[Qwertious]

>What if, in stead of a requirement, we created an opt-in obligation for companies?

Yes, we could call it "copyright".

The purpose of copyright is to reward artists for the creation of works via a temporary monopoly. If they want to permanently hoard the ability to run the game they've sold, then they don't need, and shouldn't be given, any legal protections whatsoever.

That way, consumers can reverse-engineer the game, and companies don't have govt interfering with their business practices. It's a win/win! Unless the corporations need govt-enforced copyright.

[JTBooth]

Reasonable, but the level of copyright protection for games is actually really small! It only actually covers the art and text, not the game mechanics. I don't think I'd support that trade overall but it seems better than the unilateral requirement on game companies.

[Qwertious]

> It only actually covers the art and text, not the game mechanics.

Not quite true, there was a famous court case where someone knocked off tetris with different art, and lost the case because the game mechanics were identical. You can make something similar but you can't just clone.

https://www.pcgamer.com/court-declares-tetris-clone-a-breach...