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.
I am quite shocked by this statement, quite frankly.
Let me ask you a question. If you have an hard copy of FIFA 15 and go down to Gamestop do you need permission from EA before you can sell it? If you have a car and go to your local dealer are you allowed to sell it or you need permission from Ford (or whatever car brand you own) before doing so? Why Digital Goods should be any different?
France is not reinventing the wheel, these are laws that existed since the dawn of our civilization, it is indeed the Companies that are trying to be clever thanks to the fact there are not specific laws that deal with Digital Goods yet. Well now there are, and Digital Goods should be treated on par with Hardcopy Goods, it's a no brainer.
If you buy something it is yours and you can do what you like with it, end of.
How do you determine ownership of an online game - where all player assets (login, character data, payment processing) run on servers outside of France and the company that is running those servers has no presence in France.
Is that hard to understand?
How can you sell something you don't own that is outside the country you live in?
Wait what about all those non mmo games? If I bought fallout 4 which is a purely single player game and all the assets are on my PC, can I then resell it? I didn't think so.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If that foreign company sells me something here in Europe then law does apply!
Then the law is unenforceable and meaningless
because how can any online company stop a single dude in France from buying online game from them?
How can you even know they are French?
Utter horseshit
If you buy an online game from a foreign website of a company that has no presence in your country, local laws cannot apply
How are you so clueless? They can easily know their French by their IP and form of payment used. Many websites will block you from accessing content or buying content if they detect you are in a country which they do not want to sell to. If you bypass all these checks with proxies and cards from a country which is In the allowed list, then you may have a point as the customer kind of cheated.
I often can't access Netflix when I travel because they block it in countries where they don't want to sell to.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
No clue why peeps buy stuff on steam anyways :pleased: Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd. And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud: Most of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
.. (trust me i REALLY like boxes. i got about 40 just from video cards, just bought a GTX780TI video card that goes nice with the box my r290x )
Trust me i like THEM. when i upgrade the old video card goes back in the box :pleased: Biggest box i have (including content) is a EVGA SR2 motherboard. Smallest one i think is from my I7 4970K
Noooo @fivoroth boxes that come with computer cases go into the garbage :P
(my god i cant do this. i LIED i have a box from a LianLi PC600d and one from a Cosair Air 540 and from a phantex ITX)
Box from a Corsair 650i, Silverstone 1500watt, Coolermaster GX750 11 boxes from Razer mouses. (including the first razer ever made) 2 boxes from razer BW normal and one from a Croma one :P
Here somthing to drool over. Commodore VIC20 box including content. Commodore C16 box including content. Commodore 64 box including content.
No clue why peeps buy stuff on steam anyway's :pleased: Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd. And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud: Moost of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
No you can't sell FA4, even if you have the disc. Reason is that install of FA4 requires a Steam account and the FA4 key. Because you have already used that key and have 'bound' it to your account the disc you have is worthless. And that's exactly what this whole thing is about. You OWN a physical copy of the game but because a key is used you can not sell the property you own (and the same when bought digitally).
No clue why peeps buy stuff on steam anyway's :pleased: Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd. And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud: Moost of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
No you can't sell FA4, even if you have the disc. Reason is that install of FA4 requires a Steam account and the FA4 key. Because you have already used that key and have 'bound' it to your account the disc you have is worthless. And that's exactly what this whole thing is about. You OWN a physical copy of the game but because a key is used you can not sell the property you own (and the same when bought digitally).
No clue why peeps buy stuff on steam anyway's :pleased: Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd. And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud: Moost of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
No you can't sell FA4, even if you have the disc. Reason is that install of FA4 requires a Steam account and the FA4 key. Because you have already used that key and have 'bound' it to your account the disc you have is worthless. And that's exactly what this whole thing is about. You OWN a physical copy of the game but because a key is used you can not sell the property you own (and the same when bought digitally).
finally, someone else understands.
