The page seems to be not working at the moment but keep on signing https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home
Fresh update video from Ross about the campaign.
TL;DW:
If you're in the EU, you should still sign; extra signatures will be useful if it turns out some of them are invalid.
To be clear... If you have already signed, thank you but do not sign again.
(I know that's not what you wanted to say, I just want to make sure it's not misunderstood).
Does it not stop you from signing multiple times? The UK one tells you you've already signed it when you try again. I tried it again recently in case i was misremembering signing the second petition after the first one was misunderstood completely by the uk government.
Oddly, the EU one just has a checkbox that you need to check to confirm that you haven’t signed before. I’m guessing removal of duplicates happens only after closing, along with other data validation.
I thought this strange at first too, but I think it’s because of the disparate identification methods in different countries. If everyone had a digital ID card instant checking would be doable, but note it probably isn’t.
That's not true. It depends on the country. In certain countries it will tell you if your identification number had been used before.
For the UK one it's just tied to your email address to prevent duplicates, and you just input your name and physical address which will be used to confirm you're actually a citizen.
Wait, what happened with the first one?
Parliament disbanded iirc
After giving such a bad answer to it that some other part of the government stepped in and said the answer was dramatically insufficient.
Yeah I signet 10 months ago. Also put the link in the post
Definitely keep signing, I'm really concerned at the speed it rose , and I'm really hoping there wasn't something else at play here.
It was Critikal and PewDiePie saying to sign it. They could get a million signatures on literally anything.
but dozens a minute increase in the dawn hours?
Someone posted a screenshot from 4chan where they were talking about how to fake submissions... 😠
At the current rate (which may or may not hold and may or may not be legitimate) the initiative should beat “One of Us”, the biggest one yet with 1.9M signatures (pro-life, ultimately did nothing).
This should not stop, the more the merry and also to ensure to filter out anomalies. 34k have already signed pass the million
I'm glad. But don't get your hopes up because of this. Commission could (and probably will) just say "we have considered it and we are going to do nothing".
We've done nothing and already completely ran out of ideas!
They are supposed to meet with the seven people who first put the initiative forward. It won't change their minds if they're already against the initiative but if they don't care it may sway them to hear it explained to them. I have zero expectations since EU bureaucrats live in a parallel dimension but there's some hope something happens.
I think the commission will take action in some form. The worst case scenario in my mind is that they will only require clear labelling. Similar to what they did with smart phones recently. While this not exactly what I am hoping for, having "This game will at least be playable until XXXX" on the package or store page would still be a massive improvement over the status quo.
I dont understand how such a broad requirement would work. They just have to pick some arbitrary date, and then after that they can continue as things currently are? Can you give an example of a game where this type of labelling would have helped?
'The Crew' by Ubisoft was sold for several months before they decided to shut it down. This would have at least forced them to communicate that before taking peoples money. I am also pretty sure that publishers don't want to put this information on the package because it could seriously hurt sales. So the effect of this labelling requirement might be that publishers build the game in a way that enables self-hosting.
Yes if we would have known that Concord only lasted two weeks then those that bought the battle pass wouldn't have bought them. Know eol timing help consumers.
Sony actually issued full refunds to all customers that bought Concord.
The game still died. One that was in development for five years, and it lasted two weeks.
At least we will have an official position, instead of the legal void we're currently in.
I swear this is not me doomering (I very much support this campaign and even signed it myself half a year ago), but I strongly suspect that at least a good chunk of those are fake. The issue is very hot in "terminally online" circles and those are the kind of people who don't really think things through before acting.
I hope the number will keep on growing until the "legit" votes make up for the fake ones.
One melon!
Yay! I'm one in a million!
Can we move for a Stop Killing People now!? :)
Do they still need to get the minimum in at least 7 countries? Anyone happen to know? Ive only been loosely following and i don't want to stress the website more than it is suffering lol.
No, that requirement has already been met. The final requirement (which has just been met now) is to reach a total of 1 million signatures. Basically, all requirements are now satisfied
Awesome, thank you!!
