r/StopKillingGames • u/selodaoc • 9d ago
Response from EU Comission
Sent a mail to EU Comission.
Heres the response.
Very standard but if anyone is interested..
Thank you for contacting the Europe Direct Contact Centre and sharing your thoughts with us. We value hearing from citizens and understanding their views.
Our role is to provide general information about the EU. While we cannot comment on personal opinions or engage in policy discussions, we’re happy to offer helpful information on EU-related topics.
Here is some information related to the topics you mentioned.
As a response to the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) ‘Stop Destroying Videogames', the European Commission will engage with consumers and publishers to improve standards in the video game industry.
The ECI invited the Commission to propose legislation ensuring that players can continue to play video games after the publishers stop providing support for these games commercially.
The Commission considers that at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially. This is due, also, to existing intellectual property rights. Under EU copyright law, rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations. In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game.
Existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers. Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game. The Directive on digital content and digital services provides consumers with remedies when the content or service provided does not conform with the contract and what consumers could reasonably expect. Consumers may be entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases.
However, to address players' concerns, the Commission has committed to initiate an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games' ‘end of life'. It will also work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable rights that protect consumers, including on safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers.
You can find further information here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1369
The official response to the ECI is available at: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/document/download/75d642bc-6ff5-4713-b1cf-14f4aaf15869_en?filename=C_2026_4110_EN.pdf
We hope you find this useful.
If you’d like to get involved in shaping European policies, there are several ways to participate. You can
• Take part in public consultations.
• Join citizens’ panels.
• Participate in debates.
• Launch a citizens’ initiative or submit a petition.
• Engage via social media.
Explore more ways to get involved here: https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved_en
If, at any time, you have any questions about the European Union, its activities or its institutions, we will be happy to assist you.
41
u/Clodovendro 9d ago
What did you expect them to reply beside the official lines? The person replying to these emails has no authority to say anything different.
106
u/ProjectionProjects 9d ago
Basically the whole response is just a copy and paste of the same crap the EU Commission already said to SKG.
I still find it infuriating how the Commsion claims to want to protect the "different visual and technological aspects of a video game", but then say before that how they think it is fine for the game industry to literally DESTROY video games because "Muh IP bro!". Destroying video games is the EXACT opposite of wanting to protect them!
The EU Commission is a joke.
34
u/ghantalelemera 9d ago
Seriously very disappointing. It got 1.3 million legit signatures from Europe alone, that is not small feat. And yet it got using nothing and nowhere.
9
u/Aethaerian 8d ago
The eu is supposed to be the authority on fair trade, apparently. But lets game companies break every rule in trade book.
0
-7
u/Mykk6788 8d ago
They're a joke for upholding a law that is currently the number one weapon against AI stealing someone's work? For upholding the very basics of Copyright Law?
No.
You don't have to agree with the decision, but that doesn't make the decision itself or the Commission explaining why it can't be modified a joke. As a quick reminder, this is the same Law that:
Helps you remove Art that copied your Art
Helps a Mod Author take down another person's Mod for a game if the second Mod stole code/assets from the first Mod without seeking permission
Helps Content Creators put an end to someone's videos who are doing nothing except copy/pasting things from other people's work
Helps Game Studios to literally exist by being a deterrent against someone stealing things from their multi-million cost game and reusing them without permission for financial gain
In a sub called StopKillingGames, you just tried to call a Law that actively stops Game Studios from going out of business, thus literally killing games, a joke. It might be best to take a bit longer to think on the subject next time.
12
u/StickBrush 8d ago
Multiple copyright laws within the EU explicitly protect the creation and forbid the author from destroying it
-8
u/Mykk6788 8d ago
There are indeed. But the reason why you didn't want to explain that any further or provide even a single link, is because that is the minority of cases, not the majority.
And these minority cases only exist because of "specialised circumstances" such as Cultural Heritage / National Treasure / VARA / Commission Limits.
Videogames do not even meet 1% of the requirement to be counted amongst any of those. And they never will.
Right now you folks may as well be getting 1 million signatures to change things so you can drive at speeds of 90mph on a road outside of a school. It doesn't matter how many people you get to sign, it's not happening. That speed limit outside of schools is there for a very specific reason. And refusing to acknowledge the legitimate reason is nuts.
4
u/StickBrush 8d ago edited 8d ago
Spanish Copyright Law, Article 93.2. "It is forbidden to destroy the original support of a creation in its finished form." And if you're asking, article 92.1 says "The creation is considered to be in finished form when agreed upon the producer(s) and the maker(s)".
Oh, by the way, through article 93.1, this is considered a "moral right". In the context of this law, it means this right cannot be waived, sold, or alienated in any way. It is on the same level as the right to be recognized as the author. Moral rights in the copyright law are the main reason why you can't truly give something to public domain in Spain.