I understand that at the moment you CAN NOT SELL the game YOU OWN because of the bound key. And that's what this whole lawsuit is about - you own the product yet the store tells you you can not sell it. And to follow the examples that have been given before... You buy a car and you have to ask your dealer permission to sell it to someone else. Now that you find odd, and why don't you find the same logic 'normal' for the games you have bought?
Kinda the same lawsuit you should expect in a year or so against Microsoft on Windows 10 ownership. The EULA states that the license YOU buy is owned by the PC you install it on. That's odd because law (both US and EU) states that OBJECTS CAN NOT OWN THINGS.
If the cost (and risk) of doing business internationally on the internet becomes too high, every country will have its own set of "internet retailers", which will of course lead to much higher prices for everything, and a much smaller selection of goods offered.
But it's the price of "safety". Your consumer rights will be guaranteed for the handful of items you can affordably buy online in your own country. Buying anything outside your own country will probably be illegal.
Regulation can cut both ways. It can regulate what companies do on the internet, but it's a small step to extend that to what YOU are allowed to do on the internet. Just ask the Chinese how that works out for them...
There are many past examples of US-based MMO's using third-party "partners" to run their game services in the EU. Every single one of those examples showed that the EU players ended-up paying higher prices and often receiving inferior customer service. It's inevitable, the more links in the supply chain, the higher the eventual selling price will be.
QFT. Assuming that this french group manage to pass this law into practice, then it could mean that companies with an online presence are less likely to have a physical presence in countries like France, or support localisations, it would also likely mean that people in France incur additional costs for using online services not also based in France or have to agree to terms that include waiving their right to specific things covered by those laws, you could also get situations like this occurring;
GTA VI NA/USA 50$ UK £40 EU €150
I use the 3 values as its highly unlikely that the UK will be a member of the EU within the next year. As for the increased costs of games, companies rely on individual sales of games to generate revenue, if people in one area can resell games then the initial purchase cost will probably be used to offset future game sales losses. It will probably also mean that games will have on disc DRM and won't run unless the game disc is physically present not to mention, the games would also have to have a form of region locking. It would mean a huge backwards step for the games industry as a whole.
Which major company uses a third party for their mmo in Europe? Turbine used to? Anyone else? Also the main reason this is happening is because mmo companies are tiny and can't cope. Outside of bio ware, blizzard and Bethesda, it seems all other mmo companies are tiny.
dont worry steam is already charging their Euro customers insane prices well above retail prices. I think aaa games cost 60 Euros on steam in Europe which is a joke.
Trion, NCSoft, are two examples of ones that do, as does PWI for some of its games. thing have to remember is that Steam aren't able to set the prices for their digital games, like TESO for instance, the price of the digital download is set by Zenimax, which is why both Steam and Amazon list the digital downloaded version of the game at around the same price, and why the physical copy of the game on Amazon is less than half the price, or at least it was last time i checked, this is probably due to unsold stock being sold at clearance rates, which is something that doesn't apply to games where all your buying is a 'key' its probably worth bearing in mind that if the French consumer group does win the overall battle, then companies like GoG and G2A etc. will probably be put out of business, because once games are region locked, which is tha natural corrollary of this particular law, then the grey market will be destroyed. Proponents of this law will probably view this as being a good thing no doubt. And if anyone is under the illusion that digitally downloaded games can't be region locked, then guess again. This proposed law is anathema to Indie developers as well as the AAA ones, and if their hand is forced into making more intrusive DRM because of it, then who exactly is to blame? the French? imo the French consumer is as much a victim here as anyone, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the music industry didn't have a hand in this, because of the proliferation of digital content has hit their profit margins pretty badly, its a threat to current media industry as entertainment is shifting away from traditional media types to a more connected 'on demand' service, this so called consumer group is just the established groups trying to regain control of the consumer, by making digital products more expensive and increasing the number of hurdles that games publishers etc. have to deal with in order to market their games.
