Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Exemption Sought to Save 'Abandoned' Online Games (techspot.com)
An anonymous reader quotes TechSpot:
Every three years the US Copyright Office reviews and renews the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions at which time it considers exemptions to the law. It is currently looking at a proposal for allowing museums, libraries and archives to circumvent the DRM on abandoned online games such as FIFA World Cup, Nascar and The Sims.
The proposal was initiated by The Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (The MADE). The Made is a 501c3 non-profit organization with a physical museum located in Oakland, California. The gallery "is the only all-playable video game museum in the world, [and] houses over 5,300 playable games." The Made is concerned that certain multiplayer and single-player games that require a server to run will be lost if exemptions are not made to the DMCA. It is not looking to circumvent current games but instead is looking to preserve titles that have already been shut down by the producer -- City of Heroes (and Villains) would be a good example.
"Although the Current Exemption does not cover it, preservation of online video games is now critical," a Made representative wrote to the Copyright Office. "Online games have become ubiquitous and are only growing in popularity. For example, an estimated fifty-three percent of gamers play multiplayer games at least once a week, and spend, on average, six hours a week playing with others online." The number of abandoned games is not insignificant, either. According to the Electronic Arts "Online Services Shutdown" list, more than 300 titles and servers dropped out of service just in the last four years. These games are not played anymore because they require an active server.
The proposal was initiated by The Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (The MADE). The Made is a 501c3 non-profit organization with a physical museum located in Oakland, California. The gallery "is the only all-playable video game museum in the world, [and] houses over 5,300 playable games." The Made is concerned that certain multiplayer and single-player games that require a server to run will be lost if exemptions are not made to the DMCA. It is not looking to circumvent current games but instead is looking to preserve titles that have already been shut down by the producer -- City of Heroes (and Villains) would be a good example.
"Although the Current Exemption does not cover it, preservation of online video games is now critical," a Made representative wrote to the Copyright Office. "Online games have become ubiquitous and are only growing in popularity. For example, an estimated fifty-three percent of gamers play multiplayer games at least once a week, and spend, on average, six hours a week playing with others online." The number of abandoned games is not insignificant, either. According to the Electronic Arts "Online Services Shutdown" list, more than 300 titles and servers dropped out of service just in the last four years. These games are not played anymore because they require an active server.
I have to agree there needs to be a way to legally revive software titles from the economic dust-bin. Either though philanthropy or crowd-sourcing games that people have paid money for (like a book) should have a way to recover when the original source abandons the media. Having said that there will also be some legal issues that need to be tackled head-on or us digital denizens will suffer the wrath of the SCO.
I vote Yes for this effort!
This isnt really news, its more like advertisement for MADE which granted might be not for profit but its still an advertisement. I say this is advertisement becuase this exemption to DMCA lae already exists. The only thing specil right now is that the exemption only lasts 3years at a time and it is coming up for renewal. Lots of entites use this exemption to keep old online games alive eg the battlefield 2 userbase. That MADE is asking for it to be renewed is not the newsworthy bit its that the dmca exemption is coming up for expiry and needs renewing again. MADE arent the only ones who use this exemption!
I'd hate to see some of the classics of my youth lost forever due to legal issues with unlocking DRM. Personally, I would appreciate seeing the game authors prepared to unlock the content with a final patch as a responsible sign-off to their customers when they abandon publishing that particular content, or running the servers. There are a few particular favorites, such as the old "Marathon" games, that I'd welcome seeing in Steam or preserved for posterity for some of our children.
As if we need this farce to continue any longer. We've had this exception before, it's time to make it law.
There was this Zork Clone (text adventures) on the Apple II, called SMIRK, and you were a man starting out in a tent with a lantern, and you walk down a path, into a cave. The SMIRK is guarding Emeralds. There are two Tigers guarding dandylions and alo some Rubies. If yo piss of the SMIRK, the SMIRK will point at you and turn you to Ashes.
if a game maker wants copyright protection they need to provide to a 3rd party every bit of code required to run the game....expressly so it can be preserved.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
there was some old Sega Channel only stuff some may even still have the CD roms with the rom files that where used at the cable head ends (mostly non us systems) or the at the master header that was C-band up linked to other head ends (most US cable systems)
also add it right to repair / suicide battery.
