4 ms·

Steam should pull out of the French market.

by jmpman 7y ago

anoncake 7y ago
Companies that think they are above the law should be thrown out of all markets. Including the EU one.
- jmpman 7y ago
  If their business model no longer works in France, why should they continue the market?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    I don't think the French authorities think that this law will make selling games a non-viable business else they wouldn't have made this law. And they're in charge, not Valve.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  That would be the opposite of thinking they are above the law. It would be an acknowledgement that if they sell to that market, they must obey its laws. As doing so would undermine their the viability of their business, they back out. Thinking they were above the law would be something like, "We removed our servers from your country, we're no longer in your jurisdiction, we don't have to listen to you" Or some other loop-hole attempt.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    To pull out of the market goes against the spirit of the law. The French people ordered Valve to stop preventing resale of games, not to stop doing their job. Besides, giving companies that kind of choice gives them power over the state and its people which shouldn't happen in a democracy.
    - jmpman 7y ago
      If another country passed a law that states that if one person purchased a game, they can make unlimited copies for their friends and give them away for free, that would seem to more obviously damage Valve’s business model. For a small country, which doesn’t produce many games, that decision would be great for their economy (less money sent outside their borders for the same content). The major game producing countries would claim that’s IP theft. To some degree, I could see the US and Japan as making the same argument against France in this scenario.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        I don't see the issue here. Of course a sovereign has the right to organize its economy in whatever way it wants. That includes deciding whether and to what extent intellectual property exists.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. The idea that a government, and in this case a foreign government, can bind a company to itself and its laws, or that the company should ethically choose to be so bound, even if the company doesn't want to do business there any longer... It is an extreme view of government authority & corporate responsibility to say corporations must do business with markets even when they disagree with its laws and/or it broke their business model. In the later case it amounts to an order to operate in an unsustainable environment. Your view of the law & obligations of companies would have far reaching consequences. A company would not, for example, be able to opt-out of assisting China with their censorship initiatives, or stop business with them all together if there was no other choice. How do you reconcile your vision of corporate responsibility to continue doing business with that sort of local state law?
      - anoncake 7y ago
        > That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. No, not at all. Since Valve is not a democratic organization its employees aren't free to begin with. Restricting its owners' "freedom" to tell their employees what to do is hardly authoritarian – freedom is about deciding what you do yourself. > A company would not, for example, be able to opt-out of assisting China with their censorship initiatives, or stop business with them all together if there was no other choice. The difference is that China is not a democracy.
jokoon 7y ago
don't you think they would lose a lot of revenue? I don't think that's a very bright idea

Steam should pull out of the French market.

by jmpman 7y ago

Steam should pull out of the French market.

anoncake 7y ago

Companies that think they are above the law should be thrown out of all markets. Including the EU one.

jmpman 7y ago
If their business model no longer works in France, why should they continue the market?
- anoncake 7y ago
  I don't think the French authorities think that this law will make selling games a non-viable business else they wouldn't have made this law. And they're in charge, not Valve.
ineedasername 7y ago
That would be the opposite of thinking they are above the law. It would be an acknowledgement that if they sell to that market, they must obey its laws. As doing so would undermine their the viability of their business, they back out. Thinking they were above the law would be something like, "We removed our servers from your country, we're no longer in your jurisdiction, we don't have to listen to you" Or some other loop-hole attempt.
- anoncake 7y ago
  To pull out of the market goes against the spirit of the law. The French people ordered Valve to stop preventing resale of games, not to stop doing their job. Besides, giving companies that kind of choice gives them power over the state and its people which shouldn't happen in a democracy.
  - jmpman 7y ago
    If another country passed a law that states that if one person purchased a game, they can make unlimited copies for their friends and give them away for free, that would seem to more obviously damage Valve’s business model. For a small country, which doesn’t produce many games, that decision would be great for their economy (less money sent outside their borders for the same content). The major game producing countries would claim that’s IP theft. To some degree, I could see the US and Japan as making the same argument against France in this scenario.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      I don't see the issue here. Of course a sovereign has the right to organize its economy in whatever way it wants. That includes deciding whether and to what extent intellectual property exists.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. The idea that a government, and in this case a foreign government, can bind a company to itself and its laws, or that the company should ethically choose to be so bound, even if the company doesn't want to do business there any longer... It is an extreme view of government authority & corporate responsibility to say corporations must do business with markets even when they disagree with its laws and/or it broke their business model. In the later case it amounts to an order to operate in an unsustainable environment. Your view of the law & obligations of companies would have far reaching consequences. A company would not, for example, be able to opt-out of assisting China with their censorship initiatives, or stop business with them all together if there was no other choice. How do you reconcile your vision of corporate responsibility to continue doing business with that sort of local state law?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. No, not at all. Since Valve is not a democratic organization its employees aren't free to begin with. Restricting its owners' "freedom" to tell their employees what to do is hardly authoritarian – freedom is about deciding what you do yourself. > A company would not, for example, be able to opt-out of assisting China with their censorship initiatives, or stop business with them all together if there was no other choice. The difference is that China is not a democracy.

jokoon 7y ago

don't you think they would lose a lot of revenue? I don't think that's a very bright idea