8 ms·

Copyright Office Adds DMCA Exemption for 'Abandoned' Online Games

325 points by SargeZT 8y ago

userbinator 8y ago
Just recently there was the Right to Repair change, and now this. Looks like things are going in the right direction.
- bitwize 8y ago
  If they forget to re-exempt it in three years, it becomes a felony again.
  - gergles 8y ago
    The process doesn't work like this anymore; now the copyright industry has to argue that the exemption should be removed and there are a narrow number of reasons why this could be done.
- astrodust 8y ago
  I'm not sure this is a trend, more like a peculiar anomaly.
taneq 8y ago
This covers legally obtained server code, but what about reverse engineered third party servers which allow the use of abandoned game clients? As an example, a popular 'Blizzlike' Vanilla WoW server (ie. authentic to the original, pre-expansion game) has been built without using the official server software. Recent announcements from Blizzrd aside, it's hard to argue that the original game is not abandoned, as it's been unplayable since 2006.
- ex_angry_guy 8y ago
  I do get your point but I wonder if it's really that hard to argue? I don't think Blizzard will have a hard time defending the stance of "we haven't abandoned WOW". and if you enter the world where we consider WOW legally abandoned, publishers will start re-evaluating their expansion models, possibly for worse?
  - Forge36 8y ago
    Maybe, however I see a court stuffing siding with consumers as the game as released is no longer playable. Compare with StarCraft Brood War. The ability to play on a lan connection means the game remains playable (It's also still sold). To look back further I'd point to games from Lucas Art. SCUMMVM allows to games to continue being played, while not sold.
    - plopz 8y ago
      I don't think WoW is a good example, its still being sold and maintained. I don't think you can claim something is abandoned just because it was patched or updated. A much better example would be Star Wars Galaxies which was actually abandoned and the servers turned off in 2011.
      - vbezhenar 8y ago
        Technically WoW 1 and WoW 8 (current version) have very little in common. But they are remaking it under WoW classic brand, so definitely not abandoned in this case.
      - derefr 8y ago
        Different software companies have vastly different criteria for differentiating between "a patch update to the same product", "a new major version of the product requiring you to buy it again", and "an entirely new product." For example: assume that at some point, Super Mario Maker (which is effectively solely an online service) is going to get a release for the Nintendo Switch. Like with the 3DS version, a hypothetical Switch version would probably get its own global level-uploads database, partitioned off from that of the Wii U version. Let's say Nintendo then, eventually, shut down the servers for the Wii U version of the game, while keeping the servers for the Switch version online. Under the "separate games" interpretation, the backend for the Wii U version of Mario Maker would probably become abandonware as soon as it was shut down. People could set up their own compatible backend to put their level data back up and keep playing SMM on their Wii U's, and it'd be entirely legal. But under the other two interpretations, it wouldn't be legal. And keep in mind that, even if the client was a complete re-write, the servers would likely consist of 99% the same code between the two "generations" of the game. You could say that the Wii U version's servers "became" the Switch version's servers. One "evolved into" the other, without the Wii U version's ever actually "shutting down." They just, at some point, dropped compatibility for speaking to the old Wii U client software. Given that what you bought in this case is the client software... would the previous paragraph matter? It's entirely an implementation detail hidden to you.
behringer 8y ago
Wow this is really great. It's now a use it or lose it sort of copyright protection for online games. I have an idea of supporting an online game that is long forgotten, one day. Now it'll be totally legal for me to work on it :)
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  ...assuming you legally obtain the original server source code.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  The exemption is very limited: >Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum. This is only for non-profit museums etc. so third party servers are still not legally allowed. It's a big step in the right direction and I think it's a good sign that one day we might get an exemption that allows third party servers for home play but it's not there quite yet. It also requires a statement saying the owner is abandoning support and it remains to be seen if the standard "we're shutting down all the servers required to play this game" will count legally or not. [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g... pg 59
  - behringer 8y ago
    Ah that sucks. I'll have to read through it.
judge2020 8y ago
Sadly the ruling directly forbids reverse-engineered protocols and custom made servers that emulate the original server. The ruling also states that these abandoned online games could only legally run at a museum/library and that it's against the law to distribute them to the internet or host them publicly. > and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.
- delinka 8y ago
  Further, how are they defining "abandoned"?
  - judge2020 8y ago
    [0] the ruling, page 60 outlines the terms > [copyright owner] has issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or, alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...
    - anc84 8y ago
      Does the "or" belong to the affirmative statement or the support not being available no longer?
      - WorldMaker 8y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but the awkward phrasing `or, alternatively,` seems to be the complex legalese separator clause here, which would seem to indicate to me it is not a part of the affirmative statement requirement, but an alternative to it. (It is somewhat fascinating that lawyers use written languages like programming languages in trying to avoid logical ambiguity, but of course the legal approaches to such questions evolved so entirely different including very different environment pressures.)
adonnjohn 8y ago
Does this open the door to future debate surrounding variations of game versioning as time continues forward? Let's say Blizzard does implement WoW Classic, but they choose a specific permutation of classic that makes some people happy and others angry. Do those who wish for variant A of WoW classic but get a drastically different variant B have any legal leg to stand on for their version of the game being abandoned?
passwd 8y ago
I don't know how it looks technically, but it's often highlighted that many digital sales are actually in form of a lease (or right to use), and not an actual purchase of a product. How would this work then?
swiley 8y ago
Maybe this will create small arcade like "museums" where people go to legally play old games with each other. That would be neat.
joveian 8y ago
This exception is so limited that I don't even get how it is potentially considered circumventing DRM to begin with. Once you have legally acquired the source wouldn't you normally also have the right to modify it to remove the DRM?

