5 ms·

This headline is false and clickbaity. You absolutely can check out video games just like library books -- physically. What the article says is libraries can'

This headline is false and clickbaity. You absolutely can check out video games just like library books -- physically. What the article says is libraries can't make digital copies of the games and lend them remotely over the internet. Nothing is preventing traditional physical lending. I personally think it's time Congress got around to putting all works that haven't been commercially available for e.g. 5 years into the public domain. That's the easiest way to fix this. But that's the job of Congress, not the US Copyright Office.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
best I Can do is 90 years after the death of the author. 5 is much too short, though. and "commercially available" is very exploitable. I think a flat 20-30 years would work out fine. 20 is generaally when we call a title "retro" anyway, right?
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  The retro wave hits everyone around 30 years, and again around 50. It would be interesting to have a non-continuous copyright claim. The first 15 years it's yours, then 15-30 it's public, 30-60 it's yours again, and finally 60+ it's public domain forever.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I think that would be incredibly frustrating. If someone were to make a commercial product derived from something that was in year 29 of its lifetime (while in the public domain), they'd have to stop selling it a year later.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > 5 is much too short, though. and "commercially available" is very exploitable. It's not too short for things that have stopped being sold. If a book or video game has no more commercial value in selling, why not end its copyright? I'm not saying 5 years after something is published. I'm saying 5 years after it stops being sold by the publisher. If a publisher wants to "exploit" that by keeping everything in print, then great. We still keep the existing copyright limits. But I guarantee you most of the stuff no longer being sold, they don't care about because it's not profitable anymore. If it was profitable, they'd still be selling it.
  - jonhohle 2y ago
    Video games are particularly egregious because even if an old game is currently sold under the same name, it often is not the same game: * it’s running via emulation or has been recompiled for a different architecture with noticeable changes from the original (control latency, graphical differences, fixed/new bugs) * content has been added or removed (often due to licensing) * an EULA has been added or modified * it’s not playable on the hardware where it was originally released This is unlike books and music, which rarely change, or movies where it happens but is certainly not common. Video games are different, though. The Genesis version of Sonic 3 has a different soundtrack than all others and hasn’t been available since 1997. Symphony of the Night had the most similar rerelease in 2006 on XBLA, but everything since has been a version with many big fixes and additions based on the PSP version. Final Fantasy VI has had many “enhanced” versions, but surprisingly the original ROM was available until the Wii U eShop shut down last year. Also aurprisingly, new old stock of the PS1 version could be bought from Square Enix up until a few years ago. There are countless other remasters or ports that replace the original which is then never sold again.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      None of that presents any kind of legal difficulty. If a game is recompiled under a new architecture, it's still the same graphics and text and levels and everything. It's not really any different from a new printing of a book in paperback instead of hardcover and in a different font. The copyright on those elements remains intact. If you're simply talking about access to previous versions for researchers and archivists, that's more of a question of archival practices than of copyright. Which is a very interesting conversation, but a totally separate one.
      - jonhohle 2y ago
