5 ms·

Imo if a publisher wants to retain rights to a game, they should have to make it available for sale. If you don't provide some legal way to acquire a game for s

Imo if a publisher wants to retain rights to a game, they should have to make it available for sale. If you don't provide some legal way to acquire a game for some number of years (5? 10?) it should go into the public domain (the game itself, not the related IP).

replygirl 3y ago
most games are available on amazon. popular games like rayman raving rabids for wii, motorstorm for ps3, and underground 2 for ps2 are still available new. more niche games like frequency for ps2 and older gen games like crash warped for ps1 are still available refurbished. pretty much any console game from the last 25 years that didn't totally flop is available in good condition from a major retailer. the rest are around at boutiques and on the used market. we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, and i can't think of an argument for any game being more of a public good than works of other types like lolita, the search for animal chin, or paul's boutique.
- jrm4 3y ago
  70 years AFTER THE THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. Still sound reasonable?
- musicale 3y ago
  > is available in good condition from a major retailer I don't think Nintendo gets a cut of used game sales; †he first-sale doctrine should still apply.
- wtallis 3y ago
  > we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, Nitpick: video games are almost always a work-for-hire, so it's 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation, in the unusual event that publication gets delayed long enough for this deadline to expire first).
  - andrepd 3y ago
    Incredible that this is normalised. When a law is "you can enjoy cultural creations of 2007 in 2102", disobeying it is legitimate.
    - ta34719586_1 3y ago
      Your logic is flawed. You may already enjoy that creation by paying for it, just like you would for many other cultural items. Or was it just sarcasm?
      - danaris 3y ago
        If there is no legal way to obtain the game, or no practical way to obtain the system to play it on, then you can't enjoy it. This is one of the most important purposes of emulation: it allows for digital archival of otherwise-obsolete hardware and software.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- makomk 3y ago
  By the time these games enter the public domain, there'll be no way to play them except via an emulator and no way to develop an emulator if there's not one already - the flash holding the OS on all the Wiis out there will have long bitrotted away. Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years. Strict copyright and DRM enforcement would most likely lead to this era of games being lost forever, just like many older films from a century or more ago have been lost.
  - asveikau 3y ago
    > Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years. I thought I heard that this is actually a specific brand with chip defects. Googling found: https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew Its mostly the hynix flash chips.
Our_Benefactors 3y ago
[flagged]
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Your opinion is also irrelevant. People will find ways to do what they want.
  - Our_Benefactors 3y ago
    Piracy is an entirely different issue than compelling publishers to adopt arbitrary rules around republishing their content on new platforms.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  Sure, so I download it somewhere. Their loss, not mine.
- wtallis 3y ago
  The comment you're replying to used the word "should" often enough to signal to you that it was expressing an opinion about what the law ought to be amended to, rather than commenting on the current state of the law. So your comment reads like you're denying that a member of the general public deserves any stake in determining the extent of copyright protection, which is very wrong: copyright is a social contract codified into law, where creators/authors get the (time-limited) benefits of certain exclusive rights and the use of the public's courts to enforce those, in exchange for the eventual passing of that work into public domain. It is entirely fair for the public to debate what the extent and duration of those exclusive rights should be, and to question whether the current deal is excessively one-sided. It is not correct morally or legally to act as though authors are the sole arbiters of how their works may be used.
  - contrarian1234 3y ago
    I think you're misreading the parent comment or reinterpreting the intent behind it. Someone made a thing. They get to decide who they share it with. It's very smug and entitled to then go to that person and tell them "actually no. the thing you created.. its not yours anymore. It's now ours - and we're going to use it how we want to use it". It's cool you like to play my game and you had fun - but that doesn't mean you suddenly have a right to play it whenever you want - unless we came to that agreement. I'm not a creator myself, but I could see how that just feels incredibly violating. I frankly feel this copyright-reform sentiments come from people that have never created anything that they felt personal ownership over. I'd argue that copyright expiration is not at all about some imagined exchange of legal protections for .. the use of courts (since when is the use of courts treated as a privilege?) and is more about historical preservation and the fact that ownership is often eventually lost. Most copyright provisions are so long that by the time they expire there is noone left to feel robbed, slighted or taken advantage of. It's a fuzzy line but at some point graverobbing becomes archeology