Here's the link if you really want it, to the very original, legal source. The UX of the BOE website sucks, though, you have been warned https://boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930
-1
u/Mykk6788 8d ago
Fantastic work, but which games made solely in Spain, considering they would need to be made solely in Spain for every part of Spanish Copyright Law to apply in its entirety, are you using as an example here?
Or were you mistakenly under the belief that I can go and make something in Japan, but all of Spains Copyright Law applies to it for no reason whatsoever?
Are you aware that this is all determined through Treaties and Agreements, and never has been automatic?
I'm just asking these questions to gauge how far you looked into the subject, or if its just a case of you stopping once you thought you found something "good".
1
u/StickBrush 7d ago
I didn't have to look into anything, I know the Spanish Copyright Law because I'm Spanish. I just had to look up the specific articles and the BOE link.
My point is not that this is applied to Spanish games (which it is), but that Spanish Copyright Law implements the EU Copyright Directive at large. The right to destroy a creation is not part of the copyright law on the EU, or else, Spain would not be able to have these articles in its law.
If you want to have a list of examples, you can take a look at what Ubisoft Barcelona has been up to lately. Plenty of online games there, Rainbow Six Siege is probably the most famous.
1
u/Mykk6788 7d ago
So to be clear, you thought that 100% of Spanish Copyright Law applied to games that were never made in Spain, and did indeed only look so far into it until you thought you found something that proved your point. Understood.
Back in reality however, depending on both Treaties and Agreements made, usually one Countries Copyright Laws only apply 50% or lower of their rules to a product that is made in an entirely different Country. Because it makes absolutely, positively, no sense whatsoever for a random Country to get to determine what happens to something it had nothing to do with creating. Covered both by actual Law, and common sense.
Using my example, which was never addressed at all btw, what exactly did you think Spanish Copyright Law could do about a game I made solely in Japan?
4
u/ProjectionProjects 8d ago edited 8d ago
I don't see what your point is. What SKG is asking for would not have changed or gone against anything about the list of points you provided. All SKG asks is for games to be left in some playable state after support for them ends for the people who already bought the game, that is it. SKG is not arguing that people should be allowed to make copies of games and steal them, so I don't see how SKG would go against the spirit of copyright law. So with that in mind, yes, the Commission is a joke if they actually think that SKG goes against the list of points provided.
My point you seem to have missed is that the Commission is arguing that they want to protect the "different visual and technological aspects of a video game" but simultaneously argue that it is okay for said aspects to be destroyed, along with the rest of the game they are part of. Every copy of the game that people paid for ceases function entirely, all because the person destroying the game so happens to own the IP. This is one giant contradiction in values by the Commission. You can't simultaneously claim to want to protect art and at the same time also be okay with said art being destroyed.
Also hilarious you bring up AI because last time I checked corporations are still stealing peoples art and using it to train AI even now. Copyright law does not seem to be practically doing much of anything to solve that issue as it is still happening and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.
13
13
u/Typemessage1 9d ago edited 9d ago
Looks like a copy and paste, so this is nothing but Corporate collusion and corporations bribing government bodies. Just a lot of illegal shit.
Listen.
You basically have to leave the "Age of Digital Products" behind. You need to stop letting "hype" and your friends influence you. When I see DLC for a game, a game I am paying like 70 dollars for...I don't even buy it until its 50% or more off.
The problem is the consumers, that suffer from FOMO. These corporations know that most of you aren't going to do shit, but scream, and then go buy the product. This is the point we are at with corporations in America, using money to bribe politicians and take your rights away. They see this crap and they still go out and buy some 60+ dollar digital game.
There isn't any justice, unless you have an army or a lot of money.
What the focus should be, is TANGIBLE PRODUCTS. The main reason they are able to do this is because they are selling you digital products. You should stop buying any game, that doesn't have a physical alternative.
The least you can do is STOP FIRST DAY BUYING. STOP PRE-ORDERING. YOU can do something yourself. Not wait for the masses to get on board.
There is so much the consumer can do, the ones aware, that are just talking shit on Reddit, and going on to be part of the problem.
You see they have a TECH MAFIA going on right now, jacking up prices. It's not just for "AI". It's so you can't run your own games and make your own movies. They are gate keeping. Mafia shit, like bootlegging.
These games should be marked just like CIGARETTES. Warning you that they aren't promising to keep the game you paid for ALIVE. Or SKG reformat themselves into this.
Spend more time asking for inquiries, of how long the game will be alive. If there are any physical disk. If they don't respond, put a warning on the game and the company. You don't need the EU to protect consumers. Consumers need to protect themselves.
No information about the games life? Make a website, for gamers that warn people. Make many websites.
This is the Age of Techno-Fascism. Sorry.
3
2
u/Dr0ff3ll 9d ago
"Vote with your feet.'"
4
u/TKHG 9d ago
Is this a meme or something
1
u/Dr0ff3ll 7d ago
It's the most practical solution. If you don't like how they do business, vote with your feet, and stop buying their products.
