In June, the organisers of the European Citizens’ Initiative “Stop Destroying Videogames” presented their proposal to the European Parliament and the European Commission. Although most Members of the European Parliament and Commission representatives voiced support during the public hearing, a subsequent Commission statement raises doubt about whether it intends to tackle the root cause of the problem: problematic licensing conditions.
The initiative
After a viral campaign secured an additional one million signatures in the final two months before the deadline, Stop Destroying Videogames ultimately collected almost 1.3 million validated signatures, comfortably surpassing the required threshold. A European Citizens’ Initiative allows EU citizens to call on the European Commission to propose legislation in an area where the member states have conferred powers on the EU. To qualify, an initiative must receive the support of at least one million citizens and meet minimum signature thresholds in at least seven Member States. However, European Citizens’ Initiatives are not legally binding, and the formal right to propose legislation remains with the Commission.
The Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and the global Stop Killing Games campaign, address the issue that publishers regularly turn games unplayable after a certain period of time. For a number of years, many videogames have required an online connection to the publisher’s server. When a publisher ends the support for an “always-online” title and severs the server connection, this leaves the game in an unplayable state. The initiative calls on publishers to leave games in a playable state and the Commission to introduce legislation to prevent remote disabling of games. Importantly, it does not seek to shift ownership of videogames, associated intellectual property or monetisation rights.
The shift from ownership to licensing
The underlying issue is that many videogames are no longer sold, but licensed and offered as a revocable service. Customers often assume that purchasing a game means it is theirs to keep and replay whenever they choose, but this is not always the case. Some may even unknowingly buy a game near the end of its lifecycle, only to lose access to it shortly afterward.
This issue is not limited to videogames, but applies to a variety of cultural assets that are traded in digital formats, including books, films and music. The shift from owning games and other digital assets to licensing them offers publishers many advantages, but it comes with serious downsides for consumers. Licences often impose restrictive terms and bind users to proprietary platforms or specific devices with limited functionality. Most notably, and on full display here, access to a product can be revoked at any time by its publisher. Beyond its impact on consumers, this shift also poses serious challenges for libraries and archives seeking to preserve digital cultural assets of all kinds.
Unfair licensing practices in the library sector
The library sector has been particularly affected by this shift, as publishers rely heavily on licensing to provide access to ebooks and digital journals. In 2025, COMMUNIA conducted extensive research into these practices, focusing particularly on their impact on libraries. Our report, Unfair Licensing Practices: The Library Experience, draws on testimony from academic and public libraries as well as an analysis of licensing contracts. It identifies a range of terms and practices that disadvantage users and are, in some cases, clearly unfair or even abusive. These findings have since been corroborated by independent research into licensing agreements in comparable contexts.
This reliance on licensing undermines the public-interest function of libraries: enabling patrons to access books and other materials through lending. Public lending is based on libraries acquiring physical or digital copies of works. When ebooks and other digital materials are available only under licences dictated by publishers or aggregators, libraries lose control over the titles they can offer to their patrons, which can become inexplicably expensive or be arbitrarily withdrawn from licensed packages.
A disappointing response
In its written response, the Commission pledged to “engage with consumers and publishers by the end of 2026 to explore ways to improve industry standards.” At the same time, it argued that intellectual property rights prevent it from proposing legislation requiring videogames to remain playable after commercial support ends. Publishers and other right holders may, after all, benefit from exclusive rights granted under copyright, related rights and potentially other forms of intellectual property protection.
This is a disappointing position. Fair access to goods protected by intellectual property rights should not be treated as taboo when those rights conflict with other fundamental rights or important public interests. In the context of libraries, we have proposed safeguards against unfair licensing terms. The Digital Fairness Act is uniquely positioned to introduce such legislation and require right holders to offer consumers reasonable licensing terms that meaningfully protect continued access to digital cultural assets. The issue of digital ownership has been brought up repeatedly in the consultation process and should be taken seriously by the Commission.