There are some hacks and dumps of suicide battery backed arcade games but It will be nice to have the laws made to make them legal to be hosted.
I agree, I'd like to play some of my childhood favorites like Leisure Suit Larry BBWMMO.
Either corporate hacking/espionage/leaks, or a big pocketed non-profit whose sole purpose was buying complete source code and data files for major applications and releasing them as open source (or modifying them until they can be released as open source, as applicable.)
The former solution would be a lot better from the 'snapshot of real life' point of view, while the latter would be the more legally palatable option.
Many franchises are essentially dead today. Many more never had their source code transferred when the company died, either ending up in the skip, the drives wiped and resold, or stuffed in a corporate vault where they suffered bitrot or deletion for a future replacement project.
The only way to archive the digital history of the world at this point that really works is illegitimately getting the works now, just after the point where they stop providing updates, but before they shutter the project, then holding onto them and releasing them in 10,20,50 years, once nobody cares or can prove copyright ownership to them anymore.
City of Heroes is an interesting example because there's a fairly significant developer presence on the 'City of Titans' project, which aims to be a 'spiritual successor' to CoH/CoV.
https://cityoftitans.com/
Currently, those folks are developing in a 'Clean Room' state, building what will hopefully be a great game.
Imagine, however, if an 'abandonware' exemption is passed. Would it ONLY give rights to non-profits like MADE, or would it give rights to individuals like myself who are damn pissed their favorite MMO got canned and/or folks like the CoT crew who are seeking to replace said MMO with a new model. If there was suddenly no penalty for examining reverse-engineered or decompiled code, would it help them or would it hinder them in their efforts. Some would argue that the latter might be true. It's better to make a clean break from old client/server limitations and build something new. I personally take the middle ground. Yes, you do want to erase any limitations you can, but you'd be foolish not to try to learn from the past if that past is available to you.
Personally, I doubt the DMCA is going to budge much in the current political climate. I'd love to see an 'abandoned code' exemption of some kind put in regardless.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
How much software is held in these institutions? Furthermore, how will the people be allowed to access it? Will taxpayer's money be used to undo, what is essentially, corporate censorship?
This is the problem with online games and online registration: One doesn't have a product that can be used anytime one wants. When one is paying $100/game, that is a lot of money that can 'disappear', anytime the vendor pleases.
If you agree to those terms and conditions, more fool you.
there is a lot of software in use that was written by someone who is now dead and who did not leave any indication as to what should happen. I am thinking of free to use software, sometimes without a clear license. What if I want to fix bugs in it, enhance it and also release my (added) code under, eg GPL?
OK: in truth it is very unlikely that anyone will come after me for so doing, but it would be nice to have some reassurance.
In other words, authors and inventors are granted a monopoly over their works for a limited time, after which these works pass into the public domain so they can add to the sum total knowledge of mankind.
If copyright is causing works to be lost before they can enter the public domain, then it's defeating the purpose upon which copyright is based in the Constitution. And the rationale for giving these works copyright protection in the first place vanishes.
Since the purpose of the clause is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," and the mechanism is by "securing exclusive rights for a limited time," when a situation arises where the two contradict each other, the purpose must prevail. Otherwise you're using the letter of the law to defeat the intent of the law.
In other words, copyright law must err on the side of making sure these works make it into the public domain, not on the side of protecting the author's or inventor's monopoly. To be protected by copyright, the work must eventually make it into the public domain. So either the work has to make it into the public domain, or it cannot be protected by copyright. There is never a case where protecting the temporary monopoly is more important.
It'd be necessary in some cases. Because of how much was on the server, you're not getting Darkspore back without EA coughing it up.
That seems to be an abandoned online game, with no servers anymore.
To be given protection under DMCA or even copyright, the copy right holder should have to show how the work will enter the public domain when the copyright expires. Failure to have such a plan should void the copyright. Things like the lost Dr. Who episodes should be in the public domain since the BBC has lost the originals and has no possible way of profiting from them. Create a game that requires a server and shut down the server, the game should immediately be public domain. Copyright isn't a right, it's a privileged society gives the holder, for a short period of time and that privilege comes with the responsibility of the work entering the public domain. We need to have stronger requirements that these requirements are fulfilled.
