit is also saying that French consumers own their accounts and the funds in it.
Really, it makes sense. It doesn't say "buy a temporary license to personally use this game at our discretion for $59.99!" It says "Buy CALL OF DUTY $59.99" Including the details in the fine print does not make it any less misleading to the average consumer. The expectation that you actually own the thing you bought is more than reasonable.
Some of us may be used to the crazy bs of not actually owning anything in the US, but I like to hope that eventually our laws will also catch up with the digital age. If we could get some similar protections in the US it would be pretty sweet. It is all too reasonable to expect that money in your account belongs to you, that your account full of purchased games actually belongs to you, and that your purchased digital products are still your actual products. Usually people do not find out just how full of crap all of this is until they have a problem with it, but by then they are SOL.
Comments
Would people who fall under this law -- or areas that enforce it -- be willing to give up these sales for the ability to sell their games at 25% of what they bought it for? It will no longer be a buyer's market, as there will be limited sources to buy used copies at and supply and demand for the used copies will drive those prices up.
This will essentially be making a decision for people (without asking them) to give up one right for a law that has had little relevance due to the special treatment the digital market has been getting as a result. Not to mention the ability to refund your game being granted. In truth, this isn't what I'd call pro-consumerism; giving one the option to mark their account as a reseller account or a discount account would be. But this in it's current state is just a disaster waiting to happen and a selfish desire of some to both have their cake and eat it too (likely expecting 75% off just to flip flop it later on for potential profit).
While yes Luxembourg would like to make things as attractive as possible to multinationals I'm assuming they can't just opt out of EU regulations or everyone would be opting out of some of the more ridiculous stuff like how curvy a banana needs to be in order to sell it.
In regards to CIG from what I've heard there is a fairly booming grey market for ships already and that CIG has no interest in blocking it.
In all countries that have even basic consumer laws the retailer selling you the product - a car, a shirt, a game, whatever - has a contract with you the consumer. You also have an implied secondary contract with the retailer. Buy something that does not work you take it up with the retailer - and they have to deal with your problem. Under your interpretation - well I hope you never buy anything that doesn't work. (Sorry sir we - Amazon, Wal-Mart, whoever - are only the middleman, you need to take it up with the factory half way around the world.)
Even more fundamental - since software has been defined as a product - if you bought a car you would expect to be able to sell it to someone else? (Note laws also offer protection to products).
As Phry says all that Steam are doing is selling on the game - only the method of delivery has changed. So why should they be able to impose such conditions?
EDIT: 50% chance i dont know what im talking about
A French person in France who goes online to a French web site can still expect to be protected by French laws. But what if he goes to an American web site? He's still sitting in France, but he has digitally left France in favor of an American web site. Can he still expect to be protected by French laws even there? Would he expect to be protected by American laws? Both sets of laws? What happens if American laws and French laws contradict each other so that it's impossible for a company to simultaneously comply with both?
What if he sues the American web site in a French court and the court delivers a verdict ordering the American site to pay him a bunch of Euros? Can a French court order an American company with no contact with France to pay? Some of the things they could do to try to collect payment would basically constitute the government of France picking a fight with the US government--the sort of thing that countries have fought wars over.
Extradition treaties typically have a dual illegality requirement. In other words, country A will only extradite someone to country B for crimes committed in country B if those actions would also have been illegal in country A. But would you really expect the US government to punish American companies for complying with American laws but not French laws while in the United States? And how would a French court expect to enforce a judgment against an American company while the US government fights against the ruling as having no jurisdiction here?
Now, if Valve is present in France, that changes everything dramatically. If they have offices in France or employees in France or what not, then they're in France and whatever they do there has to comply with French laws. But if that's the hook for the lawsuit and they lose badly enough, then perhaps they ought to get out of France.
Foreign websites are required to follow those regulations if they want to do business in that market.
I think the U.S should adapt Laws which allow people to actually (OWN) their copy of the software and be able to sell it possibly including (Game Accounts) (Legally) although that would somewhat fall under a different topic because the actual data isn't on the users PC but it would be nice being able to legally sell other copies of software which a person buys and no longer needs.
Perhaps Legally there isn't really anything that ca be done across countrties, however Legally (ISP's) can be "Required" to display a warning about services with redirect links, or block access to "Steam" from that specified country all together, obviously there are ways around such blocks like proxies, but the point is to inform legit customers who buy digital products know French Laws will not be enforced, and they do not own the software.
As I said in an earlier post there is the issue of "off-shore banking" - a topic of much international debate - but most payments will originate from the country of residence.
Now to what extent a country can enforce its laws - different issue. The bigger the country the bigger the stick in simple terms.
Countries can go that route. The Great Firewall of China tries to block all sorts of foreign sites. Do you really want to go that route, though, with the government of your country empowered to censor what you are and are not allowed to look up on the Internet?
But if your site sells to Europeans, you are now entering the EU marketplace, and you are required to follow EU and local laws if you want to do business there and sell thing.
When you walk into your local Game Stop for example (You are not told the Agreement) before you buy a product like the PS3 Jail Breaking and George Hotz where Sony Sued him you are lead to believe the product you are buying you own that physical copy, the exception to this is online games where (Registering an Account) is required, such as (World OF Warcraft) and Data is actually kept on Blizzards servers, the exception is DRM games which are easily cracked and shared anyways.
