This is about maintaining the compromise that is intellectual property law.

IP law has been so perverted that I see a lot of the takietarians around here wanting to abolish it completely. That's not a good idea. The US constitution empowers Congress to make laws that for a limited time give creators exclusive rights to their creations. FOR A LIMITED TIME. That's the key feature. I know this is an EU petition, I imagine they have a similar concept of IP. That it belongs to the creator for awhile, and then enters the public domain as the heritage of all mankind.

Do away with copyright protection entirely, and you kill a lot of people's jobs. The rate at which things will be created will drastically decrease. Throughout the 1980s, how many decade defining or genre defining video games came out of the United States? The nation known for a video game industry crash that decade? How many came out of the UK? How many out of Japan? How many out of the Soviet Union?

Okay so let's make copyright permanent! Well no, because then you get Disney, a collection of stuffed suits who have MBAs instead of souls holding as much western culture hostage as they can in perpetuity.

So, we compromise. You create something, you get an amount of time of exclusive right of way, then it becomes public domain.

That length of time has gotten longer and longer to the point now that it's more than 2 human lifetimes long. To an individual human, that's as good as forever, so it has the problems of permanent copyright.

Especially in the realm of computer software and video games, where the life of a platform averages 10 years. There's a whole body of software and games written for OLD systems that are still protected under copyright, but finding the copyright holder is damn near impossible. I'll make up a game: Turtle Adventure for the Commodore 64, copyright 1985 by Bedsoft Inc. Bedsoft Inc was a sole proprietorship operated by Bartholomew Teethwick in Bristol, England. Mr. Teethwick published Turtle Adventure, a typing tutor game that didn't really work right, and an advertisement for a Pacman clone to release in 1987 was circulated but that game was never made. The "company" was shut down in 1988 and Mr. Teethwick died of AIDS in 1991, unmarried, no children. Who's going to sue me for posting Turtle Adventure on Github? Whose rights is copyright law protecting here?

Then you get into this model where video games don't work at all without a central server somewhere. That's just an end around of the deal. This software is supposed to end up in the public domain eventually. By copyrighting it, that's the deal you made.

To patent something, you're required to submit a technical description of your invention in sufficient detail for it to be replicated, because patent law is a similar compromise. You invent something, it's yours for awhile then it belongs to humanity. You cannot have a patented trade secret. Why do we allow closed source software to be copyrighted?

The rules for software weren't created for software, they were created for human readable works of literature, and they've been misused in ways that benefit large greed-based organizations like Microsoft.

Requiring game developers to publish their server side code when the game goes defunct is holding them to the deal they made when they installed that copyright notice. It is what they owe humanity.