EU court upholds fine against Valve for geo-blocking

Wasn't this in relation to Lost Ark, which was blocked in countries that had outlawed lootboxes, as they wanted their MTX sales?

so is the takeaway from this that companies are obligated to make a seperate version for those regions with blocked features, or are they not allowed to release in Europe at all if certain countries within have laws that conflict ?

Not that I would ever support toxic MTX practises, but I'm trying to grasp the legal implications of this if just not releasing in regions that doesn't allow your content isn't a viable solution.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mal

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: MalOk. But if it's illegal for Valve why is it legal for Netflix, Disney and all the other national media in Europe?

Netflix doesn't do what Valve was accused of doing, if you buy Netflix in Croatia you can still logon in Norway with the same account, that is why VPN services works for Netflix to get access to different catalogues of media.

It's not a matter of correctness of regulation. Ofc EU Regulation allow it to Netflix. But that because EU Regulation is hypocritical.

There is stuff you can watch in Norway and not in Croatia and viceversa. That is geo-locking, they offer different content in different regions, that you can only consume in those regions. Not to mention that prices are also different. EU can call it whatever they want but it's geo-locking. People in the single market pay differently and obtain different services depending where they live.

Then yes with VPN you can also login in UK and play steam eastern version of the game. The only difference here is that Valve is generally smarter because they serve a smarter audience and it makes it more difficult since you also need other credentials like a valid cc card where Netflix is dumber.

Or are we saying that the whole point in EU is that geo locking is fine only as long as you can easily circumvent it with a plain nord vpn for few bucks at months?

No it is not hypocritical, it is two completely different things. Valve and the listed publishing houses had different prices for the same product inside the EU single market with a geo-lock that meant that it hindered the free movement of services and goods that exists inside the EU single market.

Netflix does no such thing, if you bought your account in Norway you can still access the service in Croatia, or Austria. There is no geo-lock on your account. Yes there is differences in available media depending on where you login to Netflix but that is not Netflix being asshats, that is different IP holders having different rights to media and thus different agreements with Netflix. Aka distribution company X might have the rights to show Y in Norway while company Z have those rights in Croatia and if only one of them have decided to make an agreement with Netflix then ofc Netflix is forbidden from showing that content in one of those areas or Netflix would be found guilty of copyright infringement. And there is draconian law allowing EU to force a single company to have the rights to the entirety of the EU, such things are handled by each local country.

Had Ubisoft had the rights to Mass Effect in Germany and Warner the rights to it in Austria then both could have sold the same game in Steam with different prices and with geo-locking and it would have been legal, but that is not what happened.

Quoting: Craggles086What is wrong with setting a price at a level that is affordable to people in a lower economic block / region.

Something that is available to everyone in the UK or France and Germany is only available to the wealthy in the Baltic states?

I thought the EU was a democracy?

Or am I reading this wrong..

Yep, think I read it wrong. :)

No your thinking is wrong here, not your reading. There exists zero laws in EU against you having different prices in different regions of the EU. If you live here you already know that since there is no EU mandated price for tomatoes across every single member state and every single store. Valve and the game publishers are completely free to sell games cheaper in say the Baltics, what they are not allowed to do is block a person from Germany that bought the game in the Baltics to install his game in Germany.

It's hypocritical man. You're just fixated with explaining to me the law which I already do (and I know is not Netflix fault, at least for the catalog, the different pricing is their fault). And you're ignoring the practical effect, the so called "ideal principle" that is held for a certain economical category but not for another.

It's just a law that prohibits geolocking to Video games IP holders but allows it for music, video and press rights holder benefits.

It defends consumer rights in one case, private interests in another. It's as simple as that.


Last edited by Mal on 29 September 2023 at 9:50 am UTC

Quoting: NyxWasn't this in relation to Lost Ark, which was blocked in countries that had outlawed lootboxes, as they wanted their MTX sales?

