7 ms·

Many of these abandoned games are effectively orphan works. I think if anything, there needs to be a definition of "digital orphan works", because digital IP su

by exelius 12y ago

Many of these abandoned games are effectively orphan works. I think if anything, there needs to be a definition of "digital orphan works", because digital IP suffers from bit rot in a way traditional media doesn't. A 50 year old book is still there, but even a 10 year old game might not even be available for purchase anywhere (and even if it is, it's probably not immediately playable on modern hardware). Fundamentally, we need to overhaul copyright in light of the fundamental changes to intellectual property sales brought about by digital goods. I'm not optimistic that it will happen, but for a shitty game to be copyrighted for 100 years is just ludicrous. At some point, things need to pass into the public domain.

sp332 12y ago
I think consumers need more protections than that. A game that's only a few years old might have the servers shut down in order to force players to buy the next version. The proposed exemption would let fans set up their own servers and keep playing the old version immediately.
- exelius 12y ago
  Right, but I think a patch on an existing law is maybe not enough. We need a thorough re-examination of intellectual property. I'm not holding my breath though; as long as the conversation about IP is driven by big media, rules are only going to get more restrictive, not less.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jarcane 12y ago
My rule of thumb is, generally, "Is the creator still earning from this product," and in the vast majority of cases where gaming software is concerned the answer is no. There is a push through sites like GOG.com to put many old games back on sale, but often it's through middle-men and holding companies and I doubt a dime of some of the more obscure titles goes anywhere near anyone who actually helped create the things. The result is assorted holding companies picking up a few extra pennies, but a huge range of more obscure works are still the domain of abandonware sites and efforts like the Archive.
- furyg3 12y ago
  "Is the creator still earning from this product" is a test that congress believes doesn't matter. Walt is dead, Mickey lives on (with copyright restrictions)...
  - toxican 12y ago
    I think they define creator as Disney the company rather than Disney the man.
    - smacktoward 12y ago
      Which is convenient, since Disney-the-company will never die, and need not have any actual human connection to Disney-the-man-who-actually-created-the-intellectual-property. So it provides a mechanism for people other than the person who created the work or his heirs/designated beneficiaries to profit from his work forever. Defining "creators" as actual human beings provides a useful marker for how long a copyright is useful: at some point that human dies, and then at some point later his heirs die, and then at some point later their heirs die, etc. So you can look at the question in terms of how many generations should have a monopoly on their forefathers' works. Defining corporations as creators takes that marker away.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      Copyright protects the works of natural persons, not corporations. It protects the individual creators when they make a work; they can of course immediately assign their rights to the company, eg by a work-for-hire arrangement, but [co-]creators are always natural persons. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
  - daktanis 12y ago
    Disney's legal team has big pockets to make sure they dont lose copyrights
  - delecti 12y ago
    Sure, but there's a difference between selling copies of something and pirating it for personal use. Maybe not legally, but in my opinion at least morally, and also you're much less likely to get noticed for doing the latter.
TheDong 12y ago
> A 50 year old book is still there Actually, not so much. The 120 years + life copyright on books means that only the good / famous books last. There are tons of books that were published pre-digital-age but are still under copyright and are just dying a slow death.
- benologist 12y ago
  Their public domain status is a different issue to their preservation - books exist, are bought, traded, gifted etc centuries after they're printed, copyright or not.
danielweber 12y ago
Section 1201, starting with subsection (d), contains a bunch of exceptions to copyright law. The reverse-engineering section is of particular interest. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 It's summarized as such: This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.
- soperj 12y ago
  So this means that you can circumvent encryption for dvds/bluray to get them working on linux ect. (for Tv shows[often called Tv Programs] anyway)
  - schoen 12y ago
    So far the entertainment industry has not accepted the view that DVDs or Blu-ray discs are "a copy of a computer program", so they continue to deny that the §1201(f) exemption will protect you in this context.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      You're talking about §1201(f)(1): Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to making a Linux DVD player, not only because it only applies to computer programs as works but because it only authorizes circumvention for reverse engineering and only applies to circumvention rather than circumvention tools. I would have thought the interesting part was §1201(f)(2): Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. Why wouldn't that apply when you're independently creating a computer program (Linux DVD player/library) that needs to have interoperability with another program (DVD player microcode)?

