mèx
Member
This is not what this is about. Nobody is asking developers to support games indefinitely, wtf?
PirateSoftware completely misrepresenting and spreading fake news about this really did damage the initiative.
PirateSoftware completely misrepresenting and spreading fake news about this really did damage the initiative.
Dr.Morris79
Member
Vlodril
Member
This is not a law document which he said multiple times. It's just a petition that if hits 1 million signatures the EU will take a look at it (you can do this about everything in the EU if you want). It is up to them then to figure shit out. There is no earthly reason not to sign this if you live in EU.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The reason not to support this is quite simple actually.
Its unenforceable.
And legislation without the powers required to uphold it, is just a waste of time.
Just consider how this is supposed to work in practice: Who's getting chased for the liability, what are their means to make amends? What happens when they say they are unable to make the changes demanded ?
Most of all who's paying for the prosecution (which will inevitable involve specialists in IP and Data Protection law to ensure safeguarding), and the work to be done to fulfil the terms when the original vendor no longer exists?
I'd also point out that this can only ever apply to PC, as any operator of a closed ecosystem is not going to open their platform to just anyone!
mèx
Member
You are making too many assumptions and over complicating stuff for nothing.
Backing this initiative takes one minutes. And the idea behind this initiative is actually one of the mildest takes ever, I don't understand how anyone can be against it on principle.
Let the legislators and technicians of the European Commission think about how to apply it.
And your point about the closed ecosystem is false. Nobody is asking to open any platforms...
Poppinfresh
Member
It's also anti-capitalist, will increase government regulation of the games industry, and will ultimately drive up prices of games and systems.
ToadMan
Member
There's no law or ethical impetus saying anyone has to sell you something.
There are though laws making it illegal to steal products which you cannot legally buy. Having said that, abandonware sites are full of technically illegal content and no one goes after them for stuff that has simply fallen off the sales catalog.
If they chose to remove the game from sale that's up to the publisher and no amount of lobbying will change that.
This thread and petition implies purchased games are being taken away. Totally different situation.
Bojji
Member
They don't want to sell and profit from this game anymore so piracy is 100% the legit thing to do, EA doesn't care about BC2 anymore.
Stop killing games is for this as well, you have perfectly functional SP campaign in the game yet no one that didn't buy it before can access it in any legal way on current hardware. Pirate sites fixes this but it's not optimal solution in any way and for sure not how things should be...
Question: why people interested didn't buy the game already?
Answer: New people are born every day and many of us missed some gems back in the day. You can watch some 194x movies, why you can't access game released in 2010?
ToadMan
Member
ToadMan
Member
Never gonna be legal to pirate a piece of content. You may pirate it and they turn a blind eye, but that doesn't make it legal and it never will be.
Don't even waste a minute signing the petition if this what is being asked for.
Dr.Morris79
Member
There is zero reason why The Crew is not accessible
No reason at all.
This game should be the main focus, for now.
Bojji
Member
Whatever, I don't care what your opinion on this is. If you want to simp for corporations that't your choice.
EA doesn't want to sell this game and they don't care about making any money on it anymore. Legal or not, fuck them
nowhat
Member
Just check out the FAQ:
Stop Killing Games
www.stopkillinggames.com
It makes all that is proposed quite clear. More so than some random tweets/Youtube videos.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its not a matter of principle. I actually LIKE the sentiment behind it.
The issue is that from a pragmatic standpoint its a complete non-starter in my opinion.
Its a classic feelings vs facts dilemma. Yes I get that people want change, but the purpose of it is to encourages legislation because only that can enforce the behavioural changes demanded, and that in turn will require "all the complicated stuff" to be argued for and against.
You can't just wish for change and expect it to happen!
The cornerstone of the argument being made is that an "end of life" option should be guaranteed under law. And my counter to that is at what point is this going to checked and if necessarily enforced?
What is the extent of the provider's liability, and what happens when the entity responsible for making said changes no longer exists?
As admitted on the FAQ this absolutely cannot be enforced retroactively, so what in effect is being proposed is that any future product would need to have post "end-of-life" support baked-in. Which essentially just gives the provider a pitfall to work around, an approach they are massively incentivized to find because its essentially adding sunk cost to an outcome they really do not want to think about, and should it happen will be of no material value to them. Its a pure liability in short.
