"This fails the needs of citizens in favor of a weak sauce argument from the industry, and it's really disappointing"

Full article text:

“This fails the needs of citizens in favor of a weak sauce argument from the industry, and it’s really disappointing”

A three-year fight to help support game preservation has come to a sad end today. 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.

“For the past three years, the Video Game History Foundation has been supporting with the Software Preservation Network (SPN) on a petition to allow libraries and archives to remotely share digital access to out-of-print video games in their collections,” VGHF explains in its statement. “Under the current anti-circumvention rules in Section 1201 of the DMCA, libraries and archives are unable to break copy protection on games in order to make them remotely accessible to researchers.”

Essentially, this exemption would open up the possibility of a digital library where historians and researchers could ‘check out’ digital games that run through emulators. The VGHF argues that around 87% of all video games released in the US before 2010 are now out of print, and the only legal way to access those games now is through the occasionally exorbitant prices and often failing hardware that defines the retro gaming market.

Still, the US copyright office has said no. “The Register concludes that proponents did not show that removing the single-user limitation for preserved computer programs or permitting off-premises access to video games are likely to be noninfringing,” according to the final ruling. “She also notes the greater risk of market harm with removing the video game exemption’s premises limitation, given the market for legacy video games.”

That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that “there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes.” We cannot, of course, entertain the notion that researchers enjoy their subjects for even a moment. More importantly, this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes.

Members of the VGHF are naturally unhappy with the decision. “Unfortunately, lobbying efforts by rightsholder groups continue to hold back progress,” the group says in its statement, noting the ESA’s absolutist position that it would not support a similar sort of copyright reform under any circumstances.

“I’m proud of the work we and the orgs we partnered with did to try and change copyright law,” VGHF founder and director Frank Cifaldi says on Twitter. “We really gave it our all, I can’t see what else we could have done. This fails the needs of citizens in favor of a weak sauce argument from the industry, and it’s really disappointing.”

  • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
    32·
    27 days ago

    Because video games aren’t for recreation, they’re there to make them money. Tells you all about what the fuck is wrong with the gaming industry and why so many people stick to indie titles now.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    22·
    27 days ago

    can you imagine the horror if card game copy-writes were not enforced and people just opened up a pack of cards and played them willy nilly!!!

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    29·
    27 days ago

    You see, the problem is that game publishers have been innovating hard…

    …ly, so modern games are barely an improvement over old games, except in terms of graphics. In particular, they want to continue not innovating by re-releasing those same old games with new graphics slapped onto them.

    If everyone could just play those old titles, then they wouldn’t need to play the new titles, which would be very bad, because it would mean game publishers would need to innovate.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        5·
        26 days ago

        Well, I’m at least not surprised. They didn’t achieve good face animations through technological advancement, but rather by throwing tons of money at the problem, i.e. hiring actors and motion-capturing them.

        When it stops being your unique selling point, you’re not gonna get as much budget anymore, at which point it’s either scrapped or you might use worse equipment, worse actors and give the actors less time to practice and redo scenes.

        In general, the problem with realistic graphics is that reality is your upper bound. It’s difficult to inch closer to it and it’s easy to regress when you don’t pay as much attention to some detail…

      • GrindingGears@lemmy.ca
        1·
        25 days ago

        I haven’t, because I haven’t bought access to Ubisoft junk in years. Last I saw of their financials, I’m not the only one. If you want this behavior to stop, stop consuming media. I sure have cut way down. I cut the cable cord, I barely watch TV, cut all my streaming services except for one. Don’t buy many games anymore (mostly because they all suck, are often poorly finished and are often just a damn re-release). I saw my Spotify is going up 5 bucks this morning, it’s getting cut this week too.

        All this purging, yet my life hasn’t changed whatsoever. Almost feels good to get rid of all this crap. They only did it to themselves, so I hope they go have fun chasing people pirating 20 year old software. The crash is imminent.

    • Vinnyboiler@feddit.ukEnglish
      21·
      27 days ago

      You know books haven’t been innovating graphics for centuries. It’s scary how many people have been using old books for recreational use. How can newer book publishers compete?

  • icerunner_origin@startrek.website
    30·
    27 days ago

    I’d say it’s time to push the argument that the Library of Congress needs to be preserving games as part of the cultural history of the USA. If the legislative branch won’t abide private efforts then it’s time to make the government do it.

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    36·
    26 days ago

    The argument against it is founded on copyright.

    We fund copyright in order to enrich our culture, by incentivizing creative works.

    Blocking creative works preservation strips away the cultural enrichment.

    What’s left? People being compelled through taxes to fund profit police for copyright holders who aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

    Edit: Note also that publishers and their lobby groups are not artists. They are parasites. They are paid more than fairly for their role in getting creative works out there in the first place. I can’t think of any reason why they should have continued control after they’ve stopped publishing them.