Interesting discussion. It perfectly shows the difference between European and US-American economic ideology.
Europe has always been interested in finding balanced solutions when it comes to economic growth. The downside of this are lengthy legal discussions in the European parliament and higher prices for certain products. Depending on the subject, benefits are strenghtened consumer rights, social security or environmental protection. We simply want the whole thing to work for everyone and not only for certain parties or companies.
Americans on the other hand seem to solely focus on economic growth. No matter at what costs. Thats at least the impression many Europeans have when it comes to the United States.
Personally, I hope that Valve will be asked to comply with European consumer rights.
Never understood lawsuits like this. If you don't like the way Steam or any other platform does something then don't use it.
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
In the digital age, you can sign in to something like Steam from any country. However, that certainly doesn't mean said digital service must change their terms for each and every country. That burden falls on the user not the service (unless said digital service specifically states otherwise in their terms of use which includes legal).
As I said before in this thread:
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normallyalso apply to purchases
from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However,
please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your
rights against traders based outside the EU."
That is not that difficult to understand, quite straightforward. You want do business here and expect to reap the benefits when blatantly disregards its obligations?
Uhhm yeah right.
Lol...."normally". Valve is protected by U.S. laws and regulations which ALWAYS apply. Again, good luck with some French court ruling on that lawsuit.
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
Well that kind of ignorance on EU law is something they can't get away with.
So it would be a French court making the ruling then asking the EU to uphold the ruling on a corporation based in the U.S.? And we're talking digital sales; no physical brick and mortar store.
Again, good luck with that one. Might as well add Valve is also required to fund the unicorns and lollipops foundation.
It can also be noted that Oracle (and other software developers) have changed how the sell/licence software in response.
I agree. This was also in line with the 2010 decision (basically the same suit and the same german court). The fact remains that there are 2 opposite decisions on basically the same subject. (Main difference being primary focus B2B vs. B2C.)
Will be interesting to see what the french court decides. (I am fairly certain that they will be in line with the Berlin regional court though.)
As for the doomsday scenarios: While it may cause a lot of grief for "gamers" many (european) politicians and cultural institutions would have few to zero problems with a de-facto ban on entertainment software from US based companies.
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)
It can also be noted that Oracle (and other software developers) have changed how the sell/licence software in response.
I agree. This was also in line with the 2010 decision (basically the same suit and the same german court). The fact remains that there are 2 opposite decisions on basically the same subject. (Main difference being primary focus B2B vs. B2C.)
Will be interesting to see what the french court decides. (I am fairly certain that they will be in line with the Berlin regional court though.)
As for the doomsday scenarios: While it may cause a lot of grief for "gamers" many (european) politicians and cultural institutions would have few to zero problems with a de-facto ban on entertainment software from US based companies.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
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)
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
"You are charging too little for your chips making your competitors not able to compete." Great for the company doing this; Great for the country collecting the fines; Bad for the consumer who pays more. Like Intel cannot charge less than they are right now or they may be fined despite 80% of x86 processors being Intels. Consumer protection laws protect the consumer from their own dumb decisions, but usually come at the cost of access to certain things and a higher price tag. Most of these would be mitigated with cheaper prices where it doesn't matter, or with common sense research when purchasing a more expensive item. You don't need a consumer protection agency to bar the Ford Pinto from being sold when the consumer knows it explodes.
So, Intel cheats out the competition, and suddenly were back to before AMD when puny celeron costs 300$.
Now explain to us all: how does that benefit us the consumers?
These kind of shallow near sighted views like yours is whats really bad for us consumers
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
You are correct that there should not be discrepancies between copyright and consumer protection laws. If there are and some form of judgment is passed it will most likely result in a change in one of the laws. AFAIK EU copyright laws are (for most practical applications) identical to US copyright law. The "US law vs. EU law" premise is silly - They operate within two different realms.
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)
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
You are correct that there should not be discrepancies between copyright and consumer protection laws. If there are and some form of judgment is passed it will most likely result in a change in one of the laws. AFAIK EU copyright laws are (for most practical applications) identical to US copyright law. The "US law vs. EU law" premise is silly - They operate within two different realms.
