6 ms·

this is fair but I would also really love to see the problem solved at the regulatory level for companies that go out of business, too all abandonware -- inclu

this is fair but I would also really love to see the problem solved at the regulatory level for companies that go out of business, too all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met hell, the whole practice of rights holders choosing to stop distributing media that could be distributed by fans at very low cost -- like the Disney vault or the recent fiasco with Coyote vs ACME -- is an affront to art preservation and to art and to creatives and society in general and should be stopped. free the media! if you won't sell it, you should have to let others distribute it for you quibble about details but in general stuff like Ubisoft deleting The Crew should be illegal

golergka 3y ago
Server code often includes proprietary third party software that cannot be legally open sourced, or depends on licences. Do you think game fans will pay Oracle prices?
- exe34 3y ago
  The law can open source any code. It means that in the future the companies using such code might decide to use code they own or the people selling them that code might charge more upfront. But the market will adjust.
  - golergka 3y ago
    One way of adjusting is never legally releasing the game in a country with such laws.
    - exe34 3y ago
      Yes, and leave a huge market to your competitors!
- pmontra 3y ago
  If that third party code must go in products that must eventually become open source, they won't be able to sell that code and it will be replaced by open source one because of market pressure.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dspillett 3y ago
  The code owned by the company could be released without those proprietary libraries (or code, if embedded directly). The game fans would then need make/source a drop-in replacement or remove the need (if the 3rd party code is something like DRM then they'll do the latter). This is of course work, but less work than replacing the whole server-side perhaps making it at least practical. Of course it might not even be as easy as that, depending on how the code itself was contracted out and how the rights were distributed around parts of a larger company that might have since split & merged a few times, it could be difficult to make sure such a release only contained what it legally can.
nkrisc 3y ago
I completely disagree that rights holders should be required to distribute media or lose the rights. It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it? As for online games, I think the ephemeral nature and limited lifespan of the game should be forced to be very clearly advertised at point of sale, not hidden in an EULA. The fact you can’t play them forever isn’t a problem, but consumers need to be aware. That said I don’t know how much difference it would make. I think most consumers would not care. I know the online games I play will go away one day and I still pay for and play them. Why? Because I don’t care. I was never going to play them forever even if they were around forever, so I don’t care if they go away. The only difference I’d really like to see is a minimum guaranteed service period and a full refund if that isn’t achieved.
- pricechild 3y ago
  > It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it? What is inherently wrong with this? Why should someone own an idea, just because they had the idea first? I think most people would agree with paying people for their work, and the benefits to society of providing some protections. But this whole discussion is around where to draw that line and you seem to be starting from "ultimate control by originator" wheras others would perhaps start at "ultimate gift to society"?
  - nkrisc 3y ago
    We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works. We could do it any way we want, but I don’t see the problem with not selling something. I have created creative works. Should I be forced to sell them or lose the rights to do so exclusively in the future when I see fit?
    - pricechild 3y ago
      > We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works. I'm not sure I understand a distinction between "ideas" and "creative works"?
zamalek 3y ago
> all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met The problem is that 99% of the time it contains licensed code from an entity that is not going out of business, and who's going to pay the person who has to separate in-house and licensed?

golergka 3y ago

Server code often includes proprietary third party software that cannot be legally open sourced, or depends on licences. Do you think game fans will pay Oracle prices?

exe34 3y ago
The law can open source any code. It means that in the future the companies using such code might decide to use code they own or the people selling them that code might charge more upfront. But the market will adjust.
- golergka 3y ago
  One way of adjusting is never legally releasing the game in a country with such laws.
  - exe34 3y ago
    Yes, and leave a huge market to your competitors!
pmontra 3y ago
If that third party code must go in products that must eventually become open source, they won't be able to sell that code and it will be replaced by open source one because of market pressure.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dspillett 3y ago
The code owned by the company could be released without those proprietary libraries (or code, if embedded directly). The game fans would then need make/source a drop-in replacement or remove the need (if the 3rd party code is something like DRM then they'll do the latter). This is of course work, but less work than replacing the whole server-side perhaps making it at least practical. Of course it might not even be as easy as that, depending on how the code itself was contracted out and how the rights were distributed around parts of a larger company that might have since split & merged a few times, it could be difficult to make sure such a release only contained what it legally can.

nkrisc 3y ago

I completely disagree that rights holders should be required to distribute media or lose the rights. It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it? As for online games, I think the ephemeral nature and limited lifespan of the game should be forced to be very clearly advertised at point of sale, not hidden in an EULA. The fact you can’t play them forever isn’t a problem, but consumers need to be aware. That said I don’t know how much difference it would make. I think most consumers would not care. I know the online games I play will go away one day and I still pay for and play them. Why? Because I don’t care. I was never going to play them forever even if they were around forever, so I don’t care if they go away. The only difference I’d really like to see is a minimum guaranteed service period and a full refund if that isn’t achieved.

pricechild 3y ago
> It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it? What is inherently wrong with this? Why should someone own an idea, just because they had the idea first? I think most people would agree with paying people for their work, and the benefits to society of providing some protections. But this whole discussion is around where to draw that line and you seem to be starting from "ultimate control by originator" wheras others would perhaps start at "ultimate gift to society"?
- nkrisc 3y ago
  We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works. We could do it any way we want, but I don’t see the problem with not selling something. I have created creative works. Should I be forced to sell them or lose the rights to do so exclusively in the future when I see fit?
  - pricechild 3y ago
    > We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works. I'm not sure I understand a distinction between "ideas" and "creative works"?

zamalek 3y ago

> all abandonware -- including server code -- should enter the public domain when certain criteria are met The problem is that 99% of the time it contains licensed code from an entity that is not going out of business, and who's going to pay the person who has to separate in-house and licensed?