Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What does this mean for games like SWG or Vanguard? Can players now LEGALLY run servers?
Bane82
Member UncommonPosts: 1,242
Just as the title suggest, I came across this article this morning, and it got me thinking. They mention Starcraft 2 Online (did they mean Warcraft online?) but can this now be used to legally run servers for abandoned games like SWG? Vanguard? To take it a step forward, if these games can be legally considered "abandoned", can players with access to the source code, choose to further advance the game themselves? as in, create patches and dungeons without repercussions?
article link:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/u-s-govt-grants-limited-right-to-revive-games-behind-abandoned-servers/
Quote from article:
After nearly a year of debate and deliberation, the Library of Congress (LoC) has granted gamers and preservationists a limited legal method to restore access to games that are rendered unplayable thanks to defunct, abandoned authentication servers.
In new guidelines published today, the Librarian of Congress said that gamers deserve the right to continued access to "local play" on games that they paid for, even if the centralized authentication servers required for that play have been taken down. So if Blizzard, for instance, decides to take down the authentication servers required to verify a new copy of StarCraft II online, players will now be legally allowed to craft a workaround that allows the game to work on their PCs.
Does this quote say it's not allowed? or is it mentioning online games that are originally single player, that just happen to have a multiplayer capability? (FPS shooters et al.) if so. Can a small victory like this lead to include abandoned mmo's in the future?
The LoC placed some important limitations on this new legal right, though. For one, gamers can't legally work to restore online gameplay in titles that required a defunct central server to coordinate such play. Creating third-party matchmaking tools, the LoC argued, would necessarily run afoul of the DMCA's "anti-trafficking provision," which prevents the wide distribution of tools that circumvent DRM and TPM. That means efforts like those to restore online gameplay to the Wii and DS are still illegal under the DMCA.
article link:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/u-s-govt-grants-limited-right-to-revive-games-behind-abandoned-servers/
Quote from article:
After nearly a year of debate and deliberation, the Library of Congress (LoC) has granted gamers and preservationists a limited legal method to restore access to games that are rendered unplayable thanks to defunct, abandoned authentication servers.
In new guidelines published today, the Librarian of Congress said that gamers deserve the right to continued access to "local play" on games that they paid for, even if the centralized authentication servers required for that play have been taken down. So if Blizzard, for instance, decides to take down the authentication servers required to verify a new copy of StarCraft II online, players will now be legally allowed to craft a workaround that allows the game to work on their PCs.
Does this quote say it's not allowed? or is it mentioning online games that are originally single player, that just happen to have a multiplayer capability? (FPS shooters et al.) if so. Can a small victory like this lead to include abandoned mmo's in the future?
The LoC placed some important limitations on this new legal right, though. For one, gamers can't legally work to restore online gameplay in titles that required a defunct central server to coordinate such play. Creating third-party matchmaking tools, the LoC argued, would necessarily run afoul of the DMCA's "anti-trafficking provision," which prevents the wide distribution of tools that circumvent DRM and TPM. That means efforts like those to restore online gameplay to the Wii and DS are still illegal under the DMCA.
Comments
"The LoC placed some important limitations on this new legal right, though. For one, gamers can't legally work to restore online gameplay in titles that required a defunct central server to coordinate such play. Creating third-party matchmaking tools, the LoC argued, would necessarily run afoul of the DMCA's "anti-trafficking provision," which prevents the wide distribution of tools that circumvent DRM and TPM"
They did not mention Starcraft II Online. They mentioned "authentication servers required to verify a new copy of StarCraft II online". Online refers to the online authentication of Starcraft II, it's not used as a part of the game's name.
What that means is that for example if you bought Skirym on Steam, and Steam goes suddenly out of business, you are allowed to find a way to play it without the need to go through Steam authentication Servers.
I think this apply to Single Player games (stand alone) not MMORPGs which cannot be played stand alone.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think it is a great decision because we do pay for these games and have absolutely no say when a publisher shuts it down.Pointing at you SOE who shut down it's TCG abruptly and imo without any effort at all to keep it going.Problem is i have no hard copy of that game,i don't think there ever was one,digital only so likely could never play that game again.However i do have a hard copy of Vanguard.
The problem is that this law is VERY limiting.I know and understand that you can't start up a commercial server but it also seems unclear as to any server that is not just your own personal use.I say this because it seems to be mentioning that multiplayer is not doable so that leads me to think your own server only.
So i "think" it is basically saying you could start up the Vanguard game IF you know how but would only be playing it by yourself "legally".What is likely to happen however is it opens the door wide open to hack into these games and likely will open up several servers for multiplayer "illegally".Then if too many cases come to courts the LOC will likely in 3 years retract it's decision.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]
Maybe if some private servers are opened that make money, a percentage should be given to the copyright holder.
Could be a win for everyone.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It has nothing to do with MMORPGs in the least, and specifically said so.
But, as an interesting side note, it seems that this is something of a low key hit on the concept that software is "licensed" and not "sold", as many software makers would have people believe. The logic behind this whole thing is that that people have a right to use the product they "bought" even when the producer stops offering the ability to use it through "authorized servers".
If it were wholly accepted that software was "licensed", then people would still be bound by the decision of the company to shut down the servers and end use of the product. The US government says that is not the case.
Even in that article it specifies local play. After looking in other areas multiplayer games are explicitly forbidden.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
You need to look up what local play means. The basics is you could do a work around to play it on your PC and your PC alone. You could not publish the game to have people come play with you and you would not have access to peoples accounts so they could play their chars with you.
Compare that to a single player game client that would work on a player's PC just fine, except for the fact that the company required the game client to login / be authenticated on company servers. Company closes the servers, players can't play the single player game they paid for.
They did say online authentication and played locally. This looks to me like just DRM for an old single player game. I would love to see this extended BUT...
Companies should certainly have a set amount of time to sell the property to someone else before it is a free for all.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
All this law is doing is giving some recourse to the people who paid their hard earned money and expected to play a game but cannot because a developer basically said screw you.
Remember you can play your single player games FOREVER or as long as your system holds out.You cannot do that with games that require secure logins,that is where this law is stepping in.
Why should you pay 75 bucks for a single player game and get to play it for 100 years and i pay 75 bucks and get to play a game for maybe 1 year?This is the type of law that SHOULD be in place,they shouldn't even have to think twice about it.
The ONLY problem is the developers crying fowl,they will claim that this opens the door to make it easier for copyright infringement.Nobody is allowed to steal any of the copyright material for their own commercial use but they most certainly have the right to play a game they paid for.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.