        It may it matter to you, but it certainly matters to competitive, speed run, and enthusiast communities around different games. I mentioned Sonic 3 because it’s not the same music after the initial release. Depending on the version, Symphony of the Night is not the same levels or graphics. There are multiple versions of Revenge of Shinobi which replace various bosses for the Sega Genesis. Final Fantasy VI may or may not be the same code. Later versions may or may not use resources from earlier versions, sometimes a release is a completely new game with the same gameplay and aesthetic (this was especially true in 16-hit and earlier eras when arcade and home versions were complete reimplementations of the same game). They might have the same name, but at what point does the Ship of Theseus become a different thing?
- maxsilver 2y ago
  It should be "20 years or whenever it's not commercially available, whichever comes first" Otherwise, we'll still see companies make stuff and kill it and sit on it for decades. (Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever -- see Discovery and Disney's recent releases) Preservation should start the minute access is threatened, not some decades later when it's likely too late.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    That's more of a question of weird tax law quirks related to corporate mergers, not copyright. It's not generally profitable to make stuff and then not sell it immediately. And I certainly don't want to start a precedent where people are forced to publish things they don't want to. That's kind of the polar opposite of freedom and liberty.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever If something hasn't been released yet, and never will be, then why does it matter? It might as well not exist. No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason.
    - maxsilver 2y ago
      > No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason. That logic works fine for a single author. Totally agree. But it breaks down when a team of 200 people create a work, and 199 of them want to release it, but the last 1 person does not (which is the case most often seen today)
- Tanoc 2y ago
  Well ideally it would be twenty five years from date of publication with extensions of five years upon re-release, up to three times. Meaning you could, at most, get forty years, but only if you re-released the media in question before the original copyright term or the extensions ends. This means that only the most enduring media will likely get forty full years of protection. Meaning that, had a film come out in 1984 and not been re-released in any form since it's original theatrical run from 1984 to 1985, it's copyright protection would have ended in 2009. But if it got a VHS release in 1988, a DVD release in 2002, and a Blu-Ray release in 2009, it's copyright wouldn't have expired until just this year. To make this work, making sure sub-licensing and syndication do not count as releases (the show appearing on a television channel or a third party streaming service for example) would close some of the loopholes. This would also mean that for the full forty years of protection there has to have been physical media created, providing a protection that the data can't be arbitrarily revoked.
ballenf 2y ago
The photo doubled down on the misleading headline.
jonhohle 2y ago
There’s a bunch of legal precedent - Zediva, Redd Horne, Aereo, Professional Real Estate Investors, etc. http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing_its_so_not_going_to_work http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing... I’m in the middle of writing to the EFF to see if they would clarify if this pertains to non-profit educational organizations employees/volunteers. E.g. if an organization of researchers are providing educational information about games, can they privately access the same physical copy remotely sitting in a drive somewhere. The rules from 2018 don’t appear to support this, unfortunately. A lot of research is currently restricted by the inflated cost of long out of print games. Dozens or hundreds of people might want to contribute, but if a non-EULA encumbered, physical copy costs hundreds of dollars it becomes harder to find people who both have copies and the skills or desire to do work as well.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

