The EU petition for Stop Killing Games is now open!

[amadeus]

Can these companies hold on to old games to claim them as depreciating assets? Is there a financial benefit in them doing that?

 

[Angst]

it's normal for companies to cling to ips and copyright like it's the last piece of fruit on a deserted island

in a sense, it's natural because of the nature of copyright law. it literally eclipses the function of money; you're only allowed to do something with it when you hold it.

i worked at a book publisher for quite a while, and one of their initiatives was to dig up old unknown titles that were expiring, to give them new life. however due to the fact that most danish publishers have connections with each other, the moment another expiring copyright holder found out about this, they would often reprint a small run to extend the copyright. and there's one particularly big publisher in denmark which owns most of the market. they usually weren't aware they held the copyright until they sniffed wind of the company i worked at were planning to print a book. we're talking obscure but good old books that noone knows about that deserved a second life. the behavior wasn't even for petty reasons. the company just hoards copyright like a dragon and panics the moment they figure out they're losing one.

it's all very absurd, but it's also human due to the way we've done copyright laws. it is literally an eternal loss of an asset that you can't reasonably get back. money, you can earn that back again.

besides the financial initiative of planned obsolescence (esp in yearly titles) i see the same logic to be applicable to the video games industry. a lot of the big publishers hoard copyrights they don't actually ever want to use again. because releasing one means forever letting go of an asset.

 

[Ordnael]

If the product is no longer offered, the IPR should expire; leaving the fanbase free to improvise.

The way I see it, it is a bit like classic cars that no longer have manufacturer's support.

For which the enthusiasts have to make their own spare parts.

From what I understand the developer/publisher at expiration will proceed to take the "engine" out of your now "classic car", a car you bought 1 year ago believing it would run for an additional 5 years and we will sue you if you ever try to make the "car" run again. You can't even enthusiasm your way out of making it run again.

 

[EnglishEdward]

There are to my mind two separate matters.

(i) Prematurely discontinuing a product, one's customers have paid for

and

(ii) Declining to support a product indefinitely.

The first (i) is reprehensible, the second (ii) is understandable.

I believe each matter has different issues and therefore different optimal solutions.

 

[Akka]

The thing is, if you decline to support a product, then you shouldn't be able to prevent others to do it, and you should lose your copyright on it.

 

[Ordnael]

The thing is, if you decline to support a product, then you shouldn't be able to prevent others to do it, and you should lose your copyright on it.

As long as the "enthusiasts" supporting the product are not profiting from it I believe there should be no problem with the law.
The copyright should hold in case the "enthusiasts" go beyond supporting a product for a hobby into the realm of looking through the code and developing a new product using the same assets. That should still be protected by law...for some time.
Imagine I wrote book, published it, sold copies of it and somewhere down the line I decided to make the contents of my book free to read. That doesn't mean someone else should be feel free to write a sequel or something in the same universe and profit from it, without my authorisation.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think "support" is the issue, it's the removal of the mechanism that allows the thing to run rather than supplying, for example, and end of life patch that remove the licensing requirements. I don't see how copyright comes into it at all.

 

[Akka]

As long as the "enthusiasts" supporting the product are not profiting from it I believe there should be no problem with the law.
The copyright should hold in case the "enthusiasts" go beyond supporting a product for a hobby into the realm of looking through the code and developing a new product using the same assets. That should still be protected by law...for some time.
Imagine I wrote book, published it, sold copies of it and somewhere down the line I decided to make the contents of my book free to read. That doesn't mean someone else should be feel free to write a sequel or something in the same universe and profit from it, without my authorisation.

That part is not "copyright", it's "authorship". The anglo-saxon world has a pretty messed up way of approaching the whole issue that is all about money, but in actual civilized countries, "authorship" is personal, unsellable and lifelong.

I don't think "support" is the issue, it's the removal of the mechanism that allows the thing to run rather than supplying, for example, and end of life patch that remove the licensing requirements. I don't see how copyright comes into it at all.

Copyright comes into it because it forbids the alteration and distribution of copyrighted material, which means it forbids people from patching out whatever prevents the product to work once it's abandonned.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That part is not "copyright", it's "authorship". The anglo-saxon world has a pretty messed up way of approaching the whole issue that is all about money, but in actual civilized countries, "authorship" is personal, unsellable and lifelong.

Copyright comes into it because it forbids the alteration and distribution of copyrighted material, which means it forbids people from patching out whatever prevents the product to work once it's abandonned.

Well the petition is about the prevention of the practice in the first place, which would remove the need for any patching, so I still don't think it's really about that.

 

[amadeus]

The thing is, if you decline to support a product, then you shouldn't be able to prevent others to do it, and you should lose your copyright on it.

This is a bit wacky, I will admit, but so are unscrupulous folks who will take any advantage they can get.

