Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers

[Farmholio]

What is supposed to be the "legal basis" behind this complaint? That Ross' own outreach, videomaking, and other work he has done to promote SKG as a whole is somehow exceeding the 500 Euro value of work SKG is supposed to disclose as an ECI initiative?

EDIT: Thats exactly what the complaint is arguing, but the funny thing is that volunteering towards a cause and not receiving money for doing it does not make you count as a sponsor, which is what the fucking retarded complaint was attempting to argue

They probably wouldn't make such outrageous false claims in a real lawsuit. Notice that this is a conveniently anonymous complaint. They can say anything and there's no repercussions, even if the complaint is bogus and goes nowhere it's a free attack of opportunity. They'll take any shot they find until this SKG movement is dead.

Even if this were to go through, wouldn't publishers be able to get around this by no longer even selling games in the EU? Couldn't they just make it so their games are only available via subscription services such as Game Pass or EA Play or whatever the Ubisoft version is?

Technically yes, but the idea behind it is if there is an EU law it will functionally have force globally simply because it's too much of a pain in the ass to apply a different rule for every region of the world. The same thing is what led to Steam's current refund policy. That was the result of (I believe) an Australian court case, and yet it ended up being adopted globally. That is the same hope here. But also I think it's worth reiterating that this EU initiative is not the one and only arm of the movement. This is a global movement trying to make changes in every avenue across many different countries, such as the petition in the UK. Plus, I'm sure other similar initiatives will pop up as opportunities in the future after this.

 

[Gossip Avoider]

Couldn't they just make it so their games are only available via subscription services such as Game Pass or EA Play or whatever the Ubisoft version is?

They could, but what would be the adoption rate?
I would wager the revenue cut would massively outweigh the cost of an EOL plan.

 

[derapples]

Because, without the state, publishers would not have the legal power to block preservation
The reason player communities can't take over a dead game is that copyright law, DMCA takedowns, and artificial license terms make it illegal to run servers, share binaries, or bypass protections, even in the many cases where the original developer has walked away.

Remove the state from that equation and there is no one to enforce the lock. The cage is the law, the law is the cage.

I wasn't expecting to, but im actually kinda agreeing with you here. I don't think it should be removed entirely, but I do think copy right law is too strong as it exists right now, and companies will use copy right to harm consumers. Obviously there's the examples you listed, but also I personally am very bitter against Nintendo in particular for shutting down numerous fan projects and mods. There's also examples of YouTube videos being taken down for copyright enfringement far too easily imo. I also dislike the idea of corporations having IPs rather than specific individuals. Like, Disney owns Micky Mouse, but the animators, composers and sound designers of the original Steam Boat Willie cartoon all died a very long time ago. Despite that the current form of the Disney company still uses and makes money off the Micky Mouse the IP, despite no one currently working at Disney was involved with the creation of the character. I just don't like that copyright can work that way.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I wasn't expecting to, but im actually kinda agreeing with you here. I don't think it should be removed entirely, but I do think copy right law is too strong as it exists right now, and companies will use copy right to harm consumers. Obviously there's the examples you listed, but also I personally am very bitter against Nintendo in particular for shutting down numerous fan projects and mods. There's also examples of YouTube videos being taken down for copyright enfringement far too easily imo. I also dislike the idea of corporations having IPs rather than specific individuals.

Makes total sense
Honestly, I think a lot of people are in your position, in that they feel that something is wrong, they see the harm, but the idea of "total removal" feels too sharp
I think what helps is realizing that the extreme copyright regime that we live under isn't a bug
Rather, it's a feature of how state-backed monopolies are structured
These problems aren't caused by a few bad laws, the root cause is a system designed to preserve control, not to reward creation

I also dislike the idea of corporations having IPs rather than specific individuals. Like, Disney owns Micky Mouse, but the animators, composers and sound designers of the original Steam Boat Willie cartoon all died a very long time ago. Despite that the current form of the Disney company still uses and makes money off the Micky Mouse the IP, despite no one currently working at Disney was involved with the creation of the character. I just don't like that copyright can work that way.

This Disney example is perfect
Copyright isn't protecting creators, it's protecting control over cultural memory. And when the power to enforce it belongs to the state, it's a control that's backed by threat instead of merit
(optimistic, I know) You don't have to be an absolutist to see that the entire thing trends towards the direction of lock-in, and not liberation

 

[StacticShock]

Holy shit this is pure libel. What's next, are they going to claim he bought people's souls for candies?

that's uninformed, he bought people's souls when he made freeman's mind.