Haha..not quite pumpkin. Do some research for Diablo's sake
Companies need to abide by local regulations.
While some companies try to find loopholes, like Google claiming they don't need to abide by local regulations because they have a main office is another EU country. Those are loopholes that are quickly being shut down.
So yes, it is how it works, pumpkin. A company has to abide by the regulations of the country they do business in, that's not something new or shocking, it's how the world works.
No.
Consider a mom and pop shop in US that has a website need to abide by FRENCH law???
What online companies (that are smart) do is they have authentication, and all payment processing done inside of US - so that they are essentially self contained like a mom and pop business with a website.
if a french citizen decides to go and shop online from this mom-and-pop shop for software - that happens to be in US - why would french law apply? It doesn't.
You can do online business in any country AND NOT HAVE LEGALLY BINDING BUSINESS (no local office, no local payment processing or login servers) so no local presence there - this is the loophole that you are missing.
If you have no legally binding business establishement in France - French law does not apply.
Valve's problem is that they do have a presence in France - which is why this lawsuit exists - but other online companies who don't (like many chinese companies) - they are out of reach of french law, because they have no business footprint whatsover in France - it's 100% online.
BS.
If mom and pop shop in the US wants to sell internationally it has to abide the law.
Loophole will get fixed.
Deal with it.
And funny you mention China. How do companies get into chinese market again?
If mom and pop shop in the US wants to sell internationally it has to abide the law.
Loophole will get fixed.
Deal with it.
And funny you mention China. How do companies get into chinese market again?
They do abide by the law - local law - not French law - because they are marketing and selling locally, they have zero control over foreign customers finding their website and making purchases via PayPal.
ooooh, you really wrote that rofl We all know that "mom an pop shop" is intentinally using loopholes that will get fixed and that they do have full control WHO and FROM WHERE is buying the stuff.
Pay pal VERY WELL knows where customer lives. Try using netflix, for instance, outside of US.
As much as i agree in the concept and just in general about how consumers should be able to do what they want with something they buy; the Digital landscape is such a gigantic place that i wouldn't even begin to know how to argue this! haha.
When i get some sleep in me i will certainly read this over; it's a really interesting topic and i want to see what type of argument this French organization opted for.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013 Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005 Fishing in RL since 1992 Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
At the end of the day: No one *has* to do anything, and anyone can sue anyone for even the most mundane reasons (which will likely be dismissed immediately if truly frivolous). But not everyone is immune to consequences and backfire.
Any country is able to censor their people by creating obsolete or asinine laws and then attack a site saying it violates said laws and therefore their people cannot access it anymore. Some don't even try to hide it and just outright block their people; as a whole, this can be circumvented by good VPNs and the like, which makes said laws fairly useless in general.
It would be pure chaos is every law ever was followed to the letter or even the spirit thereof. Especially with business and the internet evolving; t'would stifle creativity of the individual and progress as a whole.
Match that with new laws being created every hour around the world and things start to get truly convoluted and the whole purpose of law -- to bring order -- instead, brings chaos and the Dark Ages without advancement and constant fear that if you take one step, you're playing foul.
So ultimately, no, no site or company *HAS* to follow any laws of regions they conduct virtual business in. They play a dangerous game of leap-frog paying attention to regional laws that have a lot of public support and bypass those whereby the people aren't aware or don't truly care. The local government agencies will then have to assess the situation and decide if taking action -- potentially blocking their services -- is in the best interest of the people, or if the people would revolt against them for denial of service. Imagine World of Warcraft in its prime suddenly being blocked by the French Government; imagine the much more likely scenario of French people no longer getting 75% discount on steam since they're now allowing resale -- an industry of itself which is costly to developers -- to occur? One reason why digital sales and computer sales are so successful is because there is no resale. Imagine if resale occurs and discounts are no longer offered... as well as the piracy "industry" still being allowed (of which no one can stop since everyone at some point as committed piracy under it's strict definition)?