Suppose you have something like a VHS version of Star Wars that has a 4:3 format as most TVs did until the end of the 2000’s.

The tapes are no longer manufactured. Can I make and sell copies of Star Wars? Need it be on VHS? 4:3 format? Can I edit them, and what if I do so to the harm the reputation of the real George Lucas?*

Spoiler *the joke part is in here :

stop laughing.

I think some of these things are best left as they are. With regards to video games, if you know they’re only good for a while and you think it’s a rip-off, don’t buy them.

 

[Ordnael]

With regards to video games, if you know they’re only good for a while and you think it’s a rip-off, don’t buy them.

The thing is: that information is either printed in small letters or hidden behind walls of text. And even if you do find the "expiration date" they might add a clause saying the game might lose support "whenever".
I get the feeling the publisher's don't want us to know that they are ripping consumers off.
Also why must a game be only good for a while? Why not allow for private servers, why not allow single player mode to keep working fine? This is anti-consumer and, although I am not affected, I hate it!

Here's an interesting sum up from eurogamer

Stop Killing Games' proposals for game preservation "prohibitively expensive", major publishers insist​

Stop Killing Games' proposals for game preservation "prohibitively expensive", major publishers insist

Last week, Stop Killing Games - the consumer-driven initiative demanding games publishers leave their titles in a playa…

www.eurogamer.net

Last week, Stop Killing Games - the consumer-driven initiative demanding games publishers leave their titles in a playable state once support is terminated - surpassed 1m signatures. But now, EU industry body Video Games Europe - which represents the likes of Ubisoft, Take-Two, Warner Bros., Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Microsoft, and Nintendo - has weighed in, insisting the initiative's proposals would make games "prohibitively expensive to create".

Stop Killing Games was launched last April by Accursed Farms YouTuber Ross Scott, calling upon video game fans around the world to petition their local governments regarding the increasingly common occurrence of purchased games becoming unplayable due to publisher actions. The games preservation movement was prompted by Ubisoft's decision to shut down open-world racer The Crew's servers last March, preventing access to both its multiplayer and single-player content due to its always-online nature. More controversy followed shortly after, when the publisher began revoking customers' licenses to the game, permanently removing it from their libraries and preventing hopes of resurrecting it through private servers.

After a year of campaigning and with an official deadline looming, last week finally saw Stop Killing Games' European petition surpass the 1m signatures needed for it to be submitted to the EU for verification and then, potentially, either progress to a public hearing or full debate session at the European Parliament. However, as that milestone was reached, organiser Scott warned many of those signatures could be invalid due to mistakes or deliberate spoofing (a practice he later noted was illegal on official government petitions such as this), suggesting the real tally was likely around 600–700k genuine signatures. As such, he encouraged EU citizens to continue signing it legitimately before the deadline to ensure it passes the approval process.

Yet while the exact number of legitimate petition signatures remains unclear at present, it seems the threat of its success - and a potential parliamentary hearing - has spooked video games publishers enough to spur them into action. A statement from industry body and lobbying group Video Games Europe, which represents over 30 major publishers and national trade associations around Europe, has now been shared on its website.

"We appreciate the passion of our community," it reads. "However, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws."

"Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players," it continues, "as the protections we put in place to secure players' data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

"We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months."

Stop Killing Games organiser Scott shared a brief response to Video Games Europe's statement on social media, calling its arguments against allowing customers to keep their purchases "flimsy". Scott added he'd provide a more lengthy video response soon.

Away from Stop Killing Games' EU activities, the initiative's official UK petition has now surpassed over 150K signatures. A previous government response, mandatory for any parliamentary petition that surpasses 10K signatures, said: "There are no plans to amend UK consumer law on disabling video games". However, having now passed the 100K signatures threshold, the petition must now be considered for a debate in parliament.

 

[Blake00]

Also why must a game be only good for a while? Why not allow fro private servers, why not allow single player mode to keep working fine? This is anti-consumer and, although I am not affected, I hate it!

Pretty much my stance too. I don't play MMOs and other online games, so I didn't used to care much but once we started seeing publishers releasing single player games with forced online content and industry people saying that online monthly subscription content (like with tv & film) is the future of all gaming I started caring a whole lot about this issue.

