Feds: You Don't Have a Right to Check Out Retro Video Games Like Library Books
21 comments
·October 26, 2024proc0
SkySkimmer
If there's no owner what stops the games from being distributed? Shouldn't it mean there's noone who can sue the distributor?
proc0
I guess no one would stop someone from distributing, but presumably there isn't a huge market for these games and therefore no incentive. I was thinking it had more to do with preventing competition or something like that.
guerrilla
> I don't see where they outline the difference between games and books.
The difference is in who's money and how much is behind the law at the relevant points in time.
proc0
Sure, I was just wondering their reasoning behind it. Surely it can't be blatantly about making money, but maybe it is.
guerrilla
I don't know but I think it's not just about the old games that aren't produced anymore. I think it could be about protecting profit in other areas. They may want to control the Overton window so that it doesn't become thinkable that the same thing could happen to other video games or media. If a library is able to buy a video game and loan it out for free online, then that could become a problem for some models. Is it possible to loan movies and TV series online in libraries now?
If you have the resources, then a maximalist IP agenda would be the most rational, to extract as many rights as possible because it creates wider moat for attackers to cross. You keep them busy fighting things that don't matter to you, so they stay far away from your core business interests.
badlibrarian
> Current rules in the DMCA restrict libraries and repositories of old games to one person at a time, in person.
Countdown to Internet Archive getting sued on this one starts now. https://archive.org/details/internetarcade
ethagknight
When you have revolving door regulators, almost impossible to expect regulation that benefits individual freedom over special interests. Copyright is supposed to protect creators while they market and deploy their IP from others selling unauthorized copies.
But.. can any legal experts here explain otherwise, that this is a smart ruling?
gonlad_x
I am not sure I fully grasp what’s at stake here. Does it mean that: * Only 1 person at a time can borrow play a retro game physically (in a dedicated library) even if there are more than 1 copies available * Libraries cannot offer remote access to their retro games (I wonder, can libraries offer that for books? In know my university library had a digital library but that’s it) even if safeguarded I don’t really understand the actual consequences of this new ruling, the article doesn’t really explain that in my opinion.
oefrha
> can libraries offer that for books?
Not without separate licensing for electronic lending. At least that’s what publishers insist.
appstorelottery
During covid I wanted to enable the local arcade in Amsterdam (Blast Galaxy) to stream their old boards to subscribing internet users for internet play, however I consulted with one of the leading IP lawyers in the city & was told basically "nope".
My pitch to the lawyer was that it was simply a case of "longer wires" in terms of board input and output, however there is something in EU law that addresses encoding and transport over networks which causes the issue in terms of IP.
Super disappointing.
AStonesThrow
The missing word from this inflammatory headline is extremely important: "remotely".
You can certainly access the physical game media in person, and check it out, no problem. The DMCA controversy is over remote access.
michaelbrave
that becomes more difficult though since older games are in essence collectors items and would be stolen or not returned. It's like if most of the books in the library were out of print books that were highly collectable, a recipe for disaster.
Not saying they made the wrong call here or anything, but there is clearly a gap here between old games being made available and legal options to access them, libraries tried to own a physical copy and distribute a digital copy, which was an attempt at a fair compromise, but if that isn't allowed either then I guess piracy is the only options now.
BriggyDwiggs42
Wait, why would that matter at all?
izacus
Yeah, especially since the publishers have ceased to produce physical media completely.
deafpolygon
That's kind of expected. Folks over at the emualtion subreddit @ reddit are foaming at the mouth... when it doesn't even apply to them.
Did they expect that they would allow folks to check out other software like Photoshop at the Library?
robinsonb5
If you're a computer historian, there'd be some value in being able to check out an ancient version that, for example, works on 68k Macs.
vaylian
Photoshop can still be purchased. This is about software that is no longer offered on the market.
fragmede
Pedantically, Adobe no longer sells it out right, but they do let you rent it at various price levels via Creative Cloud.
dvfjsdhgfv
That's correct - today if you want to actually buy Adobe Photoshop, you have to buy from a vendor other than Adobe (and you will miss some recent features).
I don't see where they outline the difference between games and books. This makes no sense at all. I can see where they would draw a line with proprietary IPs like old Nintendo games, but there's probably hundreds of thousands of games that have no owner.
I'm tired of video games being treated as something that they're not. They're not services and they're not just for entertainment. It's an art form and they become part of the broader culture, not to mention their full potential as an interactive medium has only barely started to be explored.