5 ms·

Do you think it'd be a good idea to force companies to open source abandonware? We could claw back space from copyright laws, and force companies to remove DRM

by SCHiM 5y ago

Do you think it'd be a good idea to force companies to open source abandonware? We could claw back space from copyright laws, and force companies to remove DRM schemes, open source DRM-ed copyright, servers and any/all assets required to run "the store" locally. This is analogous to right to repair, DRM "breaking" your property should be banned.

dataflow 5y ago
How would you define abandonware?
- SCHiM 5y ago
  I don't think I have the full definition. But if you think about online games, it becomes abandonware if you can no longer log into the game servers? Or if your product is dependent on DRM, then is becomes abandonware when the DRM servers shut down. I think different classes of media will require different definitions of when they become abandonware, but I think we'll mostly know it when we see it.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    Your definitions are better than what I was imagining, but I think they might still have rather significant edge cases & loopholes in reality. To give some examples off the top of my head: What if (say) access ends up varying across jurisdictions? What if they keep the servers running, but start charging for them? What if the company wants to sell to someone in another jurisdiction? etc.
- iso1631 5y ago
  I would require copyright holders to renew their copyright. 5 years for free, then $1 for the 6th year, $2 for the 7th, $4 for the 8th, $8 for the 9th, $1m for the 25th, etc.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    Not every copyright holder is a massive corporation. Artists produce many pieces per year. That would cost them a lot to keep copyrights.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      It's mostly representatives of individual creators who oppose orphan works legislation. Disney probably isn't going to forget (or worry about the expense) to renew the copyright on Frozen. But an individual author/photographer/etc. may well forget. And in the photographer case, does that mean they're going to have to spend money every year to renew the copyright on each individual photograph that want to continue to protect?
    - ryukafalz 5y ago
      It doesn't necessarily benefit massive corporations more than individual artists, because those massive corporations probably also hold copyright over a lot of works; it'd cost them huge amounts of money to renew them all. I think GP's scheme isn't awful honestly; it would have the effect of drastically lowering the practical length of copyright for most works while providing artists with a way to maintain copyright over works that are actually highly successful. (A per-year doubling might be a bit much but I think it's on the right track.) If the practical effect was that we mostly got back to the original copyright term we had in the US (14 years with the possibility to extend that once), I'd be pretty happy. Maybe start the fees after the 14th year.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Not for the duration that matters. 5 years for free is plenty of time to make reasonable income on your creations; after that, you're just seeking rent from society. Sure, boost that to 10 or even 20 years if needed[0]. But from then on extension costs should grow exponential - otherwise we risk locking down work for duration longer than a human lifetime. Like it already happens with Disney. -- [0] - 20 years may have been appropriate in mid-20th century, but I'd argue it isn't now. Cultural creation accelerates exponentially, but long copyrights prevent the ability to improve on prior art to accelerate in lock step.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  It looks like abandonware has an evolving legal status and relates to "orphaned" works in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_Sta...
lrvick 5y ago
DMCA is no longer enforced on media where the device needed to play it is no longer sold. You can go get almost any Super Nintendo ROM on archive.org right now, legally. I hope to see this foothold extended.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Do you have chapter and verse for this? It doesn't sound right to me but I don't know for sure.
  - lrvick 5y ago
    https://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.html https://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.h... There is an explicit exemption for: "Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access." AKA old console roms. https://archive.org https://archive.org has piles now unchallenged for years as a result.
    - saurik 5y ago
      I haven't looked into the source of this specific exemption yet, but if it is the mechanism I think it is -- a ruling on an exemption petition -- it is important to understand that this exempts a user from circumventing the protection mechanism but it does not provide any kind of exemption for "trafficking" in tools that help people actually perform the circumvention... which frankly makes a lot of these exemptions feel a bit academic :(.
      - lrvick 5y ago
        Maybe, but archive.org has listed this exemption on their website for years as their rationale for being able to distribute ROMs for dead consoles and it has totally remained unchallenged AFAICT. Copyright enforcement seems often "use it or lose it" SPAM didn't act fast enough to protect their brand, and once it became commonplace as a term for internet garbage it was considered too late to enforce. Unless someone like Nintendo makes a new Super Nintendo that can play original cartridges, I don't expect they would do well in court trying to enforce given the exemption and after doing nothing for so long at this point. I study IP law academically but IANAL. With that said, I think we are honestly at a free for all at this point, and the more people that host ROMs openly, the worse the case against them gets.
redwall_hp 5y ago
The trouble is that the company may not own the rights to everything involved. This has been an issue for some companies that have tried to open up old games. Sometimes you have libraries, like Bink video (infamously) that are licensed and are not compatible with open licenses. There might be issues with the game engines or with assets. e.g. it's not uncommon to have music licensed for use in the game, but the rights don't include redistributing in other forms or producing something like a soundtrack. Stock music often has licenses that allow use in something like a game or movie, but disallow redistributing the file. (That was a sticking point for Bioshock Infinite: they produced their own new arrangements of some popular songs, but didn't have more costly licensing necessary to release a soundtrack.)
- LocalH 5y ago
  Opensourcing the code is different from including music or graphical assets that are licensed. The Bink issue is legitimate, yes, but there's nothing stopping them from stripping copyrighted assets from the game prior to opensourcing. Harmonix's source for Guitar Hero II on PS2 would be nice to see in such a form, for example (and their engine is pretty much entirely bespoke, so no real worries about license incompatibility). Along with the necessary tools to build our own assets (that we can't already do with homebrew tools).

by SCHiM 5y ago

dataflow 5y ago

How would you define abandonware?

