Game publishers push back as "Stop Killing Games" campaign surges past 1 million signatures

[lonetac]

Never? Never? Plenty of online games have had private or LAN server modes. Plenty more have had fans painstakingly reverse engineer servers to keep playing yet you would be hard pressed to find the financial damage such reverse engineering has imposed on owners of the IP in question. Especially if the developer is now defunct.

No kidding. I referenced those private servers several times in this thread... did you see that?

And yes, never actually. Those 3rd party servers are not officially allowed and could be cease and desisted at anytime. The EQ one, if they ever decided to charge a penny for it, they would be shut down immediately. EQ and WoW are still live in fact but yet these servers exist.

No MMO company has ever provided resources to continue running their game after it was shut down. Give me one example. The ones that exist (as I stated earlier) require entire dev teams to keep up and running. Thats what I was countering you. What you are talking about here is something completely different.

And since they already exist, is there an issue with those games? Everquest, WoW, DAoC, etc? Folks are already hosting their own servers.

 

[Squid Surprise]

When a music artist stops making music, does their music stop earning royalties? Does everyone now get to play it wherever without fear of legal repercussion?

I don't think I have to pay royalties on Vivaldi's four seasons... or Bach... or Beethoven... copyright protection DOES end you know... and no musician has the ability (let alone the right) to erase every copy of a song they wrote after selling it...

 

[GhostLegion]

No kidding. I referenced those private servers several times in this thread... did you see that?

And yes, never actually. Those 3rd party servers are not officially allowed and could be cease and desisted at anytime. The EQ one, if they ever decided to charge a penny for it, they would be shut down immediately. EQ and WoW are still live in fact but yet these servers exist.

No MMO company has ever provided resources to continue running their game after it was shut down. Give me one example. The ones that exist (as I stated earlier) require entire dev teams to keep up and running. Thats what I was countering you. What you are talking about here is something completely different.

And since they already exist, is there an issue with those games? Everquest, WoW, DAoC, etc? Folks are already hosting their own servers. I don’t play any MMO’s so I can’t speak to them. I have played supreme commander which is decades old at this point and it to allows for private matches hosted peer-to-peer

I don’t play MMO’s ever so I can’t speak to them. I interpreted your comment to suggest that no 3rd party or private servers have ever been allowed to coexist with official servers and that is factually wrong.

As for the rest…you are intentionally misconstruing what is being asked for at this point. Nobody is asking for devs or publishers to support games until the heat death of the universe or even support them beyond whenever they desire to support them. Just that if you are going to charge for things be that the games, dlc, skins, whatever it is, that those items be available to the player that purchased them. It is no different than the expectation for digital movie, music, and book purchases. The same complaint about “purchased” content being removed post transaction applies here too. It’s not like the amount of money involved is wildly different since it’s expensive to make movies too.

If private servers were able to exist in the early 2000’s and game devs had jobs, I don’t buy any argument that claims that implementing that ability will cripple devs ability to make new games or support their families.

 

[lonetac]

I don’t play MMO’s ever so I can’t speak to them. I interpreted your comment to suggest that no 3rd party or private servers have ever been allowed to coexist with official servers and that is factually wrong.

As for the rest…you are intentionally misconstruing what is being asked for at this point. Nobody is asking for devs or publishers to support games until the heat death of the universe or even support them beyond whenever they desire to support them. Just that if you are going to charge for things be that the games, dlc, skins, whatever it is, that those items be available to the player that purchased them. It is no different than the expectation for digital movie, music, and book purchases. The same complaint about “purchased” content being removed post transaction applies here too. It’s not like the amount of money involved is wildly different since it’s expensive to make movies too.

If private servers were able to exist in the early 2000’s and game devs had jobs, I don’t buy any argument that claims that implementing that ability will cripple devs ability to make new games or support their families.

I never said that devs needed to support games until the heat of death. Thats you straw maning. Ive been quite clear.

