Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.UltraWhat's the confusing part? You cannot have a single market if players can segment said market into sections of their own making. Either you sell to the whole EU as a single market or you don't sell at all.

The thing is I don't care how thorough the EU single market is, since I don't have an ideological preference for such things. Sure, the EU is a single market as a matter of fact, and sure, that status is important to many EU bureaucrats. But that isn't a statement about what policy is good for people in the EU. You could perfectly well have policies which violated or attenuated that status but were good policies.
And even if the EU were an actual country that wouldn't preclude the possibility of trade barriers between sub-units; there are trade barriers and "buy local" policies in Canadian provinces and even municipalities. They're not huge, but they're there.

The single market is not important to "many EU bureaucrats", it's one of the fundamental blocks of the whole EU. If the single market is deemed bad policy then this have to be changed through the normal political chain (elections and so forth) but as it stands now the "law is the law" so it's not like the people enforcing the regulation can look the other way just because they feel personally that the outcome might be bad for the people in the EU, that is for the voters and then the politicians to decide.

Just googled around for your interprovincial trade barriers in Canada and I must say that the vast majority of results where from people and organisations that talked about how much problem they cause. Now I know nothing about the state of this in Canada but it sure sounds crazy.

The reality is that most people don't give a damn or really notice them. They are small, and mainly exist for fairly limited local goals. However, right wing politicians have to have something to call out. We've already got free trade with practically everybody, and they've already killed most of the social programs that don't have massive public support. So there have been some cases of provincial pols getting a bee in their bonnet about the horrors of provincial trade barriers so they can have something to campaign on.
But the reality is that there has never been such a thing as completely barrier-free trade; there probably never will be. The argument basically can't be over whether there will be barriers, but about how big and what the barriers will be.
So I don't find the claim persuasive that somehow if any barrier exists the status of the EU as a common market will implode in a puff of logic. There are surely barriers now, some more formal than others. There will be barriers next year and ten years from now, no matter what decisions get made about this particular one.

Okey I can buy that. On top of that, if you somehow can use those barriers to keep Jordan Peterson locked inside Canada then I will unconditionally endorse your interprovincial trade barriers any day of the week!

I would certainly endorse performing that international service!

Me Happy :-)

As a small side note to this whole "debate", the main problem here is not that EU is trying to remove social programs, the problem is that major parts of Europe is now controlled by conservative governments and this have shifted the EU policies to the right. Aka EU is not right leaning conservative by definition, it's just how the European political map looks right now and is why things like Article 11 and 13 is passed (since the majority of the member states voted yes).

edit: I realise that this can be seen as hardcode nit-picking but my issue is that the Internet is so full of the Putin sponsored alt-right groups that are arguing for the dismemberment of the EU that I feel that it's important to distinguish between EU politics and European politics if that makes sense, or in other words the problem is not with the EU as such but with Europe as a whole.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.UltraWhat's the confusing part? You cannot have a single market if players can segment said market into sections of their own making. Either you sell to the whole EU as a single market or you don't sell at all.

The thing is I don't care how thorough the EU single market is, since I don't have an ideological preference for such things. Sure, the EU is a single market as a matter of fact, and sure, that status is important to many EU bureaucrats. But that isn't a statement about what policy is good for people in the EU. You could perfectly well have policies which violated or attenuated that status but were good policies.
And even if the EU were an actual country that wouldn't preclude the possibility of trade barriers between sub-units; there are trade barriers and "buy local" policies in Canadian provinces and even municipalities. They're not huge, but they're there.

The single market is not important to "many EU bureaucrats", it's one of the fundamental blocks of the whole EU. If the single market is deemed bad policy then this have to be changed through the normal political chain (elections and so forth) but as it stands now the "law is the law" so it's not like the people enforcing the regulation can look the other way just because they feel personally that the outcome might be bad for the people in the EU, that is for the voters and then the politicians to decide.

Just googled around for your interprovincial trade barriers in Canada and I must say that the vast majority of results where from people and organisations that talked about how much problem they cause. Now I know nothing about the state of this in Canada but it sure sounds crazy.

