New Copyright Law? Interesting.....

[Griking]

What do you make of this statement taken from the story linked below.

"The Copyright Office said the law should not apply to lists of Web sites blocked by Internet filtering software, or video games and computer programs made for obsolete systems."




http://news.excite.com/tech/article/id/159551|technology|10-29-2003::13:24|reuters.html

[Jorpho]

Everyone's going to have a merry time defining "obsolete system", I can tell you that much.

[kai123]

From what I gather from the link it seems that most older roms would be legal? I might be completely off though.

[Sylentwulf]

no longer supported, and having no further sequels, expansions, etc...etc... not a new law, this is where abandonware comes from, look i up for free downloadable pc games that ARE legal :)

[rbudrick]

Very interesting indeed...

-Rob

[Jorpho]

no longer supported, and having no further sequels, expansions, etc...etc... not a new law, this is where abandonware comes from, look i up for free downloadable pc games that ARE legal :)

Wha? No one ever said abandonware was legal. (Until maybe now.)

[sisko]

Try telling that to the people who own the copyrights.

[Dr. Morbis]

As with any law, it's not so much what is written, but how it is interpreted by the courts. Once the inevitable court case comes along, all that will matter will be the precedent that that court sets. Future decisions will (most likely) reference and follow the landmark.

[Flack]

I wrote a news piece a couple of years ago about Abandonware. In it, I tracked down the company who now owns Epyx copyright and asked them via e-mail what they thought about Abandonware. They mailed me back and said when they purchased Epyx they purcahsed the copyright to their entire library, and basically said that while they don't actively pursue it, they do still own the rights to even the old Commodore 64 and NES stuff and could pursue it if they wanted to put the time and effort into it. That may not be the court's opinion, but it certainly was the company's.

Of course, I'm sure Epyx would have a different opinion than, say, the big N ...

[The Unknown Gamer]

That part of the copyright law always bugged me. Anyone of you out there knows that there is more than one game where in: Not only is the system is not being made anymore. But the software company has dissappeard. Why even the programmer of that game no longer cares of what they created anymore. In some cases even the company that originally made the system is no longer around.

[Ed Oscuro]

In those cases it's simply this: The rights revert back to the author (assuming they drew up their contract that way) but really, if nobody's pursuing it, you probably could put up old ROMs for download. I'd always suggest that you never sell an old game or sell a hack for profit, but that's pretty much common sense.

Interesting news indeed!

Obsolete systems...is the SNES obsolete? What if there are still new Super Famicom games being made (latest I know of was 1999)? What about the Atari 2600? If somebody makes an all-in-one direct to TV console does that mean the console is not obsolete?

I wonder how this decision was phrased.

[FABombjoy]

This law doesn't have anything to do with the rights of the software. It's about excluding copyright circumvention schemes on obsolete software from the DMCA.

Things like dongle or copy-protection cracks would no longer be illegal under the DMCA when used on obsolete software/video games.

[bargora]

Hey, r0mz d00dz. Here's what the Copyright Office has posted at their web site, www.loc.gov.


On October 28, 2003, the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The four classes of works exempted are:

...

(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
First, this applies only to the DMCA's prohibition of "circumvention", which generally means going around some sort of lockout. So, the exemption simply means that you can now get around a technological lockout (physical, hardware, or software) to use your legally held copy of the software.

What would be an example of this? Well, in the absence of court decisions I'm speculating here, but say you have a "Tanks A Lot" Arcadia cart, but no Arcadia. This exemption would appear to allow you to play it through your hypothetical "50-in-1" console, despite the fact that the cart originally could only be played on an Arcadia. (Don't you wish you had a 50-in-1 console?) In the alternative, it would probably allow you to make a single ROM dump of the cart (and one archival copy of the dump) and play it through an emulator.

But what I'm pretty sure it WOULDN'T allow you to do is to make multiple copies of the ROM dump, or to distribute the multiple copies, either physically or by posting it on the internet. The original copyright holder still has the exlusive right to "make copies", so you'd be liable for infringement and the copyright holder would have the usual remedies of injunction and money damages. And if you attracted the attention of the FBI by distributing a shitload of copies, you could theoretically go to jail (unlikely, but just thought I'd mention it).

