4 ms·

Not sure if you know this, but this is literally the Stop Killing Games movement. Despite the recent apparent setback as reported in the news, the organisers ar

Not sure if you know this, but this is literally the Stop Killing Games movement. Despite the recent apparent setback as reported in the news, the organisers are in talks with EU MPs that are writing sweeping legislation to address this sort of thing across all digital mediums. You only need legislation like this to hold in one major market to make a big difference.

throwaway85825 4mo ago
[flagged]
- M95D 4mo ago
  Considering the kind of people that get voted into Parliament, I consider that a very good thing. I only consider true democracies those countries where citizens can force new legislation by national referendum, bypassing parliament. There are very very few countries that allow it, and even fewer where the requirements are low enough to actually allow it to happen. Anyway, back to the subject. If Stop Killing Games will ever be law, it will be in EU. We already have very nice things like GDPR, USB charging, and replaceable batteries (soon).
  - hodgehog11 4mo ago
    I think we know from using Athens of Ancient Greece as an example that true democracies of this kind are not a good idea at scale. Enough of the general public can be so easily swayed on a clearly catastrophic idea.
    - M95D 4mo ago
      Responsibility comes with practice. Switzerland is doing okay.
    - palata 4mo ago
      This is wrong. A "true democracy" is the system where you need to "sway" the most people on the catastrophic idea. The worst scenario is a totalitarian system where exactly one person can take the catastrophic decision on their own. Everything else is in-between. It does NOT mean that democracies cannot go wrong. Just that a functioning democracy represents the majority of the people, and we don't have a single system that can steadily represent more people than a democracy (by definition). It also does NOT mean that democracies are not frustrating: when you are in the minority, obviously it is frustrating. And of course you will be in the minority from time to time.
  - throwaway85825 4mo ago
    The replaceable batteries is only a mandate that it retain 80% capacity after n charge cycles, which phones already meet. Toothless and useless regulation, the EU strikes again.
    - palata 4mo ago
      > which phones already meet All phones, really? Or just the one you care about? Even if it's all phones, it sets a bar, and it doesn't hurt. > Toothless and useless regulation, the EU strikes again. This is unfair. The EU brings many regulations. Ever heard of the Digital Markets Act? USB-C? EU does a lot for the ecology/climate (more than the individual countries, actually). There are many examples. Probably you don't like all of them, which may be frustrating. Doesn't mean the EU is completely useless. I find that people love to hate the EU based on some regulations that they hate, and more often than not based on discussions about potential regulations that they would hate (like ChatControl). I hate ChatControl, but the truth is that it hasn't been accepted at this point.
      - throwaway85825 4mo ago
        If you consider the marketshare of phone brands in the EU, it's mostly apple, Samsung and a few large chinese brands. They already have batteries that meet the legal definition. Good regulation can have outsized positive effects but this just creates paperwork and changes nothing. But the idea of replaceable batteries made you feel better, right? The point of regulations and politics is to get positive headlines while changing as little as possible because change makes the lobbyists sad.
        palata 4mo ago
        So you will just ignore the examples I gave of actual changes coming from the EU?
        throwaway85825 4mo ago
        If you cite vague generalities like 'ecology', then yes.
- munksbeer 4mo ago
  Misleading misinformation. The EU laws come from direction set by the Council (elected representatives from the national parliaments). Then their chosen civil service (the Commission) formulate and propose those laws based on the direction set by the Council. Then the EU elected MPs vote on the laws. That is not less democratic than how many countries operate.
- holgerschurig 4mo ago
  You are both rigth and wrong. First, the EU parliament isn't a "fake" parliament. You just claimed this, without any reasoning, so I'm free to just claim the opposite. The members of this parliament are freely elected and they can decide out on their own whim, without consulting the executive. So really they are one of the 3 legs, the legislative. However, the "EU is a fake democracy" is maybe correct. The thing is that one should never confuse the EU with some sovereign country, like the Unites States of America. Or with a federal state like the Federal Republic of Germany. The origins of the EU aren't based in some idea of nationality. They are based in trade: how to make trade easier, how to create a common market. It's much more similar to the "Hanse" than than to a modern national state. And as such, comparing the EU with a national state is futile. It's actually astounding that this trade club got so many democratic institutions, like the EU parliament or the EU court of justice. A lot of other trade agreements only have fully undemocratic arbitration tribunals. Also, "the EU cares about" is silly. The EU is a body of many members. The member states think not in unions (just think of "Visegrad members"). This list here isn't even complete: - Council of the European Union headed by Antonia Costa - EU Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen - EU Parliament headed by Roberta Metsola - European Central Bank headed by Christine Lagarde - European Court of Auditors headed by Tony Murphy - Court of Justice headed by ... no idea So one part can "care" about a thing, while another part does not. One must have lived under a rock to not know how e.g. the Commission often wanted some Orwell-1984 laws, again and again, and the EU parliament or the EU court of justice dismissed them. So no, the EU isn't a uniform body. And any claim in that direction is therefore inherently false.
