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.
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.
When existing legislation didn’t suffice, the movement was for further legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that postdated Ruby Bridges’ attendance of an integrated school. And now we can bring that back to SKG requesting additional legislation because the existing legislation doesn’t suffice.
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.
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.
When existing legislation didn’t suffice, the movement was for further legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that postdated Ruby Bridges’ attendance of an integrated school. And now we can bring that back to SKG requesting additional legislation because the existing legislation doesn’t suffice.
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.