I really think it’s disgusting to boldly claim this is just to protect children. Then get the proposal denied with very valid reasoning that everyone’s privacy would be compromised.
And then, a few months later, they have the exact same argument again with the same proposal as before… This seems deeply disrespectful of the subject matter
It feels like a someone is trying to steal a cookie from a cookie jar, but when mum said no you just try again the exact same way…
Its so obvious that ireland, one of the perpetrators of the double irish with a dutch sandwich corpo tax evasion scams, is trying to push for surveilance. That way they can crush any dissent against corpo world rule. Fucking numbnuts.
This is why you codify the right in the constitution.
Its the same reason France just added abortion rights to their constitution. They want to makes sure the right is explicit and will never be under threat like this
I’ll just say, by protecting privacy we will protect other rights. Privacy means the right to hold safe and personal communications about various topics. If safe and personal communications are used as a mean to handle abortion and other heath rights, protecting the first equals to protectong the other - * two birds with one stone* -. Our privacy is consistently being attacked from sides. Acting now is ever more important.
I just have some ethical concerns about abortion. I don’t live in a European country so maybe the culture and ethics are a little different. At the end of the day we all have different views but privacy is really important for democracy
Whatever ethical concerns you have about abortion, the only way to enforce anti-abortion laws is to strip women of their medical privacy. If you want privacy rights, you need to stand for abortion rights. If you stand against abortion rights, you stand against the right to privacy.
Because at the end of the day, the difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary abortion are the details discussed between a woman and her doctor. The only way the government gets to draw a line on what is or isn’t allowed is if they get to be an obligate part of that conversation.
You should read about what Roe v. Wade was about before you say stuff like this. Medical privacy was foundational to abortion rights in the USA. Codifying it into our constitution would have been a good idea.
this destroys our digital privacy of correspondence. Despite lip service being paid to encryption, client-side scanning is to be used to undermine previously secure end-to-end encryption in order to turn our smartphones into spies – this destroys secure encryption.
We’ll be moving towards local storage + local hard drives backups, since anything that goes through a server or a chat service seems to be under attack. Also fuck the Irish government.
Was it too much to add some line about the customers who have already paid for the game being locked out? My guess is that the Comission won’t even know what the actual problem is.
At least it’s a first step in the right direction.
Honestly, this should be a bigger discussion, and not limited to just games. If a software company sells a software license for perpetual use to someone, they should not be allowed to use copy protection mechanisms that prevent the licensee from using it in perpetuity.
If there’s some other technical reason why the software won’t run any more after ten or twenty years, that’s another story. But if they just can’t be bothered to keep running the licensing servers, then they need to bloody well remove the stinking copy protection.
The promise copyright holders were supposed to uphold was that the public received it as public domain when the copyright ended. How the fuck can you receive anything as public domain when the media is completely lost after only 10% of the duration of the copyright?
This is just another obvious sign that the whole copyright system is completely broken. If copyright holders won’t retain the media long enough for the copyright to expire, and hold up their end of the bargain, then we have no obligation to uphold their copyright.
I think it’s totally fine for a company to shut down the servers for a game…
…as long as they have a public tool to host your own server, free of any restrictions. They can also stop selling the game, but they can’t shut down the distribution for people who already paid for it, unless they straight up host it somewhere public and call it shareware from that point onwards.
Any other alternative is crazy. Imagine you buy a music vinyl, then 5 years later some Sony executive knocks on your door and says “hey you know we are shutting down, so imma need that disc you’ve bought I’m going to shatter it right now thanks”
Don’t give Sony any ideas. But yes, studios should get two choices, either open up the server or fully refund every single cent at least to the players that played the game in the year before the shutdown was announced (just so they don’t say they don’t have to put a shitload of effort on a dead game).
I don’t think there’s any chance the outcome of this will be allowing the communities of orphaned games to maintain them.
However, I think a good middle ground would be requiring publishers to state ahead of time (and inform customers clearly before they make a purchase) how long they will support their game. They should then be able to extend this period, but also be required to refund customers if they drop support before the initial support period they announced ends. Also, there should be a mandatory minimal length to the support period (like some countries have a mandatory warranty period for some products).
What’s stopping the foss community from making servers where the games can communicate? There’s already a project in the works for wiiU and 3ds after those console servers shut down.
I might not be able to work on this myself due to my own ineptitude but I know there are people out there smarter than me and more passionate than me who could possibly do it
I’m just saying his proposal to allow the community to maintain and develop the games further (which to me sounds like giving them the source code) probably won’t be put into law anytime soon.
I’d settle for the EU to start enforcement on use of the words buy and purchase. If a game requires online connection or only gives you a license, then they must use the words rent or license at point of sale.
I don’t see why developers can’t just make a game that works with or without the internet. There’s no reason a game can’t just connect to another copy of the game and communicate console to console. If there’s a reason beyond greed that this can’t happen please enlighten me.
Peer2peer connections are very difficult. Mainly because clients are behind a NAT which allows only connections from inside to outside. So when a client wants to connect to another client one connection comes from outside and is blocked. There is a “bug” called NAT holepunching to still connect but that’s not a trivial task and doesn’t work on all setups. I recently tried out webRTC for a multiplayer game but I still don’t know what to do with people where that connection can’t be established. SteamAPI has a P2P feature as well, and when they can’t establish a p2p connection they just silently route the packets over their servers.
patrick-breyer.de
Oldest