  - palata 4mo ago
    Thank you for that. It often feels like many people (including here on HN) don't understand what the EU is.
  - throwaway85825 4mo ago
    >You just claimed this, without any reasoning Unlike nearly every other parliament the EU parliament cannot propose legislation. You may ignore it, but the reasoning for the claim was plainly stated. >members of this parliament are freely elected and they can decide out on their own whim MEPs are entitled to their opinions, it's just that they hardly matter. Everything voted on was already decided between the commission and lobbyists before behind closed doors. >Also, "the EU cares about" is silly. Many thousands of people are employed because of the EU parliament. It must exist for some reason or else it's just a colossal waste of money. Usually the point of citizens electing representatives that control their government is democracy. If instead those representatives have no power it is because the intent of the system is a potemkim village. An illusion of democracy, in short, a fake. If anything the EU parliament is like the UK house of Lords except the British know the lords are pointless and continually try to abolish it.
Buttons840 4mo ago
The GP comment mentioned Minecraft servers. The full story is that California politicians were discussing Stop Killing Games and and that gamers were willing and capable of running their own servers, and ESA argued against that by saying private servers are illegal, basically. Politicians are taking about it. Anyone who purchases media cares about it. Support for copyright reform is only going to grow, so hopefully we'll see some.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
pipes 4mo ago
I think this is going to have unintended consequences if it goes through: funding game development is a very very high risk investment. Adding this type of regulation adds further cost and complication, which makes it an even less attractive investment. Which will result in less monetary and creative risk taken. Even just open sourcing part of project is expensive. Legal and technical.
- ryandrake 4mo ago
  This argument is always pretty weak. All regulation adds cost and complication for companies. If that alone was a good reason to not add regulation, then taken to the logical conclusion, there should be no regulation on companies. Regulation needs to be seen as a trade-off, for example: We get better behaving companies, and the cost is less risk taken. Then the question becomes "is the benefit worth the cost?"
  - Ferret7446 4mo ago
    The argument should be stronger since the vast majority of regulation is as you say, the cost is not worth the benefit. All regulation by default is anticompetitive and also comes with the risk of intended consequences, and thus must prove that they provide sufficient benefit. They are "guilty until proven innocent". e.g., rather than trying to "just do something" about games, maybe we should revisit copyright law as a whole, instead of slapping a bandaid on a festering wound caused by the first bandaid
    - benj111 4mo ago
      How is all regulation anti competitive? Is it anti competitive that your product does what you say it does and is safe? Isn't that just levelling the playing field by allowing consumers to make rational choices? What about regulation designed to make sure there is competition? Is that anticompetitive???
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  I thought this was more "let people run the code themselves if they can figure it out" not "open sourcing". There's no appetite to force a company that reuses and improves their game engine on every new title to open source it, even an older version.
throwaway287391 4mo ago
> You only need legislation like this to hold in one major market to make a big difference. Could you explain this? I understand that for things like emissions regulations on cars, where it’s very expensive to invest R&D and production capacity into different SKUs for different markets. I can’t see why it would help in other markets in this case though (beyond potentially inspiring similar regulations elsewhere).
- roganartu 4mo ago
  The most relevant example of this for the games industry is probably Steam’s refund policy. They allow you to refund a game if you bought it less than 2 weeks ago and have less than 2 hours playtime recorded. This is their policy for all users, but was a direct result of an Australian consumer watchdog lawsuit [0]. [0] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million...
  - simjnd 4mo ago
    Counter-example to this would be 3rd-party app stores on iOS, which are only enabled in the EU, Japan and more recently in Brazil (maybe I'm missing some). Legislation in one market didn't impact the state of things in the others, and some countries get screwed over.

