News - EFF fights for right of users to revive abandoned video games

Quote:

---

Organisation has filed new DMCA exemption requests with the U.S. Copyright Office.

---

Read more.

As this is obviously a US law then are things any different under UK law regarding abandoned video games?

Is there some way to put pressure on video game distributors to release the source code of abandoned games? That would be really good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Output

As this is obviously a US law then are things any different under UK law regarding abandoned video games?

---

Depends, if the games legal owner is in the US, then you probably get an extradition request submitted for some outrageously inaccurate claim.

Otherwise it would probably fall under copyright or computer misuse.

Just because someone calls it "abandoned" doesnt mean its legally disowned in any way, unless the owner has expressly released it or the copyright has expired.

I can imagine the kind of people wanting to get their mitts on these abandoned titles will be the same people churning out freemium IAP-riddled games on iOS/Android.

I say just leave them be, if I was involved in making one of those games back in the day I'd prefer they stayed there. Maybe loosen the laws on 'acquiring' ROMS of said abandoned games.

Games companies should be focusing on creating original ideas rather than trying to rehash other people's work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtuo

I can imagine the kind of people wanting to get their mitts on these abandoned titles will be the same people churning out freemium IAP-riddled games on iOS/Android....

---

Or people who bought games which will not run on current era PCs. Whilst some companies are very open to third party patches and content on legacy games (Microsoft with MSTS and FS for example), others might not be.

One question i've always had with "Abandonware" for many many years now is "What or who determines if software is abandoned"? What is the legal definition?

Is it when it's not being actively sold anymore? Company goes bust? Rights owner openly states its now abandoned?

IMO only the latter one is true abandonware where people should be allowed to do what they want with it - other than that *someone* owns the source code and rights, and unless the owner explicitly states that they are opening up the game to everyone..it should be left well alone.

There isn't one. The copyright expires at which point the rights open up. To 'adandon' a game you just release the copyright. There is no legal requirement to support or make changes to a product for the duration of the copyright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

There isn't one... There is no legal requirement to support or make changes to a product for the duration of the copyright.

---

Yes, that's the problem they're trying to rectify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Yes, that's the problem they're trying to rectify.

---

Which bit is the problem - that copyright is so long, or that there's no requirement to support for the duration (on top of the existing sale of goods rights)?

The latter one is quite clearly addressed by existing rights - you buy a product, it should work for the duration expected of it, more or less. What you can't expect is product A sold for X usage then being used for Y and expecting support from the maker for that Y usage.

The former is an interesting one - creative licensing hasn't really caught up with software and the supposition of shorter lifespan compared to other arts. But then again who knows - retro might be a thing, and you've got stores like GOG still selling 20+ year old games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

There isn't one. The copyright expires at which point the rights open up. To 'adandon' a game you just release the copyright. There is no legal requirement to support or make changes to a product for the duration of the copyright.

---

Thanks thats kind of what I thought. I don't think this should be changed either personally - it should always be an "opt in" for your creative works to become "abandonware" or "free for all". Your point about GoG is a really good one and I agree that "retro" is definitely a thing and people will pay money for these old games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Which bit is the problem - that copyright is so long, or that there's no requirement to support for the duration (on top of the existing sale of goods rights)?

---

Both are a problem. But more relevantly, media you buy aught not to be arbitrarily rendered useless for no good technical reason, nor should you be legally vulnerable for attempting to make it useful again. 'Because we bribed lawmakers to rob you of your rights and give them all to us' isn't a sufficiently good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Both are a problem. But more relevantly, media you buy aught not to be arbitrarily rendered useless for no good technical reason, nor should you be legally vulnerable for attempting to make it useful again. 'Because we bribed lawmakers to rob you of your rights and give them all to us' isn't a sufficiently good reason.

---

I don't think that's happened in the UK has it?

But media, I don't know. If I release a record on vinyl I'm in no way obligated to to provide an mp7 version should turn-tables go out of fashion after the period I am selling the record. Even more, I might artistically decide that the only medium I approve of is vinyl, and anything digital would be an affront to my artistic credentials. I would be quite within my rights to prevent someone else from making my creative output available in a media I did not approve of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

But more relevantly, media you buy aught not to be arbitrarily rendered useless for no good technical reason, nor should you be legally vulnerable for attempting to make it useful again.

---

Exactly the part I was thinking about with my earlier question on the UK law regarding it. Although newer Operating Systems would probably be counted as a "good technical reason", I would hope it wouldn't be an issue to be allowed to make changes that allow it to run properly on them if the option hasn't already been made available by the developer/publisher (or if it the option has been provided but fails to work as it should).

It seems like common sense to me, but I was curious as to whether law has caught up with it or if it was technically illegal but not pursued (similar to the way the CD ripping situation was until recently).