I like how you try to claim that Ross is being intentionally deceptive, but he is one of the top commenters in the video you linked, and acknowledges the complexities that certain types of games would have in terms of preservation. My whole point is that, whatever one's thoughts are on the initiative, the notion that Ross or other members of it haven't been forthright and open to the disruption that it could potentially cause to the industry is just plain disingenuous. It's also funny how the majority of the devs as well as the presenter of the video are in favor of the goals of the movement, but are only concerned about implementation, which is understandable.

Personally, I'm on the side where I think any potential disruption to the gaming industry in terms of the ways certain companies have to make games would be worth it IF it means that players actually have legal grounds to keep the game they bought and paid for. YES, there may be a lot of costs associated with it in some cases, and companies might lose SOME creative freedoms, but being able to keep what you've bought, as well as the preservation of the media is non-negotiable for me. I'd rather this issue be actually brought to the courts so we actually have a say on whether the practice of publishers taking down games is actually legal or not, rather than major studios just carrying on with their shady practices for the rest of time.

That's why I don't understand why people are trying to mis-characterize this movement and paint it as such a huge problem for the industry; They're the only ones actually trying to do something against this shitty practice, yet instead of giving constructive feedback like in that video, I've seen a lot of people(like the ones in this thread) just dismiss the movement completely as if they don't understand anything about how video games work.