So while the exemption seems to let you get around the inconvenience of not having the proper obsolete console, it appears that you must still have a legal license to use the software (e.g., the actual cart, or a legally purchased disk).

Secondly, obsolete is defined as (1) "no longer manufactured" OR (2) "no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace". "No longer manufactured" is pretty clear. So SNES would qualify under (1), as should newer systems such as Saturn, Dreamcast, and N64. (none of those are manufactured any more, right?) "No longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace" is a little murkier, and I'd say good luck to anybody who tries to argue that a major currently manufactured console is not reasonably available.

What makes me happy about this exemption is that it would appear to remove any doubt about the legality of stuff like the ST Key for the Saturn. It might even give some legitimacy to manufacturers and distributors of mod chips FOR OBSOLETE SYSTEMS. Hard to say. But remember that even if your mod chip is legal, your burnz wouldn't be. Not that you're listening, Mr. Pente with your eyepatch and cutlass. But it makes me, as an import-maniac, breathe a bit easier.

Sylentwulf, by legal abandonware I presume you're referring to games that have been explicitly released into the public domain by the copyright holder. You know that the fact that a game is no longer supported or has no currently planned sequels or expansions does not make it "fair game" for copying or downloading, correct?

[Ed Oscuro]

This law doesn't have anything to do with the rights of the software. It's about excluding copyright circumvention schemes on obsolete software from the DMCA.

Things like dongle or copy-protection cracks would no longer be illegal under the DMCA when used on obsolete software/video games.

Ah, makes much more sense. (I never did follow the DMCA...stupid thing). The funny thing about this is that while copy-protection cracks on old software might not be illegal anymore, you really don't need to use them unless you've lost your book (assuming it used some sort of fill-in-the-word scheme, and you're not able to find the answers elsewhere) or you've copied the game but the game won't run unless it finds the data at an exact sector. Still, a good number of games use schemes like those, so it should be helpful.

[SpasticFuctard]

Or the bastards required you to have a specifc pin terminator in joystick port 2.

Frikkin bums.

SF

[calthaer]

The copyright law also must have some sort of "use it or lose it" provisions as well...this issue has in part at least come up in some of the discussions regarding the new Bard's Tale game. InXile is trying to "take" the copyright to the name from EA because EA is no longer supporting the license and has not for years. Depending on how this case goes, it may put a dent in Epyx's claims that they could go hunt down the people distributing its games.

This is great news, though. Looks like abandonware and emulators get a big boost with this sort of provision.

[The Unknown Gamer]

Lawyers are going to get rich off of the new law

[kevincure]

While it would be awesome, there is no such thing as a "use it or lose it" provision in copyright law (many people think this is one of the worst aspects of the current legal structure). Trademarks, on the other hand, do require certain proactivity on the part of the holder.

[Ed Oscuro]

While it would be awesome, there is no such thing as a "use it or lose it" provision in copyright law (many people think this is one of the worst aspects of the current legal structure).

True this, but I don't consider it a bad thing at all. o_O

I could imagine games, or for that matter, books going out of print for a decade or so and then interest in the material is renewed. It would be rather silly to change the laws so that you have to "use it" where "it" is your own work (that's the thing about trademark laws--there's always arguments that you may have a rather generic figure, whereas every book is usually unique in at least a couple ways in structure and content).

[kai123]

This sums it all up...

http://www.gamespot.com/all/news/news_6078006.html

[jonjandran]

The article is someones "opinion" on the new ruling.
As such it's still open to interpretation and further clarification.
Thats the problem with these new rulings .
Now we need a ruling on the new ruling. :roll:

[kai123]

Now we need a ruling on the new ruling.


LoL

[SoulBlazer]

I have to agree with the Gamespot article and was going to post the link here myself.

As much as we might like old games and emulation to be legal, it's still not.

I never did understand why Nintendo and Sega did'nt realize how much freakin money they could make if they posted their old games as ROM files on their website and charged, say, a few dollars for each game. Throw in a password that you get when you buy the ROM so that you and only you can use it, and some tough encryption routine, and they could make a TON of money. :)

[buttasuperb]

roms plz, kthx.