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.

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 and host online dependencies, so that consumers can actually exercise our right to repair.

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.