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.
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.
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!
The problem as always, is that copyright laws are outdated..
The original 20 years and then a work falls into the public domain made sense when works were written on paper and transport was slow. These days a lot has changed...
The Internet allows near instantaneous distribution worldwide, so the copyright terms should be much shorter...
Media such as software is much more complicated than a book... Whereas with a book it's possible to rewrite the words into a new book, reprint, or even chop up excerpts for use in another work, this isn't the case with software distributed as binaries, only software distributed as sourcecode. Similarly software can have external requirements (like an externally hosted server) which books, video and music cannot.
There needs to be sensible reforms to ensure that the original goals of copyright are met, that is authors have a limited time to profit from their works after which the work must enter the public domain so everyone can benefit. For software this should be a mandatory requirement that the fully buildable sourcecode of both client and server components be made available upon copyright expiry, or upon end of availability - whichever is sooner.
The current copyright system does not benefit society at all. People claim that works won't be produced, but visit any country where copyright laws don't exist or aren't enforced and you will see lots of locally produced content.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
In other words, copyright should work more like patents. Not that there aren't a ton of problems with the current patent system, but at least patents ensure publication of the invention and don't last forever.
This space intentionally left blank
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.
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.
Copyright needs to be reduced to 7 years max with no extensions for any reason. Any works over 7 years old immediately and permanently enter the public domain. Any work that is out of print and any version of any software that is no longer supported become public domain immediately. Software and business method patents are outlawed and cease to exist totally. The DMCA needs to be repealed, and all forms of DRM outlawed forever. The patent system drastically needs to be reformed. Patents should be limited to 7 years with no extensions possible, and after 7 years the patent becomes public domain. If a company holding a patent is not demonstrably working on a product using that patent within 2 years, the patent is made public domain. Patent trolling (holding patents only for the purpose of suing or extorting money) is outlawed with triple digit mandatory jail sentences and 7 digit mandatory fines for breaking this law. Holding (sitting on) patents only for the purpose of keeping others from producing a product or to keep a particular technology from being used by others is outlawed.
Before a new patent is issued, the product covered by the patent must be proved to be unique, with no prior art at all. All patent applications must be strictly and specifically worded. The slightest hint of vagueness or that a patent could be interpreted in more than one way or that it could be misinterpreted will be cause for rejection of the application. Previously granted patents that do not meet these standards will be instantly invalidated. An idea that does not result in a physical product cannot be patented.
Further, when someone purchases a product (including a music file or an ebook), that person owns that product and may then do with it as they wish. The company or person who produced and/or sold the product will have no control over how the purchaser can use (or repair, give away, or destroy) that product. Product owners have the right to repair the product or have it repaired by whomsoever they wish. All service information shall be made available for free, and parts will be made available at reasonable (no more than 100% mark up from production cost) prices.
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It used to be between 20 and 30 years in 1790, back when distribution of media was slow...
For it to be longer now rather than shorter is ridiculous and a clear case of extorting and abusing the public.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!