best I Can do is 90 years after the death of the author. 5 is much too short, though. and "commercially available" is very exploitable. I think a flat 20-30 years would work out fine. 20 is generaally when we call a title "retro" anyway, right?

1970-01-01 2y ago
The retro wave hits everyone around 30 years, and again around 50. It would be interesting to have a non-continuous copyright claim. The first 15 years it's yours, then 15-30 it's public, 30-60 it's yours again, and finally 60+ it's public domain forever.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I think that would be incredibly frustrating. If someone were to make a commercial product derived from something that was in year 29 of its lifetime (while in the public domain), they'd have to stop selling it a year later.
crazygringo 2y ago
> 5 is much too short, though. and "commercially available" is very exploitable. It's not too short for things that have stopped being sold. If a book or video game has no more commercial value in selling, why not end its copyright? I'm not saying 5 years after something is published. I'm saying 5 years after it stops being sold by the publisher. If a publisher wants to "exploit" that by keeping everything in print, then great. We still keep the existing copyright limits. But I guarantee you most of the stuff no longer being sold, they don't care about because it's not profitable anymore. If it was profitable, they'd still be selling it.
- jonhohle 2y ago
  Video games are particularly egregious because even if an old game is currently sold under the same name, it often is not the same game: * it’s running via emulation or has been recompiled for a different architecture with noticeable changes from the original (control latency, graphical differences, fixed/new bugs) * content has been added or removed (often due to licensing) * an EULA has been added or modified * it’s not playable on the hardware where it was originally released This is unlike books and music, which rarely change, or movies where it happens but is certainly not common. Video games are different, though. The Genesis version of Sonic 3 has a different soundtrack than all others and hasn’t been available since 1997. Symphony of the Night had the most similar rerelease in 2006 on XBLA, but everything since has been a version with many big fixes and additions based on the PSP version. Final Fantasy VI has had many “enhanced” versions, but surprisingly the original ROM was available until the Wii U eShop shut down last year. Also aurprisingly, new old stock of the PS1 version could be bought from Square Enix up until a few years ago. There are countless other remasters or ports that replace the original which is then never sold again.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    None of that presents any kind of legal difficulty. If a game is recompiled under a new architecture, it's still the same graphics and text and levels and everything. It's not really any different from a new printing of a book in paperback instead of hardcover and in a different font. The copyright on those elements remains intact. If you're simply talking about access to previous versions for researchers and archivists, that's more of a question of archival practices than of copyright. Which is a very interesting conversation, but a totally separate one.
    - jonhohle 2y ago
      It may it matter to you, but it certainly matters to competitive, speed run, and enthusiast communities around different games. I mentioned Sonic 3 because it’s not the same music after the initial release. Depending on the version, Symphony of the Night is not the same levels or graphics. There are multiple versions of Revenge of Shinobi which replace various bosses for the Sega Genesis. Final Fantasy VI may or may not be the same code. Later versions may or may not use resources from earlier versions, sometimes a release is a completely new game with the same gameplay and aesthetic (this was especially true in 16-hit and earlier eras when arcade and home versions were complete reimplementations of the same game). They might have the same name, but at what point does the Ship of Theseus become a different thing?
maxsilver 2y ago
It should be "20 years or whenever it's not commercially available, whichever comes first" Otherwise, we'll still see companies make stuff and kill it and sit on it for decades. (Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever -- see Discovery and Disney's recent releases) Preservation should start the minute access is threatened, not some decades later when it's likely too late.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's more of a question of weird tax law quirks related to corporate mergers, not copyright. It's not generally profitable to make stuff and then not sell it immediately. And I certainly don't want to start a precedent where people are forced to publish things they don't want to. That's kind of the polar opposite of freedom and liberty.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever If something hasn't been released yet, and never will be, then why does it matter? It might as well not exist. No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason.
  - maxsilver 2y ago
    > No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason. That logic works fine for a single author. Totally agree. But it breaks down when a team of 200 people create a work, and 199 of them want to release it, but the last 1 person does not (which is the case most often seen today)
Tanoc 2y ago
Well ideally it would be twenty five years from date of publication with extensions of five years upon re-release, up to three times. Meaning you could, at most, get forty years, but only if you re-released the media in question before the original copyright term or the extensions ends. This means that only the most enduring media will likely get forty full years of protection. Meaning that, had a film come out in 1984 and not been re-released in any form since it's original theatrical run from 1984 to 1985, it's copyright protection would have ended in 2009. But if it got a VHS release in 1988, a DVD release in 2002, and a Blu-Ray release in 2009, it's copyright wouldn't have expired until just this year. To make this work, making sure sub-licensing and syndication do not count as releases (the show appearing on a television channel or a third party streaming service for example) would close some of the loopholes. This would also mean that for the full forty years of protection there has to have been physical media created, providing a protection that the data can't be arbitrarily revoked.

ballenf 2y ago

The photo doubled down on the misleading headline.

jonhohle 2y ago

There’s a bunch of legal precedent - Zediva, Redd Horne, Aereo, Professional Real Estate Investors, etc. http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing_its_so_not_going_to_work http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing... I’m in the middle of writing to the EFF to see if they would clarify if this pertains to non-profit educational organizations employees/volunteers. E.g. if an organization of researchers are providing educational information about games, can they privately access the same physical copy remotely sitting in a drive somewhere. The rules from 2018 don’t appear to support this, unfortunately. A lot of research is currently restricted by the inflated cost of long out of print games. Dozens or hundreds of people might want to contribute, but if a non-EULA encumbered, physical copy costs hundreds of dollars it becomes harder to find people who both have copies and the skills or desire to do work as well.