If you dont want to discuss in good faith, just move on bud. Dont waste my time.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I never said that devs needed to support games until the heat of death. Thats you straw maning. Ive been quite clear.

If you dont want to discuss in good faith, just move on bud. Dont waste my time.

lol, you said a bunch of stuff that others argued successfully against… I would posit that it’s YOU who is arguing in bad faith…

 

[Liranan]

This doesnt actually solve the problem. I listened someone break this down and cannot describe as eloquently as they did but forcing companies to keep online games online isnt possible.

For single player offline games, sure, it has value but say WoW goes out of business. Forcing them to keep servers up isnt sustainable. What that means is you just wont have online games anymore.

Careful what you wish for. There is a world where both can exist.

WoW was made as a single player game, the online aspect was added when they realised they could make a far greater killing by making it a subscription based game, then added micro transactions.

I believe that private/self hosted servers for EVE Online should become available when the game eventually shuts down. While the game is an entirely different beast than WoW it should be possible to host your own servers and play with small groups of people if you so desire.

 

[Itsame]

I don't think I have to pay royalties on Vivaldi's four seasons... or Bach... or Beethoven... copyright protection DOES end you know... and no musician has the ability (let alone the right) to erase every copy of a song they wrote after selling it...

You dont pay royalties on Bach or Beethoven because every song prior to 1929 is public domain. A song released now normally has a copyright protection of the artists lifetime plus 70 years, so they wont have to worry about trying to erase their songs.

 

[CapNemo72]

Im not running interference. You just lack reading comprehension. Try to read my words.

I admitted there was a problem. Did you read that? Read it again just for good measure. I want to make sure its sinking in. Stop saying stupid assumptions because you want to straw man me.

And its not just big companies, this impacts little guys too so while the industry might be multi billion, you are also expecting this out of indie devs and other small developers. You cant just sit here and pretend its about defending billionaires... thats a ridiculously shortsighted comment.

I said this petition doesnt really solve the problem and is actually bad for gamers and gaming. Demanding every game remain available after end of life is unrealistic. Have you put any consideration into the ramifications for this in terms of MMO's and indie games? I fully support titles that are not online only being preserved. I think its absolutely crazy to expect that with MMO's and every game made.

If you want your own private game, go develop one.

Its like demanding a car company or appliance manufacturer keep parts for every model they have ever released in case something needs to be fixed 20 years down the road.

No other industry works this way. There is certainly things we can do, I dont think this movement addresses it realistically.

Case 1 - Single player games that "need" to be online - easy fix, probably just dozen of lines of code, or even less.

Case 2 - Single player game with multiplayer maps - They run servers that host those maps and regulate the players connected to it. At this very moment, a private servers for several games can be run and have been for so many years. So nothing new here. Means can be done because it has be done so many times.

Case 3 - MMO, online only game with persistent virtual worlds. A tougher one, since the game is kind a played in a "cloud". BUT, again, many examples where private individuals were running these kind of servers once the game went down.

Could this be bad for gaming industry? Maybe. If they make new game being much, much better, everyone will move to a new game. So, it is really up to them.
Could it be bad for gamers? Well you tell me, you spend some money (sometimes a lot of money) and then company decides you no longer have access to something you paid for and you have no say in it vs company gives away binary files (so no source code) for you to run at your expense and your responsibility, if you wish so? So, you tell me which one seems better.

As for your example for car industry, I am glad you mentioned, because you just gave one example that helps the case for this initiative. So older cars, can still be used because there are either old stocks of the parts or parts have been made by third companies without car company sending cease&desist letter to them.
And gamers are not even asking for that (which would be akin to access a source code). Simply to be able to run the binary files (executables) that they paid license for. It is so easy to understand.

And for the " If you want your own private game, go develop one" , that is actually the worst case for game studios. Because someone WILL do just that, and make a game that could lower the sales for other games from the studios.

