2 ms·

I was going to disagree on "We should definitely not rely on for profit businesses to preserve gaming history", but as I was trying to figure out how to argue a

I was going to disagree on "We should definitely not rely on for profit businesses to preserve gaming history", but as I was trying to figure out how to argue against this, I remembered that the intention of copyright (sure, the tuning variables have gotten screwed up in the US thanks to Disney, but focus on the original intent and what we should aspire to) was a trade-off between limited monopoly on a creative work (to allow creators to profit on their work) and growing the cultural commons. In line with the spirit of that, I think it's reasonable to require companies to release their source code and assets after the copyright duration expires (and I'm in full agreement that the current term is far too long). I think that the hard part is assessing "profitability" though - Nintendo has shown that they're able to re-release games decades after initial release and turn a profit. Trying to legislate "profitability" could result in Nintendo (and other big game companies) holding on to their IP for longer, as opposed to just getting Congress to reduce copyright term back down to 15 years or something. I agree with the intent, I just think that it'd be extremely hard to legally implement and a fixed term would work almost as well.

gamepsys 3y ago
Video games have become an important part of our culture. We do need more focus on preservation of that culture. We currently have archives of books, music, and movies that have been published. We have no archive, and no way to feasibly archive, all of the levels created in Super Mario Maker. There's currently no obligation for Nintendo to keep the source code/assets, much less all of the user generated content. If I buy an album or a book I can be reasonably certain I can enjoy that content in 25 years. If I buy an online service video game I can be reasonably certain I cannot enjoy that content in 25 years.
- throw10920 3y ago
  This is a very good point about UGC and how it's not really present for most other types of media (like you described) and unaddressed by existing copyright law. So - additional legislation is necessary. Maybe something where the platform host has to either make the UGC available for direct download immediately, or preserve it on their own servers at their own expense until the copyright expires?
ajmurmann 3y ago
IMO the parent comment shouldn't even have mentioned profitability. Profitability is only indirectly relevant. What matters is if the game is available or not. Profitability might drive that availability but that's the publisher's problem. With trademark we have the "use it or lose it" clause, we could have the same with copyright, "publish or lose it". If it's not available for purchase or free consumption for some duration (6-12 months seems reasonable) anyone can publish it. This should also extend to other works of art like books and movies. I'm uncertain if you should get the copyright back if you go back to publishing later. Probably not since that will deter anyone else from making the work available.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
  There's a problem with this: What if the work is 'available', but only for an outrageous fee? It wouldn't even be that hard to make a legal argument that a $100,000 fee for a single copy is 'justified', since some people have been willing to pay that much for copies of mass-market media (on the secondary market) in the past. Or distribute them via a group-buy system, saying it's only available via commercially pressed BDs, so it's not worth spinning up the presses again unless 2000 people commit to buying a copy in a given timeframe (and then still charging something like $200 per copy with some nonsense about it being a 'premium' edition), delivery then takes 50 weeks. Niche commercial software (industrial control, telecoms, that sort of thing) can costs millions for a copy, so maybe you could 'genuinely' believe that your game's server code costs a million dollars per unit, even for non-commercial use. Now, all these arguments are pretty poor, and wouldn't stand much chance of winning in court, but the fact that there's a bunch of arguments that could be made makes stalling a lawsuit out until the defendants run out of money a much more dangerous possibility.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    I think this law world get us a substantial amount of the way. There are so many seemingly abandoned works, sometimes even ownership rights aren't clear. Many of those would likely just end in the public domain. I think a bigger issue is that video games and movies frequently have licensed other media like music in it. The musician might be very actively selling and licensing their music but now I can just get this abandoned video game and extract the song?
everforward 3y ago
> I think that the hard part is assessing "profitability" though - Nintendo has shown that they're able to re-release games decades after initial release and turn a profit. Trying to legislate "profitability" could result in Nintendo (and other big game companies) holding on to their IP for longer, as opposed to just getting Congress to reduce copyright term back down to 15 years or something. The simple solution seems to be tying the copyright to the duration something is available for. If they shut down the servers, they aren't planning on profiting on that specific game anymore, and cede the monopoly on running those servers. If that causes Nintendo to keep the servers up, that's a fine outcome too. I'm less interested in forcibly wrangling Nintendos IP away from them than making sure their cultural contributions are still available.
ghaff 3y ago
>I think it's reasonable to require companies to release their source code and assets A company may not have the rights to give away all their source code and assets. For source code, this is probably less of an issue than it once was because open source libraries are used so widely. But I can tell you from first hand experience, if a company buys another company with a proprietary product and wants to open source it, that can actually be a pretty big project. (As is then building working product outside of a company's build system.) Years and years ago, I took ages to open source a shareware product I was no longer developing. Not because I thought the code had any real value or because I was a meanie. But it had assembly code from a commercial library I had purchased. I eventually did release it--not that anyone cared at that point--only because the company that wrote the libraries was out of business and their product seemed to have passed to the other side as well.
- throw10920 3y ago
  Oh, I didn't think about that, but in retrospect it seems obvious. That makes the problem harder - how do you honor the "IP release" part of copyright (and enable game preservation) while respecting the copyrights that still are in place but that are required for the game to work?
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > wants to open source it, that can actually be a pretty big project See 3D Pinball for Windows – Space Cadet

