So.....s....s...s.....s...o You can walk down the street naked and not get arrested?

Depends on the street I guess ; )

we have no censorship whatsoever

That is a bold and false statement:)

Are you insinuating something? ; >
You know exactly what I had in mind speaking about censorship Tauto ; p

I used a slightly different search term and found:
- the ruling was only concerned with refunds for faulty games
- it was about Steam not refunding games for any reason at that time
- the ruling was only about the time before Steam implemented its return policy
None of this makes me believe that GOG's current return policy is not in compliance with Australian law.
- for minor problems Australian consumer law says that the shop has to have the opportunity to fix the problem. GOG does that.
- about a time limit, like GOG's 30 days after purchase, the ACCC has the following to say "Policies that set a time limit, such as ‘no refunds after 30 days’, can be misleading because statutory rights have no time limits, other than what is ‘reasonable’." Which means that 30 days aren't automatically ruled out (they CAN be misleading). The question here would be whether 30 days are reasonable in case of a faulty PC game.

I'll attach a screenshot of the notice Australian Steam users got back in 206 when the case was decided. It shows again that this was about faulty games.

Who gives a shit, Will Power won the Indy 500!

In my mind that makes Australia the land of Kings...until next year's race.

XD He does have a sense of humor about it though during the post race interview I think he started to get annoyed around bad pun #475.

When i lived in St Louis working for B&N we had a reg named Austin Power. No 's' not that it would have mattered because he was like 90 years old and never heard of the movie.

Nope, that's not really how that works. Unless the company in question has some sort of a presence in the country, they have no ability to enforce whatever their ruling is. Nor do they have any particular right.

The concept of universal jurisdiction is extremely dangerous and is really only appropriate in cases like where the US prosecutes its own citizens for bribing foreign officials. Or when the Hague tries people for war crimes. Failing to adhere to the local return policy would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for use of universal jusrisdiction.

As far as the tax goes, there's no law saying that GOG has to collect that tax and if you review the site's terms, you'll find that they're basically only required to adhere to the laws of the EU, not other countries. When they do things like collect taxes for foreign countries, it's voluntary to avoid headaches, but there isn't anything that the Australians can do to force the issue.

Australia doesn't have a firewall in place to prevent people from shopping here and I doubt that the credit card networks would cooperate voluntarily.

They always have an ability to enforce what their laws are, it's only a question of whether they're sufficiently motivated to force the issue- NZ won't be at least for smaller operators as we're too small and it would be too much hassle, Aus will be a lot more likely to as they're larger. Right is another question, but the company in question always has the right to not sell into that country if the requirements are too onerous.

Doesn't matter if you don't have a Great Firewall of ANZACia, if you legally require ISPs to block non compliant sites they'll have to do it as they- and all ISPs- already do for certain sites. The practicalities of it are pretty simple and that they exist is evident from the whole net neutrality debate- there's obviously ways to be non net neutral and that involves far more complicated things like regulating speeds to certain sites rather than just/ only outright blocking them.