 

[Eldrach]

You also assert an opinion. Its great we both have one.

When a music artist stops making music, does their music stop earning royalties? Does everyone now get to play it wherever without fear of legal repercussion?

You can still listen to the music though. When a game you paid for is taken offline, you can't access it..not the best analogy

 

[lonetac]

lol, you said a bunch of stuff that others argued successfully against… I would posit that it’s YOU who is arguing in bad faith…

I have been here debating and having conversation in good faith. go troll elsewhere. its been fine here before you showed up. Take a hint.

Straw man'ing in an argument is deductive and doesnt help anyones discussion point. Its actually the opposite and discredits the points you are trying to make.

He knew exactly what we were talking about because it was his post that we are responding to. No MMO company has ever done this. It says nothing about 3rd party servers running along side official servers which I pointed out first in this thread. Making that assumption is... well making it up.

We were clearly talking about publishers leaving games in a playable state when they no longer wish to support them. Its right there.

Nobody is asking them to support the games. We ask that publishers leave them in a playable state when they no longer wish to support them. That’s how it worked in the past and no reason why they can’t do it now except greed.

 

[lonetac]

Case 1 - Single player games that "need" to be online - easy fix, probably just dozen of lines of code, or even less.

Case 2 - Single player game with multiplayer maps - They run servers that host those maps and regulate the players connected to it. At this very moment, a private servers for several games can be run and have been for so many years. So nothing new here. Means can be done because it has be done so many times.

Case 3 - MMO, online only game with persistent virtual worlds. A tougher one, since the game is kind a played in a "cloud". BUT, again, many examples where private individuals were running these kind of servers once the game went down.

Could this be bad for gaming industry? Maybe. If they make new game being much, much better, everyone will move to a new game. So, it is really up to them.
Could it be bad for gamers? Well you tell me, you spend some money (sometimes a lot of money) and then company decides you no longer have access to something you paid for and you have no say in it vs company gives away binary files (so no source code) for you to run at your expense and your responsibility, if you wish so? So, you tell me which one seems better.

As for your example for car industry, I am glad you mentioned, because you just gave one example that helps the case for this initiative. So older cars, can still be used because there are either old stocks of the parts or parts have been made by third companies without car company sending cease&desist letter to them.
And gamers are not even asking for that (which would be akin to access a source code). Simply to be able to run the binary files (executables) that they paid license for. It is so easy to understand.

And for the " If you want your own private game, go develop one" , that is actually the worst case for game studios. Because someone WILL do just that, and make a game that could lower the sales for other games from the studios.

1. We dont know what the exact details are. Why are we supporting a campaign that doesnt have exactly what they want detailed? Why support a law before you know what it does?
2. Your list is exactly detailing the nuance and difference between different games. Each type of game should be evaluated differently on feasibility to implement something.

A ftp game like Raid (please dont play it), has servers serving the data to a client when you sign in. There is no way to single player that unless you have a developer updating the content and running the feed. How do you make a gochya game available after wards? It would be an entirely new game. Im all for getting rid of these types of games but that industry is HUGE and its not going anywhere.

I personally dont sign up for things unless its clear what the intention is. This could impact the industry negatively. Could it help? It might. But without clearly defined specific goals, its a crap shoot.

 

[lonetac]

You can still listen to the music though. When a game you paid for is taken offline, you can't access it..not the best analogy

I do acknowledge that.

You can if its private in your home. You cant if its streaming, political parties (as we have seen lately), movies, games, etc. You would have to pay royalties even if you purchased the music.

I guess your argument would be "we are asking for the ability to play it privately in our home" but many here are also saying private servers with many people which isnt privately alone in your home. I dunno, I see those lines crossing.

Lots of nuance. Its not so black and white.

 

[CapNemo72]

1. We dont know what the exact details are. Why are we supporting a campaign that doesnt have exactly what they want detailed? Why support a law before you know what it does?
2. Your list is exactly detailing the nuance and difference between different games. Each type of game should be evaluated differently on feasibility to implement something.

