6 ms·

Set aside whether or not refund is deserved (I'm leaning toward yes?) If I have a business in the US, and sell software online for USD, do I now need to prohib

by kogir 10y ago

Set aside whether or not refund is deserved (I'm leaning toward yes?) If I have a business in the US, and sell software online for USD, do I now need to prohibit international users from purchasing my software? I can't possibly comply with the laws in every jurisdiction. For now, the US alone is painful and complicated enough.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jamez1 10y ago
The converse is allowing US companies to break the law in other jurisdictions. Imagine if Valve just kept the money and didn't deliver the games at all? Surely you have to comply with the law everywhere you operate.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  Define 'operate' though.
  - shakna 10y ago
    In the cited case, operate means: * Sell in local currency * Accept local billing addresses * Have hardware in local geography
- Joky 10y ago
  > The converse is allowing US companies to break the law in other jurisdictions. Imagine if Valve just kept the money and didn't deliver the games at all? Would this be allowed in any US jurisdiction?
resonanttoe 10y ago
IANAL, but I would imagine no or not to any hugely extensive degree. You charge in USD and require US billing addresses that would most likely be enough to say you operated in US only. If customers go out of their way to defeat that, then its really not on you. The difference here is that Valve didn't do this. The operated in Australia (as other countries too) and sold under AUD. The pricing structure is vastly different between US and other countries (much more expensive in AUD for example, even when counting for conversion). So the argument that they aren't operating or selling goods in AUD falls completely flat for me. They accepted AUD and AU billing addresses and Sold at market rates in AU. They actively opted in to the Australian Market at that stage and should be bound by consumer laws. Australian customers didn't go out of their way to make their purchases happen. Ultimately I don't think as an online retailer you should be compelled to comply with all laws for where you customers are coming from, but if you actively join a market, you should.
- hug 10y ago
  Just a correction: Valve do not sell in AUD in the Australian Steam store. They sell only in USD. They do, however, comply with Australian law with regards to ratings & releases, and they do have price discrimination - Items in the Australian Steam store are much higher priced than items in the US steam store, despite being sold in USD. Items are released to Australia at different times to the US, European, and Asian releases, and the selection of games in the store is (sometimes) different for Australia as compared to other countries. In other words: Valve acts exactly like a company that has a discrete Australian store, but charges in USD to 'hide' that fact and attempt to evade their responsibilities under the Australian Fair Trade act.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    Does Valve set the prices, release times, etc.. or is it the publisher using Steam to sell their products?
    - Strom 10y ago
      It's the publisher.
    - SXX 10y ago
      Valve might give some advice on regional pricing or enforce some limitations (so you can't sell unreasonable cheap or expensive), but decision is always up to publisher. Anyone who state otherwise are lying.
  - aplummer 10y ago
    The also IP block content just for Australia, for example left for dead 2
asdfaoeu 10y ago
You probably should read "(3) Issue 3: Whether Valve’s conduct was in Australia or whether Valve carries on business in Australia" > In this ordinary sense of carrying on a business, Valve undoubtedly carried on a business in Australia for six reasons. > First, as I have explained, Valve had, and has, many customers in Australia with approximately 2.2 million Australian accounts. It earned significant revenue from Australian customers on an ongoing basis. > Secondly, Steam content is “deposited” on Valve’s three servers in Australia when requested by a subscriber. It will stay on the server if it is requested again in a particular period of time. > Thirdly, Valve has significant personal property and servers located in Australia which, at the time of acquisition, had a retail value of $1.2 million. Its Australian servers were initially configured by an employee who travelled to Australia (ts 122). They were updated in 2013 by another employee who visited Australia. Valve paid invoices including, in one case $436,389, to an Australian company (Equinix) into its Australian bank account for equipment involving servers (Court Book pp 676-677). > Fourthly, Valve incurs tens of thousands of dollars per month of expenses in Australia for the rack space, and power to its servers. Those expenses are paid by Valve to the Australian bank account of an Australian company (Equinix). > Fifthly, Valve relies on relationships with third party members of content delivery providers in Australia (such as Internode or ixaustralia) who provide proxy caching for Valve in Australia. > Sixthly, Valve has entered into contracts with third party service providers, including companies such as Highwinds, who provide content around the world, including in Australia. Valve is aware that Highwinds has servers in Australia (ts 111) and that it is sometimes more efficient for customers in Australia to be provided content from servers in Australia (ts 112). > For these reasons, even if Valve did not engage in conduct in Australia, the Australian Consumer Law was engaged because it was an incorporated body which was carrying on business in Australia. But it seems like a business purely in the US would not have to deal with that but might have to deal with platforms that would have to comply with the laws.
xiaoma 10y ago
I think the more logical solution would be to support markets one at a time based on how valuable / easy they are for you—i.e., only support the US at first, then the UK, Canada or maybe Japan if you understand that market, then Brazil or India, etc... leaving small highly regulated markets for last.
hodgesrm 10y ago
IANAL, but in my experience legal issues in business generally boil down to common sense in the end. It does not matter whether it's US law or the Code of Justinian. In the case of software businesses you'll generally be OK if you ship quality software and offer decent customer service. You can even go with just one of these and have a successful business. The stuff that surprises you tends to be IP issues, not problems with otherwise happy customers.

