Can anyone explain whether the following is true to me or not:1. Now that the petition has failed, the Stop Killing Games campaign seeks to amend the Digital Fairness Act to introduce measures that resolve the issue that the Stop Killing Games campaigns against.2. The Digital Fairness Act has not yet been formally proposed by the European Commission, but it will this year.3. The European Parliament can freely introduce amendments to the proposed law, without approval of the European Commission, until the proposed law is actually formally passed, at which point the ability to do ends.4. However, pursuant to the Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_294/oj/eng - all such amendments are immediately communicated to the European Commission (item 7(c)).5. The European Commission informs the European Parliament of the its opinion (item 6)6. Amendments, on which the European Commission delivered a negative opinion, must be passed by a unanimous vote of the Council of the European Union for passage, in addition to a majority vote in the European Parliament.7. Therefore, SKG's amendment is dead and won't get anywhere if the European Commission expresses a negative opinion.8. The European Commission will express a negative opinion because they already denied the ECI petition.9. Therefore, SKG is dead, or at least their attempt to pass a regulation in the European Union.
They should've at least tried to ask for stricter labeling standards, stating the product is online-only and may be shut down in the future upfront kind of like how tobacco can cause cancer so consoomers are better informed about their purchases.
>>537267406shouldnt the point of affecting law be to acquire company directive and labor
>>537267599They didn't ask for anything in particular it seems
>>537267406The EU push for SKG got surprisingly far, but its been clear for a while that the committee has been having a shitton of off the books meetings with industry lobbiests opposed to the movement and they have been repeating leading questions based on the same handful of misinterpretations of the issue that the industry has been trying to push to control the narrative. Its been obvious for a while that the EU was going through the motions but they had decided in advance what their position was going to be. However, the SKG motion in California looks to be on track. They never really needed the EU, the EU being on board would have just made this easier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoODQFrPgw is from 4 days ago, so before the most recent failure in the EU, but you can hear from the source that both isn't a surprise and doesn't matter as long as California goes through.
>>537269256>However, the SKG motion in California looks to be on track.Will it pass the Californian State Senate, what's the prediction? Even then, will the Governor sign it?
About killing games, gog-games is dying forever in September 1st, better download all you want before it's too late
>>537267406https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/parliaments-powers/legislative-powersOnce the Commision's draft hits the first reading at Parliament, the Commission is officially out of the picture.The amendment and approval process is between Parliament and the Council.The Commission cannot block or do anything anymore at that point.If the Council does not agree with the Parliament's first reading and amendments, they can counter with their own first reading and amendments, and send the proposal back to Parliament for a 2nd reading and amendments, but only the 1st Parliament reading can actually suggest new amendments. All other readings can only amend existing amendments, further expanding on them to add clarification or constraint, partially removing them, or partially restoring them after the other party partially removed them.After the 2nd reading if a consensus between Parliament and Council is not reached, a crisis Conciliation Committee is formed with 50% Council and 50% Parliament representation. They have to work out a consensus of amendments that both can agree on. If they succeed, the joint text goes for a 3rd reading and final check in both Council and Parliament and is then signed, making it into law.If they don't succeed, the ENTIRE bill is rejected and tossed and the entire legislative procedure resets to zero.Due to the eminent need for the Digital Fairness Act for the Commission and Council to counter-weigh the US Tech sector, they are not going to allow it to bomb. This means if Parliament put its foot down on the amendments, they actually have a very, VERY strong bargaining position.
>>537270296Thank you, I appreciate the reply. But it seems like the Article 294 (check at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_294/oj/eng) in paragraphs 7(c) and 9 does say that the European Commission can soft-"veto" in the second reading by delivering "negative opinion", which would then require the Council to "act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion".Am I misunderstanding something or the European Commission does in fact have that power, at least in the second reading?
