this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
758 points (99.6% liked)
RetroGaming
19568 readers
448 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This may be hot take, but I think games are art and are part of our cultural legacy, and making steps that stops us from enjoying us from that legacy should be considered a crime, especially when they put at risk art disappearing forever.
I would start with simple rules:
As a result, I would expect all companies to either invest in backward compatibility on unprecedented level, or more likely start porting their games to PC (because they will keep being produced), even if that meant selling copies to be used with emulators. When there is money on the table, or perspective of losing money, corporations are really quick to find solutions.
Emulators are not illegal, where did you get that from?
There are legal problems when creating emulators, sure people work hard to avoid them, but I don't think they should have to do that in those cases, so I specifically wrote "all emulators" should be legal. For example, Dolphin to work requires cryptographic keys that technically belong to Nintendo, so they may be sued for providing them. Some emulators require you to find bios on your own because they can't legally provide them, and their emulator doesn't work without it.
If you bundle cryptographic keys, bios or other copyrighted content then yes obviously it's illegal.
It's not illegal to implement an emulator.
This isn't necessarily always true. PCSX2, the main PS2 emulator, for example needs a BIOS file that can only be obtained from an actual PS2 (or "illegally"). I'm not sure why that emulator requires it when others don't. The closest thing to an explanation I could find online just said "legal issues", but didn't go into details. That makes me suspect that there was pushback from Sony about the emulator. So if such emulation laws were to be written they absolutely should protect in stone the right to create and use emulators. If a company can find a loophole to block you, they will.
I don't think that makes sense, or at least it doesn't properly qualify the problem. BIOS is a set of baked-in software routines that mediate certain operations between software and hardware. In theory it could be reverse-enginereed and thus emulated just like the rest of the hardware is. In fact, many of the more simple systems (like 8 or 16-bit consoles) have their BIOS emulated. But for more advanced or poorer documented systems, there are, in my view, two problems with that:
On older systems yeah, but on newer systems that rely on cryptographic keys and DRM - and circumventing DRM can still be a crime - it's not so cut and dry. You can't "emulate" away the encryption
That makes sense! I appreciate the thorough reply! I've always wondered why PCSX2 was different than other emulators on that front.
I believe a lot of emulators also include a reverse engineered custom BIO that works in most cases, but you can of course supply the official one if you "have" it.
It's required because a lot of the functionality of the PS2 is in the embedded software, the BIOS.
The problem is not the emulator itself, it's the BIOS which is copyrighted. The emulator is not illegal, but bundling the BIOS with it would be.
We need a use-it-or-lose-it clause for all copyrights. If the rights holder is not making a good faith effort to sell copies, they should forfeit their copyright entirely and the work in question goes straight to the public domain. 5 years is generous, I'd make the grace period 6 months.
This is how you get Fantastic Four (1994)
I'd take it a step further and say we need a good default license that kicks in after a certain amount of time has passed until the end of the copyright (at which point no license at all is required).
The price of the license will just be based on a formula that takes revenue and portion of the end product that uses the copyright material into account. So someone issuing their own print of a book that came out would pay more than someone who publishes a fan fic sequel and just uses the characters.
And trademarks still strictly enforced, since copying that is trying to pass yourself off as another producer, or fraud. Trademarks are how the original author and the good derivative works will be differentiated from the shitty ones.
Emulators are not illegal. ROMs are illegal if you didn’t rip it yourself. If you did rip it yourself it’s a gray area. See https://youtu.be/yj9Gk84jRiE
I think that these rules are unnecessarily over-complicating the problem. IMO, the best solution would be to amend copyright legislation to include a similar clause to the one found in the 'fair dealing' exemption of many Commonwealth countries - i.e "Can the work or adaptation be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price?" If not, copying the game is not an infringing act.
This strikes me as weird and unnecessarily convoluted. IMO the best solution would be to limit corporate held copyrights to 10 years after first publication or 15 years after creation, whichever is sooner, and limit individually held copyrights to the life of the creator. After that's up, the work becomes public domain, and people can freely post it without repercussions, meaning the masses will handle archival and distribution essentially without prompting. Simple, with very few loopholes as far as I can see.
Or limit copyright terms to ~20 years and repeal Section 1201 (together with 512 for good measure). That would cover far more than just old games.
We're already there. Backwards compatibility is the highest it's ever been. With the rise of digital stores, popular retro games are on every platform that publishers think they can make money on. Re-releases of popular classics seem to happen all the time.
However, the sad reality is vast majority of those 87% wouldn't be profitable to release. They are the games that sold poorly on release or have been out of the spotlight for so long that most people have forgotten they even exist. There needs to be work porting the release to new platforms, there are licenses to pay for music and licensed characters. I have no idea if residuals are a thing for video games but if they exist they cost money too. If a game hasn't been re-released at this point, it's not becuase there is some backwards compatibility issue; it's because the bean counters have decided the cost of porting outweighs any sales it may generate. There is no "money left on the table" for them as it would cost more to port than they believe the game's re-release would ever make. Those games will never be legally re-released and should fall into some sort of public domain.
How can I reconcile it with, say, as a private entity, I have the right to withhold sharing my ideas or creations for whatever reason?
You have the right to withhold sharing your creations. If you never release anything at all then the above would not apply. This is about if you release something then years later stop making it available and prevent anybody from ever making a copy again.
(And the reason for that distinction is sound: the unreleased work is like nothing ever existed, the released work is part of the public culture.)
That hinges on the idea that nontangible assets are not scarce (which IMO applies or might just as well apply if it's in the internet). You are not entitled to a boxed copy of ET (1982), but the same arguments can't be applied to electronic copies of it.
I'm talking about having the right to never release a work to the public in the first place (replying to another comment on that). This has nothing to do with scarcity.
The simple argument is: you can choose to create something and never give it to anyone. Nobody is entitled to take it (that is a basic privacy principle). But if you do release something to the public, either for free or for sale, then there should be rules protecting the public's access to that work.
This doesn't mean it has to be the end of copyright. Yes there's no scarcity, but there still needs to be a function incentive to create the work in the first place, so a little artificial scarcity creates that incentive. But once the work has had a reasonable lifetime under copyright, or is no longer legally available, then yes we absolutely should be able to access it as part of the public domain.
Why should the government be enlisted to prevent the distribution of work?
The whole reason for copyright to exist is to provide a means for people to make money on their cultural work. How is society made better by removing works from the public?
In theory, a way for an artist to independently sustain continuous output of creations.
But how so? The only way it potentially makes sense is a Disney Vault like idea, but even then that only provides additional value for very old works that could be argued should be part of the public domain.
I can't think of a case where an artist would ban publication of their own work made within the last 20 years to make money, but please let me know of a potential case.
Artificial scarcity and charge high for the trickle of legal distributed works and content.
I'm asking for an example of an artistic work made in the past 20 years where that happens, where a work is pulled for an extended period of time.
What does the market currently do?
Nintendo won't say if Switch Online will get other legacy systems