It would be an end to the prosperous nature of the digital -- and computer based -- industry as a whole. With the only counter being a pre-emptive refund policy to put more confidence into the buyer's hand by Steam's own systems.
Make no mistake, the reason Steam offers constant 75% sales is because developers still make a lot of money off of it. Instead of only getting initial sales of the first month, they can now get a constant stream on revenue years ahead of it's release -- something PC sales has over console sales. To enforce a law which condemns this practice is hurtful to all gamers and consumers alike just because consoles have resale potential and we "want that". They are different beasts and should be treated differently. They have different sales tactics, licenses, worries, etc. To treat them so obnoxiously ignorantly is appalling to me. On the flip side -- games are sold dirt cheap in certain regions because Piracy is so high in them. But this isn't something we should root for -- while wanting resales -- for all regions as that would just inspire new tactics and obscene business models that we bring on ourselves, or shoddy games as a whole.
What's worse is that some are likely still expecting to get 75% off deals, only to turn around and resale them for twice or three times the profit, when it's the developers who deserve that money. This isn't pro-consumerism, this is supporting exploitation of people who cry pro-consumerism. To be a pro-consumerist, you have to understand the market and hope for it's continued success so that they provide great experiences and are respectful to their fanbase and people who buy their games (and not expecting to profit off of them yourself). Condemning those who are both successful and anti-consumerist both. Anyone in a position of power will absolutely try to save their business -- and the jobs of their friends and family -- if people start attacking them or betraying their trust with certain matters. Implementing measures that are ultimately anti-consumerist.
Edit: Sometimes you have to weigh what you gain to what you will lose. In this case, it will a net loss for all parties, simply because consoles and PC are two different industries. Not to mention that you will be deciding for others who enjoy these discounts that they now have the ability to resale at 25% of what they bought it, but no longer save 75% on games. And those who want to buy resale will be more than those willing to sell -- so good luck on finding them... because it will no longer be a buyer's market at that point. The only way this would be "consumerist" is if you were able to permanently mark your account as "resale" or "discount" so that people get to choose. But that will still be opening a wasp nest in potentially getting less money in the developers hands who would've use that to make even better games in general. Which will lead to more notorious tactics to make that back. Which will again harm consumerists.
To add a more personal example: How many times have you seen a contest or giveaway (prizes or mmo keys) that you were excited about, but suddenly read "not available in these countries"? How is that fair to you as a person? How did that make you feel? Did you lash out at the site that decided to follow the "law" of your location by making it so you felt like a second class citizen and saying you won't get anything? It's a simple matter for them, and the safe thing to do rather than risk being blocked. But how is that pro-consumerism or fair to you in any way?
Post edited by Yaevindusk on
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.
No clue why peeps buy stuff on steam anyway's :pleased: Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd. And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud: Moost of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
No you can't sell FA4, even if you have the disc. Reason is that install of FA4 requires a Steam account and the FA4 key. Because you have already used that key and have 'bound' it to your account the disc you have is worthless. And that's exactly what this whole thing is about. You OWN a physical copy of the game but because a key is used you can not sell the property you own (and the same when bought digitally).
finally, someone else understands.
I understand that at the moment you CAN NOT SELL the game YOU OWN because of the bound key. And that's what this whole lawsuit is about - you own the product yet the store tells you you can not sell it. And to follow the examples that have been given before... You buy a car and you have to ask your dealer permission to sell it to someone else. Now that you find odd, and why don't you find the same logic 'normal' for the games you have bought?
Kinda the same lawsuit you should expect in a year or so against Microsoft on Windows 10 ownership. The EULA states that the license YOU buy is owned by the PC you install it on. That's odd because law (both US and EU) states that OBJECTS CAN NOT OWN THINGS.
