All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
I argue, though, Zorvan: why?
We're talking solely about games the creator is already making zero revenue off of. If someone else provides server support for it free of charge, where does that do any harm to the creator's ability to create and profit off of new projects?
If the response is they might draw players away from newer titles, it begs the question: why do gamers prefer the older title to the newer? In this era of F2P, "it's free" is a pretty paper thin argument.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
Again, no one is selling anything here. And, if they do it correctly, the only folks who will ever have legal right to xfer the base game to a consumer is the original creator.
I'm not in support of offering the base game as open source code to anyone who wants to give it a shot. But if I purchased the original product, and the creator discontinues server support, the idea that I can't then utilize alternative server support to continue enjoying the product I purchased is completely ludicrous and is an incredibly heavy-handed situation in favor of the producers.
To expound, the ideal system would be that the producer gets to continue selling the base game if they so choose, and they don't have to provide any server support. Simultaneously, no one can profit off of merely providing that support because it would be profiting off of the creator's IP within the game, but those who purchase the game legitimately can utilize this alternative support to continue enjoying the product at damn near zero expense to the creator (other than processing payments and data fees if they choose to continue selling the base game and give the consumers an opportunity to purchase it for use on the alternative servers).
It's a win-win. Producers continue to profit (albeit in a small manner) off of defunct projects, they have to provide no customer support whatsoever beyond that transaction, and folks can continue to purchase and enjoy the product they purchased legitimately.
That's why it is, I feel, key to separate the two things provided to a consumer when we speak of online games: the game itself (product), and server support for the game (service).
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
Again, no one is selling anything here. And, if they do it correctly, the only folks who will ever have legal right to xfer the base game to a consumer is the original creator.
I'm not in support of offering the base game as open source code to anyone who wants to give it a shot. But if I purchased the original product, and the creator discontinues server support, the idea that I can't then utilize alternative server support to continue enjoying the product I purchased is completely ludicrous and is an incredibly heavy-handed situation in favor of the producers.
private servers generally have ways to earn money - these laws are unlikely to allow that. I'd say even taking donations for server costs would be a nono, at least in the U.S.
And there's no way a law would pass forcing those companies to give up their server code. so only games with a big enough population to justify reverse engineering them will get private servers
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
That's irrelevant because no one here is (or should, the cynical part of me has to add, because humans suck) attempting to profit off of their creation but them.
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
It's supposed to become public domain after a while. Are you arguing that things shouldn't automatically become public domain and Shakespeare's descendants should get a check every time someone performs one of his plays? Or are you arguing that the system should usually go:
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while. 2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while. 3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
The system now is the equivalent of purchasing a book and being at the mercy of the author's whims about how long you get to own and read that book.
Isnt it? Doesn't Microsoft offer a subscription to Office 360 and you lose access if you stop paying?
I pay for cable TV and they even "sell" videos on it. If I cancel my service I lose access to them for good.
I once took a PM training class, and was given access to their materials and practice exams for the months I subscribed, but the minute I stopped paying I lost access.
If you want access to a number of online databases you only have it as long as you keep paying.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
It's supposed to become public domain after a while. Are you arguing that things shouldn't automatically become public domain and Shakespeare's descendants should get a check every time someone performs one of his plays? Or are you arguing that the system should usually go:
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while. 2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while. 3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
public domain doesn't mean releasing the server source code. So it's not exactly like movies since code can be reused for other games and they would not want that released.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
The system now is the equivalent of purchasing a book and being at the mercy of the author's whims about how long you get to own and read that book.
Isnt it? Doesn't Microsoft offer a subscription to Office 360 and you lose access if you stop paying?
I pay for cable TV and they even "sell" videos on it. If I cancel my service I lose access to them for good.
I once took a PM training class, and was given access to their materials and practice exams for the months I subscribed, but the minute I stopped paying I lost access.
If you want access to a number of online databases you only have it as long as you keep paying.
Why are online games any different?
your analogy needs work. The service (online game)is no longer available to anyone while your examples are for services still in existence
Very good news in certain situations if users buy that copy of the software they should be allowed to play it at any time without fear the service will ever go down.
So basically games that close down will have to keep an active website, and at least a cheap server to circumvent the law Awesome.
Very good news in certain situations if users buy that copy of the software they should be allowed to play it at any time without fear the service will ever go down.
So basically games that close down will have to keep an active website, and at least a cheap server to circumvent the law Awesome.
I assume that the game needs to be down for a certain period of time before qualifying. So by the time it's available you won't care anymore, and that's people rewrote the server code. This isn't a magic pill to keep all online games running.
And what if they drop servers for one platform but not others, can it still eventually qualify as being abandoned?
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
It's supposed to become public domain after a while. Are you arguing that things shouldn't automatically become public domain and Shakespeare's descendants should get a check every time someone performs one of his plays? Or are you arguing that the system should usually go:
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while. 2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while. 3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
You obviously feel entitled to someone else's work.
Let me ask you a question, at what point, do you lose ownership of something you bought? I would wager you might say never, so why should you get to keep something forever simply because you paid a bit of cash for it, where someone who created something would lose ownership instantly. Seems very unfair.. but.. that is the nature of entitled people, they want to take from others, and keep for themselves.
