Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.
“digital ownership must be respected”
gets into bed with Meta and OpenAI
‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge
Submitted 3 weeks ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
mjr@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
They’ve been owned!
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Always have been
tyranical_typhon@lemmings.world 3 weeks ago
in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.
Piss off. This just means they won’t be able to rely on companies to control what people get to say.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
They mentioned the early days when it comes to licensing games to us.
But dont mention that in the early days of multiplayer games it was us moderating our own online communities, not the company selling the game.
Natanael@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
Official moderation is often worse than in community forums, lol. Overbearing in censored words, while not being active enough against abusive players.
That argument is absolute bullshit.
It’s not like anybody demands Microsoft must protect you from mean words if you connect Outlook to some random mail server. Games are no different.
Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
“Digutal ownership must be respected.”
Yeah, that’s what this entire thing is about.Armand1@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
More proof that the current “Labour” government is in the pockets of rich companies and not on the side of consumers.
Mondez@lemdro.id 3 weeks ago
If only that wasn’t true if the other big parties as well.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Member when “no taxation without representation” was a thing people believed in?
biotin7@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
The same govt that saw the overwhelming support for petition against the Online ID verification Act & went nahhhhhhh we don’t listen to our citizens.
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They don’t need to “hand online servers” just publish the API and do one last update to accept self hosting.
And new releases should always support self host.
atmorous@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
These current politicians dont know a single thing about what you said but I agree
Fermion@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
And they will make sure to continue to not know a single thing about what was said. Ignorance isn’t a valid legal defence, but it sure is a common deflection tactic these days. Law makers have a professional and ethical obligation to become informed on the issues their constituents care about, but it seems like it’s rare to find one that remembers that obligation.
rumba@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
That only covers games that are loosely using servers for communication, piracy and cheating. That also puts game companies into the realm of losing their IP if they shut down temporarily in an acquisition. If you start a studio, run out of cash and get aquired, you’ll actually want that game you made to still be worth something, it doesn’t just affect those AAA players.
I think you need to add something like an escrow with x months of running costs. Once that well runs dry you need to go down to the providing a working server. I’ve been through the industry and I can confidently tell you that an API isn’t enough for a hell of a lot of games. Some of the stuff I’ve seen, it would take the actual game team a half a year to bring it back up with the source because the stuff they were using when they went under was ancient. You don’t want to buy a server authoratative game and wait around a year while the community tries to ressurect it.
Baggie@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Such a brain-dead stance on the matter. Nobody is asking for your garbage DRM servers, we literally want the opposite of that.
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
If digital ownership isn’t acknowledged, digital piracy doesn’t exist. It’s just copying something no one owns.
5gruel@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I mean I am a pirate as much as the next guy but this is missing the point. They acknowledge ownership. They just don’t agree that it transfers to you when you buy a game. So that argument gets you nowhere.
Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft.
tabular@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Losing a monopoly on specific game servers certainly can have a commercial risk. Are you entitled to that at all, let alone when you stop hosting them?
Legal risk of what? Others will have that responsibility, unless you’ve done something you don’t want others to see?
Safety - Yes someone might have less moderation than you - that’s up to the users to decide if it’s okay. We still have the right to change our car’s break pad - the thing that stops a large mass moving fast from hitting children.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
I’m unconvinced anyone will really legislate this, and if it is, it’ll just lead to that country being scratched off the list of where the game is officially supported.
Realistically, we need to stop buying online only games where the servers will eventually go offline, and support those that release open servers.
Tja@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
The hope is that the EU will legislate it and not even apple fucks with the EU.
DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I stopped buying that stuff ten years ago. Indie games are always better these days
arararagi@ani.social 3 weeks ago
I did, so did Ross that started this, it’s not working.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I’m unconvinced anyone will really legislate this,
The Eurpean Union sort of has it’s head on when it comes to addressing consumer rights, if they legislate this, then the entirety of europe will likely benefit (even those outside the european union like the UK, examples of this have happened before if im correct, see windows 10 1 year extension for eu).
and if it is, it’ll just lead to that country being scratched off the list of where the game is officially supported.
No it won’t. Maybe if it’s a country with no internet and doesn’t have a population interested in gaming, but any major country like UK, Germany, etc enforcing this would force the hands of game publishers bevause these markets are just too big.
No publisher is going to pull out of the UK for example.
Realistically, we need to stop buying online only games where the servers will eventually go offline, and support those that release open servers.
I agree. Unfortunately most people are unaware or have no backbone so they keep on buying the next “big” game, nevertheless I agree, we need to stop supporting anti-consumer behavior instead of defending it.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Hang on, arent these the same fuckers who greenlit AI training on IP they don’t own?
teuniac_@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sort of. But it’s easy to understand their thinking.
