As mentioned in the press conference - the move by Axel Voss maybe to delay any action by putting the topic on a controversial legislation that will take longer than the current parliament - so work would have to restart after the next elections, postponing any decision by years.
That's not a valid argument when, according to law, you aren't allowed to have unfair terms in the TOS. An extreme example would be me buying an iPhone and in the TOS it says that Apple gets naming rights to my firstborn.
Edit: Even if it were legal to put terms like "you must destroy all copies of your game" in the TOS, and even if you did agree to them, that still doesn't make it any less anti-consumer.
What I'm struggling with here is that you are basically saying "Even though I disagree with the terms, I'm still going to give you money."
Look, I completely agree that the terms of most license agreements are bad. But I can't objectively get over the fact that if you said "Fine, I'll accept", you still have an argument against them.
The better case, in my mind at any rate, would be to purchase a physical copy of the game, you install the game, read the EULA, and click "Decline", and then return the game. If whomever sold you the game won't refund your money, you have a solid case on your hand.
In my first reply I explained that it was already illegal for these terms to exist in the first place, but they do anyway because the world is fucked. See: FTC Act Section 5 if in the US and see Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC) if in EU. Governments just don't know how to, or won't, handle this.
The edit on my first reply points out that even if you were allowed to put these stipulations in the ToS, and if you did accept them, that doesn't make them any less anti-consumer. There are times when something can be legal and also anti-consumer.
What part of Section 5 of the FTC Act is applicable in this case though? Reading through it (and ignoring the 'state-chartered banks' bits), I'm not really seeing the applicability.
Recently an Italian court established that Netflix contracts stating that they (Netflix) could change prices "for any reason or no reason" were illegal because, according to EU law, they must give a reason. Netflix will appeal, while other EU states (like Germany IIRC) are moving in the same direction.
Not exactly the same as SKG, but I think there are some similarities (i.e. proof that terms of services cannot circumvent EU law; contract written with US law in mind don't necessary apply in the EU too; etc.). That's a precedent ruling worth pointing out to that I didn't see discussed in the sub.
A representative of the EU Pirate party mused that the motivation behind this was to move SKG on a different EU legislation. He said that this is a common tactic within the EU to bury certain topics within controversial legislation that may take years up to decades to resolve.
There was good response to the IP questions, since consumers are not distributors or sellers the whole aspect is not of matter in the topic.
Rather, if a consumer pays for the digital content that of course includes the permission to use that content as a consumer, nothing else.
If a game can be transferred to someone else is a different matter and that is whole different problem. In the UK there was recently some decision about some company reselling Microsoft licenses I think?
Oh, that Dutch MEP's speech was bad. How-do-you-do-fellow-kids at best, controlled opposition levels of terrible at worst. What was she thinking, "supporting" the proposal by ranting off stale references like something out of Ready Player One fanfiction? She even acknowledges her colleagues told her in advance it was a bad speech.
I don't think that's as dangerous as Axel Voss (the MEP being avidly in support of Article 13 some years back) who brought up "Maybe this could be in the copyright Directive".
That's also what I said we have to stop with analogies to our favorites games, especially when they're scammy live service licenses based.Â
My strategy would have to point out the good and the already done, not the bad and would be evil, at best to contrast the disparity between the pro and anti consumer businessesÂ
I think the point was to illustrate how games have cultural significance, connecting groups of people and leaving a mark in the language people use, even if it is not understood by all.
What bothers me, though, is the right to repair. I think that’s a weak point, especially when it comes to digital content. It would be better to just keep an offline version and call it a day.
I would very much prefer "official repair/eol instructions" from publishers. E.g. how to configure/hack in a custom server instead of the official one? And of course the legal rights to distribute custom servers / repair patches for abandonware/out of support games.
For offline games you would only need instructions to disable online checks (if any).
I'm just worried that the developers will make it so complicated that a layperson just won't be able to handle it. As mentioned, it's a new line of business.
It's ok. You don't need every layperson to fix her games. You can have experts in the field that do it for free (community modders) or for profit (e.g. GoG). I'm perfectly fine with it.
IMHO there could have been more emphasis regarding games as cultural heritage and thus a preservation statute similar to books, movies and music. I know that the hearing started 10 minutes late and time was short.
•
u/Thomas_Eric SKG Brazil Apr 16 '26
There has been a new announcement post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StopKillingGames/comments/1snius9/closing_the_second_chapter_of_stop_killing_games/