Skip Navigation

Dead Game News: Response from the European Commission [companies shut down single player games you bought with always online DRM]

yt.artemislena.eu Dead Game News: Response from the European Commission

News going over responses from the EU Commission on the issue of destroying games from members of European Parliament. Also some updates on the campaign towards the end. 0:00 intro 0:27 European Commission 13:06 France 14:09 UK 16:38 Germany 17:27 Canada 17:35 Brazil 17:46 Australia 18:48 What's n...

Dead Game News: Response from the European Commission
19

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
19 comments
  • Say I go to a furniture store and buy a table. It has a 5 year warranty. 2 years later, it breaks, so I call Ubersoft and ask them to honor the warranty and fix it. If they don’t, then I can file a suit against them, i.e., for breach of contract. I may not even have to file a suit, as there may be government agencies who receive and act on these complaints, like my local consumer protection division.

    I’m talking about real things here. Your example is a situation where the US government agrees that a company shouldn’t be permitted to take my money and then renege on their promises. And that’s generally true of most governments.

    Supposing an absence of regulations protecting consumers like me, like you’re trying to suggest in your example, then it would be reasonable to assume an absence of laws and regulations protecting the corporation from consumers like me. Absent such laws, a consumer would be free to take matters into their own hands. They could go back to Ubersoft and take a replacement table without their agreement - it wouldn’t be “stealing” because it wouldn’t be illegal. If Ubersoft were closed, the consumer could break in. If Ubersoft security tried to stop them, the consumer could retaliate - damaging Ubersoft’s property, physically attacking the owner / management / employees, etc.. Ubersoft could retaliate as well, of course - nothing’s stopping them. And as a corporation, they certainly have more power than a random consumer - but at that point they would need to employ their own security forces rather than relying on the government for them.

    Even if we kept laws prohibiting physical violence, the consumer is still regulated by things like copyright and IP protections, e.g., the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Absent such regulations, a consumer whose software was rendered unusable or changed in a way they didn’t like could reverse engineer it, bypass DRM, host their own servers, etc.. Given that you didn’t speak against those regulations, I can only infer that you are not opposed to them.

    Why do you think we don’t need regulations protecting consumers but that we do need regulations restricting them?

You've viewed 19 comments.