 

[Angst]

Well the petition is about the prevention of the practice in the first place, which would remove the need for any patching, so I still don't think it's really about that.

i mentioned copyright mostly because the logic, the stuff that builds towards this kind of behavior, is basically the same. it's not that this petition does anything with copyright per se (although copyright disallows free distribution of server software/utility/whatever post takedown, it's the same reason blizzard has legal grounds to bar private servers) but remember that copyright was originally a solution to esoteric practices as a foundation for gatekeeping business secrets, which we have now returned to in the information age somehow.

i know this kind of seems like out of nowhere, but bear with me.

it's why the alchemists wrote in code. they held technology as an asset - as we do today - and the way to control the value of the asset, they barred others from entry by obscuring the sources, if they were ever found. same with guilds. but if you knew/found out how to do it, you could just legally do it. copyright was an attempt to guarantee the value of holding an idea to profit off it, so people would actually make ideas so they could be eventually shared. and today we have a digital environment where once again we do not have access to these assets because they have an innate value that people cling to even if they aren't using it.

a modern digital product is a line of code (it's tech) that runs on a personal machine. if you can get the code to input correctly, you can get it to do the same thing. what bars you from it is legal availability - and this petition has shown up because technological bars have come up once again to hide the material behind a shroud.

i hope this comparison isn't too... colorful. i hope it makes sense.

the point is that there is an asset in control of ideas (in the sense of ideas about material technology and goods, not in... politics) that is binary contrary to the logic of money that isn't. money is a range amount. whether you own the legal privilege to distribute, modify and bar material is an on/off switch. hoarding server software for no purpose whatsoever post server takedowns has the same foundation as why people hold rights to creation & distribution of any material in general that you plan to never use. it's a big hoarding of value that isn't used.

like, literally, i think it's a win for this petition to just make it legal for people to release the server frameworks after the services are taken down. or something like that. then if the product is good enough, people will figure it out.

 

[Ordnael]

Some updates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StopKillingGames/comments/1nfvxk1/campaign_update

Hi folks,

First, thank you again for your incredible support — together, we gathered around 1.45 million signatures before the July 31st deadline. Verification is now underway, and early reports from several countries show around 97% of signatures being valid — excellent news that puts us in a very strong position going forward.

1. Where we are now
Your signatures are being checked by national authorities, a process that will take about three months. Once complete, we will personally deliver the petition to the European Commission. That moment will mark the start of the legislative phase — where the Commission and Parliament must decide how to respond.

2. The next phase
We are preparing to ensure our initiative cannot be ignored. This means: • Legislative outreach to Members of Parliament and the Commission. • Countering misinformation and industry lobbying. Strengthening our community structures to support this next stage. Some of this work must remain behind the scenes for now — past attempts to undermine the initiative have shown us the risks of being too open. But rest assured: important groundwork is being laid.

Stop Killing Games' EU hearing is seemingly "all but guaranteed" as verification shows "around 97% of signatures being valid": "It looks like my worrying in July was for nothing"

The EU petition will soon enter "the legislative phase — where the Commission and Parliament must decide how to respond"

www.gamesradar.com

The Stop Killing Games movement is nearing an official meeting with EU lawmakers

Once all the Stop Killing Games signatures are verified, the organizers will present the initiative to both the European Commission and Parliament.

www.engadget.com

 

[Plains-Cow]

it's all very absurd, but it's also human due to the way we've done copyright laws. it is literally an eternal loss of an asset that you can't reasonably get back. money, you can earn that back again.

COPYRIGHT IS THE ATTEMPTED ASPHYXIATION OF HUMAN THOUGHT.

 

[Angst]

COPYRIGHT IS THE ATTEMPTED ASPHYXIATION OF HUMAN THOUGHT.

ironically, the original purpose of copyright was innovation. may seem like an oxymoron, but follow me here.

before legislating intellectual property, people could literally just copy your design the moment you invented it. (there were checks in place that meant this was difficult, such as the guilds system; the reason we don't know the exact nature of greek fire was because protecting knowledge was done with esotericism, which meant less innovation, and eventually, loss of knowledge. trade secrets over legal rights to the same.) this meant, in essence, that innovation in itself was bad investment.

the advent of copyright intended to solve this; if you had your idea legally reserved for say 15 years after you invented it, suddenly that meant there was capital interest in innovation, because you could invent something and gain a head start on the market. and after the fact, your innovation would serve society at large. it was a really elegant idea.

it all largely fell apart due to capital interests in the 20th century. in media, disney is the big infamous culprit, tying copyright to usage for some reason, where you get incredible extensions as long as you keep selling the item, but it's also incredibly entrenched in most other industries.

discussing media and art (which this initiative is about), copyright today is largely toxic, and there's no capital backed pushback against copyright legislation, because if you're wealthy, you have interests of property to safekeep. nevermind that modern copyright doesn't reflect human behavior (we have always copied, remixed and transformed), where strange cases of allowed general human behavior are more legal exceptions than the legal standard (such as the legal status of posting random reaction gifs that iirc was settled in the favor of gifs)

 

[Plains-Cow]

ironically, the original purpose of copyright was innovation. may seem like an oxymoron, but follow me here.