Actually, if you read the Constitution, there is no explicit declaration that works will or should pass into the Public Domain, that means you are assuming something that is not in the literal text, namely there is no presentation of intent EXCEPT to encourage authors and inventors by the government providing an exclusive protection through its own force, with a prohibition on Congress doing so in a perpetual fashion because we cannot allow government to indefinite acts. (see also their budgetary limitations).
Beyond that? Government has no authority.
Sorry, but there's just no requirement as to availability or recording, there is in fact, no explicit mandate for anything to enter the public domain, you are interpreting the Constitution based on what you want it to have said, nothing more. I can invent something, or create a work, and you cannot simply force me to yield it up to you based on the current Constitution.
Now it's fine if you want to make that your preferred agenda, but you'll need to codify it in law somewhere, which either means a Constitutional Amendment, a Federal Statute, or a Treaty.
In other words, you must follow the law as it is, not engage in whatever self-serving agenda advances your own purposes regardless of the imposition it is upon me. Feel free to complain to the government that you want a change (said right is enumerated), but do not presume you can use the government to seize from me my own rightfully owned creations. That is a violation of my liberty, and a coercion that reflects poorly upon yourself.
Of course when the constitution was written, there was no intellectual property, everything was a physical item in the real world that anyone could see and figure out how to duplicate so by default everything returned to the public domain.
If somebody creates something, they have the right not to publish and abandon it.
If they publish it, they should be able to choose how to protect it.
Copyright and EULA seems viable options, but trying to sip from both wells should have limits.
Copyright protections should come with an expectation that if you publish something the purchaser has the right to read what was published.
A EULA and technical means should not prevent this.
If the author does not like this, then he should find something besides Copyright for his protection.
Historically speaking, this is not true, there were many secrets that were monopolized throughout history by various means. Many of them remain today.
Regardless, the explicit provision for the authority to take such measures as would be necessary for the preservation of properties is not to be found in the Constitution of the United States, so therefore, any actions in furtherance of said objective must stand on their own, not be inserted by dint of mere association with said document.
Except that in practice, this is exactly what has happened; works under the protection of copyright
have been eligible to enter the public domain after their term expires.
If you invent / create something, and you make it available to me (somehow, by sale / whatever),
the law provides/ed you a limited exclusive right to continue its distribution, even if you never make
it available to another living soul. I am not free to interfere with that right. However, after your
limited right expires, I am free to do anything I want with your original property. I can make
additional copies and sell them - whatever. You no longer enjoy that exclusive right.
You're right, there's a twisting of words, but you're twisting them. Copyright prevents me from
copying your work as my own; but once your protection expires, effectively the work becomes
available for anyone to use / copy / whatever if it were originally made available by you
(hence the concept of entering the "public domain.")
You are correct in that you are not compelled to "release it" after you protection expires, that's
where you twisted things. Best example is a game. You sell the executable of a game. I buy a copy
of that game. I already have the copy of the executable that you've sold. After your copyright expires,
I can do whatever with that executable. Again, you are right in that at expiration there's no requirement
that you release the source code for the game - that the only requirement is that you relinquish any
exclusive right(s) to works which you have already released (i.e., the executable). You can continue to
sell the game if you wanted to; but I could sell the same executable as well.
You were mixing apples and peanuts.
CAP === 'overtime'
How exactly does art and science progress when the works are lost? The beginning of the sentence explicitly states the purpose and goal of the laws. Yes, those works have to pass into the public domain for progress to occur. That's the definition of progressing -- we don't keep recreating the same stuff over and over just because stuff keeps getting lost.
That includes VHS. I have numerous home video VHS tapes that are dusty and degraded and Macrovision prevents me from copying them even though they are NOT macrovision protected consumer VHS tapes with home videos that I have total authority to copy but I am NOT allowed because of degradation that triggers Macrovision protection, and halts recording. It's criminal, if you ask me.
The Government shouldn't allow this sort of behavior. There should be some kind of legal way to take action against companies but it takes too much money and only lawyers would hoard all the money in the end, and be forced to sign non-disclosures, etc.
With the death of the VCR and reports of cessation of their production, I've had to realize those tapes are dusty, falling apart, and destined for the trash. Old VCRs are also becoming more scarce at the thrift stores too, not to mention that they get dirty very quickly on these tapes, especially if they weren't stored in clam shell cases. Those are the only ones that have survived mostly well.