Last edited:
Poppinfresh
Member
So, who should pay for the servers that would be required to ensure that online-only games were available in perpetuity when it no longer becomes profitable for developers to maintain those servers?
The Crew was an online-only game released in 2014. Are you telling me that Ubisoft should be forced to maintain servers for this product forever, just so a handful of people can play it?
Dr.Morris79
Member
The whole game could be played single player.
And if the servers are needed (Not sure why), people can host their own.
Bojji
Member
Game could be patched to be playable offline. Check out Gran Turismo Sport.
Dr.Morris79
Member
I don't think I ever played that game for the multiplayer!
I just liked free roam driving America and having the whole map in a fog of war style which leads you to discovery..
Something the second game utterly messed up.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
I don't fight windmills
It's a little gray, but when you buy a copy of online game you buy a copy of client. You even own this copy in some territories.
But you have zero rights on what is on the servers - it was never sold. You access it with some form of license that can be revoked/expired.
You still own a client part of the game, it's just it non-functional without server part which you licensed and never owned so you have no right to claim it.
There are a lot of software that works the same way, not just games, and it will be a massive legal challenge to implement "forced licensing" as it will disrupt a big part of software industry.
Some serious questionable stuff in there that violate rights for intellectual property in favor "I just want it".
They are literally asking to share server side code that contains IP customers never bought and might compromise others titles from the same company
Dr.Morris79
Member
Aye, true. Do you think anything will come of the lawsuit?
I'll be frank, I know there's always going to be legal humps just about everywhere in regards to ownership, but do you think they will even reverse the shutdown?
Just to be able to replay it at this point on Steam will suit me fine.
If it was a true MMO it wouldn't bother me so much, but knowing and having played it strictly single player just sticks in the craw a tad.
SappYoda
Member
There is absolute no reason from a consumer standpoint and or videogame preservation standpoint on why not to sign this petition.
The petition is not retroactive so it should not affect games that were developed before new laws are enforced.
The points against this could be that it could stiffle innovation and it could prevent certain games from coming to europe.
The reality is that right now the system is not regulated and publishers are undoubtibly taking advantage of it. I believe this is inevitable. The only reason it has not happened yet is because most politicians are not really aware of what is going on. The sooner this discussion starts the more games will be able to be preserved.
The petition is not retroactive so it should not affect games that were developed before new laws are enforced.
The points against this could be that it could stiffle innovation and it could prevent certain games from coming to europe.
The reality is that right now the system is not regulated and publishers are undoubtibly taking advantage of it. I believe this is inevitable. The only reason it has not happened yet is because most politicians are not really aware of what is going on. The sooner this discussion starts the more games will be able to be preserved.
Last edited:
nowhat
Member
That is not how I interpret it (but granted, my legalese is far from fluent - and this impression is based also on interviews of the originator of the proposal). If a company is unwilling to extend support, specifications for the network protocols would do. People can then implement their own servers if they are so inclined.
As to whether that constitutes as IP, in the EU (and everywhere else basically) code/implementation is automatically covered by copyright. But even though the situation with software patents remains somewhat murky in the EU, the specifications would fall into that category, and in my opinion should not be patentable.
Felessan
Member
Yes it's a dick move to include online plug for SP game (probably their way to curb piracy)
This specification should contain handshaking and security protocols that a huge breach for any game that use similar code. Forcing to share means that gamedev should rewrite this stuff for every new game
Live service games specifically have a lot of stuff running server-side and client is "half-thin" - it draws graphics etc but a lot of gameplay calculations done elsewhere. And even if you got protocol specifications game will not be playable as it lacks core components. And those components for sure copyrighted.
mèx
Member
Because the price of software and hardware has not increased already, right? Your reasoning is fallacious.
You are thinking too literally. Also I don't think that word is even used in the petition.
Q: Aren't you asking companies to support games forever? Isn't that unrealistic?
