Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions. Maybe provisions that end-user software published by a corporation (in treaty beholden countries) must patch out DRM if 7 years old, else relinquish copyright to specific product. But any positive entitlement to company hosted software, standardized phone cables, net neutrality, etc is swimming in a sea of hidden costs aka unforseen consequences.
The obvious hidden cost is that less companies will develop games, but that is of little concern to me. My everlasting gripe with any kind socialized government action is that the public's ability to adapt is always hampered. Power shifts from common people to big organizations and the well-connected whenever the common people are "protected".
It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Not a solution though. The problem is games being destroyed, which includes the fact that they can steal back a product they sold you, but also that works of art are being eliminated from history. A true concern of the commons. You can say "you shouldn't have bought those games bro" all you want but gamers are terrible consumers and companies will still destroy games. It's like saying "We just needed to vote harder!"
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions.
Now that my friend is an excellent idea. I honestly like this better than SKG's goal. Ross probably thought his idea was more reasonable since coming up with something that companies might begrudgingly accept in negotiations was a concern. If they won't accept this they will never accept reduced copyright protections. That and the fact that if corporations wrapped their game in enough bullshit DRM it may never be cracked. So my ideal would be consumers should always have the right to repair their software and redistribute those fixes without it being a copyright violation, and companies must remove all DRM if they are no longer willing to distribute the game or host online dependencies, so that consumers can actually exercise our right to repair.
Yes, people have to vote harder. That starts by restricting the franchise to some earned merit of responsibility. Likewise, communities that preserve software, through greyhattery, should gatekeep the casuals. When there are bandaid laws, there's not only presently abstract unforeseen consequences, but the casuals don't learn to stop being virtue less consumers. Ultimately the more informed remain as enablers when they aren't compelled to enact fundamentally sound change. Mandating companies provide access to their property (copies of software or DRM keys) isn't fundamentally sound. It keeps open the floodgate of public entitlement to private individuals and their possessions.
My contention with these proposals is that they're very top down and narrowly focused. My preference is for broad, extreme bottom up solutions that tackle issues seen and unseen.
Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)
Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions. Maybe provisions that end-user software published by a corporation (in treaty beholden countries) must patch out DRM if 7 years old, else relinquish copyright to specific product. But any positive entitlement to company hosted software, standardized phone cables, net neutrality, etc is swimming in a sea of hidden costs aka unforseen consequences.
The obvious hidden cost is that less companies will develop games, but that is of little concern to me. My everlasting gripe with any kind socialized government action is that the public's ability to adapt is always hampered. Power shifts from common people to big organizations and the well-connected whenever the common people are "protected".
Not a solution though. The problem is games being destroyed, which includes the fact that they can steal back a product they sold you, but also that works of art are being eliminated from history. A true concern of the commons. You can say "you shouldn't have bought those games bro" all you want but gamers are terrible consumers and companies will still destroy games. It's like saying "We just needed to vote harder!"
Now that my friend is an excellent idea. I honestly like this better than SKG's goal. Ross probably thought his idea was more reasonable since coming up with something that companies might begrudgingly accept in negotiations was a concern. If they won't accept this they will never accept reduced copyright protections. That and the fact that if corporations wrapped their game in enough bullshit DRM it may never be cracked. So my ideal would be consumers should always have the right to repair their software and redistribute those fixes without it being a copyright violation, and companies must remove all DRM if they are no longer willing to distribute the game or host online dependencies, so that consumers can actually exercise our right to repair.
Yes, people have to vote harder. That starts by restricting the franchise to some earned merit of responsibility. Likewise, communities that preserve software, through greyhattery, should gatekeep the casuals. When there are bandaid laws, there's not only presently abstract unforeseen consequences, but the casuals don't learn to stop being virtue less consumers. Ultimately the more informed remain as enablers when they aren't compelled to enact fundamentally sound change. Mandating companies provide access to their property (copies of software or DRM keys) isn't fundamentally sound. It keeps open the floodgate of public entitlement to private individuals and their possessions.
My contention with these proposals is that they're very top down and narrowly focused. My preference is for broad, extreme bottom up solutions that tackle issues seen and unseen.
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)