European Commission rejects new laws for Stop Destroying Videogames
1d 1h ago by lemmy.world/u/ampersandrew in games from www.gamingonlinux.com
Goddamn it. Lobbying wins again
Lobbying will always win until people start busting out guillotines
it's literally corruption with makeup.
People like to say the US is a corrupt cess pool, and they're right, but so is the rest of the world. EU isn't an exception when corporate profit are on the line.
I see a lot of defeatist commenters are content to lie down and let this be the end result. I'll let the man himself explain why this isn't the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoODQFrPgw&t=734s
tl;dw: There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC. They can't introduce new legislation, but they can modify existing legislation; specifically, SKG is targeting the Digital Fairness Act.
Definitely not the end of the movement, but it's still disappointing that they reached anything other than the obvious conclusion with so much grassroots support.
Expected, though. The EC is not exactly known for having sensible opinions.
There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC
Ah, the one that's actually VOTED for (rather than appointed by "The Council") is more responsive to the will of the people! Imagine that!
Money wins again.
It's not a big enough issue for the pols to come down on the side of the people. They know they won't be voted out on this one decision, so they came down on the side of the money.
On the bright side, there's not enough money in live service anymore, so plenty of companies are getting cold feet when it comes to making games that can be killed anyway. Yeah, that's a reach for a silver lining, but it's something. I'd like to believe that the action they say they're taking will result in real change, but it sure doesn't sound like it.
there's not enough money in live service anymore, so plenty of companies are getting cold feet when it comes to making games that can be killed anyway
Got a source to back that up? I'd love for it to be true, but all I've ever heard is the opposite..
And I thought there was a third example in recent weeks, but I'm struggling to find it right now. In place of that, you can look at the implosion of Sony's live service efforts, with Marathon falling far short of making money, and for some reason Fairgames, rumored to now be called Break-In, will be the last one out the door after that Horizon live service. After that, I'd be shocked if they keep trying.
Marathon falling far short
Teehee đ
As it is the tradition in the sector, I hope the industry will listen to player communities and agree on better sunsetting standards so communities can continue to meet and play together.
lol. lmao even.
Industry? Listening to customers?
Especially the fucking gaming industry where the likes of EA, Ubisoft, and all the HUGE companies now owned by Microsoft have been shitting on consumers with absolutely staggering impunity for decades!
"They say that existing EU consumer law "already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers", and note that video game publishers have to inform about "the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game"."
Well that would be cool, but anything about the duration and conditions for terminating the contract i've ever read on boxes or terms of service is: " We can do whatever we like, whenever we like, just so we're clear' (im slightly paraphrasing). So it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so they're immune to any responsibility". Cool, cool. I saw a digital fairness act, but maybe we can hang something up in the mandated warranty tree? So if a game shuts down in 6 months barring you from playing, you would be entitled to some form of restitution instead of hoping the dev has morals.
Still doesn't solve that corpo's have their fingers over the killbuttons on our cultural heritage existence, so, you know, there's a lot of work to do still.
o it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so theyâre immune to any responsibility"
Upfront? As in the UELA you get to read after opening the box, at which point you can't return the game anymore?
Its not the eu's job to protect cultural heritage. What kind of nut job comes to conclusions like this?
here is a quote from the european commision:
the EU is committed to safeguarding and enhancing Europe's cultural heritage.
Well that's a broad interpretation of a translation into a language no EU country officially speaks. So...
also, i just wanna remind you, Ireland is an eu member state.
lol, at least you tried
How fragile is your ego when you have to say "nuh uh" to something so unambiguous?
Out of all âinternet commenters who could not admit they were wrong,â this is quite high ranking in my memory.
I will remember you, friend.
Dude, it's ok to be wrong sometimes, no one would judge you :) In fact, it's a sign of strength to be able to admit you're wrong, and people will like you more for it. It'll also be good for you personally as you will be more effective in more things :)
LâUnion europĂ©enne a pour mission de soutenir et de complĂ©ter les actions menĂ©es par les Ătats membres pour prĂ©server et promouvoir le patrimoine culturel de lâEurope.