A ftp game like Raid (please dont play it), has servers serving the data to a client when you sign in. There is no way to single player that unless you have a developer updating the content and running the feed. How do you make a gochya game available after wards? It would be an entirely new game. Im all for getting rid of these types of games but that industry is HUGE and its not going anywhere.

I personally dont sign up for things unless its clear what the intention is. This could impact the industry negatively. Could it help? It might. But without clearly defined specific goals, its a crap shoot.

You either do not understand what has been said or you are intentionally twisting the words.

1. A campaign is just a base for the communication to start and for process of evaluation to start by government and parties impacted by this in order to come to some rules that would be just a common sense. No one, in their right mind, thinks that whatever was proposed in this campaign will end up as a law word for word.
So, consider it as a consultation base, on which the negotiation will be done on, and eventual rules or laws will be created/declared. It will probably take years to get to some kind of rule or the law.

2. Well just as you say, but still, no matter what game you can take as example, from coding perspective, it would be trivial task compared to creating the game itself. Of course, each game will need different type of effort, but again, a trivial one.

No one is asking that an MMO game should be adopted for single player mode.
The only thing that is asked that you have technical ability to access and use the game that you paid and/or invested ingame time and money if you wish so, on you own cost and your own responsibility. If you lose money doing it or you do something bad, its on you. Not the company who made the game. I mean, it is so simple to understand.
So software company, when it decides to retire a game, can literally create a zip file and say
"Here are the executable with all the data you need to run this. We will host this file for next 6 months or a year". Whatever you do with this file we are not responsible for or will not bear any further cost. You can host it, mod it, but you are not allow to clone it or sell it as yours.

I never played RAID either and not interested in these kind of games. But I have many Ubisoft games that do require internet connection even if I play in single player mode.

 

[CapNemo72]

I do acknowledge that.

You can if its private in your home. You cant if its streaming, political parties (as we have seen lately), movies, games, etc. You would have to pay royalties even if you purchased the music.

I guess your argument would be "we are asking for the ability to play it privately in our home" but many here are also saying private servers with many people which isnt privately alone in your home. I dunno, I see those lines crossing.

Lots of nuance. Its not so black and white.

I assume you had party at your home. There was music playing probably.
Well, in virtual world, that would be a private server. People can not come in uninvited, unless you make that possible.
But that would be the same if you had an open door party at your house.
There is no crossing the line. You just need to put things it proper context and not twist them out of it.

 

[lonetac]

I never played RAID either and not interested in these kind of games. But I have many Ubisoft games that do require internet connection even if I play in single player mode.

I think this is a valid argument for this campaign.

I think requiring online games such as Raid, MMO's, Online shooters to be forced into it is a different story and requires more thought around the nuance of how they work.

A lot of folks keep saying its "trivial" and I dont think they have the expertise or knowledge to back that up meaningfully. You know how long it takes them to fix bugs, make a GUI change, add something without breaking something else.

Nobody here is qualified to say that its trivial and easy. Thats downplaying the situation massively.

 

[lonetac]

I assume you had party at your home. There was music playing probably.
Well, in virtual world, that would be a private server. People can not come in uninvited, unless you make that possible.
But that would be the same if you had an open door party at your house.
There is no crossing the line. You just need to put things it proper context and not twist them out of it.

Nah, there is naunce there and I see the lines crossing. If you play music for online viewership anywhere, you are likely going to be facing some repricussion for royalties, or some other issue. go stream with a song you purchased, see what happens.

How is playing a game online different? Its not really.

We each have our opinion on it, thats ok.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I think this is a valid argument for this campaign.

I think requiring online games such as Raid, MMO's, Online shooters to be forced into it is a different story and requires more thought around the nuance of how they work.

