Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
In EU law the reselling of licenses is already covered and Valve is completely compliant with EU law.
It would require France escalating the issue to the EU to make a new regulation which all EU members would have to be compliant with in their own local laws.
That. Is. NOT. How. It. Works.
No. It is the opposite. It would require France to get sued before EU court in order to invalidate the ruling of French courts, IF the EU court finds the French ruling to be non-compliant.
I understand that it's very different for indie developer than a AAA publisher, but let's stop short of branding the resellers thieves, yes?
Which it would.
We don't know that. And what "would" is irrelevant, all that matters is what "is". These laws are there to protect the customer, not the business. So giving the customer more freedom than mandated is non-compliance?
There could be legal reasons, or simply a misunderstanding. As an example, German users have often claimed that they must be able to return games due to how mail order businesses are required to do refunds. What those people missed, however, was an exception that ("hidden" in law-language) added an exception for online services and some other businesses (like selling a movie, to prevent watching and returning it).
Laws tend to be more complicated than a newspaper headline, and court rulings need to be understood.
Given what's at stake, there's no way Valve, or a group of publishers, don't challenge the law in court until all options are exhausted. It's not hard to predict the inevitable. I know you're set to 100% contrary because everyone is arguing with you, try not to let that blind you when something is actually pretty obvious.
It's also going to be a decade before this is sorted out anyway...
Quit playing armchar psychologist on me to discredit me. That just shows that all your talk about what's obvious and inevitable is nothing more than hot air. "Obvious" things don't take a decade to get sorted.
You're also being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Is France known for it's extremely speedy legal system? Is the EU? Like I said, you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. You don't need to argue with everything, and clearly there's some limits to your expertise even though you've clearly convinced yourself you're the only one who's got it sorted out.
Court cases are slow, especially when going through multiple levels of courts. A law fundamentally changing the business of (PC) gaming is going to be challenged until there's nowhere left to go, whether you can see that or not. So yeah, ten years... it's a guess. But even if I'm wrong it ain't gonna be ten days, ten weeks, or ten months from now, it will be years though regardless.
Maybe you should stop projecting so hard. You're the only one who claims to know for sure what will "inevitably happen" as if there is no limit to your expertise.
Of course this is going to take at least half a decade, because, you guessed it, it's not obvious, it's not an open-and-shut case, and it could go every which way.
Still just being contrary just to be contrary. You can't dismiss everything I said and then agree with me without your behavior also being obvious. It's just too bad you're not as complicated and inscrutable as you like you imagine. My ego is not so fragile, so have at it.