The initiative is at more than 20% of the 1 million signatures necessary.
As of 4 pm CEST the numbers are:
| Country | Number of Signatures | Percentage of the theshold| |
|
|
| | Austria | 4,187 | 31.26% | | Belgium | 7,116 | 48.06% | | Bulgaria | 2,764 | 23.06% | | Croatia | 2,527 | 29.87% | | Cyprus | 288 | 6.81% | | Czechia | 4,690 | 31.68% | | Denmark | 7,684 | 77.85% | | Estonia | 1,827 | 37.02% | | Finland | 10,266 | 104.01% | | France | 16,732 | 30.04% | | Germany | 45,688 | 67.51% | | Greece | 2,469 | 16.68% | | Hungary | 4,509 | 30.46% | | Ireland | 4,680 | 51.06% | | Italy | 7,949 | 14.84% | | Latvia | 1,569 | 27.82% | | Lithuania | 3,109 | 40.09% | | Luxembourg | 430 | 10.17% | | Malta | 279 | 6.6% | | Netherlands | 15,999 | 78.25% | | Poland | 20,517 | 55.97% | | Portugal | 5,019 | 33.9% | | Romania | 7,917 | 34.03% | | Slovakia | 2,773 | 28.1% | | Slovenia | 1,478 | 26.21% | | Spain | 16,261 | 39.09% | | Sweden | 13,698 | 92.52% | | Total | 212.425 | 21,24% |
To be successful the initiative needs to reach 1 million signatures and pass the threshold in at least seven countries.
https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home/allcountries
I'm a vegetarian. If I asked everyone to sign an initiative called "stop killing animals" that sought to make it illegal to sell animal products wouldn't that make me a dick for trying to dictate what companies can sell and what people can consume? You think it's morally wrong to shut down an online game. I think it's morally wrong to eat an animal.
There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, but trying to push through a law that conforms to your moral view of the world is weird. It's exactly the same mentality of people who want it to be the law that the ten commandments are in every classroom.
I'm fine with having more consumer protection and making it clear if a company is selling ownership or temporary access. Right now it's often not clear and that is definitely an issue. But completely making the sale of temporary access illegal is just strange. If you dont agree to temporary access, then don't buy it. There are many games that are being sold DRM free, you own them completely, and they'll work forever. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy something they don't agree with.
I'm sorry this is so off-kilter that I'm not sure what mental hoops you jumped through to end up like that. Laws are made entirely on morals. It's why murder is illegal, theft is illegal, and insider trading is illegal. It's always been about morality, and the key here is to get enough people to agree with you that it becomes a general consensus among the general public, or at least make it widespread enough to have it be important for the lawmakers.
You could create an initiative called "stop killing animals", and you wouldn't be a dick, you'd just be another extremist vegetarian. It's not hard to see where vegetarians got the reputation from. If you tried to insist you hold a moral high ground without clearly explaining why you think something is wrong, and got angry that people don't agree with you, then you'd be a dick.
The whole point is getting people to agree to these morals, and its difficult due to how entrenched a lot of people are in their own heads or scriptures. But the fact that the initiative is pulling these kinds of numbers proves that it's not being a dick to ask for laws to back up customer rights that people feel are being violated.
As far as what you're saying here:
I'm unsure of what you mean by 'temporary access'. Are you referring to the practice where corporations are trying to take advantage of selling licenses for games? Courts in the US have ruled that if you bought a license, you own that copy of the license as it typically took the form of a storage media- like a game cartridge or a DVD. The only difference in modern day is that computers and storage media are cheaper than ever, so laws haven't caught up with digital distribution.
Companies abuse this legal loophole by not damaging the 'license' for the game that you own, but by making the contents of the 'license' defunct and inoperable. That's a heavily legal gray zone, even back in the early 2000's, and the only reason they get away with it is because the average citizen doesn't have the income to dispute these obvious violations of consumer rights due to income disparity. They know that, and it emboldens them.
As far as this part:
I'm not sure if this is your honest thoughts, or put out there in good faith even. The argument 'just don't buy it' is reductive and fails to address the problem. It always has been, and always will be. It's the equivalent of 'just find a better job', 'just earn more money', or other bootstrap advice. The free market is incapable of policing itself. If your belief is that voting with your wallet is effective, that just shows how uneducated you truly are.
Ah! Thank you. Now I know why despite not buying any meat for nearly two decades it hasn't caused the meat industry to collapse. It's because the free market is incapable of policing itself! I had originally thought it was because other people had different opinions but it's actually the fault of capitalism and lack of regulations. I knew nobody actually wants to be able to purchase meat. It's that they have no other choice!
I meant like when you go to a movie theatre you can only watch the movie at a specific place at a specific time and only once. You don't get to own the movie. I also think this must be some kind of loophole that corporations are abusing and anyone paying for a movie ticket is being taken advantage of and they might not even know it. Perhaps a stop killing movies initiative should be next where we ensure movie theaters must give a copy of the movie to anyone who buys a ticket. Temporary access to media is wrong and the people buying it are uneducated and must be saved.
Finland has about 660,000 vegetarians. That's way more than the 9,000 needed to sign an initiative! It actually looks like all of Europe has enough vegetarians to easily pass an initiative requesting to ban the sale of meat. I guess banning meat wouldn't actually be extremist at all with those kinds of numbers!
this has never been true
I'm sorry to tell you, but both sides of a given moral stance... are moral views. Someone's morals push them to dictate having the 10 Commandments in classrooms. My morals push me to oppose that happening. The law is going to enshrine a moral viewpoint no matter which way it goes.
All laws entail a moral viewpoint, either directly, or as a simple function of attempting to do what is "right": something as simple as defining the safe PPM of a chemical in drinking water is only done because we believe it is right/moral to provide clean drinking water (and also, immoral not to).
It's not like we must choose between a law mandating everyone must do something or a law mandating its forbidden. There can also just be no law or some nuanced law. It's not black or white. Saying you're against a law requiring the 10 commandments being in all classrooms doesn't mean you support a law banning the 10 commandments from all classrooms.
That's not what I said, I said it's still a moral stance to oppose having religious iconography in a public setting as a government mandate, which could be a ban of it, or simply not having a law that mandates it. The idea that a choice not to do anything is not also a moral stance, is mistaken.
My understanding is that this would force games to be sold as either a good (lasts forever) or a service (lasts a specific, advertized amount of time). It does not prevent service games from existing, it just stops them being sold as goods with an unspecified expiration date. The problem is consumers are uninformed about the lifetime of the game they are purchasing.