The reality is that most people don't give a damn or really notice them. They are small, and mainly exist for fairly limited local goals. However, right wing politicians have to have something to call out. We've already got free trade with practically everybody, and they've already killed most of the social programs that don't have massive public support. So there have been some cases of provincial pols getting a bee in their bonnet about the horrors of provincial trade barriers so they can have something to campaign on.
But the reality is that there has never been such a thing as completely barrier-free trade; there probably never will be. The argument basically can't be over whether there will be barriers, but about how big and what the barriers will be.
So I don't find the claim persuasive that somehow if any barrier exists the status of the EU as a common market will implode in a puff of logic. There are surely barriers now, some more formal than others. There will be barriers next year and ten years from now, no matter what decisions get made about this particular one.

Okey I can buy that. On top of that, if you somehow can use those barriers to keep Jordan Peterson locked inside Canada then I will unconditionally endorse your interprovincial trade barriers any day of the week!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.UltraWhat's the confusing part? You cannot have a single market if players can segment said market into sections of their own making. Either you sell to the whole EU as a single market or you don't sell at all.

The thing is I don't care how thorough the EU single market is, since I don't have an ideological preference for such things. Sure, the EU is a single market as a matter of fact, and sure, that status is important to many EU bureaucrats. But that isn't a statement about what policy is good for people in the EU. You could perfectly well have policies which violated or attenuated that status but were good policies.
And even if the EU were an actual country that wouldn't preclude the possibility of trade barriers between sub-units; there are trade barriers and "buy local" policies in Canadian provinces and even municipalities. They're not huge, but they're there.

The single market is not important to "many EU bureaucrats", it's one of the fundamental blocks of the whole EU. If the single market is deemed bad policy then this have to be changed through the normal political chain (elections and so forth) but as it stands now the "law is the law" so it's not like the people enforcing the regulation can look the other way just because they feel personally that the outcome might be bad for the people in the EU, that is for the voters and then the politicians to decide.

Just googled around for your interprovincial trade barriers in Canada and I must say that the vast majority of results where from people and organisations that talked about how much problem they cause. Now I know nothing about the state of this in Canada but it sure sounds crazy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraNow you are spreading the myth that EU is undemocratic which is blatantly false.

The EU Comission consists of people assigned by the government of each member state, so by definition fully democratic since they are appointed by the government that we the EU citizens have voted for in our national elections.
The EU Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, so people that we EU citizens vote on in our national elections.
The EU parliament consists of people that we as EU citizens vote on in the EU elections, again fully democratic.

While I agree that the EU is somewhat democratic, that is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the actual very limited democratic process involved :(

The EU commissioners are selected by the commission's president, who in turn is appointed by the governments of the EU countries, basically the heads of states in this case... which may or may not have been voted for. The actually democratically elected parliaments of the member states do not play a role in this at all. However the EU parliament has to agree to the complete team (yes or no, not individuals).
Regarding the council, again representation of governments, not actually elected members of parliament, which is at most a indirect form of democracy.
And the EU parliament, probably the most democratic of these three, is both largely powerless and also not truly democratic as not every persons vote counts the same in the elections.

Representative democracy is already how all of the member states operate nationally so if the EU Commission and Council is defined as "somewhat democratic" than the exact same applies to every single democratic country in the world.

True, but also very much a matter of degree. Switzerland is clearly more democratic than Germany. And Germany is clearly more democratic than the EU. As Germany is already a very indirect democracy, the EU can rightfully be called quite undemocratic (despite not being a totalitarian regime).

But I disagree with the "EU lobbycracy" statement someone else did... largely the same which happens in the national governments and even more so dirty "EU washing" happens by national lobby driven governments (=pointing the blame to the EU when in fact it is a unpopular but national decision).

Ok Switzerland is a good example of direct democracy, forgot about those crazy swiss :). And I have a very hard time seeing how Germany would be more democratic than the EU, in fact the Germany political system looks quite equal to that of the EU?!

For the rest I think that Three Arrows (who is German) explains it best in his Brexit video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_HdqYCDcVE

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=einherjar]

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library GuyNow you are spreading the myth that EU is undemocratic which is blatantly false.