A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way. Additionally, there are already real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way, such as:
'Gran Turismo Sport' published by Sony
'Knockout City' published by Velan Studios
'Mega Man X DiVE' published by Capcom
'Scrolls / Caller's Bane' published by Mojang AB
'Duelyst' published by Bandai Namco Entertainment
etc.
Taking action != wishing.
As for the rest of your post, sure, let's say the petition goes through, it is discussed and then it's deemed unfeasible. At least something was attempted.
For how much I dislike how the EU is politically structured, I'm going to trust the European Commission any day of the week compared to what random mega corporations are deciding now.
This is not a problem, since it's been done already. And the initiative states that it doesn't have to be 1:1.
Q: Isn't it impractical, if not impossible to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers?
A: Not at all. The majority of online multiplayer games in the past functioned without any company servers and were conducted by the customers privately hosting servers themselves and connecting to each other. Games that were designed this way are all still playable today. As to the practicality, this can vary significantly. If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. If a game has been designed with that as an eventual requirement, then this process can be trivial and relatively simple to implement. Another way to look at this is it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.
Q: What about large-scale MMORPGs? Isn't it impossible for customers to run those when servers are shut down?
A: Not at all. However, limitations can apply. Several MMORPGs that have been shut down have seen 'server emulators' emerge that are capable of hosting thousands of other players, just on a single user's system. Not all will be this scalable, however. For extra demanding videogames that require powerful servers the average user will not have access to, the game will not be playable on the same scale as when the developer or publisher was hosting it. That said, that is no excuse for players to not be able to continue playing the game in some form once support ends. So, if a server could originally support 5000 people, but the end user version can only support 500, that's still a massive improvement from no one being able to play the game ever again.
Q: Can you really expect all features in an online-only game to work when support ends?
A: Not necessarily. We understand some features can be impractical for an end user to attain if running a server on an end-user system. That said, we also see the ability to continue playing the game in some form as a reasonable demand from companies that customers have given money to. There is a large difference between a game missing some features versus being completely unplayable in any form.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
It is a problem
In most cases those "servers" are stolen property and completely off law
Some even got legal actions against them
But this FAQ conveniently decide to omit these facts.
Server side is a private property that those who bought client have no rights to. It's a pity that client doesn't work without server as it's a pity that cars don't work without fuel, but there is nothing you can do.
Anyone sane know that in online game he bought only a half of package and other half, usually most important one, is licensed with all the risk license has.
If the point of the initiative is to create new law, then saying that these are "stolen property and completely off law" is irrelevant, the point it that it is technically feasible and they already exists, nothing is omitted there.
Felessan
Member
And this point will most likely fail as it assume cede of IP rights for things customers never bought. And no amount of votes under will help it as it's violation of current regulation.
The whole justification based on unlawful behavior is already a red flag to a success of initiative, as new law will be checked against existing ones (they should not clash with each other) and justification of stealing is really weak position to proceed.
Last edited:
mèx
Member
Nobody is asking to cede IP rights and why would you assume that. I think you are assuming too much for a petition which aim is to foster discussion within the European Commission. Also this would not be retroactive, hence current games will not be affected by this.
Q: Wouldn't what you are asking force the company to give up its intellectual property rights? Isn't that unreasonable?
A: No, we would not require the company to give up any of its intellectual property rights, only allow players to continue running the game they purchased. In no way would that involve the publisher forfeiting any intellectual property rights.
Q: Aren't companies unable to do this due to license agreements they make with other companies that expire? Like with music, other software, product brands, etc.?
A: No. While those can be a problem for the industry, those would only prohibit the company from selling additional copies of the game once their license expires. They would not prevent existing buyers from continuing to use the game they have already paid for.
Q: Isn't what you're asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?
A: For existing video games, it's possible that some being sold cannot have an "end of life" plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn't have permission to redistribute. Games like these would need to be either retired or grandfathered in before new law went into effect. For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend.
If the law says that the game must be left in a functioning state after the publishers stop supporting it, then the did in a way bought the rights to have functioning software with the license, nothing in the current regulation clashes with that in the EU, unless you can quote the EU that does clash with this feel free to . In any case it's up to the EU and the lawyers to decide, why does this bring a red flag to, what do you possibly lose from supporting this even if it fails?