Well, part of using Steam is agreeing to the terms which include said copyright laws. This lawsuit sounds neat on the surface, but will be going right up against copyright laws. And copyright laws take precedence over consumer protection laws.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
You can. It will get properly regulated in the end. Companies may now enjoy loopholes, but it wont last forever.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
This issue arises only for digital goods, and they still failed to show how is digital distribution any different than classic distribution of goods.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
You can. It will get properly regulated in the end. Companies may now enjoy loopholes, but it wont last forever.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
You should probably take a look at similar cases which ruled against the consumer due to copyright protection. And just because people don't like the results of a law doesn't make it a 'loophole'.
Copyright laws > consumer protection laws. They aren't competing laws since one clearly trumps the other. It's that simple.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
You can. It will get properly regulated in the end. Companies may now enjoy loopholes, but it wont last forever.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
You should probably take a look at similar cases which ruled against the consumer due to copyright protection. And just because people don't like the results of a law doesn't make it a 'loophole'.
Copyright laws > consumer protection laws. They aren't competing laws since one clearly trumps the other. It's that simple.
Until someone says different. They ARE competing laws. And companies DO enjoy loopholes in digital part of the business, i dont really know from where did you come from.
As i said, they FAILED to show how one is different from the other. And since digital space is still a big mess, companies use loopholes. Its THAT simple.
If you think that anywhere else gambling would fly like it does withing MMOs, well, wake up. It just didnt catch enough drift yet to be closely looked at. Eventally it will.
Ok. before you all get your panties in a bunch, let me educate you on some finer points of this issue.
Steam's Subscriber Agreement explicitly forbids users to sell their games, despite the transfer of ownership of digital products/licenses being legal.Valve declines responsibility in the event that users' personal information is stolen.Valve claims ownership of the rights of any user-created content uploaded to Steam.It is impossible to get the money on your Steam Wallet back if your account is closed/deleted/banned.Valve applies Luxembourg's consumer law regardless of the user's country. Point 1 relates to a concept of commerce called "First Sale Doctrine." First sale refers that the person who purchased it has ownership of said product and is allowed to sell it. The problem in regards to digital goods and games is the fact that game developers and publishers have changed the terms of the User Agreements to basically make First Sale Doctrine invalid. If you read the user agreement for that game you just bought, you might not be all that shocked to discover that all you have purchased for the cost of the game is a "license" to use it. The developer/publisher still retains ownership of the game and is allowing you to basically "rent" it.
Companies like game developers have been fighting First Sale Doctrine for years, and gamers have suffered the repercussions of this.
Point 2, is just BS. Under several statues in the US, if you provide your information to a company for the purposes of a purchase, they are required to safeguard that information. If somehow their systems are compromised, they are considered to be legally held responsible. Valve is shifting responsibility to the users and "hackers" to avoid prosecution, which if it were to go through, would in all likelihood, cause the collapse of Valve itself due to the amount of damages awarded.
Point 3, we have seen this shit before. Facebook tried this, GeoCities (Before Yahoo's purchase) tried this and it failed miserably. If you create content, you are the owner of said content. That's basic copyright law. Period.
Now, point 4 is where it gets interesting. Having spent the last couple months studying Business Law, one thing I do know is that a business is required to follow the laws of EVERY country it operates. Saying that they are going to follow just one country's consumer law because it will benefit them is actually illegal. Valve being a US company, first and foremost is required to comply with US laws. However, because Valve is international, they are also required to comply with the laws fo every country they operate in. Operating within the Eurozone, Valve is required to comply with laws within all countries of the Eurozone. Following laws is not a menu. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you're going to follow.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
You can. It will get properly regulated in the end. Companies may now enjoy loopholes, but it wont last forever.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
You should probably take a look at similar cases which ruled against the consumer due to copyright protection. And just because people don't like the results of a law doesn't make it a 'loophole'.
Copyright laws > consumer protection laws. They aren't competing laws since one clearly trumps the other. It's that simple.
Until someone says different. They ARE competing laws. And companies DO enjoy loopholes in digital part of the business, i dont really know from where did you come from.
As i said, they FAILED to show how one is different from the other. And since digital space is still a big mess, companies use loopholes. Its THAT simple.
If you think that anywhere else gambling would fly like it does withing MMOs, well, wake up. It just didnt catch enough drift yet to be closely looed at.
