Publishers are absolutely terrified "preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes," so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
These pieces of shits have taken huge Ls for decades by virtue of emulators and ROMs existing. Fuck these ghouls, pirate everything and pirate forever.
Just pirate everything you can and call for a complete reform of copyright (or abolishment of copyright if you want to be actually cool). You'll never get anywhere with arguments about preservation and shit, why would a government that doesn't care about preserving the planet care about preserving some shitty videogames
In the early 1900s, movie companies would regularly destroy all film reels they could reach after a feature had run its course in theaters.
That's why the early age of motion pictures has so many gaps of completely lost movies. And that's intentional because at the time didn't want anything old to exist if new things could get churned out instead.
Most of Monty Python's original work at the BBC was simply taped over to cut costs. The only reason any of it survived is because one of them hoarded a bunch of it in their attic.
The US copyright office has denied a request for a DMCA exemption that would allow libraries to remotely share digital access to preserved video games.
Damn, can't check out Leisure Suit Larry or Beat-em and Eat-em from my local library anymore because of "woke."
But they could make them again, perhaps as a collection of games on a bespoke console. It's like unexploited land that they're enforcing their borders around. It's just one more facet of digital enclosure.
But they could make them again, perhaps as a collection of games on a bespoke console.
Sure. It could be like Nintendo's usual overpriced mini consoles that are sold to scalpers first on purpose and have laughably small libraries with Ice Climbers as a mandatory inclusion.
It's not even that they want to make a profit off of old games. What they want is players to spend all their time in the new slop and if they can spend time playing retro games instead that would be a loss. Of course that's not realistic because treat addict g@mers and retro passionates aren't really overlapping but the suits don't know that they think there is one unique video games market
I’m actually stunned. “Market harm” is a stupid term and it’s being used for games that aren’t even being sold anymore. Games that most kids or adults aren’t going out of their way to find. Anyone else want to play 8-bit Bug’s Life?
If that game doesn't have always-online mandates with a subscription and battle passes and obnoxious microtransaction pressures and a "live service" model that may end and take the damn thing away at any time, give me the 8-bit one.
death to all IP lawyers. modern games are all fortnite clone over-the-shoulder battle royale microtransaction games, even single player games have microtransactions and locked over-the-right-shoulder cameras. every time i see a new game i have to temper my excitement until i see gameplay footage to check if it has that godawful fortnite locked-to-the-right-shoulder camera perspective, which they almost always do. all 3rd person games should either have centered cameras or the ability to switch which side the camera is on so i can aim around cover to the left sometimes instead of always moving right or having the disadvantage against those who can.
i hate modern gaming, i'm going to go play Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri (the Terran Hegemony did nothing wrong)
Over two hundred years before the beginning of the game, Earth is subsumed by a world government called the Hegemony, whose "Publicanism" philosophy PC Zone summarized as "communism without the economic restrictions". The Hegemony annexes colonies throughout the Solar System, but the inhabitants of Jupiter's moons reach an agreement that allows them to relocate to Alpha Centauri, where they settle on the Earth-like NewHope and the frozen Thatcher planets.
so the villain is super communism and the protagonists are a bunch of space neoliberals that named their planets after fucking Margaret Thatcher?
SERIOUSLY! i read the lore entries in-game and almost every single thing they mentioned about the Hegemony was incredibly based despite being presented as some unspeakable orwellian evil lmao. like way more lines saying stuff like 'hegemony citizens all get healthcare and food and housing' than the bad stuff like 'they are ruled by a class of orphan oligarchs'.
Very similar to last year's ruling against the Internet Archive's Open Library:
But Koetl wrote that any “alleged benefits” from the Internet Archive’s library “cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers,” declares that “there is nothing transformative about [Internet Archive’s] copying and unauthorized lending,” and that copying these books doesn’t provide “criticism, commentary, or information about them.” He notes that the Google Books use was found “transformative” because it created a searchable database instead of simply publishing copies of books on the internet.