Any suggestions with an easy copying method, Linux or otherwise, some open method, that will bypass this nonsense appreciated?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
To me this clearly limits Congress to only provide rights to the actual author or inventor.
No assignments, heirs, or extension past his lifetime.
Unfortunately, Congress and the courts have seen this differently.
This DMCA exemption process is a request to bring a bit of reasonableness to the resulting mess.
And by limited right, that of course means, 20 years, plus 20 years, plus 20 years, plus 20 years, etc. to infinity. How long is copyright now? 170 years? All these wealthy people and musicians keep extending it indefinitely. I don't like how wealthy people have so much sway over our judicial system. You always see these celebrities appearing before Congress trying to outlaw all their pet-peeves, and pretending to be an expert on something because they're a celebrity. Then they start passing laws and banning photograph of celebrities or something stupid like that.
The problem with your argument is that you are slothful inducting the spirit and intent of the law, as many do.
To be fully protected by copyright law, you are required to register your Full Completed work with the library of congress, and after some "limited" time (which has been extended excessively), that work will No Longer be protected. That means that it has been registered and will be publicly available after that date, for public consumption.
Yes, you still have some protections if you don't first submit your work to the library of congress. But those protections are very limited, and your damages will also be limited.
You seem to be ignoring the Overt and Obvious spirit and intent of the law, as well as it's practice. In order to get you to Submit your works into the Public domain, and have them registered with the government for full protection, including works and technology, you are required to submit them to the government for preservation for the public domain.
If they were not intended for that purpose, it sure is confusing as to why the government is doing what seems to be exactly that, preserving, archiving and preparing your works for the public domain.
Just because the law has not kept up with that intent doesn't mean it didn't have the intent to preserve new, advanced technologies, like compiled computer code that has been forever locked.
Except that in practice, this is exactly what has happened; works under the protection of copyright
have been eligible to enter the public domain after their term expires.
In practice? I think you mean that absent governmental action, things can occur? Certainly, the world is indeed free to operate outside as it does outside the scope of the Constitution, it is not bound thereby.
However, we're only talking about the US government and its Constitution here, not even the government of other nations, or even the states, which might well have their own authorities and proscriptions.
You're right, there's a twisting of words, but you're twisting them.
What twisting? I'm pointing out the express statement of Solandri as directed towards the US Government's mandate to act, which only includes protection of a right of exclusion for a limited time.
It is not further authorized to do anything as to what Solandri is suggesting by the aforementioned clause of the Constitution.
Not to compel upon me to release anything, not to void any contracts or agreements I have made regarding my creations, not even any mention of value that might come from the public domain.
It's merely a statement of governmental authority in regards its own actions to protect exclusive rights.
You were mixing apples and peanuts.
I believe that's called trail mix(along with a few other sundries), but it has nothing to do with the discussion here, which is about what the US Government can do.
Sorry, but there's simply no authority, not even implied, to do what Solandri wants from that clause. Or yourself. You'll need to seek it elsewhere, and stop trying to misappropriate the Constitution for whatever purpose you find expedient.
Without the power of government to enforce copyright, everything published is public domain. Simplest is to just eliminate copyright as it is just more government regulations. If you don't want your works entering the public domain, keep them secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Ross Scott's Accursed Farms youtube channel has dealt with this before. Go Ross!
Without the power of government to enforce copyright, everything published is public domain.
Nope, there is no public domain short of a power to declare it such.
Simplest is to just eliminate copyright as it is just more government regulations.
And yet it is not simple at all.
If you don't want your works entering the public domain, keep them secret.
Exactly the plan.
All Copyrights should terminate 5 years after the owner stops selling it. If they don't plan on making money from it, why should we spend money to defend their copyright?
Many online games were double pay the sims online was one of them originally.
You had to pay for the game itself and then a monthly fee for service.
Since the servers have since shut down I no longer have any way to use the software I paid for.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
It's cool to use the 'deny the premise' reasoning if you want, but you're only deceiving yourself.
Solandri wasn't suggesting that the gov. forces a works' creator to do anything after the protection
expires, Solandri is just stating the processes of a "well regulated" copyright system does not preclude
released works from entering the "public domain" as this is the only way society may benefit from the work;
I think we can all agree that the current Disney copyright term length is egregious at best, but that
wasn't in anything he stated.
CAP === 'delicacy'