Copyright laws supersede any EU consumer rights law. Precedence shows this even in prior cases involving Valve in EU courts. And copyright laws aren't 'loopholes'; they're the law.
If you don't like the applicable laws that come with Steam use....then don't use it.
You're going to be a sad panda when you read the court's decision on this. They have to uphold copyright laws. You won't need consumer protection laws if the courts failed to uphold copyright laws since there would hardly be any consumption. The marketplace would be a shell of what we have (if at all).
Ok. before you all get your panties in a bunch, let me educate you on some finer points of this issue.
Steam's Subscriber Agreement explicitly forbids users to sell their games, despite the transfer of ownership of digital products/licenses being legal.Valve declines responsibility in the event that users' personal information is stolen.Valve claims ownership of the rights of any user-created content uploaded to Steam.It is impossible to get the money on your Steam Wallet back if your account is closed/deleted/banned.Valve applies Luxembourg's consumer law regardless of the user's country. Point 1 relates to a concept of commerce called "First Sale Doctrine." First sale refers that the person who purchased it has ownership of said product and is allowed to sell it. The problem in regards to digital goods and games is the fact that game developers and publishers have changed the terms of the User Agreements to basically make First Sale Doctrine invalid. If you read the user agreement for that game you just bought, you might not be all that shocked to discover that all you have purchased for the cost of the game is a "license" to use it. The developer/publisher still retains ownership of the game and is allowing you to basically "rent" it.
Companies like game developers have been fighting First Sale Doctrine for years, and gamers have suffered the repercussions of this.
Point 2, is just BS. Under several statues in the US, if you provide your information to a company for the purposes of a purchase, they are required to safeguard that information. If somehow their systems are compromised, they are considered to be legally held responsible. Valve is shifting responsibility to the users and "hackers" to avoid prosecution, which if it were to go through, would in all likelihood, cause the collapse of Valve itself due to the amount of damages awarded.
Point 3, we have seen this shit before. Facebook tried this, GeoCities (Before Yahoo's purchase) tried this and it failed miserably. If you create content, you are the owner of said content. That's basic copyright law. Period.
Now, point 4 is where it gets interesting. Having spent the last couple months studying Business Law, one thing I do know is that a business is required to follow the laws of EVERY country it operates. Saying that they are going to follow just one country's consumer law because it will benefit them is actually illegal. Valve being a US company, first and foremost is required to comply with US laws. However, because Valve is international, they are also required to comply with the laws fo every country they operate in. Operating within the Eurozone, Valve is required to comply with laws within all countries of the Eurozone. Following laws is not a menu. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you're going to follow.
inB4 the legion of doom and gloom comes back to scaremonger about how consumer protection is bad for consumers, artists will starve and prices will quadruple
One thing that is very clear from other posts in this thread is just how effective anti-government, pro-business propaganda is these days.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Ok. before you all get your panties in a bunch, let me educate you on some finer points of this issue.
Steam's Subscriber Agreement explicitly forbids users to sell their games, despite the transfer of ownership of digital products/licenses being legal.Valve declines responsibility in the event that users' personal information is stolen.Valve claims ownership of the rights of any user-created content uploaded to Steam.It is impossible to get the money on your Steam Wallet back if your account is closed/deleted/banned.Valve applies Luxembourg's consumer law regardless of the user's country. Point 1 relates to a concept of commerce called "First Sale Doctrine." First sale refers that the person who purchased it has ownership of said product and is allowed to sell it. The problem in regards to digital goods and games is the fact that game developers and publishers have changed the terms of the User Agreements to basically make First Sale Doctrine invalid. If you read the user agreement for that game you just bought, you might not be all that shocked to discover that all you have purchased for the cost of the game is a "license" to use it. The developer/publisher still retains ownership of the game and is allowing you to basically "rent" it.
Companies like game developers have been fighting First Sale Doctrine for years, and gamers have suffered the repercussions of this.
Point 2, is just BS. Under several statues in the US, if you provide your information to a company for the purposes of a purchase, they are required to safeguard that information. If somehow their systems are compromised, they are considered to be legally held responsible. Valve is shifting responsibility to the users and "hackers" to avoid prosecution, which if it were to go through, would in all likelihood, cause the collapse of Valve itself due to the amount of damages awarded.