A lot of folks keep saying its "trivial" and I dont think they have the expertise or knowledge to back that up meaningfully. You know how long it takes them to fix bugs, make a GUI change, add something without breaking something else.

Nobody here is qualified to say that its trivial and easy. Thats downplaying the situation massively.

If there are ALREADY private servers that exist - then it was trivial.... forcing users to delete purchased material because it's no longer supported in unacceptable.

Nah, there is naunce there and I see the lines crossing. If you play music for online viewership anywhere, you are likely going to be facing some repricussion for royalties, or some other issue. go stream with a song you purchased, see what happens.

How is playing a game online different? Its not really.

We each have our opinion on it, thats ok.

If you are playing a video game for profit... fine... but except for a few streamers / e-sport players, the VAST majority of gamers are not in it for profit but for FUN. If they paid for the game, they should be allowed to keep playing it.

Just like if I buy music, I should be able to listen to it for as long as I want to.

 

[GhostLegion]

Nah, there is naunce there and I see the lines crossing. If you play music for online viewership anywhere, you are likely going to be facing some repricussion for royalties, or some other issue. go stream with a song you purchased, see what happens.

How is playing a game online different? Its not really.

We each have our opinion on it, thats ok.

At this point it’s the exception that proves the rule. You keep coming back to MMOs and that indeed may need to be exempt. Most games are not MMOs. League is not an MMO, CS2 is not an MMO, Overwatch is not an MMO, most games are not MMOs but have forced online requirements. It has already been stated once by Bruce that a compromise could be that only future games would be required to comply with this new legislation. It’s a fair compromise given the number of games out there and yes the enormous manpower needed to resurrect already killed games. The campaign is “Stop Killing Games” not “Bring Back Dead Games”. Also, I was being hyperbolic, not inserting a straw man. You complaining about support being required with no end in sight…is functionally the same as asking for support until the heat death of the universe.

Also…indie devs don’t make MMOs, go ahead and find an indie game that isn’t already playable offline. Indie devs don’t have the money to maintain those kinds of resources. Balatro, Undertale, Inscryption, these are all indie games that got huge…they are also all single player. Find me a massively popular indie game that requires online access. I’ll wait.

I concede MMOs may warrant a difference in standards given they are a subscription but that really is a minority of games in terms of titles compared to the wider issue. Zeroing in on that just proves that 99% of titles do not require online to play and never have. It’s just been a way to close up games that have small but dedicated player bases and forcing them to move to another game and make more money. Attention and time are limited and we wouldn’t want the player base to play a game that creates no ongoing revenue stream would we? However will we make line go up for the shareholders???

 

[lonetac]

I concede MMOs may warrant a difference in standards given they are a subscription but that really is a minority of games in terms of titles compared to the wider issue. Zeroing in on that just proves that 99% of titles do not require online to play and never have. It’s just been a way to close up games that have small but dedicated player bases and forcing them to move to another game and make more money. Attention and time are limited and we wouldn’t want the player base to play a game that creates no ongoing revenue stream would we? However will we make line go up for the shareholders???

Thank you. Finally someone is recognizing my point. Nuance based on the type of games.

yes I am focused on MMO's and gochya and other online only games because thats where the impact is and where I see a complicated issue that could actual stifle creativity and prevent future games with that type of content from being released.

I am not arguing that these ubisoft games that require online connections to play should be allowed to operate that way. I think the campaign is good on addressing that, especially these single player games.

I also think that we need to think critically about what types of games can support these ideas or not or what it would take.

Thank you for taking the time to understand my point.

 

[lonetac]

If there are ALREADY private servers that exist - then it was trivial.... forcing users to delete purchased material because it's no longer supported in unacceptable.

If you are playing a video game for profit... fine... but except for a few streamers / e-sport players, the VAST majority of gamers are not in it for profit but for FUN. If they paid for the game, they should be allowed to keep playing it.