Even if this were to go through, wouldn't publishers be able to get around this by no longer even selling games in the EU? Couldn't they just make it so their games are only available via subscription services such as Game Pass or EA Play or whatever the Ubisoft version is?

ross said that it's too costly for them to do that and would rather just make one-size-fits-all solution, similar to how valve was forced into accepting a consumer thing in some euro country and just said "fuck it let's do it for everyone"

 

[Another Random]

that's uninformed, he bought people's souls when he made freeman's mind.

He means this:

 

[We Are The Witches]

Damn, they're pathetic with those attempts, it's not even a smart one.

I'm not kidding, a 5 year old could come up with something better, whoever that anonymous person/entity is, they're an absolute disgrace & embarrassment.

Like it would be embarrassing for me to present that document.

Spoiler

Already in Preservetube, but whatever, local archive.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Like it would be embarrassing for me to present that document.

I'll do it then, it's attached here

My take is that this transparency complaint has now been filed not for corruption, but for failing to declare Ross's unpaid labor as an in-kind foreign contribution
And that is what happens when you engage with the state on its own terms. Even VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME becomes a liability if you don't quantify and report it according to bureaucratic bookkeeping rules
That is not an accident, that is just what state machinery does. It turns goodwill into red tape, and citizen action into compliance violations.

Whether or not the complaint succeeds, that alone should raise the question of
Is asking the state to fix a problem it created really a neutral or safe path?

 

[Paul-Denton]

The purpose of a system is what it does. It'll be interesting to see how all this continues to go, as no matter what the movement got a lot of eyes on it and probably illuminated a lot of normies on things they would have never been aware of before. Sucks that europoors have to be the catalyst for this at the moment.

 

[LovisXVI]

I'm sure that upending how the world organizes itself and how we approach intellectual property is the easier and more effective means of accomplishing the goal than using bureaucratic apparatuses that have already successfully accomplished similar scale aims.

 

[StacticShock]

Sucks that europoors have to be the catalyst for this at the moment.

shit is as ross said, only europoors can do it, burgerland is unfeasible all things considered.

 

[Harambe]

And that is what happens when you engage with the state on its own terms. Even VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME becomes a liability if you don't quantify and report it according to bureaucratic bookkeeping rules
That is not an accident, that is just what state machinery does. It turns goodwill into red tape, and citizen action into compliance violations.

Whether or not the complaint succeeds, that alone should raise the question of
Is asking the state to fix a problem it created really a neutral or safe path?

Anarcho-retardism is the position you're sharing. Does this thing look like the force of the state, or a complaint made from an industry group and fronted by someone else? Think with your head for a bit!

Also, the state definitely did not create the problem of large game publishers making mandatory online check-ins and ending access to software arbitrarily and in a hostile and stupid way. Certainly the EU didn't. Preposterous and false claims. This is my interpretation of what you are saying here: "Don't have civic virtue, engaging with the state is pointless, all things that happen flow from the state's maliciousness, the state is evil, it wills evil, bureaucracy is fundamentally evil." But does this really track with the many, many many citizen-led efforts at reform and betterment of public life? If it was so evil, how does it persist exactly? Does it track with history, or even contemporary reality? The state's not virtuous, but it's not evil either, it's an abstraction in language used to correlate a bunch of different social technologies and enterprises together. The state as such is incapable of moral reasoning, or any reasoning at all. It has no soul and it has no agency, it's a set of social technologies that provision certain kinds of goods which markets fail to provision and convention, tradition, and popular will demand. If it appears to have that, you are watching people embracing and enacting their traditions of power and governance, often your people.

 

[Another Random]

The problem Ross has: "The law doesn't say this is legal or illegal even though it feels illegal, so I want the law to say this is either legal or illegal. I would like it to say it is illegal, but if they say it is legal, then at least now it is in the law. I hate that outcome but having something clear is a better point than what we have now where companies can act illegally and act like they are acting legally."

I don't know what libertarians really think, but it feels like the argument people have is "The law doesn't say this is legal or illegal, so we shouldn't even try to work with the laws we already have and instead replace the legislation from the bottom up." sometimes.

 

[Harambe]

I don't know what libertarians really think, but it feels like the argument people have is "The law doesn't say this is legal or illegal, so we shouldn't even try to work with the laws we already have and instead replace the legislation from the bottom up." sometimes.

I believe that's what retards think, not all libertarians are devoid of basic civics, political sense, and trapped in a paranoid depressive loop.

