• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    And it needs to be, because being specific could run into legal issues, such as if you require the server binaries to be available, you’re now violating copyright. The law should specify the result, not the process to get there.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The law is specifying the end user result. Keep the game we bought available to play in the way we bought it.

      Questions about server binaries and copyright are implementation details for companies to work out.

      • Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        That’s not specific “the way we bought it” could be argued to require servers to be kept running and no company will take actions to put themselves in a position to get sued.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          The way we bought it just requires the server code to be available to run, if does not require any specific company running servers. And running servers is not a suable offense.

          • Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I didn’t say it was, but a lot of people are wanting offline access.

            Point is it’s not inherently clear with one vision what SKG is. Just like Brexit and any number of dumb things it’s been marketed in a shotgun approach to get as many people on board as possible and coasting on a “well the EU politicians will just figure out what we want”

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              The problem with Brexit not the lack of clarity, it was that it was a fundamentally dumb idea motivated but dumbness.

              It was a bunch of people who blamed every problem on the EU for no sound reason and thus they supported a self harming policy.

              This is a situation where the policy is fundamentally sound, it just needs some clarity around implementation details. This is literally how government is supposed to work.

              • Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                True, but it only got so popular because they had convinced both groups, hard and soft. I have no idea how they managed to convince people that Northern Ireland wouldn’t be an issue.

                But back to the real point. Yeah, I thought GDPR would be good, but in practice it’s not changed the cookie/tracking landscape at all. Most places you’d have to send a letter to to get them to removed your data, and most would probably not be able to comply. Meanwhile we now have options that are subscribe (meaning they have legitimate reason to track and monitor you) or accept their ads and tracking cookies.

                I think you have too much faith in them.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  The GDPR is good and has absolutely changed how things are done. I’ve been involved with multiple companies having to change their European data practices because of it.

                  I don’t know why you have so little faith in the EU when it’s an actually functioning government that is passing new consumer protection legislation.