I think including abandoned server code is odd, and I'm for it. I think we should start curating more public libraries with games in general, but that's going to be very difficult to do publicly (i.e. in a government library) in today's current online landscape. Between walled garden platforms and API integrations to centralized corporate servers, it seems unlikely that many of today's games will survive in their current state for long. More than ever, games frequently update becoming a different game or die to competition. It'd be rewarding to be able to spin up or join a local [Flavor] World of Warcraft server without getting shut down or told to wait for Blizzard to do it because that specific version of software was abandoned at some point. If it became public domain then, it would be available to the public to operate as we please.
I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.
In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.
In many countries you are obligated to "donate" one copy of any published and distributed work to the national library. That includes music, film, radio, tv, books, papers, pamphlets, websites etc. Depending on how the law is written this might also include games in playable form, so online games would require a copy of the server application as well as the client. If not games should be included asap.
Making these archives available for the general public might be difficult, but librarians are creative and many already have experience in making games available to the public. It's manageable.
A team of volunteers is still a team. Also, WoW private servers run on a reverse-engineered server infrastructure which seems to require much less babysitting than the actual live servers. I'd guess because they:
* Don't have to deal with quite so many edge cases
* Run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful than was available to the original WoW server devs, meaning that much simpler solutions with far less sharding / IPC / configuration can still scale sufficiently well
> * Run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful than was available to the original WoW server devs, meaning that much simpler solutions with far less sharding / IPC / configuration can still scale sufficiently well
well the hardware was never a problem, but the user base.
you can basically run a 100 people reverse engineed wow server on basically a server with 2gb-4gb memory and a non virtualized cpu (a older gen one, dual core probably enough) and you would more run into networking limits than in actually performance issues.
the problem with wow classic/burning crusade/wrath of the lich king, was mostly the overwhelming people, servers took way more than 100 people, and the biggest problem was logging them in, if there was a prime day, all sharded servers could login too many people which overloaded login servers quite regulary.
The other thing that's startling to me is that not that long ago pretty much all game servers were hosted by people other than the publisher of the game. I don't think there ever was a Valve hosted CS 1.6 server and it's still true that the vast majority of TF2 servers are community run. I think the same is still true for Minecraft. That worked really well.
This is true in the US, though the process is tied to copyright - any copyrighted work (including software) distributed in the US needs to be deposited with the Library of Congress.
I think the most difficult issue with distributing these to the general public would be classifying abandoned vs. maintained copyrighted works.
Just to be clear, failure to meet the requirements of Mandatory Deposit has not historically affected your copyright status.
> any copyrighted work (including software) distributed in the US needs to be deposited with the Library of Congress.
This is overstating things. It's unlikely that the LOC really wants your stuff, and if it does, it will let you know by sending you a Notice of Mandatory Deposit. Until then, "Mandatory" doesn't really mean mandatory.
Also, you don't need to register the work to receive copyright protection. If you write some code put it up on Github without a license, that's your code and you have the right to deny people the right to use it (among other
rights). It's probably going to be difficult to prove that some random person is using your code, but that doesn't affect your rights in the code, because you fulfilled all the requirements to create those rights: you (1) created something and (2) fixed it in a tangible form.
As I mentioned, registration isn't necessary, though it does get you some presumptions that would be helpful if you ever end up in court.
Note, this is just to register your copyright. My understanding is that you still own the copyright if you don't register, but it's weaker in many ways, so when people expect there to be money involved, they usually register the copyright.
In practice, my understanding is that if it's distributed by a serious company, it's usually a registered copyright, and so the library of congress gets a copy.
Mandatory deposit applies regardless of registration; it's just that registration requires sending a copy, which satisfies the mandatory deposit rules.
"Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit requirements."
Then later:
"Yes. Under certain circumstances, special relief from deposit requirements may be granted. The grant of special relief is discretionary with the U.S. Copyright Office and will depend on a careful balance of the acquisition policies of the Library of Congress, the examining requirements of the Copyright Office (if registration is sought), and the hardship to the copyright owner."
Note that "if registration is sought" - even if you're not registering, you still need to apply for an exemption.
"Neither the deposit requirements of this subsection nor the acquisition provisions of subsection (e) are conditions of copyright protection."