Better ?
What the fuck EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu ? You are listening to people who don't represent the majority of users. Fuck you.
*citizens, not users
Good video to show how bs the corpo claims are. Especially the licensing claims.
I think this video is specifically for the California bill, but similar arguments are being used against both initiatives.
The government does nothing. More news at 11.
Corruption. Corruption everywhere.
Never had any faith in them anyway, just empty old suits that should have retired 20 years ago and now just want to get a bit more money before they keel over.
Best solution is to just stop buying games and go back to piracy, only way to keep your games these days.
The reason these games can be destroyed is that even piracy is often impossible. The ones you're pirating are more often than not going to be the ones that were never at risk of being targeted by this initiative.
Then start considering buying games that you can also get through piracy, as long as you keep giving them money and allowing them control nothing will change.
Way ahead of you.
i'm planning to make sure my game is "piratable"... but shh đ
EU commission does what everyone expected them to do: Deciding based on what wealthy lobby groups tell them.
TLDR "we have been successfully lobbied/bribed/corrupted into doing nothing (we may end up making it easier for publishers to do whatever they want)".
Lot of EU supremacist/jingoist gamers gonna be feeling some serious cognitive dissonance tonight.
I knew this was coming and still somehow feel disappointed.
The European Comission being corrupt as fuck really doesn't help with growing anti-EU sentiments. This is why people lose faith in the EU.
Prosecute Ursula von der Leyen for treason and crimes against the European Union. Dissolve the European Comission and/or give more power to the European Parliament.
How are we supposed to be the leading democracy if only the arbitrarily-appointed commissioners can introduce new legislation?
How is it a functional democracy if one of the most successful citizens' initiative is essentially being ignored, because it doesn't align with corporate interests?
President von der Leyen, along with the rest of the European Comission, are digging the entire European Union's grave. And they're doing a very good job, unfortunately.
Treason?
Are also calling for the complete abolishing of the government of your country and thereby call for the destruction of the political system, when you don't like the government in office, or is it just something you do with the EU
Calm down.
I come to distrust the EU with opinions like this every day
Fuck the Eu Commission. They are traitors to everything the EU stands for. They deserve to burn with every billionaire on this planet.
Uh, they are the EU.
Uh, they are not. It's like saying the entire US government consists of only the members of congress.
The European Commission is one of two legislative bodies. It's the one that can introduce new legislation. The European Parliament is where SKG has a much broader support, and they are aiming to modify the Digital Fairness Act.
Wanted to say exactly that. The EU Commission is seemingly actively pushing against everything common sense EU citizens are for, while the EU parliament is busy rejecting the BS coming from the Commission.
I think you confused something here. While I agree that it is nonsense to claim that the Commission "is the EU", it is not really a legislative body. While it is true that the Commission "initiates" legislation, it is an executive institution and such work is more in line with national governments drafting new legislation (even if there commonly Parliaments then rubber stamp a legislative initiative based on that). The two legislative institutions of the EU are the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (comprised of ministers from each national government), the amend, veto or agree on legislation together, with committee work etc, as one would expect from legislatives.
I probably didn't translate that properly. I meant "one of the two bodies involved in lawmaking".
In that case, if you choose to include the Commission, there would be three bodies. There is a reason the "trilogue" is called that way. The third body is the Council of the European Union which has basically equal standing to the European Parliament but represents the member states, while the EP represents the voters directly. Both can bring in amendments and veto or agree on a piece of legislation (while the Commission can't, its influence is with initiation and the initial draft).
:(
list everyone who voted for rejection, dig up what else they have been up to, make sure people know and will not forget. no peace for these assholes. even if it doesnt do anything, just having them think it might do something is enough.
these people have prevented other laws too or voted for shitty ones. And, if naming and shaming them isnt part of democracy then we have no democracy at all as then actions can't have consequences.
The EU commission is not democratic. The Parliament is. And of cours the power lies with the commission.
