Slashdot Mirror
IDSA Forces Arcade Game Manual Archive Offline
AtariKee writes "The IDSA and the DMCA has struck again, this time forcing the maintainer of Stormaster.com, a coin-operated video game manual and tech information archive, to shut down. Stormaster has been an invaluable resource for collectors of classic coin-operated video games for years, and this loss further demonstrates the idiocy that is the DMCA. I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals? The full text of the IDSA's letter can be read on Stormaster's site." Previous Slashdot posts about IDSA (Interactive Digital Software Association) show that this is typical of the organization.
Well, I notice that the IDSA letter does not demand that those 25 year old manuals be taken down, or that the site be shut down -- the letter refers only to a list of 7 "game products" (which are presumably ROM images).
At the bottom of the page/letter:
"
Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
all computers."
Isn't posting it on the internet the same as retransmitting or disseminating?
Uh, last time I checked, copyrights lasted longer than that. How is this wholly the DMCA's fault?
"Any reproduction... by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited."
He's the "intended recipient", so he can do ANY of the actions listed. Get a clue. Learn to read.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I fail to see the motivation in some of these cease and desist actions by large companies; Blizzard recent shutdown of Freecraft is another example. What's the point? Simply showing they can?
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
The notice tells the owner of the site to stop offering for download a few specific items that the letter claims were on it's site. There was nothing in the letter which stated the entire site must be taken down.
I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals?
Read the letter. It doesn't say to take down any manuals. The person who shut down this site shut it down on their own accord. They could have just removed those specific items for download and they would be in the free-and-clear.
Is it just me or does it seem like these DMCA claims are always targetted at people who can't really fight them?
I think this is a bot; the IDSA has gone after tons of innocent game sites before with their scripts. I severely doubt a real human would confuse "manuals for download" with "ROMS for everyone".
BAM! Your ISP staggers for half a day or so, but you'll probably enjoy residual traffic as a result of the exposure...
Not saying that's the case here, but what if...
Perhaps this has happened already?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Looking at the manufacturers of the games in question -
Dig Dug - Atari/Infogrames
Donkey Kong - Nintendo
Frogger - Konami
Mario - Nintendo
Pac Man - Midway
SWAT - Sega
Tron 2.0 (game)
Okay I think I may understand the Tron 2.0 given that a new PC game is soon to be released. The only other game that is still "current" with successful sequels is Mario. I can understand protecting all rights with those two. Frogger? Every sequel has sucked monkey nuts (Swampy's revenge anyone?). Dig Dug Deeper? The other games have found their way to the Best of Arcade CD's that retail for 9.95 at walmart and they don't even play as well as the cabinets.
In all reality they're going for the arcade game manuals though.. Not even the ROMs, so they're not even allowing the lawful owners of cabinets to get manuals without having to pay $9.95 to buy reproduction for a damn Frogger manual. I don't get it.
Has anyone tried to buy an original manual and then sue the IDSA for the difference between official/out-of-print price and the retail price? I'm tired of the "corp/little people" thing. I'm tired of the corporate squeeze on the most asinine stuff.
-B
25 year old manuals are still copyrighted for many years to come, and is fairly common worldwide (not that that equals good, but anyway).
The parts I really don't like about the DMCA is that is makes it illegal to use my own property, like play my DVD under Linux, or make a back-up of it for my DVD-less laptop.
Soon it'll get here too with the EUCD. Sigh.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Cheers,
Ian
This may well be a case of an automatic script generating a cease and desist letter. However, what the site is doing, by merely offering manuals for download is, strictly speaking, most likely breaking copyright. In the US, material published before 1989 has to have a copyright notice on it to be in copyright, otherwise it is public domain. However, if the material has a copyright notice on it, then it is not public domain, and will not be until 95 years after it is published. Outside of the US, it will be public domain 70 years after the death of the last author of the manual.
Abandonware, of which this is a form, sounds nice, but it is breaking copyright laws. Lobbying to change the copyright laws to formalise abandonware is probably a good idea. However, big entertainment companies are likely to counter-lobby a great deal harder. If there is another 20 year extension to copyright when Mickey Mouse is about the come out into the public domain in 15 years time, then there will be a definite pattern to things.
While the above is specifically New York, other states have similar laws.
So the recipient can actually do anything he feels like, including wiping his a** with it...
I know with private correspondence, say a letter from me to you, it is certainly the case that republishing without permission is legally-uncool, and there are some reasons for that I can agree with.
I would also wager that there are lawyers who for fear of bad P.R. for their sponsors would love the concept that they can bully people and automatically gag them at the same time. I also understand that they may have included this clause with that hope in mind.
What I can't see as likely is to go before a judge and attempt to convince them that a notice of copyright infringement posted to the webmaster of a publicly accessible website has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they aren't being bullies and they genuinely believe they are doing the "right thing" in good faith then what damages can they claim are occurring as a result of having their notice publicly posted?
The simple version of the logic is: If shrink wrap lic. agreements don't stand up in court. I don't see that a "Note:" at the bottom of an e-mail is going to do any better. Especially if they can't prove it was untruthful.
If there is a sound legal backing for such silliness, every spammer in the world should use this technique, and complain if any of their mail gets handed over to abuse@yahoo.com that it is a violation of their âoenote:â clause and therefore illegal.