Which is to say, of course, that you are right, however you don't lose copyright protection if you don't comply. - it looks like there are no penalties until they ask you for a copy.
This lines up with my understanding that if you are serious business, the LOC gets a copy. If not? it doesn't really matter, and if you become a big deal later, well, following the rules helps you establish provenance, but isn't required for protection.
"This law requires that two copies of the best edition of every copyrightable work published in the United States be sent to the Copyright Office within three months of publication. Works deposited under this law are for the use of the Library of Congress."
"As described in Circular 61, the deposit requirement for registration is one copy of identifying portions of the computer program. However, to satisfy the mandatory deposit under section 407, a "complete copy" of the published work must be deposited. A complete copy is defined in the regulations as a copy that includes all components that make up the unit of publication, even if any of those units are in the public domain. So, if the published user guide is normally part of a package that contains other elements, then the mandatory deposit requirement requires the deposit of those other elements, too. For example, if the user guide is published as part of a package that contains a CD-ROM, an installation guide, and installation software, then each of these other elements must be deposited in addition to the user guide to fulfill the mandatory deposit requirement."
Well one issue is that an online game may be subject to multiple licenses. One example I do know of is Asheron's Call. There were some attempts to get it and its sequel. However there were licenses to Microsoft to consider and other third parties. Hence the "owner" of the game could not simply turn it over to the public.
I know, just rip out what is otherwise covered by another license or copyright. Well not only would that take time but it may leave the code in a state beyond repair.
I think the point of claiming a code base abandoned would be to strip rights from rights holders for property they do not show any intention of servicing.
You contributed to AC2? That’s great! The game is now abandoned, you have no rights to that code anymore.
To maintain your rights you either maintain the game in a serviceable state, or deploy your server technology as an API rather than integrating it into the client.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
Not all codebases have a clean separation between "own code" and "third-party code". If the AC2 devs licensed a commercial engine and then heavily modified it, the abandoned IP is still a derivative work of non-abandoned IP.
To hell with the DMCA anyways. People who care will still reverse engineer the games they love and host the servers. There's probably zero chance of any legal avenue being opened up. As it should be, it's more fun that way.
Let's assume vendor A decides to donate their server code to public domain, or better yet a fully functional VM/container/... that can be booted up to host their old title(s). The question that comes to my mind is that who is now going to maintain the code (and OS) on the server so that it is current with the latest security updates (thinking of 3rd party or home grown components providing http, tls/ssl, image/audio/video/xml/... decocoding/encoding,...)?
I am all for making and keeping old games available and playable. But I see this as a big differentiator in making pre-internet era games available vs. games requiring access to an on-line server [that some one should probably be continuously maintaining from security standpoint].
Whoever runs a server is responsible for its security. Who donated the code has nothing to do with that.
Of course the donating party should provide source code, and without legal restrictions that prevent fixing issues.
I think you meant CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abusement Act) instead of CCFA (Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCFA)
Non-profit foundations for research on rare diseases are not something I would compare to copyright legislation.
Exactly. Allowing people to play older games for free has a positive effect of keeping interest in your brand alive but at the same time you’re losing potentially paying customers that are just as happy playing the free 10 year old game
If such a rule were to pass, it would be cool to see something done for older ROMs. So many games have the potential to go unplayed and become forgotten relics
I think a better comparison would be the lover of an old e-book whose publisher has shut down their DRM validation servers wanting to be able to read the book again in the future.
The thing with Abandonware/orphan works legislation is that a lot of the people most opposed to it aren't those you would think. Disney doesn't care that much. Their lawyers aren't going to forget to renew a copyright. Rather, it's various professional societies representing photographer, authors, etc. who figure that the individual creator or their estate will let copyright lapse through inaction and big media will come in and snatch up their work at no cost.
I'm definitely on board with copyright terms being too long and, in most cases, "abandonware" doesn't have a lot of value for the original creator anyway, but abandonware isn't primarily a big corp issue.
Interesting take on it, I hadn't thought of that angle. Maybe they could add some kind of non-commercial use clause (if they haven't already) to cover this case? ie. you can't swoop in and commercialize some indie preservation effort but you can host it and supply to others free of charge (or for the 'cost of distribution')?