While you can buy and sell a car you own, its not that simple, if you sell a car as being in perfect working order, and you'd have a hard time selling it if you didn't, and it turned out the car had a fault, then the new owner will bill you for the amount to have it put right, as the seller you are of course liable for this. So if you decide to sell a game and for whatever reason, it doesn't work, you might find yourself having to buy a second copy because its your responsibility as the seller to provide a working copy of the game, or perhaps they just decide that the game isn't as described and return it to you for their money back (within the cooling off period! that consumers have) unfortunately the disc is scratched so your not only out of pocket, but you don't have a working game either. Have fun
An online business is only bound by the laws of places where they have a physical presence or employed agents. It's called jurisdiction, peeps. I've dealt with it personally. I've done my homework. I've written letters to judges on the matter, and I won my own case regarding it.
I understand that at the moment you CAN NOT SELL the game YOU OWN because of the bound key. And that's what this whole lawsuit is about - you own the product yet the store tells you you can not sell it. And to follow the examples that have been given before... You buy a car and you have to ask your dealer permission to sell it to someone else. Now that you find odd, and why don't you find the same logic 'normal' for the games you have bought?
While you can buy and sell a car you own, its not that simple, if you sell a car as being in perfect working order, and you'd have a hard time selling it if you didn't, and it turned out the car had a fault, then the new owner will bill you for the amount to have it put right, as the seller you are of course liable for this. So if you decide to sell a game and for whatever reason, it doesn't work, you might find yourself having to buy a second copy because its your responsibility as the seller to provide a working copy of the game, or perhaps they just decide that the game isn't as described and return it to you for their money back (within the cooling off period! that consumers have) unfortunately the disc is scratched so your not only out of pocket, but you don't have a working game either. Have fun
One BIG FLAW in your reasoning... If I sell a game as PRIVATE PERSON, there's no 14-day refund 'cooling off' period. That only applies to stuff bought as customer of stores. An other thing worth to note is that if I sell a car that's in working order and the buyer finds out that there was something wrong with the car, I don't have to pay the repairs IF I wasn't aware and could not be aware or the defect on the car. Same goes for games IMO. When I sell a digital game that worked 100% fine on my system and someone buys it and for whatever reason it's not running on their system, then it's not my problem. After all it worked fine on my system and I couldn't possibly know that it would not run on the buyers system (God, you gotta love EU low :mad: )
If that was the case then Marc Emery wouldn't have been extradited to the states to serve a prison term. So obviously that isn't true.
lol, what? Ok, first, drug trafficking is something else entirely. Second, he was an international drug trafficker; meaning, he was selling drugs (and receiving money) from people in the US. Now, I'm not sure if drug dealers count as employees, but again, I don't think international drug laws really apply here.
ooooh, you really wrote that rofl We all know that "mom an pop shop" is intentinally using loopholes that will get fixed and that they do have full control WHO and FROM WHERE is buying the stuff.
Pay pal VERY WELL knows where customer lives. Try using netflix, for instance, outside of US.
PayPal doesn't know - if you have a foreign bank account and address, PayPal will use that and they won't know your real address.
I've used Netflix outside US with VPN services - I do it every time I travel heh.
Online businesses have no 100% way of verifying who is buying from them and where they are. They can guess - but there is no way of being 100% sure ever.
Which as I mentioned above taps into the issue of offshore banking - and by extension money laundering etc. etc. Which is why - in most countries - PayPal and other banks are obligated to make sure they verify peoples identities. The fact that they may fail - and if they haven't tried may suffer consequences - in no way invalidates the issue being discussed.
Same deal with enforcement. There are suspected criminals whose whereabouts are "unknown". Doesn't make the law that was broken invalid. And when different countries are involved you get into treaties: extradition treaties, trade treaties etc. And businesses generally like the latter because they harmonise laws.
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?
They would have to refund every single penny or make software usable without steam client.
Extradition has nothing to do with this subject. Extradition is about being sent to the place where you committed the crime in order to face the legal system there. If a company has no presence there, then they are not bound by its laws. It's up to the government to regulate that sort of thing.
Just like, if I spit on the sidewalk here, some random country where that's illegal can't have me extradited there to face trial.