Point 3, we have seen this shit before. Facebook tried this, GeoCities (Before Yahoo's purchase) tried this and it failed miserably. If you create content, you are the owner of said content. That's basic copyright law. Period.
Now, point 4 is where it gets interesting. Having spent the last couple months studying Business Law, one thing I do know is that a business is required to follow the laws of EVERY country it operates. Saying that they are going to follow just one country's consumer law because it will benefit them is actually illegal. Valve being a US company, first and foremost is required to comply with US laws. However, because Valve is international, they are also required to comply with the laws fo every country they operate in. Operating within the Eurozone, Valve is required to comply with laws within all countries of the Eurozone. Following laws is not a menu. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you're going to follow.
Exactly. And why no court will overturn this since it's based in copyright law. That's what the First Sale Doctrine is.
Copyright laws have and must have precedence over any consumer protection laws. Copyright laws are international while consumer protection ones are local.
Surprise, surprise...the U.S. law (EULA) took precedence since Valve is, you know, a U.S. based company.
Sorry. US Laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
Very, very wrong. EULA's are under U.S. Code 17 (copyright laws). And U.S. copyright laws trump EU consumer protection laws....even in EU courts.
Until it gets changed and they doesnt any more. Very simple. Exactly what this case is about and bunch of loopholes in regulating digital goods.
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
Yes, laws change over time. But in this case you can't retroactively ignore copyright laws (which the consumer agreed to) and no EU court would even attempt to rule that way.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
You can. It will get properly regulated in the end. Companies may now enjoy loopholes, but it wont last forever.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
You should probably take a look at similar cases which ruled against the consumer due to copyright protection. And just because people don't like the results of a law doesn't make it a 'loophole'.
Copyright laws > consumer protection laws. They aren't competing laws since one clearly trumps the other. It's that simple.
Until someone says different. They ARE competing laws. And companies DO enjoy loopholes in digital part of the business, i dont really know from where did you come from.
As i said, they FAILED to show how one is different from the other. And since digital space is still a big mess, companies use loopholes. Its THAT simple.
If you think that anywhere else gambling would fly like it does withing MMOs, well, wake up. It just didnt catch enough drift yet to be closely looed at.
Copyright laws supersede any EU consumer rights law. Precedence shows this even in prior cases involving Valve in EU courts. And copyright laws aren't 'loopholes'; they're the law.
If you don't like the applicable laws that come with Steam use....then don't use it.
You're going to be a sad panda when you read the court's decision on this. They have to uphold copyright laws. You won't need consumer protection laws if the courts failed to uphold copyright laws since there would hardly be any consumption. The marketplace would be a shell of what we have (if at all).
Its pretty clear that you dont get the issue at all rofl. More likely you pretend you dont get the issue.
But as i said, it will get regulated in teh end, and loopholes they enjoy atm wil not be there any more. How far we are from that is anyones guess, but more and more the issue surfaces more attention it will get.
The more money is involved, the more hot topic it will become. Its THAT simple.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
That's Americans for you. Hating the government is almost a religion where I live. They loath having to follow their own government's regulation but the idea that somewhere an American is being forced to follow French regulation just for taking French money, as you can see, really gets under their skin.
Nothing I have said has anything to do with french money. The consumer rights law allowing the resale and trade of digital media is what I have a problem with. Anyone with a brain can see that law is an extremely bad idea.
While the refund policy put in place by Valve was and is a great thing for consumers, allowing the resale and trade of digital media globally would be a disaster.
Anyone with a brain can see that this law is an extremely good idea for consumers.
/Fixed
The price hike that this law would cause would be disastrous for consumers. The consumers are the ones who will end up paying a lot more in the long run.
How do you not see this?
Oh, that's so funny and unfounded. The proof was here not so long ago when we could sell our games.
How do you not see this?
Heh you are simply mistaken.
If Valve loses (which they wont) get ready to pay 2x to 3x the cost for new games
I can see it already Fallout 5, $60 in US and 200 euros for EU ....... /golfclap .
Aren't you glad Valve lost?
Hehehe
If Valve lose and prices go up, we go pirating
hehehe, Viva la France!
