6 ms·

> Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and

by hmry 1y ago

> Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. No? How would the "rights holders" be in any way liable for someone posting illegal content on a community-hosted server after a game has gone end-of-life? Also, community servers not having to adhere to the publisher's standards of what community content is safe vs unsafe is clearly a positive in my humble opinion.

jjani 1y ago
Don't you know? If I cmd+S the HN front-end and throw my own backend behind it, host my own instance, and post something illegal on it, then YC is liable! Obviously they're not, but hey, just joining them in making things up. Protect the children!!
- dijit 1y ago
  It’s more complicated than that. I work in games and in my last workplace I was CTO of a racing simulation; that means I was working with brands that were not only my own in a pretty big way. The stipulations that were put on us was pretty strong. For example (and it’s not just these guys), Mercedes will not permit you to allow the logo to fall off; If you have a damage model in the game this is annoying. Some won’t allow the car to get dirty, or to deform in a realistic way because it harms a copyright (did you know that the front lights of cars are part of their brand and trademark in most cases). I’m using a pretty obvious example, that by selling a product that contains these other brands, we are beholden to not represent them in a way they don’t like; it’s part of the transaction for having it. I can already hear people thinking: but, most games don’t have any third party intellectual property. But that’s less true than you think, even fantasy games will inevitably wind up copying something from our world that is not completely generic. The most annoying ones are the little background things; Rockstar for example will almost assuredly have issues with using the shapes of famous buildings and licensing issues if they make their radio stations too easy to pirate. It’s a quagmire. Honestly, I’m not even sure why we bother making anything, there seems to always be some random popping their head up seeking another slice.
  - braiamp 1y ago
    If this passes, then such stipulations become illegal, since they can't force you to create a product that would fly on the face of the law.
    - dijit 1y ago
      That probably won’t be true, or we will lose the ability to license altogether. Here’s hoping though!
      - braiamp 1y ago
        The thing about licenses is that it's overratted. No licensor makes you unable to continue supporting the product, since the licensee will make sure to include a provision that all copies of the licensed software have the ability of use the licensed work.
  - delusional 1y ago
    I can easily understand why it sucks from your perspective, but European tradition dictates that we make it suck for you and then you have to make it suck for your counterparty. We don't directly intervene with your freedom to write whatever contracts you please, only what you release to consumers. That's intensely frustrating to be caught in the middle of. At times you end up feeling that the politicians are coopting you and your work for their ends, that they are underhandedly enveloping you in the public administration. That is in a way exactly what they are doing, but you have to remember that it's what your customers want. You are still making for your customers, they have just made their wants known though a process other than the free market.
    - anon_e-moose 1y ago
      There is no such thing as a 100% free market, not in America, not anywhere. What was passed was a petition for the EU to listen to the needs of a million EU citizens. It is not yet a law, but it might become one. Laws are the rules of the market. A 100% free market is anarchy.
tehbeard 1y ago
Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. Mojang (creators of Minecraft ) is an unfortunate good case study for this. It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft brand. I don't agree that we should be coerced into being in the kid safe padded play area, but I ain't blind enough to not see why we are.
- stathibus 1y ago
  Imagine if the kids were all hanging out on Bob's Private Club Penguin Server.
- delfinom 1y ago
  But the sale to Microsoft resulted in more scamming. In fact, the Xbox version of the game has in game currency added that requires dollars. And Microsoft allows servers free reign to scam children into spending that currency and buying more.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. That isn't how liability works. The judge isn't going to let you sue the wrong person because you're confused.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    $developer/publisher’s lawyer still has to show up and explain the confusion to the judge. Not a legal liability but a financial one. Then if one judge somewhere says something something trademark? they would also have to appeal.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      It doesn't even get to that point because the first thing someone who wants to file a lawsuit does is hire a lawyer, and the lawyer isn't going to bring the case against the wrong party either.

by hmry 1y ago

jjani 1y ago

Don't you know? If I cmd+S the HN front-end and throw my own backend behind it, host my own instance, and post something illegal on it, then YC is liable! Obviously they're not, but hey, just joining them in making things up. Protect the children!!

dijit 1y ago
It’s more complicated than that. I work in games and in my last workplace I was CTO of a racing simulation; that means I was working with brands that were not only my own in a pretty big way. The stipulations that were put on us was pretty strong. For example (and it’s not just these guys), Mercedes will not permit you to allow the logo to fall off; If you have a damage model in the game this is annoying. Some won’t allow the car to get dirty, or to deform in a realistic way because it harms a copyright (did you know that the front lights of cars are part of their brand and trademark in most cases). I’m using a pretty obvious example, that by selling a product that contains these other brands, we are beholden to not represent them in a way they don’t like; it’s part of the transaction for having it. I can already hear people thinking: but, most games don’t have any third party intellectual property. But that’s less true than you think, even fantasy games will inevitably wind up copying something from our world that is not completely generic. The most annoying ones are the little background things; Rockstar for example will almost assuredly have issues with using the shapes of famous buildings and licensing issues if they make their radio stations too easy to pirate. It’s a quagmire. Honestly, I’m not even sure why we bother making anything, there seems to always be some random popping their head up seeking another slice.
- braiamp 1y ago
  If this passes, then such stipulations become illegal, since they can't force you to create a product that would fly on the face of the law.
  - dijit 1y ago
    That probably won’t be true, or we will lose the ability to license altogether. Here’s hoping though!
    - braiamp 1y ago
      The thing about licenses is that it's overratted. No licensor makes you unable to continue supporting the product, since the licensee will make sure to include a provision that all copies of the licensed software have the ability of use the licensed work.
- delusional 1y ago
  I can easily understand why it sucks from your perspective, but European tradition dictates that we make it suck for you and then you have to make it suck for your counterparty. We don't directly intervene with your freedom to write whatever contracts you please, only what you release to consumers. That's intensely frustrating to be caught in the middle of. At times you end up feeling that the politicians are coopting you and your work for their ends, that they are underhandedly enveloping you in the public administration. That is in a way exactly what they are doing, but you have to remember that it's what your customers want. You are still making for your customers, they have just made their wants known though a process other than the free market.
  - anon_e-moose 1y ago
    There is no such thing as a 100% free market, not in America, not anywhere. What was passed was a petition for the EU to listen to the needs of a million EU citizens. It is not yet a law, but it might become one. Laws are the rules of the market. A 100% free market is anarchy.

tehbeard 1y ago

Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. Mojang (creators of Minecraft ) is an unfortunate good case study for this. It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft brand. I don't agree that we should be coerced into being in the kid safe padded play area, but I ain't blind enough to not see why we are.

stathibus 1y ago
Imagine if the kids were all hanging out on Bob's Private Club Penguin Server.
delfinom 1y ago
But the sale to Microsoft resulted in more scamming. In fact, the Xbox version of the game has in game currency added that requires dollars. And Microsoft allows servers free reign to scam children into spending that currency and buying more.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. That isn't how liability works. The judge isn't going to let you sue the wrong person because you're confused.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  $developer/publisher’s lawyer still has to show up and explain the confusion to the judge. Not a legal liability but a financial one. Then if one judge somewhere says something something trademark? they would also have to appeal.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    It doesn't even get to that point because the first thing someone who wants to file a lawsuit does is hire a lawyer, and the lawyer isn't going to bring the case against the wrong party either.