The internet is not a place, it's a distribution channel. A window into your location. If people come to you through the internet to buy something, you are not suddenly bound by the laws behind them. That's their problem.
Actually, in the United States, states can only collect sales tax on Internet transactions if the company has a physical presence in the state. That means that a mom and pop shop can sell stuff online throughout the United States while only needing to be aware of the sales tax laws where they live. It would be basically impossible for such a site to exist if they had to learn the fine details of ten thousand separate sales tax jurisdictions (and yes, it really is right around there) just for the United States alone. That's precisely why Amazon has lobbied to change federal law to allow states to collect sales tax on everything: to drive smaller competitors out of business because they can't handle the complex sales tax laws.
Yes and that is a problem, but countries simply cannot afford anymore for their citizens to buy abroad without paying tax instead of buying same goods at home with tax.
Tax-free shooping of digital (and sometimes even physical) goods in other countries via online shops was tolerable because for many years it was relatively small amount (comparable with normal local shopping) + it was hard to build a framework to tax it.
This era came to an end because of how many sales are online atm. There is no returning it. Be ready that in USA you'll have local tax in internet based on who the buyer is and not who/where the seller is too.
Big downside to that is that this cripple smaller sellers and is good for corporations, but if you want to make it better for smaller sellers then you need support some solutions that will make tax collection for small/medium enterprises from many countries/states much easier&cheaper rather than trying to defend old staus quo in which businesses did not have to care about foreigner buying their stuff in their store.
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?
They would have to refund every single penny or make software usable without steam client.
Would they? i doubt Valve would ban a country arbitrarily, but should legislation impact on how Steam operates, could they just not withdraw the service from those areas it impacts and given that Steam is in effect an 'archive' just say that in future the players will have to contact the games publishers directly to obtain another downloadable copy of the game, or a physical disk, chances are they wouldn't provide it for free either.
As much as i agree in the concept and just in general about how consumers should be able to do what they want with something they buy; the Digital landscape is such a gigantic place that i wouldn't even begin to know how to argue this! haha.
When i get some sleep in me i will certainly read this over; it's a really interesting topic and i want to see what type of argument this French organization opted for.
And the EU courts started. Business software being the trigger.Companies were "annoyed" that if they used Payroll software A with HR software B and - to be efficient - created "bots" (interface software) to get A to talk to B and vice versa and something went "wrong" company A hid behind a ToS that said you should have used HR software A, same deal with company B. And both would point the finger at the poor bot.
In simple terms this was deemed anti-competitive; software was defined as a product subject to product law. And people who talk about ToSs should note that they all say something like "subject to the law of the land, does not infringe rights, maximum they can be enforced" etc.
Comments
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
How are you so clueless? They can easily know their French by their IP and form of payment used. Many websites will block you from accessing content or buying content if they detect you are in a country which they do not want to sell to. If you bypass all these checks with proxies and cards from a country which is In the allowed list, then you may have a point as the customer kind of cheated.
I often can't access Netflix when I travel because they block it in countries where they don't want to sell to.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Steam 59,- for fallout 4 in my local shop 42,- just ad the code to steam and it works never used the dvd.
And trust me its MINE i can sell my fallout to anyone i like :proud:
Most of the games are more expensive on steam and u dont even get anything. (i like boxes)
..
(trust me i REALLY like boxes. i got about 40 just from video cards, just bought a GTX780TI video card that goes nice with the box my r290x )
Trust me i like THEM. when i upgrade the old video card goes back in the box :pleased:
Biggest box i have (including content) is a EVGA SR2 motherboard.
Smallest one i think is from my I7 4970K
Noooo @fivoroth boxes that come with computer cases go into the garbage :P
(my god i cant do this. i LIED i have a box from a LianLi PC600d and one from a Cosair Air 540 and from a phantex ITX)
Box from a Corsair 650i, Silverstone 1500watt, Coolermaster GX750
11 boxes from Razer mouses. (including the first razer ever made)
2 boxes from razer BW normal and one from a Croma one :P
Here somthing to drool over.