Honestly I don't feel bad for (Game Developers, Music Artists, or Movies) Because I feel the whole war on Piracy is just a bit too much too much enforcement, and I would personally as a consumer rather pay $30 for a few proxies per month to steam movies, and do whatever else I please than deal with the nonsense of EULA /TOS, not to say I just pirate my games I have over 200 Legally owned games on steam, I just do not legally feel like if I want to trade off my games to a friend that I no longer want that I should not be able to do such legally as a consumer, and on top of this the Movie Industry as an example telling people who own a public pub for example that they are not allowed to order a (PPV Title) and let everyone watch it because its (illegal) I call this out because I feel its too much legally that means that if I myself order a PPV Title, and let my family or kids watch it I am breaking their rules or law too, my point is legally the pub owner obviously pays for cable service and wants to order a movie, or event should be legal.
Indie Companies, I don't think would be a problem with creating games, for example on steam if the main concern is a bunch of people would just share and play the game then share it among friends and keep going the best solution would be to put Transfer Restrictions on the games of maybe 3-6 months once last played to prevent this, its not like these games can't be pirated anyways, but honestly if I like a Indie Game I just buy it because often they don't really cost this much anyways.
For example in Real Life I still own a lot of Physical Copies of games which go way back, and do not have any type of DRM on them talking about early 2004's and before I would love to see a lot more games like this and to ask how many copies of games I have actually given away without DRM to friends a few, and a lot of Extra Copies of old games I managed to pick up for almost nothing at the local Game Stops years ago.
A perfect example though of games I personally hate and dislike (Dragon Age 2) and above, (Bioware) (Call OF Duty Series) this is an example of (Greed) with the (COD) series not allowing people to trade off their old copies of games after buying the newest editions like seriously especially on steam or digital product.
Also on Steam I believe other family members can already share games with others on their account but all actions taken on that users account such as cheating still gets the main account holder in trouble not sure of this because I have never done it but I saw something about it anyways like allowing guests or something to play games on steam.
Oh and lets not forget that most Pirated Games today come from "Steam Itself" and steam encryption is easy to decrypt so perhaps its time game companies who want to take anti - piracy way seriously stop selling their products on Steam? I honestly don't think they will though because Steam has grown too big, and even they know its a loss of profit.
Now let's suppose that a site does sell things. Do all sites in the world that sell anything have to comply with all laws in the world because someone from anywhere in the world could conceivably buy something from the site? That would basically be a blanket ban on Internet commerce. Remember that Valve doesn't have to ship goods to a mailing address; we're talking about purely digital things. If banning all Internet commerce is not the intended outcome, then what limiting principle is there?
An entity that refuses to adhere is banned from trading within the EU by "financial flagging" (just like someone trying to sell controlled substances.) = Stop dreaming - It is easy to prevent someone outside the EU to receive payments from customers within the EU.
IF this lawsuit ends like the 2012 "Oracle licenses" lawsuit Valve already have the systems in place (gifting?) and games have been more expensive on EU-Steam since forever so...
Next up is all the bought ingame "lotto" boxes: They are in direct violation of EU gambling legislation unless they (at the very least) show transparency on odds...
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
If you are knowingly serving French customers, expect to follow French consumer protection laws.
You are not thinking your example through - if there is an online site that does not follow the laws, they simply cannot sell in that country. Simple as that. If the consumers deceive the site into thinking they are from a different country, that is the consumers problem. It is not complicated. Your imagining it as a ban on internet commerce is absurd. This is how it already works, and you can see it works just fine. When a company gets in trouble with the law in a country, they pay the fines and change their policy to keep in business.
If you are wondering what happens when a company tries to get by just ignoring the lawsuit, there are not many examples, but the most well known would be MegaUpload. The country pursuing the legal action gets help from the countries that actually have assets to be seized. As we saw (even though the case may be questionable, it is a good example) assets were immediately seized by governments around the world working with the US. You can't shit on the laws of a country and expect the rest of the world to ignore it. You have to respect the laws of each place you do business with.
Links to help you learn more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure_of_Megaupload
http://http//www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/15/belgium-facebook-court-privacy-breaches-ads
Here are some where it is not the government suing, but the people. Still an example of how a company has to follow laws where they are located and where their consumers are located.
http://http//www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/09/class-action-privacy-lawsuit-filed-against-facebook-in-austria
http://www.pcworld.com/article/251430/facebook_loses_german_privacy_lawsuit_over_friend_finder_personal_data.html
Do you own your PC? Do you have decent storage? DL your games to your hard drive.
It's the same thing. Your PC hard drive is your medium. Re selling was always a grey area, due to you only having a limited license on the use of the data on the medium.
Sure, you have every right to sell the CD/ DVD/ whatever and it's packaging, I guess, but you never owned that game.
Really, it makes sense. It doesn't say "buy a temporary license to personally use this game at our discretion for $59.99!" It says "Buy CALL OF DUTY $59.99" Including the details in the fine print does not make it any less misleading to the average consumer. The expectation that you actually own the thing you bought is more than reasonable.
Some of us may be used to the crazy bs of not actually owning anything in the US, but I like to hope that eventually our laws will also catch up with the digital age. If we could get some similar protections in the US it would be pretty sweet. It is all too reasonable to expect that money in your account belongs to you, that your account full of purchased games actually belongs to you, and that your purchased digital products are still your actual products. Usually people do not find out just how full of crap all of this is until they have a problem with it, but by then they are SOL.