Video Game History Foundation Says Piracy Remains the Only Viable Preservation Method (techspot.com) 95
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 Cifaldi also described the Library of Congress' outdated software preservation process, which currently only requires tiny snippets of source code.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.
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
All other art forms have archival formats literally geared towards research. How incredibly shorts sighted are you?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your strawman argument does nothing to change the fact that the original comment was short-sighted.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that it's not, and this comment was certainly bot-generated. "Research" is an excuse, the person offering it is a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's civil violation.
Re: (Score:2)
A bot? Really. You're pathetic. I've likely been here longer than you've been alive.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
"Control" - for limited times. Literally in the Constitution. Like other forms of art, if there are no archives, the art no longer exists once it is destroyed. If there are no copies of the art, it is never recoverable.
Have you never visited a museum with archives accessible to researchers?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"The very point of intellectual property laws is that they protect only against certain specific kinds of appropriation....All creators draw in part on the work of those who came before, referring to it, building on it, poking fun at it; we call this creativity, not piracy.... Intellectual property rights aren't free; They're imposed at the expense of future creators and of the public at large.... This is why intellectual property law is full of careful balances between what's set aside for the owners and w
Re: (Score:1)
"...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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
If there are no copies allowed before the copyright expires, and the original is no longer accessible?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not fight a statutory monopoly regime that seems intent on indefinitely extending monopolies far past "limited"?
What do you think folks are doing? What do you think *this* effort is, if not "fighting"?
And what power do any of us have to "fight"?
Re: why? (Score:2)
Using copyright to prevent the people accessing creations breaks that deal and means the privilege, copyright, should be withdrawn.
Re: (Score:1)
"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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's ok for creators to loot the public domain and selectively make them part of their statutory monopoly? Are you arguing some sort of practical position, or a morality argument?
Publishing includes a right of access (Score:3)
Soft
Re: (Score:1)
uh (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
NOLF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: NOLF (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: NOLF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why constrain this to games? Why not software as a whole? The entire internet (and technology as a whole) depends largely on open source code, unencumbered protocols, and standardized, royalty free document formats.
Would the internet exist if only IPX and NetBIOS were viable?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really believe we live in anything like a free market economy do you.
Re: (Score:2)
A monopoly is literally the antithesis of a free market. A statutory monopoly doubly so.
What is the marginal cost of reproduction of information?
Re: (Score:2)
Where is that right enumerated? It's not in the US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or any other document.
There is no such right, anywhere. If you don't want to buy a game at the price offered, there's the other option - walking away. You don't need that game to live and there are likely dozens more in your price range.
You want to lower prices, then increase competition. Sure a game has natural monopolies l
Re: NOLF (Score:2)
Damnatio memoriae (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Greed makes blind and dumb. Nothing new. In addition, most people are not sophisticated enough to understand that history is worth preserving.
Re: (Score:2)
Greed afflicts both sides of this issue equally. At least one side doesn't lie about it.
Duh (Score:1)
That said, in sane legal systems, this is allowed.
nothing baffling at all (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The original historical documents on the âoec (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) [UK] or Wheaton v. Peters (1834) [USA]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It is *literally* part of the patent bargain, and implicit in the idea that copyright terms are limited.
I'm finding fewer and fewer of your posts to be factual at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: The original historical documents on the â (Score:2)
Copyright laws were written at a time where nobody considered the possibility that rightsholders could actively, willfully take actions to technically prevent the work from being usable when it enters the Public Domain.
Yes, what the publishers are doing today is entirely legal. The Foundation agrees with your statement. Which is exactly why they rightfully argue that since the technical circumstances around published artworks has changed so radically, co
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Creators are under no obligation to seek statutory monopoly protection from the state either.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Children? Really? You accused me of being a bot. It would be childish of me to accuse you of being an ESA shill.
Re: nothing baffling at all (Score:2)
I'm sure you are fully aware that that has not even the faintest, remotest thing to do with what this article is about. This is about archives keeping copies for preservation. No, they are NOT making copies of those games willy-nilly. No, this is NOT about people feeling entitled to pirate these games. How do you imagine people would go about playing one of the games held at the Foundation?
If you don't like the media... stop buying it. (Score:2)
Stop asking the nanny government to fix this. Step up and make a sacrifice yourself like a
Re: (Score:2)
Stop asking the nanny government to fix this.
Yes, let's completely forget about the only entity that has the power to make these companies behave themselves. I'm sure those companies won't boil the frog yet with their anti-consumer policies.
People only rent online games and their associated purchases, they don't own them.
Then those companies need to stop calling it "buying" or "purchasing" as if they were actually going to own the item. Call it "renting" or "monthly subscription" instead, so there's no confusion.
On the other side, it costs money to keep those remote servers running. I don't begrudge companies for charging for it. Nor do I begrudge them to right to turn them off when they are no longer profitable.
Neither do I, or most any other person who wants them to Stop Killing Games. What we want is that if said company doesn't
Buy the game (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:Buy the game (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only have 1 game that can be played offline !!! (Score:2)
I agree that old games should be preserved (Score:2)