While it sounds nice (from a consumer's perspective) to have no copyright at all, it would prevent a lot of media from being made, e.g. expensive movies.
Movies for well-known franchises could possibly be financed through crowd-funding, but that would make it hard for production companies to make bets in new franchises or directors.
If copyright were shortened to 20 years as suggested, it would be legal to freely distribute copies of Windows 98 and Photoshop 5.0. I doubt that would make a dent in sales of Windows 10 or Creative Cloud. Newer versions of both would still be copyrighted, and there would be no obligation to release any unpublished source code.
Sure, but that's what projects like QEMU/DOSBox/other emulators and compatibility shims are for. There's so much abandonware out there, especially games that are stuck in licensing limbo that can't legally be acquired - and it's only going to get worse going forward as things like licensed middleware, soundtracks, etc. have been thrown into the mix with their own headaches.
Yes, any other international electronic payment system (Fedwire, SEPA, SWIFT, Visa, Mastercard, etc) requires much, much less (Thousandfold? more? It's tricky to estimate) energy resources per transaction. Bitcoin consumes more electricity than whole small nations, and in each of those small nations that electricity is sufficient to run a financial industry that processes much more transactions than Bitcoin, and leaves enough energy for other industries as well. Bitcoin proof-of-work principle means that the power wasted (intentionally, to prove that work has been done) on a single transaction is absolutely ridiculous.
Clearing transactions, the (comparably small) part of a financial transfer that Bitcoin does, is comparably simple and easy and constitutes a minority of both the effort and cost of financial transactions. Things like dispute resolution, fraud control, client-side tools, customer service and acquisition, etc take more than that, but that's not included in the standard Bitcoin transaction fee / miner's expense.
I think including abandoned server code is odd, and I'm for it. I think we should start curating more public libraries with games in general, but that's going to be very difficult to do publicly (i.e. in a government library) in today's current online landscape. Between walled garden platforms and API integrations to centralized corporate servers, it seems unlikely that many of today's games will survive in their current state for long. More than ever, games frequently update becoming a different game or die to competition. It'd be rewarding to be able to spin up or join a local [Flavor] World of Warcraft server without getting shut down or told to wait for Blizzard to do it because that specific version of software was abandoned at some point. If it became public domain then, it would be available to the public to operate as we please.
I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.
In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.
In many countries you are obligated to "donate" one copy of any published and distributed work to the national library. That includes music, film, radio, tv, books, papers, pamphlets, websites etc. Depending on how the law is written this might also include games in playable form, so online games would require a copy of the server application as well as the client. If not games should be included asap.
Making these archives available for the general public might be difficult, but librarians are creative and many already have experience in making games available to the public. It's manageable.
A team of volunteers is still a team. Also, WoW private servers run on a reverse-engineered server infrastructure which seems to require much less babysitting than the actual live servers. I'd guess because they:
* Don't have to deal with quite so many edge cases
* Run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful than was available to the original WoW server devs, meaning that much simpler solutions with far less sharding / IPC / configuration can still scale sufficiently well
> * Run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful than was available to the original WoW server devs, meaning that much simpler solutions with far less sharding / IPC / configuration can still scale sufficiently well
well the hardware was never a problem, but the user base.
you can basically run a 100 people reverse engineed wow server on basically a server with 2gb-4gb memory and a non virtualized cpu (a older gen one, dual core probably enough) and you would more run into networking limits than in actually performance issues.
the problem with wow classic/burning crusade/wrath of the lich king, was mostly the overwhelming people, servers took way more than 100 people, and the biggest problem was logging them in, if there was a prime day, all sharded servers could login too many people which overloaded login servers quite regulary.
The other thing that's startling to me is that not that long ago pretty much all game servers were hosted by people other than the publisher of the game. I don't think there ever was a Valve hosted CS 1.6 server and it's still true that the vast majority of TF2 servers are community run. I think the same is still true for Minecraft. That worked really well.
This is true in the US, though the process is tied to copyright - any copyrighted work (including software) distributed in the US needs to be deposited with the Library of Congress.
I think the most difficult issue with distributing these to the general public would be classifying abandoned vs. maintained copyrighted works.
Just to be clear, failure to meet the requirements of Mandatory Deposit has not historically affected your copyright status.
> any copyrighted work (including software) distributed in the US needs to be deposited with the Library of Congress.
This is overstating things. It's unlikely that the LOC really wants your stuff, and if it does, it will let you know by sending you a Notice of Mandatory Deposit. Until then, "Mandatory" doesn't really mean mandatory.
Also, you don't need to register the work to receive copyright protection. If you write some code put it up on Github without a license, that's your code and you have the right to deny people the right to use it (among other
rights). It's probably going to be difficult to prove that some random person is using your code, but that doesn't affect your rights in the code, because you fulfilled all the requirements to create those rights: you (1) created something and (2) fixed it in a tangible form.
As I mentioned, registration isn't necessary, though it does get you some presumptions that would be helpful if you ever end up in court.
Note, this is just to register your copyright. My understanding is that you still own the copyright if you don't register, but it's weaker in many ways, so when people expect there to be money involved, they usually register the copyright.
