An instance of semantics
29/08/2014Adrian just posted on the subject blog about the ACCC suing software developer Valve over its refund policy and how that illustrates the capacity in which an organisation is liable for their operations in local contexts. I don’t necessarily agree with this and would also like to point out the infinitely negotiable nature of legislation and how it does (or does not) apply. Valve have already issued a response via Kotaku indicating that they fully intend to cooperate (not necessarily comply) with Australian authorities. Author Mark Serrels points out the bold section of Valve’s refund policy that indicates that it will only consider refunds where mandated by local laws.
It naturally follows that other questions may arise in response to this, particularly the capacity in which Valve’s products are a) definable as a product, instead of a service, and b) whether or not services provided by overseas corporations can be considered equitable to locally distributed products. It is worth noting that Valve can contest this case extensively by arguing that it does not actually sell anything, and by some interpretations they do not; Valve essentially provides the lease of a software license of an indeterminate period rather than any ownership rights over the software itself.
Valve will more than likely contest the case on these grounds using the argument that if they do not provide a tangible product then their services cannot be held to the same regulations as products that are legislated to have specific consumer protections imposed on then. Consequently, I would say that rather than being a case that illustrates international liability, it is more indicative of the negotiable semantics that exist around local and internationally applicable laws and where powerful entities are adept at subverting these to their own benefit.