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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!