325 points by SargeZT 8y ago

Just recently there was the Right to Repair change, and now this. Looks like things are going in the right direction.

bitwize 8y ago
If they forget to re-exempt it in three years, it becomes a felony again.
- gergles 8y ago
  The process doesn't work like this anymore; now the copyright industry has to argue that the exemption should be removed and there are a narrow number of reasons why this could be done.
astrodust 8y ago
I'm not sure this is a trend, more like a peculiar anomaly.

This covers legally obtained server code, but what about reverse engineered third party servers which allow the use of abandoned game clients? As an example, a popular 'Blizzlike' Vanilla WoW server (ie. authentic to the original, pre-expansion game) has been built without using the official server software. Recent announcements from Blizzrd aside, it's hard to argue that the original game is not abandoned, as it's been unplayable since 2006.

ex_angry_guy 8y ago
I do get your point but I wonder if it's really that hard to argue? I don't think Blizzard will have a hard time defending the stance of "we haven't abandoned WOW". and if you enter the world where we consider WOW legally abandoned, publishers will start re-evaluating their expansion models, possibly for worse?
- Forge36 8y ago
  Maybe, however I see a court stuffing siding with consumers as the game as released is no longer playable. Compare with StarCraft Brood War. The ability to play on a lan connection means the game remains playable (It's also still sold). To look back further I'd point to games from Lucas Art. SCUMMVM allows to games to continue being played, while not sold.
  - plopz 8y ago
    I don't think WoW is a good example, its still being sold and maintained. I don't think you can claim something is abandoned just because it was patched or updated. A much better example would be Star Wars Galaxies which was actually abandoned and the servers turned off in 2011.
    - vbezhenar 8y ago
      Technically WoW 1 and WoW 8 (current version) have very little in common. But they are remaking it under WoW classic brand, so definitely not abandoned in this case.
    - derefr 8y ago
      Different software companies have vastly different criteria for differentiating between "a patch update to the same product", "a new major version of the product requiring you to buy it again", and "an entirely new product." For example: assume that at some point, Super Mario Maker (which is effectively solely an online service) is going to get a release for the Nintendo Switch. Like with the 3DS version, a hypothetical Switch version would probably get its own global level-uploads database, partitioned off from that of the Wii U version. Let's say Nintendo then, eventually, shut down the servers for the Wii U version of the game, while keeping the servers for the Switch version online. Under the "separate games" interpretation, the backend for the Wii U version of Mario Maker would probably become abandonware as soon as it was shut down. People could set up their own compatible backend to put their level data back up and keep playing SMM on their Wii U's, and it'd be entirely legal. But under the other two interpretations, it wouldn't be legal. And keep in mind that, even if the client was a complete re-write, the servers would likely consist of 99% the same code between the two "generations" of the game. You could say that the Wii U version's servers "became" the Switch version's servers. One "evolved into" the other, without the Wii U version's ever actually "shutting down." They just, at some point, dropped compatibility for speaking to the old Wii U client software. Given that what you bought in this case is the client software... would the previous paragraph matter? It's entirely an implementation detail hidden to you.

behringer 8y ago

Wow this is really great. It's now a use it or lose it sort of copyright protection for online games. I have an idea of supporting an online game that is long forgotten, one day. Now it'll be totally legal for me to work on it :)

brianpgordon 8y ago
...assuming you legally obtain the original server source code.
rtkwe 8y ago
The exemption is very limited: >Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum. This is only for non-profit museums etc. so third party servers are still not legally allowed. It's a big step in the right direction and I think it's a good sign that one day we might get an exemption that allows third party servers for home play but it's not there quite yet. It also requires a statement saying the owner is abandoning support and it remains to be seen if the standard "we're shutting down all the servers required to play this game" will count legally or not. [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g... pg 59
- behringer 8y ago
  Ah that sucks. I'll have to read through it.

judge2020 8y ago

Sadly the ruling directly forbids reverse-engineered protocols and custom made servers that emulate the original server. The ruling also states that these abandoned online games could only legally run at a museum/library and that it's against the law to distribute them to the internet or host them publicly. > and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.

delinka 8y ago
Further, how are they defining "abandoned"?
- judge2020 8y ago
  [0] the ruling, page 60 outlines the terms > [copyright owner] has issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or, alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...
  - anc84 8y ago
    Does the "or" belong to the affirmative statement or the support not being available no longer?
    - WorldMaker 8y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but the awkward phrasing `or, alternatively,` seems to be the complex legalese separator clause here, which would seem to indicate to me it is not a part of the affirmative statement requirement, but an alternative to it. (It is somewhat fascinating that lawyers use written languages like programming languages in trying to avoid logical ambiguity, but of course the legal approaches to such questions evolved so entirely different including very different environment pressures.)

adonnjohn 8y ago

Does this open the door to future debate surrounding variations of game versioning as time continues forward? Let's say Blizzard does implement WoW Classic, but they choose a specific permutation of classic that makes some people happy and others angry. Do those who wish for variant A of WoW classic but get a drastically different variant B have any legal leg to stand on for their version of the game being abandoned?

passwd 8y ago

I don't know how it looks technically, but it's often highlighted that many digital sales are actually in form of a lease (or right to use), and not an actual purchase of a product. How would this work then?

swiley 8y ago

Maybe this will create small arcade like "museums" where people go to legally play old games with each other. That would be neat.

joveian 8y ago

This exception is so limited that I don't even get how it is potentially considered circumventing DRM to begin with. Once you have legally acquired the source wouldn't you normally also have the right to modify it to remove the DRM?