>>537269256>the committeeThe Commission. The executive branch of the EU. And one of the three branches.The other two are the Parliament, consisting of elected representatives; and the Council, directly representing the governments - i.e. executive branches - of the individual member states through their foreign affairs ministers.The Commission is the party that has been having off the books interaction with industry lobbyists and has been repeating their willful misrepresentations. So much so, that the Parliament actually literally wrote them an open letter telling them to get their heads out of their asses. The Parliament is fully on the side of the SKG ECI and in general continues to work with them to bypass the Commission.The position of the Council is unknown thus far.It could fall to either side. but I'm inclined to think they'll side with Parliament. The many different member states have had nowhere near the amount of lobby exposure that the Commission have had - given that they got what amounts to a bullseye painted on their back to counter the SKG ECI at every cost. This means they will very likely not have had their wells poisoned quite as much - if at all.You also need to keep in mind that the individual member states feature a significant amount of member states that want to aggressively protect consumer rights in the digital space, which include fighting against unsavory practices like lootboxes and other exploitative mechanics; or organizing authorities to more strongly enforce consumer rights legislation wrt ingame purchases, microtransactions, etc. The question of planned obsolescence and right of use falls in that domain as well. This also includes some quite persuasive countries like the Netherlands. The Dutch have a strong - very, VERY strong - track record of 'getting what they want' in EU politics.
>>537270583If they were to do that, then Parliament still has the option of rejecting the law as-is and telling the Commission to eat crow and start over. The Commission knows this as well. So they won't risk it, if the amendments sought are reasonable.The process is intentionally rigged up to have it essentially be the law-making equivalent of mutually assured destruction for bad-faith actors.
** First Second Generation Blizzard Hacker of PowerPlants Stands In Your Way And Slaps Your Woman's Butt **What Do You Do?1. Cry2. Nothing
>>537271230All of which makes sense for the EU, because for them this isn't really about video games. This is about how they keep digital protections strong against exploitation from larger american companies that want to push them around. If a US company can decide some day that your video game that you paid for suddenly turns off and you have no recourse, what about other proprietary software or tech? Its a huge vulnerability. People don't *want* their basic and necessary tools to be whimsical subscription bullshit, they want to buy it once and have it until it breaks.
>Broke; Stop killing games>Woke; Start killing gamers. In minecraft, of course.
>>537267406Once you notice that games are kinds meh compared to other stuff you could be doing (from reading a book, to talking a walk) you won't miss them. I understand boomers who thougt games destroy youth.
>>537270583>But it seems like the Article 294 (check at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_294/oj/eng) in paragraphs 7(c) and 9 does say that the European Commission can soft-"veto" in the second readingCouldn't check earlier because part of EUR-Lex was down for maintenance. Reading now.Art 294 paragraph 7 is about the Parliament's response to the Council's first reading, and does not involve the Commission. The Council can in their first reading either accept the amendments from Parliament's first reading, or counter-propose their own. Paragraph 7 is about Parliament deciding on how to handle the Council's amendments after first reading.Paragraph 9 states that the Council, during the Council's readings, must act unanimously on amendments of the Parliament which earn a negative opinion by the Commission. This means they must either accept all such amendments unanimously for the amended Parliament reading to become canon law, or on the first reading they counter-propose their own amendments and send that back to the Parliament; and on the second reading they reject Parliament's amended second reading and the process advances to the Concillation Committee. The Concillation Committee is a special entity that is NOT the Council and thus is no longer subject to the criterion that they must vote unanimously based on the Commission's negative opinions on certain amendments.This means the Commission is not in a position to veto anything here.At most they can just frustrate everyone needlessly and piss of both the Parliament AND the Council by giving everyone an unnecessary runaround.
>>537271657This. Digital sovereignty is a very hot-button issue right now in the EU. As soon as Parliament makes that connection, they and SKG win by default.
>>537271520We ignore whatever feeble toadie of his tries to sow discontent aimed at shutting down valuable discourse and analysis, ofcourse.> It's afraid.
>>537272325Thank you, you seem much more knowledgeable than me. I take it that in practice the whole law will be adopted in the first reading after a year or so of negotiations?
>>537274657If we're lucky- I'd say: yes. But if the Commission decides to be petty about it, it will take longer due to the whole process stretching out by a maximum of another 3 to 6 months at each stage.
>>537267406>Memefag Lol, fuck off.
>>537274657>you seem much more knowledgeable than meNah. IANAL. I've just learned to chew through legalese and law text a LOT back when I had to deal with a situation where a retailer had tried to fuck me with a broken 1800 EUR TV-set.