In practice, my understanding is that if it's distributed by a serious company, it's usually a registered copyright, and so the library of congress gets a copy.
Mandatory deposit applies regardless of registration; it's just that registration requires sending a copy, which satisfies the mandatory deposit rules.
"Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit requirements."
Then later:
"Yes. Under certain circumstances, special relief from deposit requirements may be granted. The grant of special relief is discretionary with the U.S. Copyright Office and will depend on a careful balance of the acquisition policies of the Library of Congress, the examining requirements of the Copyright Office (if registration is sought), and the hardship to the copyright owner."
Note that "if registration is sought" - even if you're not registering, you still need to apply for an exemption.
"Neither the deposit requirements of this subsection nor the acquisition provisions of subsection (e) are conditions of copyright protection."
Which is to say, of course, that you are right, however you don't lose copyright protection if you don't comply. - it looks like there are no penalties until they ask you for a copy.
This lines up with my understanding that if you are serious business, the LOC gets a copy. If not? it doesn't really matter, and if you become a big deal later, well, following the rules helps you establish provenance, but isn't required for protection.
"This law requires that two copies of the best edition of every copyrightable work published in the United States be sent to the Copyright Office within three months of publication. Works deposited under this law are for the use of the Library of Congress."
"As described in Circular 61, the deposit requirement for registration is one copy of identifying portions of the computer program. However, to satisfy the mandatory deposit under section 407, a "complete copy" of the published work must be deposited. A complete copy is defined in the regulations as a copy that includes all components that make up the unit of publication, even if any of those units are in the public domain. So, if the published user guide is normally part of a package that contains other elements, then the mandatory deposit requirement requires the deposit of those other elements, too. For example, if the user guide is published as part of a package that contains a CD-ROM, an installation guide, and installation software, then each of these other elements must be deposited in addition to the user guide to fulfill the mandatory deposit requirement."
Well one issue is that an online game may be subject to multiple licenses. One example I do know of is Asheron's Call. There were some attempts to get it and its sequel. However there were licenses to Microsoft to consider and other third parties. Hence the "owner" of the game could not simply turn it over to the public.
I know, just rip out what is otherwise covered by another license or copyright. Well not only would that take time but it may leave the code in a state beyond repair.
I think the point of claiming a code base abandoned would be to strip rights from rights holders for property they do not show any intention of servicing.
You contributed to AC2? That’s great! The game is now abandoned, you have no rights to that code anymore.
To maintain your rights you either maintain the game in a serviceable state, or deploy your server technology as an API rather than integrating it into the client.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
So an AC2 server needs certain IP to work? You can license that IP as a product or publish the API and contracts, allowing third parties to emulate that IP.
Not all codebases have a clean separation between "own code" and "third-party code". If the AC2 devs licensed a commercial engine and then heavily modified it, the abandoned IP is still a derivative work of non-abandoned IP.
To hell with the DMCA anyways. People who care will still reverse engineer the games they love and host the servers. There's probably zero chance of any legal avenue being opened up. As it should be, it's more fun that way.
Let's assume vendor A decides to donate their server code to public domain, or better yet a fully functional VM/container/... that can be booted up to host their old title(s). The question that comes to my mind is that who is now going to maintain the code (and OS) on the server so that it is current with the latest security updates (thinking of 3rd party or home grown components providing http, tls/ssl, image/audio/video/xml/... decocoding/encoding,...)?
I am all for making and keeping old games available and playable. But I see this as a big differentiator in making pre-internet era games available vs. games requiring access to an on-line server [that some one should probably be continuously maintaining from security standpoint].
Whoever runs a server is responsible for its security. Who donated the code has nothing to do with that.
Of course the donating party should provide source code, and without legal restrictions that prevent fixing issues.
Look at it this way, some people have broke escape velocity and reached orbit. Those that have reached orbit are now laser beaming down the rockets still trying to reach orbit.
That's how the US education system works and why it is so shit.
We pay orbiters to prevent others from reaching orbit. It's quite crowded and no one wants the competition.
Very cool! I enjoyed playing a little during my lunch break. I've got to say, for what it is, it's very fun. I don't feel like I'm learning, but I also feel like I'm learning. :)
I think it's about time we stop throwing the baby out with the bath water when libertarian ideology comes up.
Looking at it simply, is there a possible set of rules that reduces waste, increases efficiency of constrained resources, and reduce exploitation from within the system? Libertarian ideologues suggest that there exists such a set of such rules, and it's a dramatically smaller set than we currently have. In order to move towards that smaller ideal set, we need a ideological shift in America -- we need to admit we suck. We suck at things, and some things that we think are okay now will suck soon. American culture sells the opposite: you're great, and it's poisonous. We need to acknowledge when others are doing better than us. I think we currently suck at it because the system is working as intended: corruption for sale. I don't think that's a sustainable system for the American people. It's about time we upgraded our "infrastructure."
We need to realign our government, giving it back to those that they are supposed to be serving in the first place: the citizens. Let's start by acknowledging that Libertarians are trying to free us from that which the government has no business being involved, thus reducing waste, increasing the efficiency of constraints, and reducing opportunity for exploitation. It is not about trying to create loop holes for exploitation. It's about shifting the meta away from corruption.
