The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.