Video Game History Foundation Says Piracy Remains the Only Viable Preservation Method

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechSpot: Video Game History Foundation founder Frank Cifaldi recently supported claims that piracy is the only effective way to preserve video games. The comments lay the blame squarely on game companies' refusal to keep legacy content available or allow archivists to build legal repositories. Sony's announcement that all PlayStation games will be digital-only from 2028 onward has sparked concern that titles will become harder to preserve and more easily vanish, since the company's servers will become the sole point of distribution. In an official statement, Cifaldi noted that the end of physical PlayStation games has surprisingly little impact on the Foundation's efforts because the majority of games from the last two decades are already digital-only.

According to the Foundation, most games nowadays are not released for consoles, let alone on physical discs. Furthermore, many discs for major titles require downloading updates before they are playable, although the DoesItPlay database reveals that, even today, most are playable offline out of the box. Cifaldi claimed that the true reason piracy remains the best option for preservation is that the Entertainment Software Association, which lobbies for game publishers, has closed off other routes. For example, in 2018, the Association opposed efforts to grant copyright exemptions for museums, libraries, and archives to retain copies of abandoned online games for research.

This is the same organization that recently helped defeat a proposed California bill to preserve premium-priced online-only games by falsely claiming that community servers are illegal. The Foundation accused the ESA of repeatedly blocking attempts by cultural heritage institutions to reform DRM legislation. Cifaldi also described the Library of Congress' outdated software preservation process, which currently only requires tiny snippets of source code. For example, Capcom once asked the Foundation to provide the LoC with "the first and last ten pages of code" for a Mega Man game. Unable to discern where digital records began and ended, the group simply chose random segments. Platform holders' habit of closing online storefronts and removing media from users' accounts is also unhelpful. "What continues to baffle us is what the industry expects institutions like ours to do about it," the Video Game History Foundation said. "If platform owners are deciding to eliminate physical media and older digital storefronts, then we'd also like to see trade groups like the Entertainment Software Association offer meaningful solutions for archives and museums to legally preserve digital-only content and make it accessible for research.

Re:why?

[nyet]

All other art forms have archival formats literally geared towards research. How incredibly shorts sighted are you?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your strawman argument does nothing to change the fact that the original comment was short-sighted.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Except that it's not, and this comment was certainly bot-generated. "Research" is an excuse, the person offering it is a liar.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Not even remotely. And an original creator is legally entitled to control over his work. And what does this "geared towards research mean"? What "research" needs to be performed on video games? And how do you justify violating IP rights in order to provide it?

Let's be clear, this isn't about research it's about having access to the games regardless of the rights of owners.

Re:

[Kernel Kurtz]

Or to put it more politely, nobody is forced into this business. If you voluntarily start a business and take on customers and then treat them like shit then then you are a shitty company/person and nobody will have any sympathy for whatever happens to you.

But it's my god-given right to be a douche, you say? Well yes it is, but much like freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences, so is that.

Re:

[martin-boundary]

Quake III's contribution to Humanity [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[geekmux]

"...then we'd also like to see trade groups like the Entertainment Software Association offer meaningful solutions for archives and museums to legally preserve digital-only content and make it accessible for research."

Why? What's the value of this "research"? And how does this research justify violating the property rights of creators?

I’m assuming that “research” centers around measuring shades of Cheeto finger while debating who had to wait Forever for a certain Duke to return.

Or perhaps it’s a study how Billy Mitchell became known as the Prick of Pac-Man. Heard that dudes a real Kong of a Donkey..

Re:

[dfghjk]

What rules are they not abiding by? Is there a rule that they make their product available to copyright violators? Since when does an IP holder have to provide their IP in commercial form?

IF you are suggesting that, after copyright expires, that others are free to duplicate the work for an archive, then have at it. Just don't expect all that effort to be rewarded with protection of its own and don't expect original creators to contribute.

Re:

[LainTouko]

The only concept of "property" which is worthwhile is your right to keep hold of the things you use as part of your daily life, which serve as an extension of yourself. "Property" to control or limit what others can do, as demanded by kings, dictators and capitalists as part of their rule, is a concept we should collectively reject.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Then use your power to fight against IP rights, and good luck.

How do you define "part of your daily life" for a corporation? Do corporations not have "property"? What about governments? Do they have "property"? Are governments "kings, dictators and capitalists" because they "control or limit what others can do"? And is that wrong, something that "we should collectively reject"?

Re:

[flink]

Corporations aren't people, and have no lives and thus no inherent rights. Any granted rights they do get to the detriment of people should only be the bare minimum necessary needed to create some larger benefit to society as a whole. Giving a legal fiction the right to control a piece of media that has cultural import, however small, for 150 years is over indexing on the corp side and against the people.

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

^^ This, exactly. Thank you for expressing so economically a concept which I've long recognized but for which I never found quite the right words.

Re: why?

[greytree]

Copyright exists solely as a privilege the people give to creators to encourage them to create things for the benefit of the people.

Using copyright to prevent the people accessing creations breaks that deal and means the privilege, copyright, should be withdrawn.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Using copyright to prevent the people accessing creations breaks that deal ..."

False. You are assuming the "benefit of the people" includes access in perpetuity. You are literally begging the question. Furthermore, copyright eventually ends, withdrawing access at that time would still deny permanent access while respecting your bogus interpretation. No problem is solved.

And what is this alleged problem anyway? Lack of "research"? LOL

More conventional art forms have costs associated with distribution a

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

They can keep their work secret, which is a natural right. Or they can publish it using the privilege of copyright protection - the enforcement of which is payed for with taxes and is not free!

