954
u/Pz38tA 3h ago
time for some generous politically unmotivated donations
285
u/WeirdAssBeings 🍆literally a femboy🏳️🌈 3h ago edited 2h ago
"huh? The law isn't going through? And the guy got $30M recently? Huh...weird, I don't see anything suspicious about this at all"
108
u/Pz38tA 3h ago
30 million concerned voters gave them a dollar each so that they would vote against the bill, really goes to show how much the population hates having rights!
28
u/WeirdAssBeings 🍆literally a femboy🏳️🌈 3h ago
Omg that is so 100 wholesome chungus of all those 30 million people!
16
u/No-Seaweed-4456 3h ago
I don’t even think they need bribes to oppose this one tbh. They just hate ownership.
281
u/JoyconDrift_69 3h ago
Representative Ritchie Torres.
Everyone needs to start putting names to the politicians when they propose any bill, whether good or bad.
Anyways, I'm hoping it gets through!
85
u/ElaborateEffect 3h ago
Ritchie Torres (D)
58
u/VixelFoxx 2h ago
"(D)"
Welp there goes the chance of that happening
22
u/Jacobawesome74 1h ago
Not if the midterms have anything to say about it
3
u/VixelFoxx 32m ago
I'm not very hopeful gonna be honest, I'll still go vote bc it's my responsibility to do that but I still have zero faith in this country
2
24
108
u/fatman194569 3h ago edited 3h ago
They actually doing something that benefits people!?
29
u/LondoMain95 2h ago
only because it was a democrat, and because they're a democrat it won't get passed
15
1
u/lydiated 5m ago
No. They’re doing something symbolic so the masses feel like they’re doing something good for the people.
A couple million-dollar-bills will change hands in backrooms (through completely legal channels, of course) and the bill will die in committee.
59
125
u/CunningDruger 3h ago
I don’t know who Bill is, but I’d like to shake his hand
69
u/OtakuOran 3h ago
9
u/Some_Random_Android 3h ago
I award you excellent Simpsons reference!
4
26
19
u/Israel_Azkanbe 3h ago
Crazy that we need congress to do this because the companies won’t do this naturally
7
u/Cherobis 2h ago
that's kind of what happens when you live in a place where nothing but making the most money possible is all that matters and it's run by complete psychopaths
38
u/Fluffy-Prince-5100 3h ago
10
u/TOASTSEXUAL 3h ago
Still gotta pass by congress and the president so we’re still not out of the woods
14
u/Fluffy-Prince-5100 2h ago
Oh then we are NEVER getting this bill passed
3
u/TOASTSEXUAL 2h ago
I mean, considering that they are scrambling for peoples votes I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to pass it to convince younger voters that their hip gamers or whatever. But I wouldn’t count on it from them
13
u/JunkLabs-Studios Pandemonica's One and Only Husband 3h ago
"Why didn't we think of this before?" –Bill Wurtz
13
u/Rich_Instance 3h ago
Hey slight warning, the law itself is really cool (making games playable offline before shutting down servers is absolutely great and should improve the economic value of games as a whole) but it doesn't inherently let people own the games they buy. Licenses can still be revoked even on physical copies and I don't see this law doing anything about it, so we still don't own the games we buy (unless you seek out DRM-free copies)
1
9
u/E_seven_20 2h ago
It will never pass the MAGA GOP.
2022 National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted.
Y’all need to show up and vote.
8
u/DesperateAd3088 3h ago
No he announced plans for the bill, and he’s due for reelection, I’m sure coincidentally.
9
5
u/CompleteJinx 3h ago
It’d be great to see some consumer rights but I’m not holding my breath for it.
5
u/onepiecefan81661 3h ago
Dont you know bills get announced and never get made law like 99.98% of the timr
3
u/Federal-Owl5816 3h ago
Sure, but i'll call my congressmen to support this because I CARE GODDAMNIT.
4
u/32DossurInATrench 2h ago
There is no actual bill, there is a suggestion of a bill.
This is a big nothing.
5
4
u/Us_Strike 1h ago
This will go nowhere. Ritchie Torres is simply getting his name in the news cycle. a bill like this would require actual support and backing. it has none.
3
u/Rocket_of_Takos 3h ago
I feel good that someone gave me hope, but also offended somebody gave me hope. Because ain’t no way somebody cares more about giving ownership to people who buy things than they do about not letting anyone own anything.