I watched the public hearings for the proposed rule changes back when they were held in April and the smug-ass industry lawyers were fucking infuriating:
edit: Probably the most absurd argument that stuck with me was during the second part of the hearing on non-game preservation. The people in favor of the new rule were talking about preserving ancient word processor software and allowing it to be accessed remotely so that people could access primary documents in their original form, and the software/IP lawyers seriously argued that remotely accessing 20+ year old word processing software would represent potential market harm. Here's a lightly edited transcript (mostly just taking out the moderator passing the baton), emphasis mine, with the representative's positions before their statements for clarity:
Transcript
STEVEN R. ENGLUND, Jenner & Block LLP, on behalf of Entertainment Software Association
MR. ENGLUND: So just briefly, I think
"teaching" clearly does have to be viewed as an
expansion relative to private use, and whether it is a
fair use depends on context, as is always the case in
a fair use determination. The example that I was
thinking about while preparing for this hearing was
what about a preserved word processor program. Is
this exemption something that would allow providing
access to a class to use a preserved word processor
program an emulator for purposes of writing papers for
class? I don’t know. But I think, once you include
"teaching," you need to think through those kinds of
scenarios.
[...]
JONATHAN BAND, Library Copyright Alliance
MR. BAND: Well, we’re happy to talk about
the scope of teaching uses if you want. I mean,
there’s no question that, you know, you can make all
kinds of classroom uses. And, I mean, the reserve
situation described, I mean, you know, certainly, that
there are sometimes physical reserves, but you also
can make, you know, multiples copies, not just one
copy. And so, you know, certainly, that was true when
I was a student and it’s certainly true now that
multiple copies are available and then even far more
for classroom uses and that’s routine.
And, again, what we’re talking about,
remember, this is all in the context of preserved
works, and even if we were dealing with the situation
that Mr. Englund was talking about, you know, if it’s
access to a preserved word processing program, you
know, sure.
Look, we can construct any kind of
ridiculous scenario we want, but do you really think
that anyone is going to be trying to avoid, you know,
licensing a word processing program in 2024? I mean,
we all have word processing programs on, you know, our
computers and our phones. I mean, you know, this is
kind of the farfetched scenarios that we’re talking
about here. It’s not realistic. People want to use
this exemption for preservation and then making access
to those preservation copies for research purposes,
for learning purposes. You know, it’s not going to
harm the market, and everyone here knows that.
[...]
ROBERT ROTSTEIN, MSK LLP, on behalf of Joint Creators and Copyright Owners
MR. ROTSTEIN: Yes. Just responses. Yes,
there might be multiple copies back in the day even in
reserve, but if there are five multiple copies, only
five users can take advantage of them at a time with
books on reserve, and that is the model and that model
with teaching has been abandoned essentially.
And I think there can be harm to the market.
One of the examples that the proponents use is Final
Draft 7. If you look on eBay, actually, you can buy
Final Draft 7 and there are comments saying it’s not
useless, but the people who wanted to buy it
apparently tried to use it in order to write
screenplays. And if you do that, you know, you’re not
buying Final Draft 13, which is harm to the market.
It’s harm to a derivative work.
So, yes, there can be market harm because
these older versions of software often do have, if
they could be circumvented, have utility for the
purpose, you know, for which they were initially
created.
[...]
KENDRA ALBERT, Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, on behalf of Library Copyright Alliance and Software Preservation Network
MX. ALBERT: [...]
I also think it’s worth noting that none of
the opponents here actually represent the rights
holders of these word processing companies, right?
The Business Software Association has not opposed this
exemption. They have not sort of shown up and
suggested that there will be any market harm, and they
are the folks who produce the software in function
here unless I’m unaware of CSS, ESA, DPCCA, AACS,
RIAA, or MPA getting into new business models.
On the Final Draft 7 point, you know, my
understanding is that Final Draft 7 is no longer
available from the primary purchaser -- or from the
company which was originally making it. That’s why we
use it as an example.
I think that I, you know, in some ways turn
this back a little bit to the conversation about sort
of the benefits and barriers of emulation, which is to
say that the experience of sort of using these kinds
of tools with remote access provided by preservation
institutions is useful for folks who are sort of
seeking to understand the historical experience or
access particular software-dependent materials that
rely on an older version. It is not a particularly
good -- it is not a particular competition for the
existing versions of the work, which is, I believe,
why there are no rights holders that represent those
organizations here to oppose this exemption.
edit²: as disheartening an outcome as this was, one thing I did take away from the hearing was that there are some incredibly smart, passionate, and dedicated people working against all odds to try to get these rule changes enacted. So much respect for the people who believe we can have a better world and going up to bat against industries worth hundreds of billions of dollars.