throwaway85825 4mo ago

[flagged]

M95D 4mo ago
Considering the kind of people that get voted into Parliament, I consider that a very good thing. I only consider true democracies those countries where citizens can force new legislation by national referendum, bypassing parliament. There are very very few countries that allow it, and even fewer where the requirements are low enough to actually allow it to happen. Anyway, back to the subject. If Stop Killing Games will ever be law, it will be in EU. We already have very nice things like GDPR, USB charging, and replaceable batteries (soon).
- hodgehog11 4mo ago
  I think we know from using Athens of Ancient Greece as an example that true democracies of this kind are not a good idea at scale. Enough of the general public can be so easily swayed on a clearly catastrophic idea.
  - M95D 4mo ago
    Responsibility comes with practice. Switzerland is doing okay.
  - palata 4mo ago
    This is wrong. A "true democracy" is the system where you need to "sway" the most people on the catastrophic idea. The worst scenario is a totalitarian system where exactly one person can take the catastrophic decision on their own. Everything else is in-between. It does NOT mean that democracies cannot go wrong. Just that a functioning democracy represents the majority of the people, and we don't have a single system that can steadily represent more people than a democracy (by definition). It also does NOT mean that democracies are not frustrating: when you are in the minority, obviously it is frustrating. And of course you will be in the minority from time to time.
- throwaway85825 4mo ago
  The replaceable batteries is only a mandate that it retain 80% capacity after n charge cycles, which phones already meet. Toothless and useless regulation, the EU strikes again.
  - palata 4mo ago
    > which phones already meet All phones, really? Or just the one you care about? Even if it's all phones, it sets a bar, and it doesn't hurt. > Toothless and useless regulation, the EU strikes again. This is unfair. The EU brings many regulations. Ever heard of the Digital Markets Act? USB-C? EU does a lot for the ecology/climate (more than the individual countries, actually). There are many examples. Probably you don't like all of them, which may be frustrating. Doesn't mean the EU is completely useless. I find that people love to hate the EU based on some regulations that they hate, and more often than not based on discussions about potential regulations that they would hate (like ChatControl). I hate ChatControl, but the truth is that it hasn't been accepted at this point.
    - throwaway85825 4mo ago
      If you consider the marketshare of phone brands in the EU, it's mostly apple, Samsung and a few large chinese brands. They already have batteries that meet the legal definition. Good regulation can have outsized positive effects but this just creates paperwork and changes nothing. But the idea of replaceable batteries made you feel better, right? The point of regulations and politics is to get positive headlines while changing as little as possible because change makes the lobbyists sad.
      - palata 4mo ago
        So you will just ignore the examples I gave of actual changes coming from the EU?
        throwaway85825 4mo ago
        If you cite vague generalities like 'ecology', then yes.
munksbeer 4mo ago
Misleading misinformation. The EU laws come from direction set by the Council (elected representatives from the national parliaments). Then their chosen civil service (the Commission) formulate and propose those laws based on the direction set by the Council. Then the EU elected MPs vote on the laws. That is not less democratic than how many countries operate.
holgerschurig 4mo ago
You are both rigth and wrong. First, the EU parliament isn't a "fake" parliament. You just claimed this, without any reasoning, so I'm free to just claim the opposite. The members of this parliament are freely elected and they can decide out on their own whim, without consulting the executive. So really they are one of the 3 legs, the legislative. However, the "EU is a fake democracy" is maybe correct. The thing is that one should never confuse the EU with some sovereign country, like the Unites States of America. Or with a federal state like the Federal Republic of Germany. The origins of the EU aren't based in some idea of nationality. They are based in trade: how to make trade easier, how to create a common market. It's much more similar to the "Hanse" than than to a modern national state. And as such, comparing the EU with a national state is futile. It's actually astounding that this trade club got so many democratic institutions, like the EU parliament or the EU court of justice. A lot of other trade agreements only have fully undemocratic arbitration tribunals. Also, "the EU cares about" is silly. The EU is a body of many members. The member states think not in unions (just think of "Visegrad members"). This list here isn't even complete: - Council of the European Union headed by Antonia Costa - EU Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen - EU Parliament headed by Roberta Metsola - European Central Bank headed by Christine Lagarde - European Court of Auditors headed by Tony Murphy - Court of Justice headed by ... no idea So one part can "care" about a thing, while another part does not. One must have lived under a rock to not know how e.g. the Commission often wanted some Orwell-1984 laws, again and again, and the EU parliament or the EU court of justice dismissed them. So no, the EU isn't a uniform body. And any claim in that direction is therefore inherently false.
- palata 4mo ago
  Thank you for that. It often feels like many people (including here on HN) don't understand what the EU is.
- throwaway85825 4mo ago
  >You just claimed this, without any reasoning Unlike nearly every other parliament the EU parliament cannot propose legislation. You may ignore it, but the reasoning for the claim was plainly stated. >members of this parliament are freely elected and they can decide out on their own whim MEPs are entitled to their opinions, it's just that they hardly matter. Everything voted on was already decided between the commission and lobbyists before behind closed doors. >Also, "the EU cares about" is silly. Many thousands of people are employed because of the EU parliament. It must exist for some reason or else it's just a colossal waste of money. Usually the point of citizens electing representatives that control their government is democracy. If instead those representatives have no power it is because the intent of the system is a potemkim village. An illusion of democracy, in short, a fake. If anything the EU parliament is like the UK house of Lords except the British know the lords are pointless and continually try to abolish it.