Commodore VIC20 box including content.
Commodore C16 box including content.
Commodore 64 box including content.
Lian Li PC600d
The side view
Little devil PC7 reverse
Phantex ITX
finally, someone else understands.
And to follow the examples that have been given before... You buy a car and you have to ask your dealer permission to sell it to someone else. Now that you find odd, and why don't you find the same logic 'normal' for the games you have bought?
Kinda the same lawsuit you should expect in a year or so against Microsoft on Windows 10 ownership. The EULA states that the license YOU buy is owned by the PC you install it on. That's odd because law (both US and EU) states that OBJECTS CAN NOT OWN THINGS.
And if anyone is under the illusion that digitally downloaded games can't be region locked, then guess again. This proposed law is anathema to Indie developers as well as the AAA ones, and if their hand is forced into making more intrusive DRM because of it, then who exactly is to blame? the French? imo the French consumer is as much a victim here as anyone, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the music industry didn't have a hand in this, because of the proliferation of digital content has hit their profit margins pretty badly, its a threat to current media industry as entertainment is shifting away from traditional media types to a more connected 'on demand' service, this so called consumer group is just the established groups trying to regain control of the consumer, by making digital products more expensive and increasing the number of hurdles that games publishers etc. have to deal with in order to market their games.
If mom and pop shop in the US wants to sell internationally it has to abide the law.
Loophole will get fixed.
Deal with it.
And funny you mention China. How do companies get into chinese market again?
Pay pal VERY WELL knows where customer lives. Try using netflix, for instance, outside of US.
When i get some sleep in me i will certainly read this over; it's a really interesting topic and i want to see what type of argument this French organization opted for.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
Any country is able to censor their people by creating obsolete or asinine laws and then attack a site saying it violates said laws and therefore their people cannot access it anymore. Some don't even try to hide it and just outright block their people; as a whole, this can be circumvented by good VPNs and the like, which makes said laws fairly useless in general.
It would be pure chaos is every law ever was followed to the letter or even the spirit thereof. Especially with business and the internet evolving; t'would stifle creativity of the individual and progress as a whole.
Case and point some of these weird laws: http://itthing.com/100-weird-laws-from-around-the-world
Match that with new laws being created every hour around the world and things start to get truly convoluted and the whole purpose of law -- to bring order -- instead, brings chaos and the Dark Ages without advancement and constant fear that if you take one step, you're playing foul.
So ultimately, no, no site or company *HAS* to follow any laws of regions they conduct virtual business in. They play a dangerous game of leap-frog paying attention to regional laws that have a lot of public support and bypass those whereby the people aren't aware or don't truly care. The local government agencies will then have to assess the situation and decide if taking action -- potentially blocking their services -- is in the best interest of the people, or if the people would revolt against them for denial of service. Imagine World of Warcraft in its prime suddenly being blocked by the French Government; imagine the much more likely scenario of French people no longer getting 75% discount on steam since they're now allowing resale -- an industry of itself which is costly to developers -- to occur? One reason why digital sales and computer sales are so successful is because there is no resale. Imagine if resale occurs and discounts are no longer offered... as well as the piracy "industry" still being allowed (of which no one can stop since everyone at some point as committed piracy under it's strict definition)?
It would be an end to the prosperous nature of the digital -- and computer based -- industry as a whole. With the only counter being a pre-emptive refund policy to put more confidence into the buyer's hand by Steam's own systems.
Make no mistake, the reason Steam offers constant 75% sales is because developers still make a lot of money off of it. Instead of only getting initial sales of the first month, they can now get a constant stream on revenue years ahead of it's release -- something PC sales has over console sales. To enforce a law which condemns this practice is hurtful to all gamers and consumers alike just because consoles have resale potential and we "want that". They are different beasts and should be treated differently. They have different sales tactics, licenses, worries, etc. To treat them so obnoxiously ignorantly is appalling to me. On the flip side -- games are sold dirt cheap in certain regions because Piracy is so high in them. But this isn't something we should root for -- while wanting resales -- for all regions as that would just inspire new tactics and obscene business models that we bring on ourselves, or shoddy games as a whole.