The only weak position is stamping your feet and saying "no this won't work because it's illegal", when plenty of games have in the past have either shipped server software or been patch to work offline or with third party server software, it's both technically and legally feasible to keep unsupported software running.
Last edited:
Poppinfresh
Member
PlayStaytion
Member
Gmail sucks, I lost access to Steam and other accounts cause my gmail on my older phone has died. Luckily, my ps3/4,wii/u is working.
Last edited:
If it increases but you get more value out of it, I see nothing wrong with that. Getting something cheap that the publisher can take away from you at anytime is not a good deal.
In any case this is just typical American alarmism, GDPR also had the same opposition that it would cripple businesses, increase prices, etc. yet the effects were negligible to the end-user. There is nothing anti-capitalist about regulation, regulation was always part of capitalism.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
Server side code is a company property. Customers never bought any of it and have no right for it. To share server code is to cede IP of it for free.
Its impossible without cede server part and server part is company IP. And to make this idea work server part should be ceded to public for live service games to survive, they are non-functional without server part.
And no, you didn't bought a right for functional software that will work forever. Same way most your goods don't have lifetime warranty. There are should be a grace "warranty" period of how long game should work since last sale, but nothing more than that.
1. I don't fight windmills
2. It will raise cost and time to develop games and probably some other implications for devs. And all of this will be passed to consumers with higher prices, longer dev times, stingier monetization etc
I don't care about dead games, I just shrug when another shutted down. It's a shock for SP players, but online players dealt with this for decades. But I do care about new ones and this shitty motion will affect them, nothing is free, which I don't like.
Look at all this IP ceded https://steamdb.info/search/?a=all&q=dedicated+server, you should warn them they are sharing IP for FREEEEEEE
Just lead with "I'm a bootlicker and I enjoy when the publishers take away things I bought" next time, it saves the conversation.
SappYoda
Member
Let's use a recent example. European data protection and online privacy laws:
europa.eu
This law is something that any company that wants to provide services in europe must comply, no exceptions.
As much as a pain in the ass is to have to develop software taking into account these laws, this has undoubtibly benefitted consumers in the whole world. And let me tell you big company's, medium and small have already taken on this challenge and succesfully accomplished. This is why engineers are paid for.
Data protection and online privacy - Your Europe
How the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) protects your personal data and controls how it is used. When is your consent needed and when can you withdraw your consent. Your rights to access, correct, transfer and delete your data (right to be forgotten).
This law is something that any company that wants to provide services in europe must comply, no exceptions.
As much as a pain in the ass is to have to develop software taking into account these laws, this has undoubtibly benefitted consumers in the whole world. And let me tell you big company's, medium and small have already taken on this challenge and succesfully accomplished. This is why engineers are paid for.
Last edited:
mèx
Member
Felessan
I don't really get your argument about about server sided code being impossible or illegal to run on your own machine. I've played on plenty of game servers hosted by my friends, with the tools provided by the developers. I've hosted game servers on third party services. I've hosted game serves on my own machine.Are the engineers going to need to write additional code or pipelines to provide these tools (like plenty of devs already do) to run servers on your own machine? Oh noooooo. I had to re-write pipelines more than once because there were sudden changes in specifications. They will survive.
The point about increased prices is pure fear mongering. It's just your opinion, there are no facts to support it. And anyway, you are already getting fucked by microtransactions, broken games, premium access windows and battle passes. What's one more?
Felessan
Member
I am person with experience and knowledge, who don't go to "give me freebies, I'm stupid". It waste of time, efforts and put unreasonable expectations those will backfire when initiative eventually got dumped into trash bin.
There is a big difference between oldschool multiplayer game and live service game.
Are the engineers going to need to write additional code or pipelines to provide these tools (like plenty of devs already do) to run servers on your own machine? Oh noooooo. I had to re-write pipelines more than once because there were sudden changes in specifications. They will survive.
The point about increased prices is pure fear mongering. It's just your opinion, there are no facts to support it. And anyway, you are already getting fucked by microtransactions, broken games, premium access windows and battle passes. What's one more?