No. The formal proceedings started in 2017. Valve say that the investigation started in 2013, and that they stopped doing the regional blocking (except in cases of legal requirements, like Germany's content laws) in 2015. Lost Ark didn't release in Europe till 2022.

Quoting: Guestwell region locking isnt going to ever be completely removed, because states do their own region locking .
just silly examples, power adapters, current, ethanol cut on gasoline, wifi channels, wifi antennas power, cell phones frequencies... etc.. etc.
Let's not forget that how they implemented the region lock in the 90s was to make cartdriges NTSC or PAL-N.
So to effectively remove all region locks you would have to implement worldwide cell phone frequencies, etc etc, everything should be standarized to a single standard. Or maybe make everything multi-standard

DVD region codes are not different in any practical way, whether it's Region 2, Region 4, A, C, or whatever. It's an entirely artificial restriction. The proof of this is that region codes can be completely circumvented by libdvdcss with no side effects. And here I thought the purpose of the Berne Convention was to bring every country's copyright laws in line so we didn't need to deal with arbitrary limits on distribution rights like the territories you can sell in. Gah. I'm pretty sure this is what is making compulsory licenses needlessly complex too.

With power adapters, there is an actual technical difference, and the RIAA won't come at you for circumvention if you plug your adapter into a converter. The NTSC vs PAL-N thing is somewhere in-between.

Alright, I would be willing to compromise. If the US government revokes Section 1201 of the DMCA, they can keep the region locks. Let the unsung heroes like MakeMKV break the locks open. I mean, in some countries this is already the case for DVDs/CDs/BRs. But do it for games too!

(especially visual novels, thank you)

Quoting: Mal

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mal

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: MalOk. But if it's illegal for Valve why is it legal for Netflix, Disney and all the other national media in Europe?

Netflix doesn't do what Valve was accused of doing, if you buy Netflix in Croatia you can still logon in Norway with the same account, that is why VPN services works for Netflix to get access to different catalogues of media.

It's not a matter of correctness of regulation. Ofc EU Regulation allow it to Netflix. But that because EU Regulation is hypocritical.

There is stuff you can watch in Norway and not in Croatia and viceversa. That is geo-locking, they offer different content in different regions, that you can only consume in those regions. Not to mention that prices are also different. EU can call it whatever they want but it's geo-locking. People in the single market pay differently and obtain different services depending where they live.

Then yes with VPN you can also login in UK and play steam eastern version of the game. The only difference here is that Valve is generally smarter because they serve a smarter audience and it makes it more difficult since you also need other credentials like a valid cc card where Netflix is dumber.

Or are we saying that the whole point in EU is that geo locking is fine only as long as you can easily circumvent it with a plain nord vpn for few bucks at months?

No it is not hypocritical, it is two completely different things. Valve and the listed publishing houses had different prices for the same product inside the EU single market with a geo-lock that meant that it hindered the free movement of services and goods that exists inside the EU single market.

Netflix does no such thing, if you bought your account in Norway you can still access the service in Croatia, or Austria. There is no geo-lock on your account. Yes there is differences in available media depending on where you login to Netflix but that is not Netflix being asshats, that is different IP holders having different rights to media and thus different agreements with Netflix. Aka distribution company X might have the rights to show Y in Norway while company Z have those rights in Croatia and if only one of them have decided to make an agreement with Netflix then ofc Netflix is forbidden from showing that content in one of those areas or Netflix would be found guilty of copyright infringement. And there is draconian law allowing EU to force a single company to have the rights to the entirety of the EU, such things are handled by each local country.

Had Ubisoft had the rights to Mass Effect in Germany and Warner the rights to it in Austria then both could have sold the same game in Steam with different prices and with geo-locking and it would have been legal, but that is not what happened.

Quoting: Craggles086What is wrong with setting a price at a level that is affordable to people in a lower economic block / region.

Something that is available to everyone in the UK or France and Germany is only available to the wealthy in the Baltic states?