by exelius 12y ago

sp332 12y ago

I think consumers need more protections than that. A game that's only a few years old might have the servers shut down in order to force players to buy the next version. The proposed exemption would let fans set up their own servers and keep playing the old version immediately.

exelius 12y ago
Right, but I think a patch on an existing law is maybe not enough. We need a thorough re-examination of intellectual property. I'm not holding my breath though; as long as the conversation about IP is driven by big media, rules are only going to get more restrictive, not less.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jarcane 12y ago

My rule of thumb is, generally, "Is the creator still earning from this product," and in the vast majority of cases where gaming software is concerned the answer is no. There is a push through sites like GOG.com to put many old games back on sale, but often it's through middle-men and holding companies and I doubt a dime of some of the more obscure titles goes anywhere near anyone who actually helped create the things. The result is assorted holding companies picking up a few extra pennies, but a huge range of more obscure works are still the domain of abandonware sites and efforts like the Archive.

furyg3 12y ago
"Is the creator still earning from this product" is a test that congress believes doesn't matter. Walt is dead, Mickey lives on (with copyright restrictions)...
- toxican 12y ago
  I think they define creator as Disney the company rather than Disney the man.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    Which is convenient, since Disney-the-company will never die, and need not have any actual human connection to Disney-the-man-who-actually-created-the-intellectual-property. So it provides a mechanism for people other than the person who created the work or his heirs/designated beneficiaries to profit from his work forever. Defining "creators" as actual human beings provides a useful marker for how long a copyright is useful: at some point that human dies, and then at some point later his heirs die, and then at some point later their heirs die, etc. So you can look at the question in terms of how many generations should have a monopoly on their forefathers' works. Defining corporations as creators takes that marker away.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    Copyright protects the works of natural persons, not corporations. It protects the individual creators when they make a work; they can of course immediately assign their rights to the company, eg by a work-for-hire arrangement, but [co-]creators are always natural persons. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
- daktanis 12y ago
  Disney's legal team has big pockets to make sure they dont lose copyrights
- delecti 12y ago
  Sure, but there's a difference between selling copies of something and pirating it for personal use. Maybe not legally, but in my opinion at least morally, and also you're much less likely to get noticed for doing the latter.

TheDong 12y ago

> A 50 year old book is still there Actually, not so much. The 120 years + life copyright on books means that only the good / famous books last. There are tons of books that were published pre-digital-age but are still under copyright and are just dying a slow death.

benologist 12y ago
Their public domain status is a different issue to their preservation - books exist, are bought, traded, gifted etc centuries after they're printed, copyright or not.

danielweber 12y ago

Section 1201, starting with subsection (d), contains a bunch of exceptions to copyright law. The reverse-engineering section is of particular interest. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 It's summarized as such: This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.

soperj 12y ago
So this means that you can circumvent encryption for dvds/bluray to get them working on linux ect. (for Tv shows[often called Tv Programs] anyway)
- schoen 12y ago
  So far the entertainment industry has not accepted the view that DVDs or Blu-ray discs are "a copy of a computer program", so they continue to deny that the §1201(f) exemption will protect you in this context.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    You're talking about §1201(f)(1): Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to making a Linux DVD player, not only because it only applies to computer programs as works but because it only authorizes circumvention for reverse engineering and only applies to circumvention rather than circumvention tools. I would have thought the interesting part was §1201(f)(2): Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. Why wouldn't that apply when you're independently creating a computer program (Linux DVD player/library) that needs to have interoperability with another program (DVD player microcode)?