The EU Commission is elected by the European Parliament into power and can be fired by the European Parliament anytime. Pretty much standard for governments in parliamentary democracies. If that isn't democratic, you don't consider parliamentary democracies democratic in general?
The Commission is unique in the way that it alone can initiate legislation but the right to initiative is routinely blown out of proportion. In most countries this power of their parliaments is mostly facade nowadays, because the governments there are actually drafting legislation and if needed parliaments just rubber stamp the initiative. This is further watered down because both Council and Parliament can propose legislative initiative to the Commission, which the Commission usually follows through. While the Commission can try to prevent legal initiative, it can do little to prevent the amending of current legislative proposals in the works. This is actually relevant for Stop Killing Games, if you followed the news of the initiative.
Each of the 27 Commissioners is nominated by one member states.
Which means nothing if they are not elected by the European Parliament by a vote of consent. The Commission can be also fired anytime by the European Parliament anytime later, if it loses support in the chamber.
They are not elected. They are just vetted by the Parliament.
The Commission President is literally "elected" by the European Parliament, the word in the treaties. The Commission as a whole is facing a vote of consent. If the European Parliament rejects candidates, also besides the Commission President, they have to go or the Commission won't be getting into power. This is not merely theoretical, there is precedence for that. There are also interviews of each Commission candidate in the European Parliament and those are usually way harder than anything, any minister candidate in Austria, for example, would ever face.
Equally as important is the fact that the European Parliament can vote the Commission out of office anytime as well.
I very much doubt this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes us to rebel against the system and tear down these structures of oppression that benefit business and capital at the expense of people and humanity. But it could be, and that excites me.
Hey, maybe it's not that EU is a failed and totally corrupt state but they simply don't care about video games that much? You know, with global economic crisis on the horizon, new war in the middle east, growing threat from Russia and the collapse of NATO? Is that possible?
then why not do as people ask if they dont care?
Because they don't care? They won't spend time on it because it's low priority?
Government will not do good things if you're not organized enough that you don't need government.
Also you need to bribe them. Like a lot.
Nobody voted for paper straws, glued bottletaps or AliExpress tariffs. Enough people voted for this.
EU is hardly a democracy. More like an enlightened despotism. "All for the people, but without the people".
I get the feeling you are not really aware of how the EU functions. Despotism is absolutist rule, calling that the EU or any EU institution is pretty absurd and detached from reality. There is hardly a political entity, less centralised than the EU, still capable of routinely drafting common legislation. Also, while there is a democratic deficit (but hardly larger than in many other democracies nowadays), the Commission is elected into power by the directly elected European Parliament and can't pass ordinary legislation without a majority in the EP in support of it and the latter having the power to amend the hell out of it, if it doesn't outright veto it straight away.
Europarliament representatives voting has nothing to do with the programs they get elected for.
When they present themselves to the election they show people a program. Then they do whatever they want, untelated with that program they were voted to achieve.
It's a detached institution. People elected for the european parliament get outrageous salaries, and barely get audited.
I remember when chat control was being voted. I wrote my representatives, none of them answerer, none, not a single one. If they cannot even talk to me about things I worry sure as hell they are not representing me.
I thonk this is false on many levels. Party groups are acting largely within their programs. Topics like Russia, Ukraine, EU integration (pro/contra), environment, regulation vs fighting red tape, Immigration etc. were present in the debate.
It is not complete, after all coalitions need to compromise and also the other legislative chamber gas a say for good reasons but generally I don't see more divergence than on national level.
What I do see however, when comparing to Austria is that MEPs are more approachable than MPs and there is a higher chance that they might be influenced by public pressure. They are also much more engaged in actual legislative work in committees and not just in rubber stamping in the plenum.
Your example of chat control is actually confirming that. A majority conservative EP voted how on it again? MEPs were drowning in messages, I am not sure what you expected. The point was not for you to get back an assay but the drowning in messages was already the point and it worked.
Did your representatives had in their program tariffs for AliExpress or Shein?
Mine didn't, they voted in favor of it regardless.
Yes national parties always campaign on the introduction of new fees and taxes and every new law is in every party program, naturally also when coalitions govern.