I thought the EU was a democracy?

Or am I reading this wrong..

Yep, think I read it wrong. :)

No your thinking is wrong here, not your reading. There exists zero laws in EU against you having different prices in different regions of the EU. If you live here you already know that since there is no EU mandated price for tomatoes across every single member state and every single store. Valve and the game publishers are completely free to sell games cheaper in say the Baltics, what they are not allowed to do is block a person from Germany that bought the game in the Baltics to install his game in Germany.

It's hypocritical man. You're just fixated with explaining to me the law which I already do (and I know is not Netflix fault, at least for the catalog, the different pricing is their fault). And you're ignoring the practical effect, the so called "ideal principle" that is held for a certain economical category but not for another.

It's just a law that prohibits geolocking to Video games IP holders but allows it for music, video and press rights holder benefits.

It defends consumer rights in one case, private interests in another. It's as simple as that.

No I didn't explain the law to you, I explained that movies and tv-shows have their rights divided onto different companies in different regions and that this is different from how e.g games are licensed. So this is not hypocritical at all, just a difference in how they are licensed.

And your examples are not geo-locked, purchase X in country Y and you can still unlock it in country Z which is something that you couldn't do with the video games. What you are after is the EU turning into some massive federal institution forcing every single store to sell every single item that exists on the planet, so I don't think that you have thought this through.

This is completely apples to oranges.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: F.UltraNetflix does no such thing, if you bought your account in Norway you can still access the service in Croatia, or Austria. There is no geo-lock on your account. Yes there is differences in available media depending on where you login to Netflix but that is not Netflix being asshats, that is different IP holders having different rights to media and thus different agreements with Netflix. Aka distribution company X might have the rights to show Y in Norway while company Z have those rights in Croatia and if only one of them have decided to make an agreement with Netflix then ofc Netflix is forbidden from showing that content in one of those areas or Netflix would be found guilty of copyright infringement. And there is draconian law allowing EU to force a single company to have the rights to the entirety of the EU, such things are handled by each local country.

Sorry for jumping in here, but I did say "region-locking streaming services is bad enough".

Here's something I think is interesting. TV Shows and Movies work completely differently in terms of copyright infringement to, say, books and music.

Music, in my opinion, has the most fair licensing. You can't prevent anyone from commercially exploiting your music due to compulsory licensing. This is far, far better for the customer. They don't have to search several streaming services finding the song they like because any service can license it and send the royalties over to the creator. However...you can still get region locks depending on where the copyright holder makes it available.

Am I not understanding something here? Are these songs actually licensed not under the compulsory model, but rather a voluntary licensing agreement between the distribution platform (e.g. YouTube) and the copyright holder? Why would they do that? Wouldn't the distribution platform end up with fewer rights at a greater cost?

With books, there is no compulsory licensing, but you will never get region locks. How would you even enforce that with physical books? With ebooks, you almost never get region locks.

And with film, there is no compulsory licensing, and region locks are everywhere.

I don't think I have to explain what my preferred model is. And I would prefer if copyright terms were far more reasonable (we can keep the 1989 amendment that implicitly grants copyright protection to works without a copyright notice, but 28 years is long enough for protection).

Full agreement that it is bad enough, I hope people don't take my explanations on how things work for endorsement of the system in any way (I am after all a registered member of the original Pirate Party).

Now I don't have any insight into how the law works in Australia, but in the EU and in USA there is no compulsory model for music. If you want to create films, shows, video games or public performances with copyrighted music you do need a specific license for it (aka if you get a license to use a piece of music in a video game you do not get a license to use that piece of music in any other form or for any other video game).

And you can most definitely prohibit services from playing your music, happens regularly in e.g the US in politics (e.g Reagan trying to use Born in the USA) and there are also some recent examples of artists excluding their material from Spotify.