-Anyway your reply is still unfounded, based on air.
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
Valve is just a middleman. They sell products of third parties. Their great unique selling point is the Steam, platform and Steam software prices will not go up. Valve sells digital copies at full retail price. Increasing the price would mean less sales due to other channels being more advantageous. That's something they definitely don't want.
What's with the 6 page bullshit you guys are spewing. As much as you fanboy Valve, they charge us in euros here, that means they pay european taxes somewhere, that means european laws applies to them. France is one of the leading EU countries. Deal with it.
It's evident that the people should be owners of their games. Idk how valve dodged this for so long. What happens if Valve goes bankrupt tomorrow? We lose all our games? Even though they are not theirs? Are we renting these games then? And if we're renting them, why do we pay higher prices than regular box copy?
Steam is money making machine and its one of the bad kind. I don't get all the fanboism...Good thing here in Europe we have decent consumer laws and are not left to the corporations for grabs...
The possible bankrupcy actually made me purchase only box copies and never go digital again. Infact, if you are day-1 buyer like me, you get to save 10-15 euro per game. Sweet deals. And i get to keep my games, even if some terrorist group decides it doesnt like Valve and bombs them.
I only buy steam games that are sub 10 euro. Because i don't care for them all that much.
Exactly. And why no court will overturn this since it's based in copyright law. That's what the First Sale Doctrine is.
Copyright laws have and must have precedence over any consumer protection laws. Copyright laws are international while consumer protection ones are local.
So the ruling is very predictable.
As others have said: you don't get it. Steam are - supposedly - selling you the game; Steam do not own the copyright of said game. Clear?
Oh but wait - maybe they are not selling you the game since it seems you do not own it. For if you owned it .....
Copyright laws are not as simple as you seem to believe nor is France in the US! However your reference to the (US) First Sales Doctrine is akin to what the EU "supreme court" has ruled that software (including downloaded software) is a product and so can be resold.
Comments
Europe has always been interested in finding balanced solutions when it comes to economic growth. The downside of this are lengthy legal discussions in the European parliament and higher prices for certain products. Depending on the subject, benefits are strenghtened consumer rights, social security or environmental protection. We simply want the whole thing to work for everyone and not only for certain parties or companies.
Americans on the other hand seem to solely focus on economic growth. No matter at what costs. Thats at least the impression many Europeans have when it comes to the United States.
Personally, I hope that Valve will be asked to comply with European consumer rights.
Fallout V USA $50 EU €15/month
Problem solved
Again, good luck with that one. Might as well add Valve is also required to fund the unicorns and lollipops foundation.
The fact remains that there are 2 opposite decisions on basically the same subject. (Main difference being primary focus B2B vs. B2C.)
Will be interesting to see what the french court decides. (I am fairly certain that they will be in line with the Berlin regional court though.)
As for the doomsday scenarios: While it may cause a lot of grief for "gamers" many (european) politicians and cultural institutions would have few to zero problems with a de-facto ban on entertainment software from US based companies.
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)
Basically to any EU customer a EULA can never disregard/ineffectuate given consumer rights - This is why many europeans laugh at the "The one with the most lawyers wins" EULA's often attached to US products.
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)
Now explain to us all: how does that benefit us the consumers?
These kind of shallow near sighted views like yours is whats really bad for us consumers
AFAIK EU copyright laws are (for most practical applications) identical to US copyright law. The "US law vs. EU law" premise is silly - They operate within two different realms.
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)
Buy a disc: you can do whatever with it
Buy digital: you cant do crap with it
They cost the same and have same exact content in teh package.
So this case will go no where long-term.
So it's an easy case to figure out what is going to happen.
Consumer rights are regulated by law. They didnt mateialize from thin air. So you had 2 laws at the same time. Nothing will be "retroactively".
And you are saying that instead ignoring "copyright law" court should ignore "consumer rights law" instead. It doesnt work that way. What consumer "agreed to" is irrelevant if its against the law.
This issue arises only for digital goods, and they still failed to show how is digital distribution any different than classic distribution of goods.
Copyright laws > consumer protection laws. They aren't competing laws since one clearly trumps the other. It's that simple.
As i said, they FAILED to show how one is different from the other. And since digital space is still a big mess, companies use loopholes. Its THAT simple.