That said, yes the tariffs on small orders are in line with the program of the party I voted for. They are also reasonable. Disposable fashion platforms (and also other Chinese companies) were systemmatically mislabeling shipments to avoid existing tariffs. Thanks to international agreements they can also ship at dumping prices (for less than the cost of a letter to the neighbour village within a country). Adding that tariff merely raises the shipping price to a level that is closer to domestic shipping. It also creates an incentive to not split up everything into countless part shipments, reducing the load on insfrustructure. Last but not least, it reduces the incentive for mislabelling.
PS: I am shopping myself occasionally in China, so I know the practices and I understand the need for stricter rules.
I didn't see that explicit tariff on any program.
Their programa tend to be vague "supporting local industry" "protection from harmful foreign products". But under those vague umbrellas they do whatever they want and then they job becomes to convince the people that what they decided to do is the good thing.
And in a democracy that's not what should happen. In a democracy the people tells the politicians what to do. When the politicians tell by their own to the people what's good from them it's called enlightened despotism.
Also I do not see how it's reasonable to ask for a 3⏠tariff for each product category on any order. That tariff is obviously aimed to cut people from buying directly from china and just to buy the exact same product to a middleman paying way more. Products are still the same, guarantees are still the same, taxes are quite similar as this products were subject to vat. The only thing that change is you pay the extra tariff or you pay the middleman. Zero benefits for the consumer.
It seems your beef is with democracy itself rather than the EU. Which party publishes an exhaustive detailed list of all coming laws with specific outlines for the coming legislative period, and of course predicting future coalition negotiations. You don't see that your requirements are completely unworkable in reality, not just in the EU, anywhere, are you?
Party programs are simplifications out of necessity and they focus on specific topics, depending on the party. That focus itself is a strong reason why to vote for them. Those few Euros of tariffs on orders from China was indeed not a big topic. Immigration, Russia, defense and Integration were big topics, understandably.
3 EUR is not cutting off anyone from anything, especially as that is barely compensating the dumping prices on shipping. Or do you believe that 0 EUR shipping on a 2 EUR order is covering the actual shipping costs? Like I said, that shipping dumping is possible because of anachronistic international agreements that were never intended for what they are used now.
I know some don't care at all about the environment or costs to society. That avalanche of tiny packages is a huge strain on our infrastructure and driven by unsustainably low shipping rates. That legislation will have a positive effect by incentivicing more consolidated ordering and shipping at prices closer to real costs.
Like I said, I am ordering myself in China and I support that. Chinese platforms will adopt fast when it is about money. So the positive effects will be seen soon. Maybe you don't think as far but that shipping dumping is paid largely by us. At least everyone who is still ordering stuff also within the EU or paying taxes here for infrastructure.
Most country specific/regional programs are far more exhaustive and concrete than european election programa. Just read them.
Lack of accountability by the chambers and the commission lead to lack of democracy in the european institution, it's just what's happening.
They don't get audited like national parliaments are, but they have greater power, that's just wrong.
I don't know where you live but 3 euros tariff for a 1⏠item is killing a business. Trump did it and the european union, after criticize it, just did the same. Bad when trump did it and bad they europe did it.
European Union way to save the"environment": kill europeans by taxes, expect the environment heals somehow because of that. How me making some european dude richer for buying the same product saves the environment? It doesn't. It's like aerolines green offset pay. You pay more and somehow the things are "greener". It's just a scam for people to get rich put of people lack of knowledge and social consciousness.
If packet delivery is a problem then automatize it. Delivery drones, automatic pick up boxes. But no, better put a tax on it and be done. No way the european union is falling behind.
It is madness to ship a 1 EUR order on its own across the globe, at zero extra costs. Are you seriously saying that this is not only a viable business model but also one that people should be entitled? For this money you can't even send an empty letter to the next village in a cost covering way. Every such mini order shipping is heavily cross subsidised by shipments of goods with the EU.
You just strengthen the point that we need an end to tariff exemption under 150 EUR. Contrary to your claim this will not end direct sales from China, it will merely make it less costly and inefficient to our society by incentivising more aggregated orders.