Quoting: F.UltraFull agreement that it is bad enough, I hope people don't take my explanations on how things work for endorsement of the system in any way

And to be clear from my side, I wasn't taking your explanations as an endorsement. I did talk briefly about streaming services in my original comment, so I felt what you wrote served as somewhat of a response to it, hence why I jumped in the middle of your discussion

Quoting: F.Ultra(I am after all a registered member of the original Pirate Party).

That is definitely not a credential I have on my CV! I'm only a regular reader of TorrentFreak.

Quoting: F.UltraNow I don't have any insight into how the law works in Australia, but in the EU and in USA there is no compulsory model for music. If you want to create films, shows, video games or public performances with copyrighted music you do need a specific license for it (aka if you get a license to use a piece of music in a video game you do not get a license to use that piece of music in any other form or for any other video game).

And you can most definitely prohibit services from playing your music, happens regularly in e.g the US in politics (e.g Reagan trying to use Born in the USA) and there are also some recent examples of artists excluding their material from Spotify.

After looking into it, I realize I was fatally misunderstanding what compulsory licensing is.

I can't read legalese very well, but here's a relevant section of US Law as it applies to compulsory licensing with music: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/115#a_1

Quoting: U.S. GovernmentA person may obtain a compulsory license only if the primary purpose in making phonorecords of the musical work is to distribute them to the public for private use

The language in this is perplexing. You distribute them publicly for private use?

One thing is clear—compulsory licenses can only apply in the United States even despite the Berne Convention. They don't cross borders. And despite it being compulsory, you do need to contact the artist (or failing that, the copyright office) to decide the terms of the license.

As I read more, I saw that compulsory licensing is only supposed to apply to making covers of songs. Cover bands are definitely something unique among other copyrightable industries. So I'm thinking it would be legal to take some song (say Gymnopedies, but let's assume that song was still copyrighted, I don't know many songs okay), perform a cover of it, and use that song in your game after obtaining a compulsory license, but you wouldn't be able to obtain a compulsory license for the original Gymnopedies rendition.

This article seems to provide a clear take on the matter: https://www.liveabout.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357

And it makes it clear I was completely misinterpreting compulsory licensing. Man, I wish it actually worked as I imagined it...this is so much worse haha. This is how you can tell I've never used Spotify or listened to much music.

I do not understand this part at all though:

Quoting: liveaboutUse the song of the original artist for a live public performance, as a background track for their own recording, or for use with karaoke. That's because a compulsory license only applies to music that is distributed to the public to be listened to by the end user.

Why is compulsory licensing not allowed here..?

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: U.S. GovernmentA person may obtain a compulsory license only if the primary purpose in making phonorecords of the musical work is to distribute them to the public for private use

The language in this is perplexing. You distribute them publicly for private use?

I believe what it means is, the members of the public you distribute to cannot use what they get in a public performance, which the copyright holder would expect separate royalties from.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: F.UltraFull agreement that it is bad enough, I hope people don't take my explanations on how things work for endorsement of the system in any way

And to be clear from my side, I wasn't taking your explanations as an endorsement. I did talk briefly about streaming services in my original comment, so I felt what you wrote served as somewhat of a response to it, hence why I jumped in the middle of your discussion

Quoting: F.Ultra(I am after all a registered member of the original Pirate Party).

That is definitely not a credential I have on my CV! I'm only a regular reader of TorrentFreak.

Quoting: F.UltraNow I don't have any insight into how the law works in Australia, but in the EU and in USA there is no compulsory model for music. If you want to create films, shows, video games or public performances with copyrighted music you do need a specific license for it (aka if you get a license to use a piece of music in a video game you do not get a license to use that piece of music in any other form or for any other video game).

And you can most definitely prohibit services from playing your music, happens regularly in e.g the US in politics (e.g Reagan trying to use Born in the USA) and there are also some recent examples of artists excluding their material from Spotify.

After looking into it, I realize I was fatally misunderstanding what compulsory licensing is.

