Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Gavin Hird]

Right now they can't but that is changing.

There is a draft EU directive which will mandate EVERY company providing a service from outside of EU borders, to follow the EU consumer legislation or be shut out of the market. This regardless if they are incorporated inside the union or not. Most likely the directive will be effective next year. 

[Gavin Hird]

The only way any European could be tried before a US court in a conflict with LL is if they traveled to the US. Otherwise, there are multiple court cases in Eurpoean countries that have deemed TOS simmilar to LL's  null and void for their citizens.

They are seen as a one way declaration because the way they are organized, because they significanly disadvantage the consumer and are unbalanced in LL's favor, and because changes are not pre-announced the 14 days minimum required by law.

There is a lenghty discussion on the topic over in the gaming thread and I will not repeat. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

Right now they can't but that is changing.

There is a draft EU directive which will mandate EVERY company providing a service from outside of EU borders, to follow the EU consumer legislation or be shut out of the market. This regardless if they are incorporated inside the union or not. Most likely the directive will be effective next year. 

---

And it will never stand because of International Treaties.  They'd have to void almost every existing trade agreement.  Essentionally it is nothing more or less than an isolationalist action. 

If you think it through it will bring International Trade to a halt.

At best they can halt the delivery of a service to the EU but they still can't force compliance.

And quite frankly, do you really want the EU telling you whom you can and can't do business with?  Are you incapable of seeing what an affront to Your Freedom that this really is?

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

Right now they can't but that is changing.

There is a draft EU directive which will mandate EVERY company providing a service from outside of EU borders, to follow the EU consumer legislation or be shut out of the market.

---

As far as I'm aware the nonsense law regarding German users (I've not seen any source for it aside from the one Perrie translated about IP addresses) and age-verification isn't an EU directive, but a law isolated within Germany. I'm European and this law has no value in my country.

It would be hilarious if it did, I'm sure our government would go into full meltdown.

I don't see how such a localised law would affect the rest of the EU or give anyone the power to shut US services out of member country markets, above and beyond any other trade agreement.

Happy to be educated on this point, I've been trying to get a source on this thing the whole way through, no-one's heard of it.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

Right now they can't but that is changing.

There is a draft EU directive which will mandate EVERY company providing a service from outside of EU borders, to follow the EU consumer legislation or be shut out of the market. This regardless if they are incorporated inside the union or not. Most likely the directive will be effective next year. 

---

Which draft directive is that, Gavin?   I am not disputing it, but I'd like to read it and see what exactly it has to say.

 

[Gavin Hird]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I don't see how such a localised law would affect the rest of the EU or give anyone the power to shut US services out of member country markets, above and beyond any other trade agreement.

Happy to be educated on this point, I've been trying to get a source on this thing the whole way through, no-one's heard of it.

---

You obviously don't understand how an EU directive work, but it is mandated to be worked into the legilsation of all member states. So there is nothing localized about it. :-)  There is plenty of source on it - go to the gaming thread or search EU documents. 

[Gavin Hird]

The EU consumer authorities tell the populations in now most EU countries that such TOS can be disregarded unless they are in compliance with the legislation. Particularly Apple has felt this for iTunes and iCloud, but a bunch of others too. 

Not being in compliance when the directive is in effect means not having access to 500+ million consumers. 

[Gavin Hird]

There should be links and numbers in the gaming thread. If you can't find it I'll try to chase them up, but not till tomorrow. 

[Innula Zenovka]

I very much doubt that the Council of Ministers would agree to any directive that attempted to promote a local, German, law to the status of an EU directive.   Quite properly (and also since they're the people who have to get the enabling legislation passed by their own parliaments) they leave what are properly matters of criminal law to national governments to decide.

That's why you will find that different EU countries have different legislation on -- for example -- online holocaust denial, online sale of Nazi regalia, and online non-photographic indecent images of children.