gamepsys 3y ago

Video games have become an important part of our culture. We do need more focus on preservation of that culture. We currently have archives of books, music, and movies that have been published. We have no archive, and no way to feasibly archive, all of the levels created in Super Mario Maker. There's currently no obligation for Nintendo to keep the source code/assets, much less all of the user generated content. If I buy an album or a book I can be reasonably certain I can enjoy that content in 25 years. If I buy an online service video game I can be reasonably certain I cannot enjoy that content in 25 years.

throw10920 3y ago
This is a very good point about UGC and how it's not really present for most other types of media (like you described) and unaddressed by existing copyright law. So - additional legislation is necessary. Maybe something where the platform host has to either make the UGC available for direct download immediately, or preserve it on their own servers at their own expense until the copyright expires?

ajmurmann 3y ago

IMO the parent comment shouldn't even have mentioned profitability. Profitability is only indirectly relevant. What matters is if the game is available or not. Profitability might drive that availability but that's the publisher's problem. With trademark we have the "use it or lose it" clause, we could have the same with copyright, "publish or lose it". If it's not available for purchase or free consumption for some duration (6-12 months seems reasonable) anyone can publish it. This should also extend to other works of art like books and movies. I'm uncertain if you should get the copyright back if you go back to publishing later. Probably not since that will deter anyone else from making the work available.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
There's a problem with this: What if the work is 'available', but only for an outrageous fee? It wouldn't even be that hard to make a legal argument that a $100,000 fee for a single copy is 'justified', since some people have been willing to pay that much for copies of mass-market media (on the secondary market) in the past. Or distribute them via a group-buy system, saying it's only available via commercially pressed BDs, so it's not worth spinning up the presses again unless 2000 people commit to buying a copy in a given timeframe (and then still charging something like $200 per copy with some nonsense about it being a 'premium' edition), delivery then takes 50 weeks. Niche commercial software (industrial control, telecoms, that sort of thing) can costs millions for a copy, so maybe you could 'genuinely' believe that your game's server code costs a million dollars per unit, even for non-commercial use. Now, all these arguments are pretty poor, and wouldn't stand much chance of winning in court, but the fact that there's a bunch of arguments that could be made makes stalling a lawsuit out until the defendants run out of money a much more dangerous possibility.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  I think this law world get us a substantial amount of the way. There are so many seemingly abandoned works, sometimes even ownership rights aren't clear. Many of those would likely just end in the public domain. I think a bigger issue is that video games and movies frequently have licensed other media like music in it. The musician might be very actively selling and licensing their music but now I can just get this abandoned video game and extract the song?

everforward 3y ago

> I think that the hard part is assessing "profitability" though - Nintendo has shown that they're able to re-release games decades after initial release and turn a profit. Trying to legislate "profitability" could result in Nintendo (and other big game companies) holding on to their IP for longer, as opposed to just getting Congress to reduce copyright term back down to 15 years or something. The simple solution seems to be tying the copyright to the duration something is available for. If they shut down the servers, they aren't planning on profiting on that specific game anymore, and cede the monopoly on running those servers. If that causes Nintendo to keep the servers up, that's a fine outcome too. I'm less interested in forcibly wrangling Nintendos IP away from them than making sure their cultural contributions are still available.

ghaff 3y ago

>I think it's reasonable to require companies to release their source code and assets A company may not have the rights to give away all their source code and assets. For source code, this is probably less of an issue than it once was because open source libraries are used so widely. But I can tell you from first hand experience, if a company buys another company with a proprietary product and wants to open source it, that can actually be a pretty big project. (As is then building working product outside of a company's build system.) Years and years ago, I took ages to open source a shareware product I was no longer developing. Not because I thought the code had any real value or because I was a meanie. But it had assembly code from a commercial library I had purchased. I eventually did release it--not that anyone cared at that point--only because the company that wrote the libraries was out of business and their product seemed to have passed to the other side as well.

throw10920 3y ago
Oh, I didn't think about that, but in retrospect it seems obvious. That makes the problem harder - how do you honor the "IP release" part of copyright (and enable game preservation) while respecting the copyrights that still are in place but that are required for the game to work?
dehrmann 3y ago
> wants to open source it, that can actually be a pretty big project See 3D Pinball for Windows – Space Cadet