Buttons840 4mo ago

The GP comment mentioned Minecraft servers. The full story is that California politicians were discussing Stop Killing Games and and that gamers were willing and capable of running their own servers, and ESA argued against that by saying private servers are illegal, basically. Politicians are taking about it. Anyone who purchases media cares about it. Support for copyright reform is only going to grow, so hopefully we'll see some.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

pipes 4mo ago

I think this is going to have unintended consequences if it goes through: funding game development is a very very high risk investment. Adding this type of regulation adds further cost and complication, which makes it an even less attractive investment. Which will result in less monetary and creative risk taken. Even just open sourcing part of project is expensive. Legal and technical.

ryandrake 4mo ago
This argument is always pretty weak. All regulation adds cost and complication for companies. If that alone was a good reason to not add regulation, then taken to the logical conclusion, there should be no regulation on companies. Regulation needs to be seen as a trade-off, for example: We get better behaving companies, and the cost is less risk taken. Then the question becomes "is the benefit worth the cost?"
- Ferret7446 4mo ago
  The argument should be stronger since the vast majority of regulation is as you say, the cost is not worth the benefit. All regulation by default is anticompetitive and also comes with the risk of intended consequences, and thus must prove that they provide sufficient benefit. They are "guilty until proven innocent". e.g., rather than trying to "just do something" about games, maybe we should revisit copyright law as a whole, instead of slapping a bandaid on a festering wound caused by the first bandaid
  - benj111 4mo ago
    How is all regulation anti competitive? Is it anti competitive that your product does what you say it does and is safe? Isn't that just levelling the playing field by allowing consumers to make rational choices? What about regulation designed to make sure there is competition? Is that anticompetitive???
Schiendelman 4mo ago
I thought this was more "let people run the code themselves if they can figure it out" not "open sourcing". There's no appetite to force a company that reuses and improves their game engine on every new title to open source it, even an older version.

throwaway287391 4mo ago

> You only need legislation like this to hold in one major market to make a big difference. Could you explain this? I understand that for things like emissions regulations on cars, where it’s very expensive to invest R&D and production capacity into different SKUs for different markets. I can’t see why it would help in other markets in this case though (beyond potentially inspiring similar regulations elsewhere).

roganartu 4mo ago
The most relevant example of this for the games industry is probably Steam’s refund policy. They allow you to refund a game if you bought it less than 2 weeks ago and have less than 2 hours playtime recorded. This is their policy for all users, but was a direct result of an Australian consumer watchdog lawsuit [0]. [0] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million...
- simjnd 4mo ago
  Counter-example to this would be 3rd-party app stores on iOS, which are only enabled in the EU, Japan and more recently in Brazil (maybe I'm missing some). Legislation in one market didn't impact the state of things in the others, and some countries get screwed over.