The really weird thing about eBooks is that you're not really buying the book. It's more like giving you a license to view the book. You can't really resell an eBook, or a Steam game.
Except public domain only happens 70 years after the authors death (or 95 years after publication when talking about corporate authors).
So I could write a good book now, publish it, let it go out of print as of this year, live another 40 years. You wouldn't be able to get a copy of my work from the public domain until the year 2127.
Unless something major changes, public domain will never happen again. Corporations such as Disney will continuously lobby to extend it to cover their older works.
I'm ok with Disney keeping copyright on their works; I just wish that wasn't tied together with so many other works that have been abandoned by their authors (like old games, books, media, etc).
I'm really not. They lobby for special legislation around all their specific works. Mickey Mouse should really be in the public domain by now. They should respect those laws and move on to new trade-markable characters and learn to rebrand themselves. The fact that they are so big that they can be granted special exemption is pretty alarming.
It seems you’re conflating trademark and copyright. Personally, I’m fine with trademarks continuing in perpetuity as long as the owner maintains the registration. Disney gets to keep their brand name and trademarked characters. It’s copyright on Disney’s films and music that’s the problem. Maybe I can’t make my own Mickey film, but I could certainly remix Steamboat Willie cartoons if they entered the public domain. Or do similar with their music. But it’s really not even about that. If Disney gobbles up all the copyrightable content, maintains copyright forever, then creating something new (but too similar) can put an individual artist in trouble with copyright law. That’s unacceptable.
Except you should realize 99% of Disney's "works" were ripped off of public domain (and expired copyright) works, which they THEN (after making billions) lobbied to have copyright extended so nobody would ever be able to do what they did.
It has to be one of the sickest corporate abuses ("anti-consumer, anti-society") in US history.
Flip it: Public domain happens by default. The problem is that some very powerful lobbyists ensure that the government declares otherwise for ridiculously long (and constantly increasing) periods.
The Constitution requires that copyright durations be of a "limited times". At some point, we're going to need to put our collective foot down on this or hope that SCOTUS does.
Long copyright terms wouldn't be a problem, if we started to treat copyright as property with respect to taxation. There should be some baseline tax, such that you have to invest money to keep it going. Probably after a couple of first years when the tax is zero, to allow authors to get the cash flow going. And then use the collected taxes to fund public non-copyrighted art.
Someone suggested that copyright renewal happen closer to original, and that each renewal becomes a factor more expensive than the last time.
Lets say you require renewal each decade (with a one year grace period)... The first registration costs $100, the next 1000, then 10000, etc. If a company is literally willing to pay tens of million+ to keep a work out of public domain for more than 60 years, let them. This allows you to get the first 30 years for $11,100 before it gets pricey.
Frankly, I like this idea. Get rid of the pretense of public domain as long as a company is willing to pay that much a decade. Maybe just have it 2.5x each decade once you hit 100 million. Also, have a 3-5 year grace period for renewal before it becomes public domain.
I think just the shortened renewal period alone would be worthwhile, even without the exponentially increasing fees. Any truly abandoned media isn't going to have anyone trying to renew it. If Disney wants to charge me $20 for a copy of the 75 year old Bambi, well... at least it's available. The insultingly long term their lobbyists have bought is a valid topic, but a topic for another thread.
That's actually not a great example, because Bambi frequently isn't available due to Disney's practice of rotating their back catalogue through the "vault".
That's generous, I'd always thought 1% of revenue every year (and going up another percent year by year). That's with a maximum of thirty years before it goes into the public domain.
Keeping something public yet out of the public domain should cost.
Personally I just go with anything over seven years is public domain, unless I have a strong urge to support the artist(s).
This exception to the DMCA for all software where the copyright owner can't be contacted was negotiated for Australia as part of the Australia-USA free trade agreement. It allows for breaking encryption and anything that is required to get it to run.
If the older game did not employ any kind of encryption of the data stream, isn't it open season to reverse engineer? So many of these are shut down by trademark licensing and artwork copyrights?
Some games have thousands of items/buffs/abilities. If the data for these is not included in the client (it sometimes is, usually for item descriptions) then it's basically impossible. The same applies to the damage algorithm. You cannot replicate the original game without the server code. You're basically building your own custom game that merely happens to share the same UI if you proceed to reverse engineer the server.
I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.
In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.