You have mentioned online gambling.   That's an interesting parallel, in that there's certainly plenty of EU caselaw on the subject, and a new EU directive is in preparation, it's mostly to do with harmonising regulations between EU countries to ensure that local and foreign-based ISPs and gambling sites are treated equally by local law, while leaving policy on online gambling up to the individual countries (which is why Germany and Britain have radically different laws on online gaming, and why both legal regimes are completely legal under EU law).

While I doubt European law would concern itself with minimum age limits for accessing online pornography, since that's clearly better dealt with at national level, if it did, it would probably be to force Germany to liberalise ifs laws.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

The only way any European could be tried before a US court in a conflict with LL is if they traveled to the US. Otherwise, there are multiple court cases in Eurpoean countries that have

deemed TOS simmilar to LL's

 null and void for their citizens.

They are seen as a one way declaration because the way they are organized, because they significanly disadvantage the consumer and are unbalanced in LL's favor, and because changes are not pre-announced the 14 days minimum required by law.

There is a lenghty discussion on the topic over in the gaming thread and I will not repeat. 

---

My bolding above.  They still haven't found LL's TOS null and void.

You are right, they are similar, however they are not identical.   And in all of the cases I have read the "devil is in the details"

For instance in the Runescape Case, Runescape was ordered to return the boy's virtual goods because of the threat of actual physical violence that was used to accomplish the theft.

 

[Gavin Hird]

The discussion in the gambling thread was a GENERAL discussion in TOS and European consumer legislation. Comprehend?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

The EU consumer authorities tell the populations in now most EU countries that such TOS can be disregarded unless they are in compliance with the legislation. Particularly Apple has felt this for iTunes and iCloud, but a bunch of others too. 

Not being in compliance when the directive is in effect means not having access to 500+ million consumers. 

---

You are ignoring the fact that they can do this because of the wholly owned subsidiaries in the EU.

The reality is that the actions applied to the Subsidiaries, not to Apple itself.  The effect on Apple was indirect.

[Gavin Hird]

They will be regarded null and void by European legislation because they don't satisfy the minimum requirements of the law – end of court proceedings. 

[Gavin Hird]

Partly true, but they still tell the consumers this regardless because the TOS cannot be enforced in any European court.

So for all practical purposes they are null and void unless the consumer traveled to the US and there was a US court order to arrest the consumer and bring the case up for trial. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

Partly true, but they still tell the consumers this regardless because the TOS cannot be enforced in any European court.

So for all practical purposes they are null and void unless the consumer traveled to the US and there was a US court order to arrest the consumer and bring the case up for trial. 

---

Or Linden Lab showed up in the European Court to defend itself. 

For a small business like LL it may or not be worth it.

Now this is a two way street.  I don't want to single out European Courts.  If a Court, American or European should chose to ignore  the Trade Treaties and Agreements then it becomes a bigger issue that has to be resolved by the governing bodies for the Countries involved.  

The treaties which are a form of legislation still take precedence unless for instance the Court ruled that the Ruling Body could not enter into the Treaty.

It is because of these kinds of things that Trade Negotiations are always taking place.  They are to resolve these issues between  Countries so that the people in the Countries can do business with each other.

Come on now, I know you are smart enough to know and understand this stuff.

[Gavin Hird]

I am smart enough to understand TOS for consumer services or goods will not go to trial in a European court unless they satisfy the minimum requirements of the law. That is really the only thing you need to understand. :-)

The EU directives do of course take treaties into concideration when the directives are created, but the treaties do not overrule the legislation. There are a number of differences across the Atlantic when it comes to trade and there is no such treaty in place between the EU and USA at present. (This discussion topic is one of the differences.)

[Perrie Juran]

And I will ask again.

Do you really want the EU dictating to you whom you can and cannot do business with?

[Gavin Hird]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

And I will ask again

.

Do you really want the EU dictating to you whom you can and cannot do business with?

---

If it is to my advantage (as a consumer), yes.  – Remember the discussion is about consumers and not businesses. 

Besides, since the governments and in many cases the people of the member states have voted over the membership in referendums, we don't have much choice in the matter, do we? 