Just like if I buy music, I should be able to listen to it for as long as I want to.

1. Those private servers have huge dev teams to maintain and keep them going. Trivial is an absolutely incorrect term to be used for that. You dont know what it takes for every game. Stop being an arm chair expert. You are not fooling anyone.
Nobody here is qualified to say how complicated it is for each game. But we can see what it takes to maintain the existing ones and its anything but trivial. Stop with the hyperbole.

2. You can stream for fun but you cant play music you purchased on that stream. The point being when it comes to music, you can only listen to it without any form of benefit, stream or public exposure. You cant use the song outside of listening to it in private (sort of). Like as soon as you add that song to your stream, political party, movie, show, etc you are going to have folks knocking on your door to stop, ban you or fine you. I might be bad at explaining it here but its really the same concept.

 

[GhostLegion]

Thank you. Finally someone is recognizing my point. Nuance based on the type of games.

yes I am focused on MMO's and gochya and other online only games because thats where the impact is and where I see a complicated issue that could actual stifle creativity and prevent future games with that type of content from being released.

I am not arguing that these ubisoft games that require online connections to play should be allowed to operate that way. I think the campaign is good on addressing that, especially these single player games.

I also think that we need to think critically about what types of games can support these ideas or not or what it would take.

Thank you for taking the time to understand my point.

Except you did argue that…when you said MMOs and online only games. Many games are online only and not MMOs. Overwatch is online only. You can’t play with others without an online connection. There is no reason that creating a peer-to-peer connection would be an insurmountable obstacle for that kind of game. Especially if development is done knowing the requirement to allow that needs to exist at support wind down. Arguing for the 1% of situations that don’t work with this just makes you look foolish. Especially when nothing is decided and this is all entirely within human control. That goes double for when you bring in royalty rights as some bizarre proof that you are correct when that example proves the opposite.

You never previously acknowledged that consumers have legitimate grievances and concerns that ought to be addressed. You can see why everyone was getting frustrated. It’s not that this couldn’t still work for MMOs, it would just be more technically challenging. Challenging enough to warrant an exemption perhaps but most everyone is focused on the other 99% of games that this is 100% viable for. This petition was about jumpstarting a conversation. Not about having a concrete policy proposal fully fleshed to be voted on and implemented in the next 2 weeks.

 

[GhostLegion]

1. Those private servers have huge dev teams to maintain and keep them going. Trivial is an absolutely incorrect term to be used for that. You dont know what it takes for every game. Stop being an arm chair expert. You are not fooling anyone.
Nobody here is qualified to say how complicated it is for each game. But we can see what it takes to maintain the existing ones and its anything but trivial. Stop with the hyperbole.

2. You can stream for fun but you cant play music you purchased on that stream. The point being when it comes to music, you can only listen to it without any form of benefit, stream or public exposure. You cant use the song outside of listening to it in private (sort of). Like as soon as you add that song to your stream, political party, movie, show, etc you are going to have folks knocking on your door to stop, ban you or fine you. I might be bad at explaining it here but its really the same concept.

No, it isn’t the same concept at all.

People ought to be allowed to retain access to the content they pay for that was sold to them without any mention of a defined expiration date to that access. Subscriptions are different because the understanding is the subscription pays for access. It isn’t a one time deal. We all understand that purchasing a song entitles you to personal use. Video Game soundtracks are licensed with the game. Nothing prevents you from playing the built in ambiance music in Skyrim as you play the game while on stream for instance. Again, you are conflating very different things. We ask that our PERSONAL license to use the content we paid for not be arbitrarily removed or ended. That should we as players decide to continue playing the game, that we be allowed to do so, that the game be left in as playable a state as realistically possible. As in, leaving in a practice arena or whatever with no ability to play multiplayer in a predominantly multiplayer game would be unacceptable. If I decide to stream playing a defunct game, I should be allowed to do so…as I already am. Nobody is going to sue me for streaming Fable, or SupCom or insert defunct game here. What you are talking about is people putting pop music over their game streams, an entirely unrelated subject.