by kogir 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jamez1 10y ago

The converse is allowing US companies to break the law in other jurisdictions. Imagine if Valve just kept the money and didn't deliver the games at all? Surely you have to comply with the law everywhere you operate.

madeofpalk 10y ago
Define 'operate' though.
- shakna 10y ago
  In the cited case, operate means: * Sell in local currency * Accept local billing addresses * Have hardware in local geography
Joky 10y ago
> The converse is allowing US companies to break the law in other jurisdictions. Imagine if Valve just kept the money and didn't deliver the games at all? Would this be allowed in any US jurisdiction?

resonanttoe 10y ago

IANAL, but I would imagine no or not to any hugely extensive degree. You charge in USD and require US billing addresses that would most likely be enough to say you operated in US only. If customers go out of their way to defeat that, then its really not on you. The difference here is that Valve didn't do this. The operated in Australia (as other countries too) and sold under AUD. The pricing structure is vastly different between US and other countries (much more expensive in AUD for example, even when counting for conversion). So the argument that they aren't operating or selling goods in AUD falls completely flat for me. They accepted AUD and AU billing addresses and Sold at market rates in AU. They actively opted in to the Australian Market at that stage and should be bound by consumer laws. Australian customers didn't go out of their way to make their purchases happen. Ultimately I don't think as an online retailer you should be compelled to comply with all laws for where you customers are coming from, but if you actively join a market, you should.

hug 10y ago
Just a correction: Valve do not sell in AUD in the Australian Steam store. They sell only in USD. They do, however, comply with Australian law with regards to ratings & releases, and they do have price discrimination - Items in the Australian Steam store are much higher priced than items in the US steam store, despite being sold in USD. Items are released to Australia at different times to the US, European, and Asian releases, and the selection of games in the store is (sometimes) different for Australia as compared to other countries. In other words: Valve acts exactly like a company that has a discrete Australian store, but charges in USD to 'hide' that fact and attempt to evade their responsibilities under the Australian Fair Trade act.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Does Valve set the prices, release times, etc.. or is it the publisher using Steam to sell their products?
  - Strom 10y ago
    It's the publisher.
  - SXX 10y ago
    Valve might give some advice on regional pricing or enforce some limitations (so you can't sell unreasonable cheap or expensive), but decision is always up to publisher. Anyone who state otherwise are lying.
- aplummer 10y ago
  The also IP block content just for Australia, for example left for dead 2

asdfaoeu 10y ago

You probably should read "(3) Issue 3: Whether Valve’s conduct was in Australia or whether Valve carries on business in Australia" > In this ordinary sense of carrying on a business, Valve undoubtedly carried on a business in Australia for six reasons. > First, as I have explained, Valve had, and has, many customers in Australia with approximately 2.2 million Australian accounts. It earned significant revenue from Australian customers on an ongoing basis. > Secondly, Steam content is “deposited” on Valve’s three servers in Australia when requested by a subscriber. It will stay on the server if it is requested again in a particular period of time. > Thirdly, Valve has significant personal property and servers located in Australia which, at the time of acquisition, had a retail value of $1.2 million. Its Australian servers were initially configured by an employee who travelled to Australia (ts 122). They were updated in 2013 by another employee who visited Australia. Valve paid invoices including, in one case $436,389, to an Australian company (Equinix) into its Australian bank account for equipment involving servers (Court Book pp 676-677). > Fourthly, Valve incurs tens of thousands of dollars per month of expenses in Australia for the rack space, and power to its servers. Those expenses are paid by Valve to the Australian bank account of an Australian company (Equinix). > Fifthly, Valve relies on relationships with third party members of content delivery providers in Australia (such as Internode or ixaustralia) who provide proxy caching for Valve in Australia. > Sixthly, Valve has entered into contracts with third party service providers, including companies such as Highwinds, who provide content around the world, including in Australia. Valve is aware that Highwinds has servers in Australia (ts 111) and that it is sometimes more efficient for customers in Australia to be provided content from servers in Australia (ts 112). > For these reasons, even if Valve did not engage in conduct in Australia, the Australian Consumer Law was engaged because it was an incorporated body which was carrying on business in Australia. But it seems like a business purely in the US would not have to deal with that but might have to deal with platforms that would have to comply with the laws.

xiaoma 10y ago

I think the more logical solution would be to support markets one at a time based on how valuable / easy they are for you—i.e., only support the US at first, then the UK, Canada or maybe Japan if you understand that market, then Brazil or India, etc... leaving small highly regulated markets for last.

hodgesrm 10y ago

IANAL, but in my experience legal issues in business generally boil down to common sense in the end. It does not matter whether it's US law or the Code of Justinian. In the case of software businesses you'll generally be OK if you ship quality software and offer decent customer service. You can even go with just one of these and have a successful business. The stuff that surprises you tends to be IP issues, not problems with otherwise happy customers.