[Freya Mokusei]

Yeah, made no sense to me either.

Without more useful responses and/or links, I can pretty easily determine that the following set of circumstances is improbable.

Unenforceable law + yet-to-be-brought-in EU Directive mandating said law + implementation/ratification in member states + despite national age of consent (and other variations) in EU member states + volitile state already in the EU (hardly a priority, and obviously incendiary) + amassing issues with compliance/veto rights.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that this issue isn't 'inevitable', and won't be something that cuts off trade or services on the level that's being suggested in this thread.

No-one's about to cut off trade with the United fudding States of America over ID verification, lol.

Saying nothing - of course - for the technical ability [of end-users, middle-men and service providers] to bypass such laws without any fear of prosecution.

 

[Gavin Hird]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Saying nothing - of course - for the technical ability to bypass such laws without any fear of prosecution.

 

---

Yeah, it would be a really smart move by the service provider to bypass it technically :-)

[Phil Deakins]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

And I will ask again

.

Do you really want the EU dictating to you whom you can and cannot do business with?

---

If it is to my advantage (as a consumer), yes.  – Remember the discussion is about consumers and not businesses. 

Besides, since the governments and in many cases the people of the member states have voted over the membership in referendums, we don't have much choice in the matter, do we? 

---

Point of order!

The UK voted in a referendum to join the Common Market. That's all we voted for. We did not vote about anything to do with the EU. The EU was foisted on us, by our own government, without asking us if we wanted to extend our membership beyond the Common Market. Prior to various general elections, the main parties have promised referendums on the EU but they have all broken those promises, presumably because they are scared of the popular result.

Fortunately, one of our governments was wise enough to keep us out of the euro, and look what a complete mess that's turned out to be.

[Gavin Hird]

And how often do you vote for a new government?

You have had multiple elections where you could have voted In a government to take you out of the union.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

And how often do you vote for a new government?

You have had multiple elections where you could have voted In a government to take you out of the union.

---

That's not true. You're not very good at getting things right, are you? Yes, we've had plenty of general elections but none of the parties that were able to win any of them wanted us out of the EU. All they did was promise referendums, and promptly broke the promises when they were elected.

Btw, I'm neither for nor against the EU right now, and I've no idea how I would vote in a referendum to decide whether or not we stay in it. I'm just raising a point that you were unaware of but tried to put across that the people had voted for it. I don't know that many countries, if any, actually asked their people whether or not they wanted it. Certainly the UK didn't. However, I do object very strongly to the way that each country's home rule is being eroded.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

And I will ask again

.

Do you really want the EU dictating to you whom you can and cannot do business with?

---

If it is to my advantage (as a consumer), yes.  – Remember the discussion is about consumers and not businesses. 

Besides, since the governments and in many cases the people of the member states have voted over the membership in referendums, we don't have much choice in the matter, do we? 

---

Ah yes, Dear Government, protect us from ourselves!

No wonder so many people today no longer have a sense of personal accountability.

And maybe you have given up ("don't have much choice") but I certainly have not.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

And how often do you vote for a new government?

You have had multiple elections where you could have voted In a government to take you out of the union.

---

That's not true. You're not very good at getting things right, are you? Yes, we've had plenty of general elections but none of the parties that were able to win any of them wanted us out of the EU. All they did was promise referendums, and promptly broke the promises when they were elected.

Btw, I'm neither for nor against the EU right now, and I've no idea how I would vote in a referendum to decide whether or not we stay in it. I'm just raising a point that you were unaware of but tried to put across that the people had voted for it. I don't know that many countries, if any, actually asked their people whether or not they wanted it. Certainly the UK didn't. However, I do object very strongly to the way that each country's home rule is being eroded.

---

I am fully aware of the political landscape in the UK, but if the majority of the people cannot muster the will to elect a government to get them out of the union, then tough **bleep**. That is how a democracy works. (and technikally the UK is not a democracy and bla bla... you know the drill.)