replygirl 3y ago

most games are available on amazon. popular games like rayman raving rabids for wii, motorstorm for ps3, and underground 2 for ps2 are still available new. more niche games like frequency for ps2 and older gen games like crash warped for ps1 are still available refurbished. pretty much any console game from the last 25 years that didn't totally flop is available in good condition from a major retailer. the rest are around at boutiques and on the used market. we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, and i can't think of an argument for any game being more of a public good than works of other types like lolita, the search for animal chin, or paul's boutique.

jrm4 3y ago
70 years AFTER THE THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. Still sound reasonable?
musicale 3y ago
> is available in good condition from a major retailer I don't think Nintendo gets a cut of used game sales; †he first-sale doctrine should still apply.
wtallis 3y ago
> we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, Nitpick: video games are almost always a work-for-hire, so it's 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation, in the unusual event that publication gets delayed long enough for this deadline to expire first).
- andrepd 3y ago
  Incredible that this is normalised. When a law is "you can enjoy cultural creations of 2007 in 2102", disobeying it is legitimate.
  - ta34719586_1 3y ago
    Your logic is flawed. You may already enjoy that creation by paying for it, just like you would for many other cultural items. Or was it just sarcasm?
    - danaris 3y ago
      If there is no legal way to obtain the game, or no practical way to obtain the system to play it on, then you can't enjoy it. This is one of the most important purposes of emulation: it allows for digital archival of otherwise-obsolete hardware and software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
makomk 3y ago
By the time these games enter the public domain, there'll be no way to play them except via an emulator and no way to develop an emulator if there's not one already - the flash holding the OS on all the Wiis out there will have long bitrotted away. Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years. Strict copyright and DRM enforcement would most likely lead to this era of games being lost forever, just like many older films from a century or more ago have been lost.
- asveikau 3y ago
  > Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years. I thought I heard that this is actually a specific brand with chip defects. Googling found: https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew Its mostly the hynix flash chips.

Our_Benefactors 3y ago

[flagged]

ekianjo 3y ago
Your opinion is also irrelevant. People will find ways to do what they want.
- Our_Benefactors 3y ago
  Piracy is an entirely different issue than compelling publishers to adopt arbitrary rules around republishing their content on new platforms.
anonzzzies 3y ago
Sure, so I download it somewhere. Their loss, not mine.
wtallis 3y ago
The comment you're replying to used the word "should" often enough to signal to you that it was expressing an opinion about what the law ought to be amended to, rather than commenting on the current state of the law. So your comment reads like you're denying that a member of the general public deserves any stake in determining the extent of copyright protection, which is very wrong: copyright is a social contract codified into law, where creators/authors get the (time-limited) benefits of certain exclusive rights and the use of the public's courts to enforce those, in exchange for the eventual passing of that work into public domain. It is entirely fair for the public to debate what the extent and duration of those exclusive rights should be, and to question whether the current deal is excessively one-sided. It is not correct morally or legally to act as though authors are the sole arbiters of how their works may be used.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  I think you're misreading the parent comment or reinterpreting the intent behind it. Someone made a thing. They get to decide who they share it with. It's very smug and entitled to then go to that person and tell them "actually no. the thing you created.. its not yours anymore. It's now ours - and we're going to use it how we want to use it". It's cool you like to play my game and you had fun - but that doesn't mean you suddenly have a right to play it whenever you want - unless we came to that agreement. I'm not a creator myself, but I could see how that just feels incredibly violating. I frankly feel this copyright-reform sentiments come from people that have never created anything that they felt personal ownership over. I'd argue that copyright expiration is not at all about some imagined exchange of legal protections for .. the use of courts (since when is the use of courts treated as a privilege?) and is more about historical preservation and the fact that ownership is often eventually lost. Most copyright provisions are so long that by the time they expire there is noone left to feel robbed, slighted or taken advantage of. It's a fuzzy line but at some point graverobbing becomes archeology