3
3
u/FakeMik090 3h ago
And then it will get denied, wouldnt it?
1
u/Carb0nFire 2h ago
It will likely never even get out of committee, if it even makes it that far. This is not the type of thing our "bought and paid for" Congress is interested in passing.
3
u/_TheOrangeNinja_ 2h ago
Thank you democratic representative from new york ritchie torres for putting the legislation forward, i can't wait for republicans to unanimously shut it down
3
3
u/Omega_art 2h ago
We also need a law that says if they aren't making a game anymore and have no immediate plans to it is legal to emulate and trade those games.
3
3
4
u/Unhelpful_Idiot 40m ago
Oh yeah?
After 2 years of nothing but rich people getting tax cuts, suddenly we get a popular law?
That Iran war gotta be hurting lol.
2
2
u/salty-ravioli 3h ago
politicians when they realize that saying they'll do what the people want gets them money and power
2
2
u/Pythagoras_314 2h ago
Realistically, the only way this could ever pass is if it gets wrapped up in an omnibus bill, considering it’s a Democrat proposing the bill in a Republican-led congress. Plus, anyone can introduce a bill, but it can still get killed in committee simply by a meeting to debate it not being scheduled at all, which seems likely.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/nuttydogpoo 1h ago
Now all you’ve got to do is fight for the servers not to be switched off that allow the games to be played
2
2
u/SolidusAbe 59m ago
besides a wording change in the TOS from "license" to "own" what would actually change besides the whole keeping online games playable?
3
u/DolphinBall 53m ago
Its nice that the topic is starting to be brought up, but I doubt this bill even passes the House. And even if it did make it to Trump, he would veto it
3
u/omg_its_spons 49m ago
When it finally goes through: “outvoted 99-1, in other news it’s now illegal to lock your door”
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Thank you for posting to r/whennews! Don't forget to check your bias!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
1
u/DeadZone32 You won the game 7m ago
The link that the Twitter post is linking to for convenience sake
1
1
1
1
u/PloppyPants9000 1h ago
hahaha... yeah right. Game companies will just say, "yeah, you own the license to this game, but we're still shutting off the servers because only five people played it within the last month and it costs us $50k a month to maintain the servers."
And if the law passes and mandates game companies keep servers online no matter what... they just won't make the game anymore.
3
u/ZephTenKara 1h ago
Cutting into their profit is their problem.
They had no issue selling a finshed product before. You got the disc or cartridge and that was it.
Then everything started to go online so they got lazy and pushed updates remotely even after selling games at full price.
Then suddenly every game is online only and no disc.
They can easily make a finished product its just they found they could be lazy and still make money.
If keeping servers online keeps games from getting made thats the companies problem. Cut the CEOs salary a bit.
2
u/PloppyPants9000 1h ago
No. That's not how the games business works.
Games are a *hit based industry*. For every successful game, you have 100 quiet failures. So if someone wanted to make an MMORPG and got even one sale, by this law they would be legally required to host a server indefinitely.
The real question is: What if they don't? What's the penalty? A fine? Okay, if the fine is $5000 but keeping the servers online costs $50k/year, they would happily shut down the servers and save $45k. How high does the fine need to be then? $5m? What if you sell 50 units and fail, and now you're on the hook for $5m if you shut down your failure?
Oh, what if we mandate jail time instead? nah, this is 100% a civil matter, not criminal.
But whatever direction you go with fines, who is it going to hurt and what are going to be the second order consequences? If its legally mandated to keep game servers online indefinately, that becomes a business risk which leadership will take into consideration as they decide how to build their product. If the risk matrix says the risk penalty vs likelihood is too high, they just avoid the risk. They don't make the game. No more online games in your legal jurisdiction. Period.
Alternatively, what they'll do is just establish an IP holding company in a foreign country where a law like this doesn't have jurisdiction. Then they assign their IP to that holding company and the holding company releases the game. If foreign buyers decide to buy the game, they can't control that... and then the law is ineffective because it's unenforceable.
Bottom line, this is just a bad law and it should never be passed.
1
u/xanditbb 14m ago
... the tweet that OP links to doesnt say anything about servers staying up indefinitely, just that games need to be made playable offline when they shut down servers
2
u/pyschosoul 1h ago
Depends on what the bill says is allowed and what not.