Multiplayer game is essentially 1-tier application where everything run inside a client and it's functional by itself. Peer-to-peer multiplayer built-in into client and dedicated server is just roughly the same client run with 100% uptime.
Live service games are different, it's a proper 2-tier architecture of completely separate client and server, each having it's own code and things to do. Client can't work as server for other clients in this case, only server do. And this server and it's code is a property of company who owns the game - this is why you can't legally play self-hosted WoW, FF14 or most other live service games. Some are more lax about private servers, some are not. NCSoft has a history of legally pursuing those who hosted bigger private LA2 servers for example.
Btw - I am not fucked by any of those. If you are - I am sorry for you.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
The idea is being able to play the games you bought physically forever on the original hardware, it's not in every new platform available. I understand multiplayer online games, but there are a lot of SP games that now only work with internet available, I can't play the call of duty campaign offline and that's exactly the type of BS we are talking about here.
mèx
Member
Got it, so it's just an implementation problem which can be solved with some effort and ingenuity by planning for it, and for future games only. Nothing that can send companies into the ground or cause the inflation of global prices.
Experience and knowledge… give me a break
A freebie? You payed for the game, having a funcional version of should be the albsolute minimum, if you need server binaries to accomplish that then either the publisher ensures an alternative or gives you the binaries, there is no IP disaster from that.
CSGO was a live service game yet you have the server binaries for it, you can host a CSGO game still to this day, even though Valve stopped supporting it.
It takes way less time to sign the petition than running the corpo defense you are doing here. Talk about wasting time, if the expectation of it potentially failing is then only thing bothering you the you wouldn't have added the point about increased costs or that you don't care about "dead games". Your mask slipped, at least own it.
Last edited:
KenaiPhoenix
Member
I like the idea, but I dont want politicians getting into the game dev world. This can open a door that can bring nothing but awful crap and it wont close. Once the genie is outside of the bottle...
I think the best (but hard) thing to do is to make a cultural change: Dont buy their crap. Is always online? No. Nothing on the disc? No. Yeah, we can all realize something have to be online because it is the main appeal, like MMORPG or games like HellDivers 2, take the online out and half of the fun is lost. And this is why I dont want any politicians on this, they wont know the difference.
I think the best (but hard) thing to do is to make a cultural change: Dont buy their crap. Is always online? No. Nothing on the disc? No. Yeah, we can all realize something have to be online because it is the main appeal, like MMORPG or games like HellDivers 2, take the online out and half of the fun is lost. And this is why I dont want any politicians on this, they wont know the difference.
Felessan
Member
It's not an implementation problem. Live service games will not go to vastly archaic and outdated multiplatform games design, their scale does not support this. Their server side are way more sophisticated than client side and generations ahead of peer-to-peer multiplayer code.
People here do like live in a dreamworld, but I am very sure that it will never work. Even if some legislation would have passed, which I seriously doubt as it conflicts with IP laws (and companies have much more lobbying power), there are a number of ways to ditch customers without sharing anything.
I have my points. You are entitled for client ownership and some period at which server works. You never paid for server code, so you can't expect it to be shared with you. Some might, out of goodwill, some will not to.
And I especially hate people who feel entitled so much so they demand freebies. As I have my own job, which is in a big company with good profit, to which I put some efforts myself. And I would be very annoyed if some astroturfers come and start demanding for me to work for free as they are so cool and think that it's "fair" for me to provide them stuff they never paid for in the first place.
Last edited:
You are entitled to a functioning product.
You already have to work, taking the GDPR point again, if you wanted to continue doing business in the EU you needed to ablige to it, otherwise pay the fine or stop doing business in the EU. You keep going to the freebie route, but it's not a freebie, it's an essential part of the product you are selling they essentially payed for it so either provide an alternative or stop selling the product, because they didn't pay for a stub.
This mentality is all wrong, and it shows just how anti consumer you are, same mentality you saw in the Apple/Epic thread, "oh you can't force Apple to open up iOS, their platform their rules!!!" Go take a look at how that turned out
Regulation are a bitch, I work in fintech you'd be suprised how much work you have to do just to keep compliant, but it's part of the business, sorry if it hurts you that regulation and legislation isn't static
Last edited:
asdasdasdbb
Member
Which people did when they bought the game when it lauched. We're talking about 10+ years later.