We have a serious democracy deficit. And without democratic accountability, it's hard to see a bright future for it.
The Commission is accountable to the directly elected European Parliament, by the fact that the latter can vote the former out of office anytime.
Bummer
Cringe. The tentacles of Pirate Software are far reaching.
How obsessed can people get with one inconsequential guy for being cringe on the internet?
Well, I called that one.
It's not even a matter of corruption, it's basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I'm not saying these companies aren't evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn't make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.
I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I'd love to learn that I'm wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn't cover the real world scenario diligently enough.
I can think of tons:
- The entire US Civil Rights movement
- Women's Suffrage
- South African antiâapartheid movement
- #MeToo etc, etc.
I think the idea of govt needing to "cover the real world scenario diligently enough" isn't the issue here. Its a matter of nonâjusticiable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn't do that.
It's not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.
Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people's biases, and women's suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of "catch and kill" tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.
Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.
I've never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That's kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.
And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.
I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point. I'm not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that's where this ends. Much like SKG.
I've never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.
I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.
EDIT: Actually, lets just go with the entire US post-Brown v. Board of Education. Yeah, that qualifies as "demand enforcement of existing laws and rights". Hell, lets go before that even. Little Rock Nine.
It's unsettling that people can't do basic fucking research before commenting with their feelings.
Do you think the Civil Rights movement started and ended with Ruby Bridges?
That's a straw man argument and assumes I think Civil Rights was just Ruby Bridges. It has no bearing on whether or not the civil rights movement was a good example of demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights.
You need to do a lot better than that.
When existing legislation didn't suffice, the movement was for further legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that postdated Ruby Bridges' attendance of an integrated school. And now we can bring that back to SKG requesting additional legislation because the existing legislation doesn't suffice.
Famously, the civil rights movement didn't end with zero changes to laws on the books because they were all perfect beforehand. The EU commission did not outline how this erodes intellectual property rights, but somehow, after a behind-closed-doors meeting with the industry that SKG wasn't allowed to attend, they were convinced that it would.
The whole intellectual property rights arguments boils down to the fact that publishers and their suppliers don't want restrictions to tell people they're actually buying a license and not a copy. Yes, as a property holder you enjoy complete control of how those properties are used, but if they decide to sell a copy you don't get to take that sale back, unlike with a license could be termed.
So then the industry is using all it's power to avoid that designation, including lots and lots of bad faith. My opinion is that at this point the offenders need some form of punishment.
In the case where you have a legal copy, you as a consumer are free to keep that copy and keep it running.
You're making a distinction between a license and a copy that doesn't exist.
It's a license for a copy just like any other software. Watch this by the guy who started SKG to understand better.
The issue is that these companies sell you a perpetual license (there's no expiration date) and then through disabling servers etc they are effectively revoking it which is fraudulent.
That is a huge part of the IP issue. Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don't own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam. And it was for the exact reason you mentioned: a user was banned from Steam but wanted access to the hundreds of games he purchased.
That is the practical side of the problem. The logical side of the problem is the erosion problem. For example, SWTOR was planning on being retired and eventually offlined when the new SW title releases (thereby replacing it). Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn't want that. They would have limited power over how their IP is being used. A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way. The IP would in essence be fighting the IP. That is erosion. You have the rights but those rights become more limited.
Honestly, most people here are commenting with their feelings (not you, just in general) and anything that isn't fanatical level support for SKW is instantly attacked with absurd ideas how things "should work". There is legitimate reasons to support SKW and there is legitimate worries to how SKW is handling things.
OK, I'll bite.
Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don't own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam.
If you open a printed, physical book, you'll likely see something like this printed on the first page: "copyright [author name], all rights reserved". If the book was printed in the last year, it might also include language explicitly forbidding AI training and other forms of data mining.
If you look at the back of the packaging of physical movie releases (so for example a DVD or Bluray case) you'll find find something like "this movie has only been licensed for personal used. Public exhibition is not permitted"
Because media has always been licenced. The question therefore is less about license vs ownership and instead about what makes a fair license. SKG argues, that the licensing as it currently exists is deeply unfair. Unfair enough that it possibly already violates EU law. That's what the lawsuit in France is about.