Do still sign if you can, some signatures might turn out to be invalid and we need a buffer against that.
That's great and all, but this needs to stop being spammed everywhere. Theres two of these posts in games alone.
Crosspost, people. That's what is there for.
A) this issue applies to all kinds of software.
B) procuring software is a two-way street ... the producer assigns terms by which access is obtained, and you agree to those terms in exchange for that access. If the software is SaaS then if the producer chooses to shut down the service then you are SOL. If the software is provided with a long list of terms via Steam, then you are basically buying SaaS with local caching and execution. Maybe don't reward producers by agreeing to one-sided deals like SaaS?
This kind of headache is what prompted Richard Stallman to come up with the idea for the GNU license. Maybe you think that is too radical... but maybe imposing your ideas of what licensing terms should look like on (only?) game developers is radical also.
Isn't prohibiting them from not releasing the server software after they shut down the ultimate way to not reward them for such behavior?
A) yes it does.
B) I'm assuming that you are somehow against this pro consumer movement. If so: why?
For the same reason I think software developers have the right to choose to release under copyleft, I think they have the right to release under SaaS or copyright. I don't think it is fair to take those rights from them. (I may choose to avoid SaaS or other proprietary models where possible, but I am not pure about it... I just do so recognizing that proprietary tools are a band-aid and could become unusable when any upgrade or TOS changes.)
As one example, keep in mind that some governments may choose to punish a software developer for making "offensive" (by whatever their standards are) content, and rather than fighting a losing battle in one jurisdiction so you in some other jurisdiction can keep using that controversial software the developer may just choose to cut their losses and turn it off for everyone. If you force them to release it anyway then said punitive government may continue to hold the developer responsible for the existence of that software.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model... and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Sounds like the ol' slippery slope argument.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.
To address your first point. Yes it applies to other software, this initiative applies to games because the "buyer purchases a license to allow the seller to remove your purchase at some indefinite time later" practices have been most prevalent in gaming.
Extending the scope too far will bring in more opponents than allies and muddy the discussion. Getting a decisive answer here will inform laws on how other industries should be regulated in separate but parallel legislative processes.
nobody reads the terms of service, ever.
also, no modern game companies with any relevance use a FOSS license.
so the way i see it, gamers have two options:
neither of these would happen at a scale large enough to force game studios into making their games FOSS.
the only way i can see of making this happen is by either:
and with the second option, history has shown that only small changes have a chance of passing. effectively abolishing copyright law for software is not something the EU will ever do, no matter how many signatures a petition gets.
The argument here is that they don't need to open source or switch over to an FOSS license.
They just need to not actively prohibit people from doing custom servers and they need to release their own server files wheb their support period ends.
If that ends with violating a license agreement they have with another company that is exclusively a that company problem because as shown in the past, law supercedes agreement and contracts.
It will basically put branding companies at a either they don't agree to let their stuff be used in games and not get the money for it, or they decide that it really doesn't matter all that much if a community project can use their stuff. Simple choice
They can still release their bespoke parts without any of the third party licensed stuff. Even without instructions on what needs to be gotten and put back in. It'd allow the smarter guys in the community have a headstart to figuring it out anyway. Most licensed software can be replaced, look at the recent decomps like the Lego island one.
I don't think they need to make their games FOSS to do right by the consumer. If you have an online game and no longer want to support the server part, it would be super cool to share that code, but at the very least companies shouldn't be trying to shut down community servers. The same goes for the game itself, the source code would be very cool, but not going after people who still want to play the game they've chosen to no longer support seems reasonable.
If a company is ending support their ability to enforce copyright should also end, outside of people that are trying to profit off trying to resell the game as their own (which probably doesn't happen all that much).
That's cool. Too bad it doesn't matter and nothing will change :-/
Stop doomering
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
PM a mod to add your own
Video games
Generic
Help and suggestions
By platform
By type
By games
Language specific