If you think that anywhere else gambling would fly like it does withing MMOs, well, wake up. It just didnt catch enough drift yet to be closely looked at. Eventally it will.
Steam's Subscriber Agreement explicitly forbids users to sell their games, despite the transfer of ownership of digital products/licenses being legal.Valve declines responsibility in the event that users' personal information is stolen.Valve claims ownership of the rights of any user-created content uploaded to Steam.It is impossible to get the money on your Steam Wallet back if your account is closed/deleted/banned.Valve applies Luxembourg's consumer law regardless of the user's country.
Point 1 relates to a concept of commerce called "First Sale Doctrine." First sale refers that the person who purchased it has ownership of said product and is allowed to sell it. The problem in regards to digital goods and games is the fact that game developers and publishers have changed the terms of the User Agreements to basically make First Sale Doctrine invalid. If you read the user agreement for that game you just bought, you might not be all that shocked to discover that all you have purchased for the cost of the game is a "license" to use it. The developer/publisher still retains ownership of the game and is allowing you to basically "rent" it.
Companies like game developers have been fighting First Sale Doctrine for years, and gamers have suffered the repercussions of this.
Point 2, is just BS. Under several statues in the US, if you provide your information to a company for the purposes of a purchase, they are required to safeguard that information. If somehow their systems are compromised, they are considered to be legally held responsible. Valve is shifting responsibility to the users and "hackers" to avoid prosecution, which if it were to go through, would in all likelihood, cause the collapse of Valve itself due to the amount of damages awarded.
Point 3, we have seen this shit before. Facebook tried this, GeoCities (Before Yahoo's purchase) tried this and it failed miserably. If you create content, you are the owner of said content. That's basic copyright law. Period.
Now, point 4 is where it gets interesting. Having spent the last couple months studying Business Law, one thing I do know is that a business is required to follow the laws of EVERY country it operates. Saying that they are going to follow just one country's consumer law because it will benefit them is actually illegal. Valve being a US company, first and foremost is required to comply with US laws. However, because Valve is international, they are also required to comply with the laws fo every country they operate in. Operating within the Eurozone, Valve is required to comply with laws within all countries of the Eurozone. Following laws is not a menu. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you're going to follow.
If you don't like the applicable laws that come with Steam use....then don't use it.
You're going to be a sad panda when you read the court's decision on this. They have to uphold copyright laws. You won't need consumer protection laws if the courts failed to uphold copyright laws since there would hardly be any consumption. The marketplace would be a shell of what we have (if at all).
One thing that is very clear from other posts in this thread is just how effective anti-government, pro-business propaganda is these days.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Copyright laws have and must have precedence over any consumer protection laws. Copyright laws are international while consumer protection ones are local.
So the ruling is very predictable.
But as i said, it will get regulated in teh end, and loopholes they enjoy atm wil not be there any more. How far we are from that is anyones guess, but more and more the issue surfaces more attention it will get.
The more money is involved, the more hot topic it will become. Its THAT simple.
hehehe, Viva la France!
-Anyway your reply is still unfounded, based on air.
It's evident that the people should be owners of their games. Idk how valve dodged this for so long. What happens if Valve goes bankrupt tomorrow? We lose all our games? Even though they are not theirs? Are we renting these games then? And if we're renting them, why do we pay higher prices than regular box copy?
Steam is money making machine and its one of the bad kind. I don't get all the fanboism...Good thing here in Europe we have decent consumer laws and are not left to the corporations for grabs...
The possible bankrupcy actually made me purchase only box copies and never go digital again. Infact, if you are day-1 buyer like me, you get to save 10-15 euro per game. Sweet deals. And i get to keep my games, even if some terrorist group decides it doesnt like Valve and bombs them.
I only buy steam games that are sub 10 euro. Because i don't care for them all that much.
As others have said: you don't get it. Steam are - supposedly - selling you the game; Steam do not own the copyright of said game. Clear?
Oh but wait - maybe they are not selling you the game since it seems you do not own it. For if you owned it .....
Copyright laws are not as simple as you seem to believe nor is France in the US! However your reference to the (US) First Sales Doctrine is akin to what the EU "supreme court" has ruled that software (including downloaded software) is a product and so can be resold.