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

Copyright is to encourage people to publish their works which will allow them to make money on it AND eventually enter the public domain. Anything that by the way it is published will NEVER be part of the public domain should not be covered by copyright.

uh

[jizmonkey]

Literally every other kind of created media has research institutes, such as the Paley Center for Media which archives and studies television. Every Broadway play is taped on VHS and kept at the New York Public Library, which is incredibly helpful 30 years later when someone is doing a revival of a show and wants to see what the original choreography, sets or costumes looked like. Newspapers are put onto microfilm ... and you say aha but newspapers document the news ... but no, all of it gets saved includin

Piracy only solution to outrageous copyright terms

[greytree]

While copyright terms are an outrageous 95 years, Piracy is a moral choice.

NOLF

[fluffernutter]

Without piracy, a person's right to go with an older game for half price will be gone. I'm happy now with half price, but if the only choice is a new game for $120 (because who are we kidding, new games will go up too) or nothing or piracy, then a lot of people are going to go for piracy. One of the best first person shooters I have ever played, no one lives forever, is not available on the market today because of decisions like this if I wanted to play it again for nostalgia I would play it again, so I could either pay half for it or pirate it. Right now I have no choice.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"Right now I have no choice."

You ABSOLUTELY do. Choose not to do business with companies that do these things you object to. You're a "free market capitalist", right? Are you now a socialist because of a video game?

The free market offers a solution to this problem, but it requires you pay and make choices. That's just too much for entitled people.

Re: NOLF

[fluffernutter]

No actually you got that wrong. I have always been a socialist. So now that you mention it, here is another reason for me to hate capitalism.

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Can you name even five successful games made by socialists?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Tetris? .. ???

Re: NOLF

[fluffernutter]

What is your definition of successful? Making money is a capitalist idea of success.

Re: NOLF

[fluffernutter]

I may have replied to the wrong comment

Re:

[newbie_fantod]

You don't really believe we live in anything like a free market economy do you.

Damnatio memoriae

[quintessencesluglord]

There's a certain elegance that the modern AAA games industry would willingly do this to themselves in the name of absolute profits, and will be wiped from the memory of this era.

History is written by the victors, and publishers have already lost and are too dumb to realize it.

Re:

[gweihir]

Greed makes blind and dumb. Nothing new. In addition, most people are not sophisticated enough to understand that history is worth preserving.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Greed afflicts both sides of this issue equally. At least one side doesn't lie about it.

Duh

[gweihir]

That said, in sane legal systems, this is allowed.

nothing baffling at all

[bloodhawk]

What continues to baffle us is what the industry expects institutions like ours to do about it,

They don't expect you to do anything about it. While I respect what you guys are trying to do, the industry has absolutely no obligation to assist you or make this easy for you.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is irrelevant and they aren't breaking copyright rules. Most of them are still using the IP which is a core part of copyright.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright doesn't give them some obligation to help preserve it. If they want to they could burn the source code and everything associated with it. Just like any piece of art you produce you can do exactly the same. Copyright is purely about preserving commercial interests and bestows exactly ZERO obligations on them.

The original historical documents on the âoec

[pcr_teacher]

The fundamental "copyright bargain"â"granting temporary monopolies to creators in exchange for works eventually entering the public domain to benefit societyâ"is deeply rooted in two foundational historical texts:

The Statute of Anne (1710): Enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain, this was the worldâ(TM)s first copyright law. Its explicit goal was "the Encouragement of Learning" by vesting rights in authors for a set period (14 years, with a possible 14-year renewal). It established the pr

Re: The original historical documents â" the

[pcr_teacher]

Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) [UK] or Wheaton v. Peters (1834) [USA]

Re:

[dfghjk]

Correct, and "eventually entering the public domain" is presented as though it were part of the bargain and not merely a consequence of the limited nature of IP law. There is no obligation for work to "enter public domain" if that is some explicit act, this part is merely the ending of protections.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"eventually entering the public domain" doesn't place a burden on creators, though. The burden on creators is limited to the creating itself. Creators are under no obligation to assist in the "entering".

Re:

[dfghjk]

Absolutely correct, and the very point I made as first poster for which this AC seems to be the first to also understand. Creators are under no obligation to support piracy, copyright exists to encourage them to create, it doesn't impose burdens AFTER creation.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Greytree's bogus comment duplicated by an AC, literally using the same words.

If da Vinci were to have just painted the Mona Lisa, would he not have copyright protection? And would da Vinci not allowing unlimited duplication for "research" mean he should have "no right to copyright at all"?

What we have here are children who feel entitled to steal other people's work.

If you don't like the media... stop buying it.

[johnlcallaway]

I have never paid any sort of subscriptions for a games or paid for one that can't run offline on my own computer or phone. If I can't get a physical copy of a game, it has to be free or ad-supported to play. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally pay for a booster or something, or spend a few bucks for ad-free, but I sure as heck don't spend hundreds of dollars or feel any sort of loss if the game would go away.

Stop asking the nanny government to fix this. Step up and make a sacrifice yourself like a

Buy the game

[ZectronPositron]

They could also purchase the game. If thats too expensive, then how does the museums business model work in the first place? Museums dont get all their stuff for free as far as I know.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Sony is no longer selling games on physical media. How do you purchase a game second hand or years after the game has stopped being sold?

Re:

[MpVpRb]

Publishers want to eliminate this option and only allow rentals
The word buy means ownership and the right to use as long as you want, and when you choose, resell it

Disputed history

[strUser_Name]

Any game game that is not archivable should be located in the special museam section called "disputed history" with a sign explaining that "These games might have existed, but there is no real proof of these games to ever have existed. Videos and photos in existence might be AI fabrications. We simply don't know. Therefore there is no reason to give credit to their alleged creators." There be bad lighting in that section of the museum and the label "Disputed history" on any item on display. Of course game s