Sure? And why could lobbyist e.g. take part of the negotiation of TTIP, but it was a secret for us - the citizens? And whom do I vote, if I do not have the chance to know, what he is doing in my name?

Is this really democracy? IMHO it is more some lobbycracy. Lobbyist have more power in Brüssel then the EU citizens have. That is, for example, a lack of democracy.
And the more these organization are away from control of their citizens, the more democracy looses.

And in my feelings, they also try to hide the facts, which things the parliament people did or do. E.G. if you look at things, that Tendering rules do not apply to Microsoft.

There are a lot of things, where the EU breaks their rules. If you define rules in a kind of democratic process, but you break them again and again - IMHO that is not really democracy.

But perhaps we get to off topic here.

Not saying that everything is 100% perfect or that things cannot be improved but the EU is just as democratic as any national country. You also do not vote directly for every single person with power in your national election. And those lobby groups are just as active in your national level, e.g when the question regarding Software Patents where voted on Ericsson put high pressure on our Swedish politicians (and Nokia did the same in Finland) to vote for such patents. Lobbying is one ugly mofo but let's be real here and understand that they exists not only on the EU level.

TTIP was also secret in the US and in every single EU member state. And I can guarantee that your country have been involved in secret negotiations with other countries as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraNow you are spreading the myth that EU is undemocratic which is blatantly false.

The EU Comission consists of people assigned by the government of each member state, so by definition fully democratic since they are appointed by the government that we the EU citizens have voted for in our national elections.
The EU Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, so people that we EU citizens vote on in our national elections.
The EU parliament consists of people that we as EU citizens vote on in the EU elections, again fully democratic.

While I agree that the EU is somewhat democratic, that is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the actual very limited democratic process involved :(

The EU commissioners are selected by the commission's president, who in turn is appointed by the governments of the EU countries, basically the heads of states in this case... which may or may not have been voted for. The actually democratically elected parliaments of the member states do not play a role in this at all. However the EU parliament has to agree to the complete team (yes or no, not individuals).
Regarding the council, again representation of governments, not actually elected members of parliament, which is at most a indirect form of democracy.
And the EU parliament, probably the most democratic of these three, is both largely powerless and also not truly democratic as not every persons vote counts the same in the elections.

Representative democracy is already how all of the member states operate nationally so if the EU Commission and Council is defined as "somewhat democratic" than the exact same applies to every single democratic country in the world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraSo the main problem can be that Valve and these 5 companies have colluded to introduce geo-blocking, and not that Valve in itself enforces geo-blocking of activation keys.

Yeah, that is an interesting part of it, but if I understood correctly we are talking about Steam activation keys, so how could they not have discussed with the Valve beforehand? Again, I think this is someone trying to apply rules for physical goods to digital ones, but you are of course right that this conclusion might very well also be the outcome of this EU investigation.

Another possible solution might be to simply limit the number of physical copies that a single person can purchase at a time. If you have to go to the store for each item that you have to resell (and after a few visits the store will of course recognise you and kick you out) then it's hard to sell enough second hand keys to richer countries to really compete with the real retailers in those richer countries.

Or this will simply mean the death of the fake-physical copy altogether, buying your game online on Steam or Epic of GOG with regional pricing is still not prohibited. And why buy the physical copy if you have to download the game anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KithopGeo-blocking is BS, so for once the EU is in the right of it with their demands.

In Canada, the price for a game is the same across the country, whether you're in Ontario or the Yukon (barring GST/PST/HST differences, similar to VAT).

In the US, same deal - it doesn't matter what state you're in, the price of a game is the price of that game.

The article lists some EU member states in the Eurozone and some that aren't - sure, the requirement for currency exchange tends to mean there are winners and losers on the price difference... but isn't the point of the EU the whole 'single market' thing? So set the price of a game in Euro, let non-Eurozone-but-still-EU members buy it for whatever that converts to in their local currency, and otherwise treat the EU as a single 'country'.

