I think including abandoned server code is odd, and I'm for it. I think we should start curating more public libraries with games in general, but that's going to be very difficult to do publicly (i.e. in a government library) in today's current online landscape. Between walled garden platforms and API integrations to centralized corporate servers, it seems unlikely that many of today's games will survive in their current state for long. More than ever, games frequently update becoming a different game or die to competition. It'd be rewarding to be able to spin up or join a local [Flavor] World of Warcraft server without getting shut down or told to wait for Blizzard to do it because that specific version of software was abandoned at some point. If it became public domain then, it would be available to the public to operate as we please.
I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.
In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.
In many countries you are obligated to "donate" one copy of any published and distributed work to the national library. That includes music, film, radio, tv, books, papers, pamphlets, websites etc. Depending on how the law is written this might also include games in playable form, so online games would require a copy of the server application as well as the client. If not games should be included asap.
Making these archives available for the general public might be difficult, but librarians are creative and many already have experience in making games available to the public. It's manageable.
This is true in the US, though the process is tied to copyright - any copyrighted work (including software) distributed in the US needs to be deposited with the Library of Congress.
I think the most difficult issue with distributing these to the general public would be classifying abandoned vs. maintained copyrighted works.
Well one issue is that an online game may be subject to multiple licenses. One example I do know of is Asheron's Call. There were some attempts to get it and its sequel. However there were licenses to Microsoft to consider and other third parties. Hence the "owner" of the game could not simply turn it over to the public.
I know, just rip out what is otherwise covered by another license or copyright. Well not only would that take time but it may leave the code in a state beyond repair.
I think the point of claiming a code base abandoned would be to strip rights from rights holders for property they do not show any intention of servicing.
You contributed to AC2? That’s great! The game is now abandoned, you have no rights to that code anymore.
To maintain your rights you either maintain the game in a serviceable state, or deploy your server technology as an API rather than integrating it into the client.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
To hell with the DMCA anyways. People who care will still reverse engineer the games they love and host the servers. There's probably zero chance of any legal avenue being opened up. As it should be, it's more fun that way.
Let's assume vendor A decides to donate their server code to public domain, or better yet a fully functional VM/container/... that can be booted up to host their old title(s). The question that comes to my mind is that who is now going to maintain the code (and OS) on the server so that it is current with the latest security updates (thinking of 3rd party or home grown components providing http, tls/ssl, image/audio/video/xml/... decocoding/encoding,...)?
I am all for making and keeping old games available and playable. But I see this as a big differentiator in making pre-internet era games available vs. games requiring access to an on-line server [that some one should probably be continuously maintaining from security standpoint].
Whoever runs a server is responsible for its security. Who donated the code has nothing to do with that.
Of course the donating party should provide source code, and without legal restrictions that prevent fixing issues.
I think you meant CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abusement Act) instead of CCFA (Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCFA)
Non-profit foundations for research on rare diseases are not something I would compare to copyright legislation.
Exactly. Allowing people to play older games for free has a positive effect of keeping interest in your brand alive but at the same time you’re losing potentially paying customers that are just as happy playing the free 10 year old game
If such a rule were to pass, it would be cool to see something done for older ROMs. So many games have the potential to go unplayed and become forgotten relics
I think a better comparison would be the lover of an old e-book whose publisher has shut down their DRM validation servers wanting to be able to read the book again in the future.
The thing with Abandonware/orphan works legislation is that a lot of the people most opposed to it aren't those you would think. Disney doesn't care that much. Their lawyers aren't going to forget to renew a copyright. Rather, it's various professional societies representing photographer, authors, etc. who figure that the individual creator or their estate will let copyright lapse through inaction and big media will come in and snatch up their work at no cost.
I'm definitely on board with copyright terms being too long and, in most cases, "abandonware" doesn't have a lot of value for the original creator anyway, but abandonware isn't primarily a big corp issue.
The really weird thing about eBooks is that you're not really buying the book. It's more like giving you a license to view the book. You can't really resell an eBook, or a Steam game.
Except public domain only happens 70 years after the authors death (or 95 years after publication when talking about corporate authors).
So I could write a good book now, publish it, let it go out of print as of this year, live another 40 years. You wouldn't be able to get a copy of my work from the public domain until the year 2127.
Someone suggested that copyright renewal happen closer to original, and that each renewal becomes a factor more expensive than the last time.
Lets say you require renewal each decade (with a one year grace period)... The first registration costs $100, the next 1000, then 10000, etc. If a company is literally willing to pay tens of million+ to keep a work out of public domain for more than 60 years, let them. This allows you to get the first 30 years for $11,100 before it gets pricey.
Frankly, I like this idea. Get rid of the pretense of public domain as long as a company is willing to pay that much a decade. Maybe just have it 2.5x each decade once you hit 100 million. Also, have a 3-5 year grace period for renewal before it becomes public domain.
This exception to the DMCA for all software where the copyright owner can't be contacted was negotiated for Australia as part of the Australia-USA free trade agreement. It allows for breaking encryption and anything that is required to get it to run.
Readit News
I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.
In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.
Making these archives available for the general public might be difficult, but librarians are creative and many already have experience in making games available to the public. It's manageable.
I think the most difficult issue with distributing these to the general public would be classifying abandoned vs. maintained copyrighted works.
I know, just rip out what is otherwise covered by another license or copyright. Well not only would that take time but it may leave the code in a state beyond repair.
You contributed to AC2? That’s great! The game is now abandoned, you have no rights to that code anymore.
To maintain your rights you either maintain the game in a serviceable state, or deploy your server technology as an API rather than integrating it into the client.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
Deleted Comment
I am all for making and keeping old games available and playable. But I see this as a big differentiator in making pre-internet era games available vs. games requiring access to an on-line server [that some one should probably be continuously maintaining from security standpoint].
Non-profit foundations for research on rare diseases are not something I would compare to copyright legislation.
I'm definitely on board with copyright terms being too long and, in most cases, "abandonware" doesn't have a lot of value for the original creator anyway, but abandonware isn't primarily a big corp issue.
So I could write a good book now, publish it, let it go out of print as of this year, live another 40 years. You wouldn't be able to get a copy of my work from the public domain until the year 2127.
Lets say you require renewal each decade (with a one year grace period)... The first registration costs $100, the next 1000, then 10000, etc. If a company is literally willing to pay tens of million+ to keep a work out of public domain for more than 60 years, let them. This allows you to get the first 30 years for $11,100 before it gets pricey.
Frankly, I like this idea. Get rid of the pretense of public domain as long as a company is willing to pay that much a decade. Maybe just have it 2.5x each decade once you hit 100 million. Also, have a 3-5 year grace period for renewal before it becomes public domain.
[1] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dmca-game-preservation-exempt...
And
> The DMCA does not allow people to copy games. It does not allow gamers to play shut down MMOs.
In short: no.