Mepassistant (Quentin)

a man wearing a white shirt that says " you failed " ALT: a man wearing a white shirt that says " you failed "

To finish, while the petition get 0/20 on its law exam, it does touch on some legit questions around practices in the game sector: does everything have to be connected online, how to organise preservation, etc.

But the way they went about it was non-sensical. Too bad.

This law intends to look at things that are ACTUALLY about consumer rights (and not copyright) and potentially problematic practices in video games such as practices around lootbox or virtual currencies.

But like I said, don't expect anything from this petition in it.

So because of all this, I VERY much doubt the Commission will turn this petition into law, and for good reasons.

But they will have to examine it, and the luck of the promoter is that there is an law coming next year that will touch on video games, the Digital Fairness Act.

2) To explain why the petition is absolutely politically fool-proof, the promoter basically explains that EU politicians are just too dumb and lazy, so that this petition will give them an "easy win" to get busy and avoid dealing with real political issues.

Just wow. Populist take if I ever saw one

Then there's the political argumentation of the petition, which is equally (if not more) trash.

1) The petition use the argument of cultural preservation of games as a cover. It's a real topic for sure, except that it has nothing to do with this petition or its demands. It's all about consumers.

I'm also passing on all the technical limitations and side-effects of the proposal for the sake of time, like I said, go see @piratesoftware.live for the game devs perspective.

But legally, this petition is a non-starter and therefore argued in a very stupid manner.

As a sidenote, as a jurist, I have no clue what "playable" means practically. It means absolutely everything and nothing, meaning that it's an absolute unworkable legal nightmare.

So good luck implementing that concept in law, especially to the extent that the petition calls for.

You may argue "yeah so what", but my point is that the petition is based on arguments that are fundamentally false legally (that games are goods & the petition has no copyright impact) and going against well-establised legal principles.

Making it utterly doomed to fail.

Why ? Because what the petition is really about is copyright, ie the ability of a creator to decide how their work is on the market.

To force publishers to leave the game available after commercial life, you HAVE to remove their rights on their own works from that moment.

The petition wants to change that by forcing game publishers to guarantee a playable version of the game post-exploitation, while claiming that it won't affect their copyright.

Except that to do what the petition wants you HAVE to limit their copyright.

That is the right of game developpers and users can't circumvent that to make their own servers to keep playing the game, because copyright-protected services are not subject to an exhaustion of rights (that allows you for instance to resell a DVD).

Another fixed point of law.

Video games being services (backed up by online services provided by the publisher) means that if the publisher decides to stop that service (because it's no longer viable or for other reasons), it can pull the plug (but it has to give sufficient warning ahead to consumers).

Video games, especially today, are legally considered as "services", meaning that when you "buy" a game, you actually acquire a licence to use the game, a copyright-protected work. You never "own" the game, you are just authorised to use it.

That's a fixed point of law.

The fundamental assumption/claim of the petition is that video games are "goods" (like an apple) that you own when you buy and that you can do whatever you want with it afterwards. You must be free to enjoy what you bought, even after closure of the shop that sold it to you.

Except that it's not.

Sounds reasonable, right ?

Well, legally that's much more complicated than that & the petition is entirely based on legally false assumptions & terrible politics.

For why it's not a good idea from a game development perspective, go see @piratesoftware.live .

I'll focus on the law.

What is this petition ?

Basically, it wants to oblige game publishers to guarantee that their games, which often rely on online parts to function, remain "playable" after the end of their commercial life, so that people may keep playing them after their removal from the market.

🧵Today was the deadline for the "Stop Killing Games" EU petition, which gathered 1.4 million signatures.

The Commission will have to assess it & decide whether or not to fulfil its demands in law.

Except that it's doomed to fail, because the petition is argued very stupidly.👇

The EU loves to present itself as the emerging world power. That self-image met a bright orange wall.

The EU still has no hard power & soft power means nothing to a bully.

I've been saying for years that our internal contradictions would cost us, and the bill is now coming.

And you can't afford to play rough either because you are too weak economically & politically to sustain the damage necessary for such an approach.

So you do damage control instead hoping that it will go away in a few years (spoiler: it won't).

Jokes aside, the whole EU-US deal shows how much the EU, which thrived on an open world built on rules, struggles in the new world of bullies.

Playing nice doesn't work when your "ally" use its full power to break you & your rivals circle around you ready to attack any weakness.

a woman in a plaid shirt has the words maybe next time written on her face ALT: a woman in a plaid shirt has the words maybe next time written on her face

One day maybe the EU will finally grow a pair and actually start acting like what it claims to be.

But today is not that day.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Belgian summer

When you need a place without farmers, Frugals, MEPs, Member States, lobbyists or anyone actually.

Commission: Look at my new big EU budget !
Council: Brother. Get the flamer. The heavy. Flamer.

Vendredi 17h c'est le dernier stream de la saison, donc on va se faire une FAQ ou je réponds à toutes vos questions sur l'UE, sa politique, mon parcours, etc.

Si vous pouvez pas venir sur le stream envoyez vos questions anonymement via le lien dans l'image !

🚨MY WEEK ON TWITCH🚨

-📰 EU news review
-❓ FAQ politique européenne

My bad then, thought the social fund deal was also with the Greens

Ultimately, S&D/RE/Greens showed a bit their muscles and vented their frustrations, but I doubt Weber will change his strategy of permanent tension with the center/left.

The big loser in this is the ECR, which showcased its divisions and looked weak both for the far-right and the EPP.

But don't expect a change in the tensions between the EPP and S&D/RE/Greens. The EPP mostly came out unscathed & nothing was solved.

RE was scared off while S&D & Greens were bought with budget promises.

But no deal on the core issue that is the EPP flirting with the far-right.

Ironically, the fact that the "pro-VDL" part of ECR didn't even vote against the motion shows that in the end they are not yet "anchored" in the mainstream part of the hemicycle nor the reliable partners the EPP would like them to be.

So it was the OG VDL (EPP-S&D-RE-Greens) majority that saved her