I can't read legalese very well, but here's a relevant section of US Law as it applies to compulsory licensing with music: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/115#a_1

Quoting: U.S. GovernmentA person may obtain a compulsory license only if the primary purpose in making phonorecords of the musical work is to distribute them to the public for private use

The language in this is perplexing. You distribute them publicly for private use?

One thing is clear—compulsory licenses can only apply in the United States even despite the Berne Convention. They don't cross borders. And despite it being compulsory, you do need to contact the artist (or failing that, the copyright office) to decide the terms of the license.

As I read more, I saw that compulsory licensing is only supposed to apply to making covers of songs. Cover bands are definitely something unique among other copyrightable industries. So I'm thinking it would be legal to take some song (say Gymnopedies, but let's assume that song was still copyrighted, I don't know many songs okay), perform a cover of it, and use that song in your game after obtaining a compulsory license, but you wouldn't be able to obtain a compulsory license for the original Gymnopedies rendition.

This article seems to provide a clear take on the matter: https://www.liveabout.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357

And it makes it clear I was completely misinterpreting compulsory licensing. Man, I wish it actually worked as I imagined it...this is so much worse haha. This is how you can tell I've never used Spotify or listened to much music.

I do not understand this part at all though:

Quoting: liveaboutUse the song of the original artist for a live public performance, as a background track for their own recording, or for use with karaoke. That's because a compulsory license only applies to music that is distributed to the public to be listened to by the end user.

Why is compulsory licensing not allowed here..?

What you have found there is the tape tax. Differs from country to country, but the big one (as usual) is the USA who in 1992 implemented a tape tax after music producers complained that people pirate copied their material so they wanted a compensation on sold blank tape. So in a somewhat genius idea to not make this one way the US government agreed to add a tap tax to blank media but then also made it legal for people to make private copies of music (since they had payed for it with the "tax"). This is also when they started to label records with "explicit lyrics" in the US, a genius idea by the recording industry where they said that they accepted to add this label (driven by Tipper Gore:s [aka Al Gore:s wife] war on music) if they could get the tape tax accepted, fooling the politicians that didn't know or understand that the record industry wanted that label since it would sell more records.

This "tax" doesn't give you the right to make a public performance, only for you to listen to yourself (or friends in a close group and in private). Hence the text you quoted.

Here in Sweden the music producers managed to keep this tax going to modern media so they get a cut of external HDD:s, cell phones and SD cards. Which is complete nonsense since basically no one does pirate copying anymore after Spotify.


Last edited by F.Ultra on 30 September 2023 at 12:16 am UTC

Quoting: F.UltraWhat you have found there is the tape tax. Differs from country to country, but the big one (as usual) is the USA who in 1992 implemented a tape tax after music producers complained that people pirate copied their material so they wanted a compensation on sold blank tape. So in a somewhat genius idea to not make this one way the US government agreed to add a tap tax to blank media but then also made it legal for people to make private copies of music (since they had payed for it with the "tax"). This is also when they started to label records with "explicit lyrics" in the US, a genius idea by the recording industry where they said that they accepted to add this label (driven by Tipper Gore:s [aka Al Gore:s wife] war on music) if they could get the tape tax accepted, fooling the politicians that didn't know or understand that the record industry wanted that label since it would sell more records.

This "tax" doesn't give you the right to make a public performance, only for you to listen to yourself (or friends in a close group and in private). Hence the text you quoted.

Here in Sweden the music producers managed to keep this tax going to modern media so they get a cut of external HDD:s, cell phones and SD cards. Which is complete nonsense since basically no one does pirate copying anymore after Spotify.

I see...I think. As I mentioned before, I don't listen to much music

It's pretty crazy that they can collect royalties on private performances...

But aren't cover bands explicitly permitted under copyright law? I'm guessing this is a separate issue from compulsory licenses. I don't know anything about this other than that though.