Re: Video games Europe - Seriously?

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:30:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 7/7/2025 8:43 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:27:59 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
 

This one came up in relation to the whole Stop Killings Games initiative
and content creator Pirate Software*. Something called Videogames Europe
- https://www.videogameseurope.eu/ - which presents itself as a champion
of the consumer. That's sound good, as do some of their polices, right
up until you look at the board members.
>
So we have Epic, EA, Activision, Mircrosoft to name but a few. Yeh right
because those companies are really champions of consumers and this isn't
just a lobbying group for some of the big players hoping that the EU
won't get involved.
>
*Fascinating stuff I must say, it seems to be based on Stop Killing game
are trying to get petitions signed with enough number that respective
governments are legally required to at least consider what they are
proposing - in a nutshell, all games (both single and multiplayer)
should be developed with a sunset plan so when the company decides to no
longer support them they can still be played in some reasonable form
without the companies involvement at all. I like the idea but of not
sure of the practicalities especially when it comes to live services games.
>
The internet drama seems to have come about as Pirate Software basically
called it stupid and he would actively being trying to get his community
not to sign up to it. It then all blow up as after many months Stop
Killing Games released a video explaining the Pirate Software had really
misunderstood what they were asking for. This is were it all got even
worse as Pirate Software pretty much doubled down on his position and
claimed to be completely right in what he had said. Then he played the
victim card.
>
Of course this being the internet people started digging into his
background and the funny one I saw is it seems on his streams he digital
manipulates his voice so it sounds deeper. There was a interview with
him at a games conference and all I can say is he must have smoked a lot
of cigarettes since then.

 
I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.
 
I've generally stayed away from Stop Killing Games just because -as
much as I agree with their goal- it's a lost cause from the start.
There's too much legal precedent and money against it ever gaining any
sort of traction, especially for as spurious a medium as video games
(which, given the age of the average litigator, is assumed to be
something only little kids play and thus lacking any and all artistic
integrity). Its end goals are too vague too; how, exactly, can you
prevent a publisher from killing games without overreaching
legislation?
 
      [Not that I'm entirely opposed to that sort of legislation;
       I'd love if there was a legal obligation to put DRM keys
       and source code into escrow, to be released to the public
       if a publisher goes defunct or doesn't distributed for a
       certain length of time. But we can't even get regular
       copyrights down to a reasonable term so I've no expectations
       that we'd ever see such drastic action taken for software]
 

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.  If a publisher goes
defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_.  So can't be just given away, they would have to be
distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.  And forcing a
company to distribute against their will effectively destroys the entire
concept of "private property".

It /could/ happen. It's just unlikely. Software copyrights could be
set up in a way similar to patents, in that in order to qualify for
protection you need to escrow the keys/source code so that the product
could be made available after x years (or the publisher goes defunct.
It happens. Not all dead publishers go through bankruptcy proceedings.
Sometimes they just die and the product ends in legal limbo because
NOBODY owns it but technically its still under copyright).

But it would take a complete revamping of copyright law for something
to happen. It's an IDEAL but one I know is unlikely to ever come to
pass.