It's not really about fair use because European law doesn't really have that as a concept. I'm talking about contract law, since licenses are contracts. Now, I'm not a lawyer and shit gets complicated real fast but basically EU law states that contracts need to be fair. Unfair clauses are invalid (again really simplifying here). SKG argues that this is the case for games.

If you don't want to engage with anything that disproves your stance, like new legislation that the civil rights movement fought for, then sure. If the "erosion of IP" is the continued availability of something that people already paid for, and the consequences of that are that now the producer is going to have a hard time selling its successor, then I think that's absolutely the obvious thing that 1.3M people signed a petition to have changed rather than relying on existing laws that clearly aren't serving the consumer. We'll see what parliament comes up with in the Digital Fairness Act and how California's efforts go.

Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you're arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass.

Currently we don't access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go "cool. I'll get my own hardware and run it myself".

And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let's say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you're allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can't turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out.

In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you're going to argue people should push back if they think it's a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we're doing right now?

If you bought a game, and they've made it so you cannot play the game that you paid for, they are taking the game from you. This is the whole point of Stop Killing Games.