 

[StacticShock]

I don't know what libertarians really think

the joke is that you truly believe they think

The problem Ross has: "The law doesn't say this is legal or illegal even though it feels illegal, so I want the law to say this is either legal or illegal. I would like it to say it is illegal, but if they say it is legal, then at least now it is in the law. I hate that outcome but having something clear is a better point than what we have now where companies can act illegally and act like they are acting legally."

what i like is that with the bill passed they have to think of something, before things were basically a minimal-effort consumer oriented thing but now, now they will be forced to think on how to get things working.
i just hope ross can endure, he might not be able to stand on the same level as these million dollar game companies but he sure as shit garnered the interest of people that can try their shots at them and that is a good thing.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Calling the state

an abstraction in language used to correlate a bunch of different social technologies and enterprises together

does not make it neutral. Property titles are abstractions too, but when they are enforced at gunpoint, they matter

The state isn't a spooky ghost, it's a legal structure that's backed by men with weapons
It's just just a tool that exists, it's a tool that claims legitimacy to initiate force and then prevents competitors from doing the same
In no way is that neutral, it's exclusive domination

You can't go and say

the state definitely did not create the problem

and then point to legal lock-in, IP privilege, and regulatory barriers that all trace back to state enforcement
The structure exists to restrict voluntary action and reward institutional control

And if you see all of this and call it social coordination, you've already surrendered the frame
If you think enduring institutions justify themselves by surviving, ask yourself if that standard works for anything else
Jeffrey Epstein survived until a few years ago, were his machinations justified?

 

[Corette]

Holy shit this is pure libel. What's next, are they going to claim he bought people's souls for candies?

Others got candies?!

 

[The Tall Man]

I expect them to cook up some damning evidence against Ross.

I doubt there's much dirt anyone can dig up on Ross.

I think they'll try to link SKG and Ross to far-right groups. They'll probably try to connect them to Gamergate too. Most likely, they'll compile a bunch of online comments, maybe even bring up the famous "if buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing" quote, to argue that SKG is unhinged and pro-stealing. I can definitely see a wave of games journos writing hit pieces on SKG and Ross.

But honestly, I think SKG already won. They’ve got support from high-level EU politicians (including a VP), and EU politicians love hitting Big Companies with fines. The slide that sent Mald into a hissy fit about politicians liking easy wins is exactly what’s starting to happen now.

The current lobbying group seems pretty weak, so unless a bigger, more sinister entity decides to back the "you will own nothing and be happy" agenda in gaming, this looks like a Ross W and Total Mald Death.

 

[derapples]

And if you see all of this and call it social coordination, you've already surrendered the frame
If you think enduring institutions justify themselves by surviving, ask yourself if that standard works for anything else
Jeffrey Epstein survived until a few years ago, were his machinations justified?

The state isn't a spooky ghost, it's a legal structure that's backed by men with weapons
It's just just a tool that exists, it's a tool that claims legitimacy to initiate force and then prevents competitors from doing the same

I agree that state is basically a metaphorical gun, but i think the problem is you need a central authority to make decisions for something as fundamental as laws and regulations in a large scale society and that authority needs a monopoly on violence to be an effective authority.

The earliest examples of "states" as we think of them now came into existence because of agriculture. With agriculture came a surplus of food, which led to boom in population but at the same time less people were needed to make food. And so people were needed to make decisions of how this surplus of food and labour would be allocated, and so the "state" is born.
With our infinitely more complex modern societies we still need a central authority to make decisions about how things like labour and food are allocated, whether at literal or metaphorical gun point. The problem is who controls the gun. And SKG could be one small step in taking control of the gun. And not all states share the same problems. China for example, despite the government being known for having a strong hold on its market and economy, does not give a fuck about international copyright law.

I think it really is a matter of taking control of the gun away from the people who make your life worse. Like, I think about how much better things here in America could have been if decades ago the government didn't allow companies to outsource mining jobs and metal workings that used to be a huge source of jobs in the east coast.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I appreciate the openness and I think you're asking the right kind of question, even if we currently answer it differently

state is basically a metaphorical gun

And if that's true, the problem is not just who holds it. It's that, once the gun exists, anyone can pick it up later. Whether that's Mald, LFJ, Rekieta, Ubisoft, or Epstein.
If you build power on the premise that someone must monopolize violence, then every regime change is just the next spin of the barrel. It doesn't solve oppression, it's just hopium that you end up on the right side of the gun next time.

The earliest examples of "states" as we think of them now came into existence because of agriculture. With agriculture came a surplus of food, which led to boom in population but at the same time less people were needed to make food. And so people were needed to make decisions of how this surplus of food and labour would be allocated, and so the "state" is born.

I agree with the historical interpretation that early states grew out of surplus. But out of surplus also grew black markets, trade caravans, guild law, merchant courts, and mutual aid. Decentralized systems aren't some hypothetical ivory tower thought experiment, they are things that exist and have existed. The thing that makes the state different is that it's coercion first, consent second.
I'm not arguing against coordination itself, and that there must never be any coordination, the point I'm arguing is that coercion isn't the only way to coordinate. SKG may have good intentions, but aiming the gun at a problem is not the same as removing the gun from the room.