A long time ago they were a left winged party. But nowadays they’re so afraid of the far right that for each decision they ask themselves “what would people absolutely not expect from a left winged party? Let’s do that!” Which has led to several more right winged policies than the previous right winged government.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If left wing is progressive then they’re still fairly progressive, imo. For example, making railways public again and banning no fault evictions were some recent things they’ve done.
mjr@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
Digital ownership? Games producers want to own players’ fingers now? I guess that’s slightly better than cutting their ears off.
Klear@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
I don’t dig it. I don’t dig it at all.
majster@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
If you as a consumer want to own software FLOSS is the only option.
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
You know, I have purchased around 200 games. I have no idea how many of those can be mine because they’re linked to a store, maintained (usually) by a corporation hellbent on optimised profits, subject to mandatory updates so I have no choice but to play the way they want me to, and I don’t have the space to store them all. I don’t feel like any of them are really safe, not until they’re transferred to an offline machine.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
They’re not owned by you. You own a license to use them. Some stores, like GOG, give you a less restrictive license, but it’s still a license.
Ksin@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
GoG does actually explicitly state that you own the games baugth on the platform, though who knows how well that holds in a strictly legal sense.
SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
As long as the button says buy, then its ownership and should be treated like physical goods.
regedit@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
If I gotta pay IL sales tax on a digital game I better fucking own it!
notarobot@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I think everybody agrees that “digital ownership must be respected”. But if you check, you don’t own the games. You own licences. You may keep the licence after servers shut down. It is total BS, but we allowed it.
I have to agree that killing online only games makes sense because they can’t be forced to run the server forever, not they can be forced to release the source code. But offline / solo / bots should keep working.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Ah, here we go again with the shit takes by people who have not read what Stop Killing Games is about. Classic. And here I thought we cut through the bullshit pushes by that PirateSoftware guy.
notarobot@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Seems to be a misunderstanding. We are in agreement. I mentioned it because it seems that was something that was debated. Not because I’m against the initiative
She continued: “At the same time, the Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Commercial risks are something businesses have to consider themselves, it’s not government’s job.
Legal risks are exactly their problem to solve.
Company is a body of people, and its moderation can’t be more or less safe, in principle, than moderation by some other body of people with responsibility for that.
Excuses.
Hond@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Most of the responses of the ministers(?) covered in the article seem to be pretty solid.
But then:
Yeah, full on corpo spin. Fuck her.
TWeaK@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such incompetence.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I’m pretty sure (not absolutely) this has appeared in court and even click-wrap licenses, where one clicks to agree to a license with a higher word count than King Lear are not valid due to the end user high administrative burden (reading 20K+ words in the middle of a software install).
There was a period in the 1980s where end users automatically were assumed to agree to licensing, but also licenses were extremely lenient and allowed unlimited use by the licensee without any data access rights by the providing company. 21st century licenses are much more complicated and encroach a lot more on end-user privacy.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Nah, it’s absolutely how it has worked since the 1980s. You’ve never owned the game, just the physical hardware it’s on and a license to use the game. Go read any manual or back of the box or actual cartridge or disc.
dellish@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is Stop Killing Games specifically against this? This sounds like some Pirate Software bullshit. My understanding is we want the tools to host our own servers if the parent company decides to take theirs offline.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
SKG doesn’t specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.
For some games (e.g. Assassin’s Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.
Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I’ve purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.
bluGill@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
If you don't want to give the sever away (including the ability to use it) then don't shut it down or otherwise make the game unplayable.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Or release API documentation for the server and help the community create a replacement. Companies have options here.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
So if the developers of a game go bankrupt, or a single developer of an indie game dies, what do you suggest happens?
echodot@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Wouldn’t it be amazing if we had marginally competent political representatives rather than the complete wastes of oxygen that we have right now.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Some of the quotes are good, yes.
And I agree the more because entertainment involving social interactions is as important as political spaces. It’s not aristocrats complaining about bad cake when people don’t have bread. Most of my social interactions were, actually, concentrated around
The bullshit about it being hard to design anything without a kill switch is irritating. A kill switch is the additional expense and complication. Something without a kill switch might not be readily available to run after the company shuts down its servers, but nobody needs that really. Simplifying things, there are plenty of people among players capable of deploying infrastructure.
In any case, when the only thing you need is documented operation and ability to set the service domain name and\or addresses, where the former the company needs itself and the latter is trivial, it’s all farting stream.
CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
TBH this is just how petitions in the UK work: enough people sign it, it goes to parliament, they say a bunch of stuff about it that often sounds reasonable enough, then they do nothing about it. It’s just a way to give the public the illusion that they’re being listened to without having to actually do anything. It was the same with the digital ID petition, which I still signed but with 100% expectation that it wouldn’t actually achieve anything.