before legislating intellectual property, people could literally just copy your design the moment you invented it. (there were checks in place that meant this was difficult, such as the guilds system; the reason we don't know the exact nature of greek fire was because protecting knowledge was done with esotericism, which meant less innovation, and eventually, loss of knowledge. trade secrets over legal rights to the same.) this meant, in essence, that innovation in itself was bad investment.

the advent of copyright intended to solve this; if you had your idea legally reserved for say 15 years after you invented it, suddenly that meant there was capital interest in innovation, because you could invent something and gain a head start on the market. and after the fact, your innovation would serve society at large. it was a really elegant idea.

it all largely fell apart due to capital interests in the 20th century. in media, disney is the big infamous culprit, tying copyright to usage for some reason, where you get incredible extensions as long as you keep selling the item, but it's also incredibly entrenched in most other industries.

discussing media and art (which this initiative is about), copyright today is largely toxic, and there's no capital backed pushback against copyright legislation, because if you're wealthy, you have interests of property to safekeep. nevermind that modern copyright doesn't reflect human behavior (we have always copied, remixed and transformed), where strange cases of allowed general human behavior are more legal exceptions than the legal standard (such as the legal status of posting random reaction gifs that iirc was settled in the favor of gifs)

Capital is a bad motive strategy for innovation. People quickly find that it's easier to sit on copyright and IP than to keep innovating, and with the money they rake in during those 15 years, they can lobby for things to change more and more in their favor so that they can keep sitting on it. How do you think we got here in the first place? It gets worse when corporations own copyright, because then they have legal teams and can invest in more organized lobbying (see: corruption). There is also something to be questioned why someone is getting into a field (especially something like medicine) primarily to make money rather than, say, cure illness.

You are hurt throughout your entire life infinitely more by the existence of copyright law than helped by it, even if you're the 1 in 1,000,000 who writes a hit song.

 

[Angst]

Capital is a bad motive strategy for innovation. People quickly find that it's easier to sit on copyright and IP than to keep innovating, and with the money they rake in during those 15 years, they can lobby for things to change more and more in their favor so that they can keep sitting on it. It gets worse when corporations own copyright, because then they have legal teams and can invest in more organized lobbying (see: corruption). There is also something to be questioned why someone is getting into a field (especially something like medicine) primarily to make money rather than, say, cure illness.

You are hurt throughout your entire life infinitely more by the existence of copyright law than helped by it, even if you're the 1 in 1,000,000 who writes a hit song.

look, this is all true, but it's also a very modern perspective where the functionality of copyright, and its intersection with legislation and monopoly, isn't wholly applicable to copyright's history. the early implementation of copyright very much just drove innovation. that it's contrary and part of monopolization (which it is now) is due to capital influence on legislation - which is indeed a mechanism of capital.

remember that when i talk copyright here, i talk like... the 1700s. copyright is quite old. the whole point was to take trade secrets (which were capital-held mind you, and is why old alchemy was as weird as it was) and make the public, while giving technology holders or holders of intellectual property control over their innovation during the first years of their innovation. that is actually a good incentive to invent.

what you're describing is the general risks of that system where capital interests have indeed consolidated legislative power to control ideas in an incredibly toxic way. i hate modern copyright, but i also despise esotericist control of knowledge (pre-copyright tech holding), and i have to give the system the fair shake, that it did good work until the capital interests completely wrecked it legislatively.

 

[Plains-Cow]

look, this is all true, but it's also a very modern perspective where the functionality of copyright, and its intersection with legislation and monopoly, isn't wholly applicable to copyright's history. the early implementation of copyright very much just drove innovation. that it's contrary and part of monopolization (which it is now) is due to capital influence on legislation - which is indeed a mechanism of capital.

remember that when i talk copyright here, i talk like... the 1700s. copyright is quite old. the whole point was to take trade secrets (which were capital-held mind you, and is why old alchemy was as weird as it was) and make the public, while giving technology holders or holders of intellectual property control over their innovation during the first years of their innovation. that is actually a good incentive to invent.

what you're describing is the general risks of that system where capital interests have indeed consolidated legislative power to control ideas in an incredibly toxic way. i hate modern copyright, but i also despise esotericist control of knowledge (pre-copyright tech holding), and i have to give the system the fair shake, that it did good work until the capital interests completely wrecked it legislatively.

Arguing for copyright to exist in any form argues for people (and corporations) to tell the masses what an imaginary character really thinks, on penalty of crippling penalties and imprisonment. If there's something more loony, I'll eat a cowpie.

 

[Angst]

Arguing for copyright to exist in any form argues for people (and corporations) to tell the masses what an imaginary character really thinks, on penalty of crippling penalties and imprisonment. If there's something more loony, I'll eat a cowpie.

i mean, no? the first part is somewhat correct, the second isn't.

i wish you were less combative than this. my guess is i'm on your side more than you think.