But the EU isn't a single country. It does not act fiscally, budgetarily, or in terms of many regulations, like a single country. It does not have EU-wide public pension plans paying the same amount across the region, it does not have EU-wide minimum wage laws, it does not have EU-wide unemployment insurance, it does not have payments moving between wealthier and poorer states to try to equalize their economic situation (if anything the reverse--it has EU-mandated rules redistributing the wealth of poorer states to the banks of richer ones). In the absence of these sorts of fiscal provisions to pull the economy of the region together, the Euro actually tends to broaden economic disparities in the Eurozone by worsening the economies of the poorer states, because it deprives them of a lot of fiscal tools needed more by the poorer states that go with control over one's own currency. Like devaluation to encourage exports, and stuff.

I'm not sure of my position on this, but using actual countries as an analogy to the EU is a poor argument for whichever side and as a side effect leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU.

The EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

That's the kind of reason denying the EU is, or is very much like, a country did not lead me to certainty about what policy is right for this situation.

What's the confusing part? You cannot have a single market if players can segment said market into sections of their own making. Either you sell to the whole EU as a single market or you don't sell at all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KimyrielleThe EU is in that fuzzy "not yet a nation, but not individual states anymore either" state. It's written goal actually IS full confederation one day. It's taking a while, because there are too many dumbass nationalists around that don't understand the "the sum is greater than its parts" thing.

People that defend that disgusting corporate practice of having no problem with moving your jobs to cheaper regions, but charging you prices as if the thing had been made in a high-wage country fail to understand that for the practice of trade the EU -is- one nation already. Goods, money, ideas and people can move absolutely freely inside the EU and did so for decades, so banning regional price discrimination is just a logical step. Nothing more, nothing less. Our our side of the pond, we don't allow corporations to block someone living in Texas from shopping in North Dakota either. Same thing.

The EU does some good things. It acts as a really effective standards body, which can be annoying to some but is probably on balance a significant positive. And the standardization on the Euro does reduce certain costs and frictions.
But it seems to me that there are big economic problems around the Euro and the way it is administered. Well, problems to most, and particularly some of the poorer countries--advantages to bankers, particularly German ones. Look how much they squalled when Iceland refused to take on its banks' private debts when they went under! EU policy on deficits, for instance, is basically designed to worsen economic downturns. And it's very hard to reform such policies because the main EU institutions are completely undemocratic; the parliament has relatively little power. It's also very bad for a country's economy not to be able to print money, devalue its currency and otherwise control its economy. The EU seems to be generally dedicated to the gradual destruction of the European welfare states in the countries that have them, and to making it impossible to establish them in the countries that don't. The administration of the EU is not, in short, politically neutral--rather, it is neoliberal and austerity oriented.
I suspect that progress towards the EU becoming a genuine country is and will remain something of a mirage. There will be movements to tie the countries closer together in some ways, but most of the things that could make it a genuine country run counter to the policy imperatives of the EU. They're more into privatizing than nation-building.

Now you are spreading the myth that EU is undemocratic which is blatantly false.

The EU Comission consists of people assigned by the government of each member state, so by definition fully democratic since they are appointed by the government that we the EU citizens have voted for in our national elections.
The EU Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, so people that we EU citizens vote on in our national elections.
The EU parliament consists of people that we as EU citizens vote on in the EU elections, again fully democratic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraThe EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, but this is one of the cases where a digital economy doesn't quite work as the regular physical goods/items one.

Being allowed to freely resell cross-border will lead game companies to abolish (lower) regional pricing most likely unless they find another (probably even less customer friendly) way to prevent large scale key "smuggling".

Btw found this little tidbit from a earlier release in 2016:

QuoteIf geo-blocking is the result of agreements between suppliers and distributors it may restrict competition in the Single Market in breach of EU antitrust rules. Any competition enforcement measure against geo-blocking would have to be based on a case-by-case assessment, which would also include an analysis of potential justifications for restrictions that have been identified.

So the main problem can be that Valve and these 5 companies have colluded to introduce geo-blocking, and not that Valve in itself enforces geo-blocking of activation keys.

View this comment - View article - View full comments