What's worse is that some are likely still expecting to get 75% off deals, only to turn around and resale them for twice or three times the profit, when it's the developers who deserve that money. This isn't pro-consumerism, this is supporting exploitation of people who cry pro-consumerism. To be a pro-consumerist, you have to understand the market and hope for it's continued success so that they provide great experiences and are respectful to their fanbase and people who buy their games (and not expecting to profit off of them yourself). Condemning those who are both successful and anti-consumerist both. Anyone in a position of power will absolutely try to save their business -- and the jobs of their friends and family -- if people start attacking them or betraying their trust with certain matters. Implementing measures that are ultimately anti-consumerist.
Edit: Sometimes you have to weigh what you gain to what you will lose. In this case, it will a net loss for all parties, simply because consoles and PC are two different industries. Not to mention that you will be deciding for others who enjoy these discounts that they now have the ability to resale at 25% of what they bought it, but no longer save 75% on games. And those who want to buy resale will be more than those willing to sell -- so good luck on finding them... because it will no longer be a buyer's market at that point. The only way this would be "consumerist" is if you were able to permanently mark your account as "resale" or "discount" so that people get to choose. But that will still be opening a wasp nest in potentially getting less money in the developers hands who would've use that to make even better games in general. Which will lead to more notorious tactics to make that back. Which will again harm consumerists.
To add a more personal example: How many times have you seen a contest or giveaway (prizes or mmo keys) that you were excited about, but suddenly read "not available in these countries"? How is that fair to you as a person? How did that make you feel? Did you lash out at the site that decided to follow the "law" of your location by making it so you felt like a second class citizen and saying you won't get anything? It's a simple matter for them, and the safe thing to do rather than risk being blocked. But how is that pro-consumerism or fair to you in any way?
"only for x residents"
-_- so lame
Sway all day, butterfly flaps all the way!
Have fun
Same deal with enforcement. There are suspected criminals whose whereabouts are "unknown". Doesn't make the law that was broken invalid. And when different countries are involved you get into treaties: extradition treaties, trade treaties etc. And businesses generally like the latter because they harmonise laws.
Just like, if I spit on the sidewalk here, some random country where that's illegal can't have me extradited there to face trial.
The internet is not a place, it's a distribution channel. A window into your location. If people come to you through the internet to buy something, you are not suddenly bound by the laws behind them. That's their problem.
Tax-free shooping of digital (and sometimes even physical) goods in other countries via online shops was tolerable because for many years it was relatively small amount (comparable with normal local shopping) + it was hard to build a framework to tax it.
This era came to an end because of how many sales are online atm. There is no returning it. Be ready that in USA you'll have local tax in internet based on who the buyer is and not who/where the seller is too.
Big downside to that is that this cripple smaller sellers and is good for corporations, but if you want to make it better for smaller sellers then you need support some solutions that will make tax collection for small/medium enterprises from many countries/states much easier&cheaper rather than trying to defend old staus quo in which businesses did not have to care about foreigner buying their stuff in their store.
Because that is not coming back. Ever.
And the EU courts started. Business software being the trigger.Companies were "annoyed" that if they used Payroll software A with HR software B and - to be efficient - created "bots" (interface software) to get A to talk to B and vice versa and something went "wrong" company A hid behind a ToS that said you should have used HR software A, same deal with company B. And both would point the finger at the poor bot.
In simple terms this was deemed anti-competitive; software was defined as a product subject to product law. And people who talk about ToSs should note that they all say something like "subject to the law of the land, does not infringe rights, maximum they can be enforced" etc.
Will be interesting to see what you (might) post.