curtail developer choice
Yeah no shit. When developers choose to be anti-consumer, that must be curtailed. That’s precisely what regulations are for.
Wtf
“Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.”
What the f kind of statement is that? Software in this way is provided with a licensen, and the very first thing it will say is ‘provided on an “as is” basis and no libility is taken regarding its function or purpose’ If a private server runs a gitlab instance and someone has the brilliant idea to upload Something illegal on it; gitlab is not liable because that would be insane.
The entire statement reeks of copy paste slob and minor legal jargon but is full of holes.
‘Not financially viable’ is the only truth here, if we asse there is work required to make.it available. You already MADE the software, which is most of the work. Just let us revere engineer it
protections we put in place…
Surely these are part of the server application that they’re being asked to open-source. If they’re trying to weasel out of releasing the security related parts of the application, it’s probably because they have other games using the same security code, and they don’t want that made public. And this implies that they’re relying on security-through-obscurity, in other words no security at all. So basically we’re forcing them to adopt proper security procedures, and they dont like it.