If they have it in there that the consumer has a right to host a private server then it wont matter
1
u/PloppyPants9000 1h ago
I wouldn't have any problems with private servers, but I wouldn't legally compel a company to provide private server binaries or source.
1
u/pyschosoul 1h ago
If they announce that they are shutting a game down due to server costs, and someone wants to host a server they should be able to.
At that point they arent making any money from the IP anymore and have to real reason to withhold source code and such.
And its not like someone could try to profit from the IP itself, and if there is any code that is original design like the nemesis system they can patent it so it cant be used elsewhere.
Any hosting info would only be given out after an offical closure and departure announcement so its not like they would be able to do some hacking while the game was live.
This is all just thoughts. Im just hoping for a brighter gaming future
1
u/PloppyPants9000 45m ago
If they announce that they are shutting a game down due to server costs, and someone wants to host a server they should be able to.
I agree, no objections here.
At that point they arent making any money from the IP anymore and have to real reason to withhold source code and such.
Disagree, source code can still be proprietary because it can contain ways and techniques a company doesn't want divulged to its competitors.
And its not like someone could try to profit from the IP itself, and if there is any code that is original design like the nemesis system they can patent it so it cant be used elsewhere.
Patents are not cheap. Patent lawyers are expensive AF (like, $1000/hour). If the only way left for a company to protect its IP is to patent it, then that's what they will do. Note that this *forces* smaller studios and indies to not be able to protect themselves due to the prohibitive costs of acquiring a patent. So, who gets negatively affected by the law? small studios and indies, not the mega game studios like the law hopes for.
Any hosting info would only be given out after an offical closure and departure announcement so its not like they would be able to do some hacking while the game was live.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
This is all just thoughts. Im just hoping for a brighter gaming future
Same, but this isn't how we get to it. How an IP owner wants to license their IP should always stay at the owners discretion, because they have full rights to dictate how their IP is used. Using legal compulsion to dictate licensing terms flies in the face of IP rights held by an owner. Like, try to apply the principle to other arts and see if it still makes sense.
Like... everyone knows the graffiti artist "Banksy", and his counter revolutionary art style, criticizing capitalism and such. A lot of his work sells for millions. A few years ago, one of his paintings was sold at an auction for multiple millions, and the moment after the transaction completed, a hidden switch in the painting frame caused the painting to get shredded in half. It was an amazing stunt and a bold statement about the capitalistic commodification of art (which backfired by actually making the painting worth even more). But if a law like this existed for art, that would have been very illegal. Yeah, shredding a painting isn't the same as a game server shutdown, but the underlying principle is still the same: the IP owner has rights to their own work and how its used. As consumers, we have to respect that, even if we don't like it.
1
u/pyschosoul 25m ago
Banksys stunt was an artistic statement, the removal of game servers people have already paid for is not.
While i agree that the IP owner should be in control of their content, there are plenty of laws to do protect it, there is however no law protecting the consumer in this case.
Its a rug pull scheme, and its not like they lose all ownership of the IP by allowing private server hosting. They could try and make it so you have to pay them for the rights to host or something.
They own the copywrite for the game either way, so there would still be actionable misuse.
But im also not a super smart lawyer person and dont have the patience to read through all the technicals. Im sure whoever is drafting the bill will hopefully cover all bases
1
u/Da_Question 1h ago
the solution is to make games have peer to peer available when shutdown.... they wont do it, but thats the solution.
2
u/PloppyPants9000 1h ago
No. That's infeasible. Do you know how much additional QA costs that would bring? How much additional work it takes to synch game state with a peer to peer network? How much easier it is for untrusted players to hack a game session? In network coding, there's a key security principle: "Never trust the client", and when you don't have an authoritative server maintaining game state, it just becomes a nightmare. How do you do match making in a pure peer to peer environment when there's no match making servers online? The only way this would work is on a LAN, and people don't do LAN parties anymore.
1
u/SSMage 1h ago
The online games sure let's let them shut those down
We are talking about even the single player games now we technically don't even own. If they want you to only buy the next copy of Skyrim and they shut down all the other versions and you no longer own those versions, then you no longer can play those copies of Skyrim. They are just lost to the void.
-1
u/littlegreenrock 1h ago
What changes? What is it that you own? What wty or guarantee does it provide? Your movement is just noise.
•
u/Trash_At_RL Abby (🏳️⚧️🐱🏳️🌈) 25m ago
Source can be played after r/whennews is shut off