Stop Killing Games and the EU: When Activism Meets Legal Reality

The "Stop Killing Games" movement faces significant legal hurdles in the European Union because EU copyright law, particularly the Information Society Directive, explicitly protects DRM systems and grants publishers strong control over their intellectual property. It contends that the movement's demands for indefinite game preservation conflict with existing EU laws on copyright, data transfers, and competition, and that the EU already has comprehensive consumer protection mechanisms. The author criticizes the movement for ignoring these legal realities and for advocating what they view as government overreach into game development.

I find it ultimately ironic that the reason why Stop Killing Games has to exist in the first place is EU laws. Countries with fair use or fair dealing doctrines like the US, Canada, and UK have provisions to cover the preservation of games via modding and emulation. However, for the EU, due to DRM associated laws and regulations, publishers and game devs have the right to control their copyright via an online system which ultimately makes EOL builds that the movement is hoping for moot. The EU operates under the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC , which provides an exhaustive list of copyright exceptions rather than the open-ended fair use doctrine employed by the United States. Article 6 of this directive requires Member States to provide “adequate legal protection” against circumvention of technological measures—exactly what Stop Killing Games wants to override. Since SKG claims to want the copyrights to stay as is, by extension the systems to protect copyrights will also stay as is. Publishers choose to keep single-player games online to maintain DRM copyright protection systems under EU law. The Copyright Directive prohibits circumvention of both access and copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive than even the US DMCA. On the other hand, if there was a IP leased by the publishers to be used for X years, once the time is up, it is illegal for the publishers and its users to continue using the IP. It is very likely that gamers will need to pay extra to maintain a license to use copyrighted material. So, the game is playable but not free. Is that acceptable to SKG supporters? A cursory glance of the discord says no. But here’s where it gets particularly absurd: the EU already has comprehensive consumer protection mechanisms. The Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU covers digital content sales. The Digital Content Directive 2019/770 specifically addresses digital content conformity. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network can levy fines up to 4% of annual turnover for violations. The upcoming Digital Fairness Act will specifically “look at video games in particular in relation to young people” and address “gambling-like features in video games.” The movement is essentially asking for rights that don’t exist while ignoring the extensive protections that already do. However the core controversy is not even this: it’s about asking the government to legislate and regulate how games are even made. Not only is this highly controversial and smells of government overreach, it clashes with so many other laws and regulations that SKG supporters fail to educate themselves about. The EU has been aggressively enforcing competition law in gaming—fining Valve and five publishers €7.9 million for geo-blocking practices. Since 2010, the number of merger notifications filed before the European Commission regarding the gaming industry has tripled. The Digital Services Act imposes extraterritorial obligations on gaming companies serving EU users. GDPR restricts international data transfers, which directly conflicts with game preservation goals requiring cross-border data movement. Every single one of these regulatory frameworks would create compliance nightmares for the technical mandates SKG is demanding. The most maddening aspect of this campaign is Ross Scott’s central claim that “the law wasn’t written for this situation” and that laws are “undefined” or “contradictory.” This is complete nonsense. The laws are not undefined—they’re comprehensive and they clearly favor publishers. The EU Information Society Directive explicitly protects DRM systems. Consumer protection laws require disclosure, not indefinite service obligations. Copyright law establishes clear hierarchies where intellectual property protection takes precedence over consumer convenience. Scott’s argument boils down to “traditional expectations are that games last indefinitely”—which is legally irrelevant. Consumer expectations don’t override explicit contractual terms that meet disclosure requirements. The distinction between licensing and ownership is centuries-old legal doctrine, not some modern ambiguity that courts are scratching their heads over. When Scott claims the “industry’s terms might possibly be illegal,” he’s demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law. These terms comply with disclosure requirements under existing consumer protection frameworks. Steam’s disclaimer that purchases only grant licenses isn’t some sneaky legal workaround—it’s legal compliance. The fact that movement also wants to extend itself to free to play games is also egregious. People did not pay for these games, and micro transactions do not constitute ownership of some license to own the game in perpetuity. The EU Consumer Protection Cooperation Network has already published principles requiring “clear and transparent pricing” for in-game currencies and prohibiting “practices that force consumers to purchase unwanted in-game virtual currency.” The regulatory framework already addresses the actual problems in F2P monetization. But SKG wants to extend preservation requirements to games people got for free. The entitlement is staggering. This seems to signal a deep misunderstanding of how games are made and consumed. These people are simply looking for a gamer moment. The petition needs one million EU signatures by July 31 to move forward to lawmakers. Even if they manage to reach this threshold, the fundamental legal problems remain unchanged. Signature collection doesn’t magically transform legally impossible demands into viable policy. The EU already provides extensive consumer protection through multiple overlapping frameworks. Competition authorities actively police gaming companies. Data protection laws impose strict obligations. The upcoming Digital Fairness Act will add even more requirements. What SKG is asking for isn’t consumer protection—it’s a fundamental rewriting of intellectual property law, contract law, and the entire legal hierarchy that governs digital commerce. They want consumer convenience to override copyright protection, which is legally impossible under EU jurisprudence. A million signatures doesn’t change legal reality—it just forces the European Commission to formally explain why these demands contradict existing law. Even with maximum public support, the campaign asks legislators to violate EU treaty obligations, override established legal hierarchies, and fundamentally alter the relationship between intellectual property rights and consumer protection. No amount of signatures can make the legally impossible become legally viable. The Stop Killing Games movement represents the worst kind of activism: well-intentioned but legally illiterate demands that ignore existing protections while asking for impossible remedies. To be clear, game preservation is a legitimate concern. Digital works can disappear forever when servers shut down, and there’s real cultural value in maintaining access to gaming history. But the fact that a problem exists doesn’t justify legally impossible solutions or activism built on fundamental misunderstandings of law. Even countries with fair use doctrines haven’t solved this through copyright exceptions. The US, despite its broader fair use protections, still sees games disappear when publishers shut down servers. Fair use doesn’t automatically create preservation rights for commercial software, and attempts to preserve online-only games through emulation and reverse engineering remain legally precarious even under more permissive copyright regimes. Ross Scott spent a year claiming laws were “undefined” when they’re actually comprehensive and clearly opposed to his goals. The movement asked for government regulation while ignoring the extensive regulatory framework that already exists. They demanded rights that contradict fundamental legal principles while dismissing the consumer protections already available. If SKG supporters actually cared about consumer protection, they’d focus on strengthening disclosure requirements under existing unfair commercial practices law or pushing for clearer “expiration date” requirements for digital services. These are achievable goals within existing legal frameworks. Instead, they chose to tilt at copyright windmills while claiming the law doesn’t exist. The result is predictable: a campaign built on legal impossibilities and a leader who’s already announced he’s giving up regardless of the outcome. Sometimes the law is exactly what it appears to be, and the problem isn’t legal uncertainty—it’s activist delusion.