SCHiM 5y ago
I don't think I have the full definition. But if you think about online games, it becomes abandonware if you can no longer log into the game servers? Or if your product is dependent on DRM, then is becomes abandonware when the DRM servers shut down. I think different classes of media will require different definitions of when they become abandonware, but I think we'll mostly know it when we see it.
- dataflow 5y ago
  Your definitions are better than what I was imagining, but I think they might still have rather significant edge cases & loopholes in reality. To give some examples off the top of my head: What if (say) access ends up varying across jurisdictions? What if they keep the servers running, but start charging for them? What if the company wants to sell to someone in another jurisdiction? etc.
iso1631 5y ago
I would require copyright holders to renew their copyright. 5 years for free, then $1 for the 6th year, $2 for the 7th, $4 for the 8th, $8 for the 9th, $1m for the 25th, etc.
- ziml77 5y ago
  Not every copyright holder is a massive corporation. Artists produce many pieces per year. That would cost them a lot to keep copyrights.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    It's mostly representatives of individual creators who oppose orphan works legislation. Disney probably isn't going to forget (or worry about the expense) to renew the copyright on Frozen. But an individual author/photographer/etc. may well forget. And in the photographer case, does that mean they're going to have to spend money every year to renew the copyright on each individual photograph that want to continue to protect?
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    It doesn't necessarily benefit massive corporations more than individual artists, because those massive corporations probably also hold copyright over a lot of works; it'd cost them huge amounts of money to renew them all. I think GP's scheme isn't awful honestly; it would have the effect of drastically lowering the practical length of copyright for most works while providing artists with a way to maintain copyright over works that are actually highly successful. (A per-year doubling might be a bit much but I think it's on the right track.) If the practical effect was that we mostly got back to the original copyright term we had in the US (14 years with the possibility to extend that once), I'd be pretty happy. Maybe start the fees after the 14th year.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Not for the duration that matters. 5 years for free is plenty of time to make reasonable income on your creations; after that, you're just seeking rent from society. Sure, boost that to 10 or even 20 years if needed[0]. But from then on extension costs should grow exponential - otherwise we risk locking down work for duration longer than a human lifetime. Like it already happens with Disney. -- [0] - 20 years may have been appropriate in mid-20th century, but I'd argue it isn't now. Cultural creation accelerates exponentially, but long copyrights prevent the ability to improve on prior art to accelerate in lock step.
jerry1979 5y ago
It looks like abandonware has an evolving legal status and relates to "orphaned" works in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_Sta...

lrvick 5y ago

DMCA is no longer enforced on media where the device needed to play it is no longer sold. You can go get almost any Super Nintendo ROM on archive.org right now, legally. I hope to see this foothold extended.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Do you have chapter and verse for this? It doesn't sound right to me but I don't know for sure.
- lrvick 5y ago
  https://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.html https://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.h... There is an explicit exemption for: "Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access." AKA old console roms. https://archive.org https://archive.org has piles now unchallenged for years as a result.
  - saurik 5y ago
    I haven't looked into the source of this specific exemption yet, but if it is the mechanism I think it is -- a ruling on an exemption petition -- it is important to understand that this exempts a user from circumventing the protection mechanism but it does not provide any kind of exemption for "trafficking" in tools that help people actually perform the circumvention... which frankly makes a lot of these exemptions feel a bit academic :(.
    - lrvick 5y ago
      Maybe, but archive.org has listed this exemption on their website for years as their rationale for being able to distribute ROMs for dead consoles and it has totally remained unchallenged AFAICT. Copyright enforcement seems often "use it or lose it" SPAM didn't act fast enough to protect their brand, and once it became commonplace as a term for internet garbage it was considered too late to enforce. Unless someone like Nintendo makes a new Super Nintendo that can play original cartridges, I don't expect they would do well in court trying to enforce given the exemption and after doing nothing for so long at this point. I study IP law academically but IANAL. With that said, I think we are honestly at a free for all at this point, and the more people that host ROMs openly, the worse the case against them gets.

redwall_hp 5y ago

The trouble is that the company may not own the rights to everything involved. This has been an issue for some companies that have tried to open up old games. Sometimes you have libraries, like Bink video (infamously) that are licensed and are not compatible with open licenses. There might be issues with the game engines or with assets. e.g. it's not uncommon to have music licensed for use in the game, but the rights don't include redistributing in other forms or producing something like a soundtrack. Stock music often has licenses that allow use in something like a game or movie, but disallow redistributing the file. (That was a sticking point for Bioshock Infinite: they produced their own new arrangements of some popular songs, but didn't have more costly licensing necessary to release a soundtrack.)

LocalH 5y ago
Opensourcing the code is different from including music or graphical assets that are licensed. The Bink issue is legitimate, yes, but there's nothing stopping them from stripping copyrighted assets from the game prior to opensourcing. Harmonix's source for Guitar Hero II on PS2 would be nice to see in such a form, for example (and their engine is pretty much entirely bespoke, so no real worries about license incompatibility). Along with the necessary tools to build our own assets (that we can't already do with homebrew tools).