The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
It’s not even a matter of corruption, it’s basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I’m not saying these companies aren’t evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn’t make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.
I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I’d love to learn that I’m wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn’t cover the real world scenario diligently enough.
I think the idea of govt needing to “cover the real world scenario diligently enough” isn’t the issue here. Its a matter of non‑justiciable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn’t do that.
It’s not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.
Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people’s biases, and women’s suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of “catch and kill” tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.
Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.
I’ve never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That’s kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.
And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.
I honestly don’t know what to say to you at this point.
I’m not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that’s where this ends. Much like SKG.
I’ve never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.
I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.
EDIT:
Actually, lets just go with the entire US post-Brown v. Board of Education.
Yeah, that qualifies as “demand enforcement of existing laws and rights”.
Hell, lets go before that even. Little Rock Nine.
It’s unsettling that people can’t do basic fucking research before commenting with their feelings.
That’s a straw man argument and assumes I think Civil Rights was just Ruby Bridges. It has no bearing on whether or not the civil rights movement was a good example of demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights.
Famously, the civil rights movement didn’t end with zero changes to laws on the books because they were all perfect beforehand. The EU commission did not outline how this erodes intellectual property rights, but somehow, after a behind-closed-doors meeting with the industry that SKG wasn’t allowed to attend, they were convinced that it would.
Well, I called that one.
It’s not even a matter of corruption, it’s basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I’m not saying these companies aren’t evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn’t make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.
I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I’d love to learn that I’m wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn’t cover the real world scenario diligently enough.
I can think of tons:
I think the idea of govt needing to “cover the real world scenario diligently enough” isn’t the issue here. Its a matter of non‑justiciable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn’t do that.
It’s not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.
Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people’s biases, and women’s suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of “catch and kill” tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.
Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.
I’ve never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That’s kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.
And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.
I honestly don’t know what to say to you at this point. I’m not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that’s where this ends. Much like SKG.
I’ve never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.
I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.
EDIT: Actually, lets just go with the entire US post-Brown v. Board of Education. Yeah, that qualifies as “demand enforcement of existing laws and rights”. Hell, lets go before that even. Little Rock Nine.
It’s unsettling that people can’t do basic fucking research before commenting with their feelings.
Do you think the Civil Rights movement started and ended with Ruby Bridges?
That’s a straw man argument and assumes I think Civil Rights was just Ruby Bridges. It has no bearing on whether or not the civil rights movement was a good example of demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights.
You need to do a lot better than that.
Famously, the civil rights movement didn’t end with zero changes to laws on the books because they were all perfect beforehand. The EU commission did not outline how this erodes intellectual property rights, but somehow, after a behind-closed-doors meeting with the industry that SKG wasn’t allowed to attend, they were convinced that it would.