Felessan
Member
No one entitled you to have functional products for forever.
And a limited period of time? Ok, devs more often than not provide grace period from sales stop to server shutdown.
GDPR is data privacy. It's background is understandable and more or less standard. Many countries has strict policies on personal data as it's important and goes from personal safety to national security.
Saving online games are just gamers greed, it's nowhere near in scope to GDPR and it will be impossibly hard to persuade anyone that companies should cede part of their rights in favor of what? some nerds satisfaction? Even mass market not care about dying games, they are just switch over and forget.
My mentality is that every work should be paid.
And rational buyers know what they are buying - so they should not whine that they "did not know" that online games don't provide lifelong service. This parts of online games lifecycle known for decades, and it's okay that trash dies and free up gamers space and money for new and better games.
Last edited:
Poppinfresh
Member
Imagine if government regulations forced Sony to keep servers for Concord running to appease greedy gamers who didn't buy the game in the first place?
I don't live in the EU so I really don't have a horse in this race, but part of me wants this silly petition to succeed so I can see companies start charging EU customers a premium to offset the cost(s) of complying with the regulations.
It will be a real monkey's paw moment for some...
Last edited:
asdasdasdbb
Member
I feel like that even in the EU, I think if there was going to be legislation about keeping servers online, etc... it would be metrics based. Like recent sales or player count compared to launch... and BC 2 would be well below that when it was shut down.
Maybe or maybe not, if the law states that you need to keep the game in a functional state then yes you do.
Product selling is also an understandable, I don't get this point. Data privacy was a Wild West before GDPR, it was far from understandable to more or less standard. Long live the time of unmasked data bases for alpha environments.
Oh this is just lovely, GDPR compliance in most tech companies took more time/money to implement in 1 company than probably any effort to patch an offline mode or release server binaries for dozens of games. What the hell are you talking about? It was an absurd cost for most companies.
In favor of what? In favor of keeping the product you sold funcional.
You were paid, 69.99€ or more at the time of purchase.
It's okay that your company went under, it frees up space for more pro consumer companies and games... see how this is dumb?
They refunded everyone, so it wouldn't be an issue.
Last edited:
mèx
Member
Please read: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq. You are literally making stuff up.
You are not entitled to have a functional product forever. You are entitled to have a product that work as is on the exact hardware specification for which it was released on, and nothing more. Nobody is asking for the Super Mario World cartridge to work on the Switch 2, but sure as hell people expect it to work on the SNES, as long as the hardware has not naturally failed. Nobody is asking for updates. Nobody is asking for compatibility patches. Nobody is asking for indefinite developer support. What is expected is the bare minimum: that the game runs in some capacity.
GDRP is not just "data privacy". It was a huge shift in paradigm where the user was put in control of their data. It was much bigger than this campaign for sure. Literally every service working in Europe had to implement this in some capacity. Not sure why you are downplaying this and overstating the complexity of this campaign, which has a very clear and simple message.
About the "online games don't provide lifelong service"... again, nobody expects or wants lifelong service for an online game. But this has been repeated ad nauseum now.
Nobody has to maintain any server. It is explicitly stated in the FAQ and it was brought up multiple times in this thread.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The whole thing is a waste of time. Its a perfect example of people pushing forward an idea without giving any thought to the details of its implementation, when its ALL about the details.
Its not like there can even be a singular global prescription as to what services will be guaranteed preserved at end of life, because its going to vary based on what was on offer initially. So essentially every case where it would be applied would be different! So its not like enforcing the law would be a simple matter of handing out fines until the offending provider complied, it would require investigation, argument, judgement on a case by case basis, potentially in situations where the original provider is defunct, or based on their testimony physically unable to comply!
Sorry but its entirely unworkable. To me it feels like the people putting this campaign together had a very specific set of circumstances in mind (likely The Crew or whatever that Ubi thing was called) and simply haven't considered that any legislation based on that wouldn't easily scope out to industry wide legislation.