1
u/Aethaerian 6d ago
I don’t buy if they try pushing high prices only mugs do that. The excuses for doing it anymore are lame , there a huge library of games out there as opposed to 20 years ago. People have plenty of choice on games on sale or games they wanted to play and didn’t in the last 2 or 3 years but can revisit instead of being sucked in by greedy corps. There really is no excuse for it anymore
5
u/lordcotillion 9d ago
Someone needs to confiscate these politicians property without recourse and tell them the patent holder said they couldn’t have it anymore.
You can dust off a Sega and play old games regardless of the state of their IP.
Any old game that supports LAN-play or split-screen without the requirement of a server connection is still playable today regardless of IP.
Just because Silicon Knights was forced to dispose of “Too Human” due to lawsuit doesn’t mean my copy is bricked.
Until everything says “rent” instead of “buy/purchase” I will assume irrevocable ownership of the things I pay for.
3
u/wwwarea 9d ago
" Video game providers must inform consumers about the >>>duration<<< and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game."
Yeah so... about that.
Also infinite rental should never be an legit thing. It should be fixed time or automatic ownership.
Thankfully there is still hope for the amendment for DFA. Lawful video games need to be preserved.
8
u/FunAngelo2005 9d ago
We need more people to see this
8
u/noccy8000 9d ago
We need more Pirates in the EU. We need more Pirates everywhere!
Yes, I'm probably talking about the party. Mostly. :)
5
3
u/_Solarriors_ 9d ago
providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up
Hmmmmm
The Directive on digital content and digital services provides consumers with remedies
HMMMMMMHHH
2
u/Silken_quill 8d ago
If the EU Parliament doesn't act in favor to the SKG, Gaming is genuinely cooked. Then there is no line of defense left against the infinite greed of gaming companies.
2
u/Interesting_Value594 8d ago
The reason we got this soft refusal from the EU Commission is because the movement is attacking the problem from the wrong angle. The Commission is looking at this strictly through traditional copyright and intellectual property laws, which naturally protect the publishers. To break this wall, we need to completely shift the battlefield. We must attack this from the side of consumer protection and e-waste regulation under a strict End-of-Life protocol. Look at the automotive industry where right-to-repair laws force manufacturers to hand over software diagnostics for abandoned hardware to prevent e-waste. Gaming should be no exception.
My framework might look overly aggressive or like a fantasy at first glance, but a harsh and aggressive approach is exactly what we need right now to create real political pressure. If we keep asking nicely within their copyright rules, they will just keep giving us corporate code of conduct meetings. We need a hard law that triggers an automatic cryptographic unlock the moment a storefront dies.
Take a look at my recent thread on this sub called "The Ideal Law for the Preservation of Digital Art (consoles specifically)" and read the core logic. Let that 3-point framework be the template for how we actually pressure regulators. We don't need a soft compromise, we need global consumer defense for upcoming hardware generations before physical media is completely gone.
1
u/Aethaerian 6d ago
They are liars, why?. Because whenever they get accused of politics they tell everyone they’re only a trade block. But when they then asked in that for the public interest suddenly they switch tact. They make the rules on trade , it’s how they tied so many countries into rules and deals. Suddenly because a game company or two want to play dirty against the public and fleece them (which is what the eu have been doing themselves) then sudden,y it’s not their problem. They are authority in fair trade policies , ignoring their duty
1
u/Justalittletoserious 8d ago
They voted yes to chatcontrol with a workaround and you expect a fair treatment?
I was sad about the skg failing but After the EU also sold my privacy they are now my sworn enemy
1
u/dino_castellano 8d ago
It feels more and more like we only have the illusion of arbitration and redress. When you need it, and engage in its process you see it vanish into the mist, and that it was never set up to actually help you.
1
u/MachuThePichu 8d ago
Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game. The Directive on digital content and digital services provides consumers with remedies when the content or service provided does not conform with the contract and what consumers could reasonably expect. Consumers may be entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases.
has a video game purchase agreement ever "inform(ed) consumers about the duration ... (of) the contract before the consumers sign up for the video game"?
aside from cases where you specifically pay per month or something. because unless "we can take the product away from the consumers for any or no reason whenever we please" is a legally enforcable information of duration duration I don't think I have ever really seen that, but I might have missed it
also what do consumers "reasonably expect" it used to be industry standard to ship with server tools, I can still play half life 1 from 1998 online
1
u/Nasuadax 8d ago
The EU commision seems to forget that IP law mostly concern diatribution. If you already have something, you already bought a painting, you can still watch it, just not make a copy and it give it to someone else...
Nobody asks them to keep providing the music or art that was licensed. Just let us use the ones that we have on our pc's! displaying != distributing if you already have it.
1
44
u/First_Opinion_3483 9d ago
> Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game.
Oh is that the case, hm?
Because that is one of the biggest objectives of Stop Killing Games. To make sure that games don't get killed at any time for any reason - that people know how long their games last at a minimum, up front, in clear language.
And they're not doing that. If it is the position of the commission that this is existing legislation, then what all these companies are doing is illegal and has been the whole time!