Trivial is the word used to describe inserting the ABILITY to create those servers, not maintain them. And it would be trivial in comparison to the other work of creating the game. It’s been done so often I hardly think there is any truly unique implementations of how to network some computers. Standards ftw amirite?

 

[lonetac]

You never previously acknowledged that consumers have legitimate grievances and concerns that ought to be addressed. You can see why everyone was getting frustrated. It’s not that this couldn’t still work for MMOs, it would just be more technically challenging. Challenging enough to warrant an exemption perhaps but most everyone is focused on the other 99% of games that this is 100% viable for. This petition was about jumpstarting a conversation. Not about having a concrete policy proposal fully fleshed to be voted on and implemented in the next 2 weeks.

Actually, I have several times, it just gets ignored because folks pick and choose what they want to read and respond to. You can reread my posts where I have acknowledged a problem in the industry multiple times. I am focused on MMO's and online games because thats where it gets complicated. Thats why I am talking about gochya and other types of games.

I have been consistent that this needs fleshing out and there is nuances to each type of game on if it can be accomplished. Anyone saying its trivial is dismissed as they are not engaging in this topic seriously.

If someone is getting frustrated with a civil conversation, they can always leave. There is no reason to get angry, upset or frustrated because their opinion is not universally accepted.

Ive certainly been told I am wrong a lot here and I have not gotten angry. I can defend the position and ask questions to delve into the topic deeper. Thats why we are here or are you here to just convince me I am wrong?

And your last sentence, yeah, I dont support things that are not clear. If they cant tell me what it means to all games, I cant support it.

At the end of the day, all you have done is express your opinion. Im not wrong, I have a different opinion. This problem can be addressed in a way that is suitable for consumers and developers. Nobody expressing anything in this thread can say with an air of authority, they are right. We are exchanging thoughts and ideas.

 

[Squid Surprise]

1. Those private servers have huge dev teams to maintain and keep them going. Trivial is an absolutely incorrect term to be used for that. You dont know what it takes for every game. Stop being an arm chair expert. You are not fooling anyone.
Nobody here is qualified to say how complicated it is for each game. But we can see what it takes to maintain the existing ones and its anything but trivial. Stop with the hyperbole.

Not all of them - I remember running a private server for several games… Descent, Unreal Tournament were my favourites…and they took one PC with decent specs and minimal knowledge/upkeep…

2. You can stream for fun but you cant play music you purchased on that stream. The point being when it comes to music, you can only listen to it without any form of benefit, stream or public exposure. You cant use the song outside of listening to it in private (sort of). Like as soon as you add that song to your stream, political party, movie, show, etc you are going to have folks knocking on your door to stop, ban you or fine you. I might be bad at explaining it here but it’s really the same concept.

Compare to games?

 

[GhostLegion]

And your last sentence, yeah, I dont support things that are not clear. If they cant tell me what it means to all games, I cant support it.

Good thing you don’t do policy work then. Because it all starts with agreeing as to what the problem is. Then we address how to solve it. Putting the cart before the horse goes nowhere and it gets there fast.

And opinions can be wrong when they come from a place of ignorance, willful or otherwise. It is a difference of opinion on if a raincoat or umbrella is a better solution to rain. We must agree it is raining. You notably have not offered a different solution. Just that this is entirely unworkable to you due to this one use case. It’s just being obstinate.

I’m not foaming at the mouth in rage. I don’t care enough about online discussions to get THAT heated. I just don’t like seeing ignorance peddled about.

Anyone saying its trivial is dismissed as they are not engaging in this topic seriously.

Opinion masquerading as fact? It’s not an unreasonable take to say that if something could be done in the past and the technology to do the thing still exists, it can be done now.

Oh and feel free to quote to me where you acknowledged those consumer grievances.