3 ms·

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.

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.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. And that degree would be just a little bit closer if your vision of state-based compulsion were enacted by France or the EU. There is nothing wrong or unethical if Valve makes the determination that it cannot profitably do business with France. It happens all of the time when a business decides it cannot profitably compete in a market where the regulatory or tariff structure doesn't let it be successful. Due to such laws, they back out of the market. I really don't understand how that point can be reasonable debated. What would be wrong would be for Valve to find loop holes that allowed it to continue doing business while circumventing these laws.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. I have explained why I disagree in this case. > In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. It's a matter of kind. China is not a democracy, therefore it does not have a legitimate government. For that reason alone, there is nothing immoral about ignoring orders from Beijing.

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.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. And that degree would be just a little bit closer if your vision of state-based compulsion were enacted by France or the EU. There is nothing wrong or unethical if Valve makes the determination that it cannot profitably do business with France. It happens all of the time when a business decides it cannot profitably compete in a market where the regulatory or tariff structure doesn't let it be successful. Due to such laws, they back out of the market. I really don't understand how that point can be reasonable debated. What would be wrong would be for Valve to find loop holes that allowed it to continue doing business while circumventing these laws.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. I have explained why I disagree in this case. > In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. It's a matter of kind. China is not a democracy, therefore it does not have a legitimate government. For that reason alone, there is nothing immoral about ignoring orders from Beijing.