Gamers Want DMCA Exemption for ‘Abandoned’ Online Games
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
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.
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.
* 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
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.
Back in 2012 Blizzard sold the original servers off for charity so we actually know what they used (HP p-class blades).
https://www.geek.com/games/blizzard-is-selling-old-world-of-...
I think the most difficult issue with distributing these to the general public would be classifying abandoned vs. maintained copyrighted works.
> 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.
Disclaimer: IANAL (anymore)
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.
At the Copyright Office FAQ (https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/mandatory_deposit.html)
"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."
In the FAQ (https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/mandatory_deposit.html) they specifically talk about software:
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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].
Non-profit foundations for research on rare diseases are not something I would compare to copyright legislation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
[1] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dmca-game-preservation-exempt...
And
> The DMCA does not allow people to copy games. It does not allow gamers to play shut down MMOs.
In short: no.
But online projects DO attract attention of lawyers.
But this is never going to happen.