A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way.
Not really. The game has, as you yourself noted, been licensed to you. The granted rights don't include commercial activity. Publishers could even put the videogame equivalent of the language from the movie cases into their licenses to spell that out.
Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn't want that.
chad_yes.jpg
Publishers shouldn't be able to erase existing games consumers have purchased so that new games don't have to compete with them. That's the equivalent of Disney confiscating all DVDs of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and destroying them so that the new MCU movies don't have to compete.
If their new products aren't good enough to compete with the old, tough shit. Not an excuse to confiscate and destroy what consumers already paid for.
So, that's the thing: what did you pay for? I'm speaking specifically for SWTOR as that's a good case to work from. When you bought it, did you buy the servers and infrastructure behind it or did you buy just access to that service or did you buy a standalone product?
They aren't taking your discs. You bought that, right? They are turning off a computer they have on their end. That's their property, right? If they don't have a right to take your property, do you have a right to take theirs?
Then you get into private servers. Do you have the right to their software that they didn't sell to you?
That's the funny thing about this. If you have the right to take something from them you didn't pay for, do they get the right to take something from you that you did pay for.
Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you're arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass.
Currently we don't access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go "cool. I'll get my own hardware and run it myself".
And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let's say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you're allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can't turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out.
In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you're going to argue people should push back if they think it's a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we're doing right now?
You currently don't have access to infrastructure software because you didn't buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No. Well, maybe that's separate right? BMW doesn't own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No. I do online banking. I own that too. If they shut down for some reason, I should have access to their codebase? No. I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
It's not that laws can't be changed, nobody made that argument. It's about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
You have to be deliberately obtuse.
You currently donât have access to infrastructure software because you didnât buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Well, depending on the game I do. Some games come with server binaries that let me run my own server and regardless of what the developer or publisher does in the future I can still play those games. And once again, that could be the solution to the SKG movement wants solved. Maybe all games should come with the infrastructure software.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No. Well, maybe thatâs separate right? BMW doesnât own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No. I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
Itâs not that laws canât be changed, nobody made that argument. Itâs about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
Ookay, I'm not even going to bother trying to decipher whatever the fuck this is. Either try again or don't bother me with this again.
If you bought a game, and they've made it so you cannot play the game that you paid for, they are taking the game from you. This is the whole point of Stop Killing Games.
A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way.
I'm guessing you blocked me, but these are mods, and they've existed for a long time.
No, you just don't have any good points so there isn't anything for me to engage you with.
If you don't want to engage with anything that disproves your stance, like new legislation that the civil rights movement fought for, then sure. If the "erosion of IP" is the continued availability of something that people already paid for, and the consequences of that are that now the producer is going to have a hard time selling its successor, then I think that's absolutely the obvious thing that 1.3M people signed a petition to have changed rather than relying on existing laws that clearly aren't serving the consumer. We'll see what parliament comes up with in the Digital Fairness Act and how California's efforts go.
Cool story, but no you just argue with your feelings instead of actual facts or do any research. If you did, I would consider it, but since you haven't what is the point? Even now, "we'll see what parliament comes up with". What does Parliament require for revisiting existing laws? You didn't even look that up did you?
Parliament doesn't just change existing laws. That requires a new commission proposal to start a binding revision so they know what should be changed if anything. You can't just get turned down by a commission and go to parliament. You'll just get sent back to a commission.
See? What is there for me to explain when you can't even be bothered to research how EU laws work? You just comment with your feelings which no one (least of all the EU Parliament) cares about.
You didn't even research the legislative changes for women's suffrage or civil rights, which you probably ought to have been taught in elementary school if you couldn't be bothered to go to Wikipedia. Actual members of European parliament seem to be confident in what they're able to achieve without a win on this citizen's initiative, going from today's press conference, and I trust that they have a better idea of it than you do.
Cool story! Anyway...