So, If you don't feel you should lose ownership of something you bought unless it is purely on your terms, why should someone lose ownership of something they made, unless it is purely on their terms?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Very good news in certain situations if users buy that copy of the software they should be allowed to play it at any time without fear the service will ever go down.
So basically games that close down will have to keep an active website, and at least a cheap server to circumvent the law Awesome.
I assume that the game needs to be down for a certain period of time before qualifying. So by the time it's available you won't care anymore, and that's people rewrote the server code. This isn't a magic pill to keep all online games running.
And what if they drop servers for one platform but not others, can it still eventually qualify as being abandoned?
I mean if you develop a video game, and you end up having to close down your game why not just make it open source anyways, or sell it to someone who would like to buy it after all the game is closing down might as well make a bit of money on the side and just give it to the fans who want it freely, or license it for a certain fee for example 5% of all income made.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
The system now is the equivalent of purchasing a book and being at the mercy of the author's whims about how long you get to own and read that book.
Isnt it? Doesn't Microsoft offer a subscription to Office 360 and you lose access if you stop paying?
I pay for cable TV and they even "sell" videos on it. If I cancel my service I lose access to them for good.
I once took a PM training class, and was given access to their materials and practice exams for the months I subscribed, but the minute I stopped paying I lost access.
If you want access to a number of online databases you only have it as long as you keep paying.
Why are online games any different?
your analogy needs work. The service (online game)is no longer available to anyone while your examples are for services still in existence
Realizing any of those services could one day change or go away, if you insist, CompuServe and Genie Online Services. Used to pay them for some of the earliest online games like Neverwinter Nights, and Air Warrior, money down the drain now.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
It's supposed to become public domain after a while. Are you arguing that things shouldn't automatically become public domain and Shakespeare's descendants should get a check every time someone performs one of his plays? Or are you arguing that the system should usually go:
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while. 2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while. 3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
You obviously feel entitled to someone else's work.
Let me ask you a question, at what point, do you lose ownership of something you bought? I would wager you might say never, so why should you get to keep something forever simply because you paid a bit of cash for it, where someone who created something would lose ownership instantly. Seems very unfair.. but.. that is the nature of entitled people, they want to take from others, and keep for themselves.
So, If you don't feel you should lose ownership of something you bought unless it is purely on your terms, why should someone lose ownership of something they made, unless it is purely on their terms?
There are three logical possibilities here:
1) There should be no such thing as public domain, but people should still have to pay for things centuries after the original creator died. 2) It should be common that works are not legally obtainable for a period of time before they become public domain and everyone can make arbitrary copies of them. 3) The copyright should expire and works should become public domain when their creators are no longer interested in trying to sell them.
Which of those three do you think should be the case? And no, your apparently preferred approach of ad hominem isn't a valid option.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
The system now is the equivalent of purchasing a book and being at the mercy of the author's whims about how long you get to own and read that book.
Isnt it? Doesn't Microsoft offer a subscription to Office 360 and you lose access if you stop paying?
I pay for cable TV and they even "sell" videos on it. If I cancel my service I lose access to them for good.
I once took a PM training class, and was given access to their materials and practice exams for the months I subscribed, but the minute I stopped paying I lost access.
If you want access to a number of online databases you only have it as long as you keep paying.
Why are online games any different?
Because Microsoft isn't forcing me to forfeit a previous product (Office 2013) to subscribe to their service. They also offer that as an option, and offer the products themselves for sell outright.
Hollywood studios aren't forcing you to abandon your DVDs because they offer those movies through a DirecTV service. Hollywood studios aren't forcing you to abandon your old DVDs because they have released a new movie. DirecTV isn't the creator or license owner for those movies.
The training class was providing you with materials as part of their service. You didn't purchase the materials on your own, then pay them for lessons, only to have them confiscate your purchases after the classes end.
I purchased Dark Age of Camelot for 50 bones. That included the game itself, and I continued to pay for the service they provided, which was server support. But my 50 dollars wasn't paying for that continued service. My sub payments did that. If you think my 50 bucks paid for the server support, I'd challenge you to do the math on how box sales alone have provided that support all these years. Those are separate purchases, one being for the service of server support for a calendar month, the other being for the game product.
These products were sold as is: a box with discs in them containing a game. I could purchase that game and never activate an account for the server support if I want; there was no obligation to ever even let the producer know I have one of their copies. I can choose to completely avoid using their service related to that product, and it does not mean that product is not mine. If I purchased that product and legitimately own it, the only thing we're talking about here, in reality, is the server support for the game. That's a service, and if that service is discontinued, the product I still legitimately own becomes impossible to use whether I want to or not. The idea that we shouldn't be able to foot our own server support so we can continue to use the product we legitimately purchased speaks to just how tilted the entire paradigm of thinking around software purchases has become.
Realizing any of those services could one day change or go away, if you insist, CompuServe and Genie Online Services. Used to pay them for some of the earliest online games like Neverwinter Nights, and Air Warrior, money down the drain now.
Again, the fact that we're so accepting of that situation is exactly my point about how the paradigm of thinking around software purchases is incredibly off-base in favor of the producers. If we're applying logic, you merely leased those games. So why were they allowed to market it to you like it's a purchase in the first place, burying the part about how you don't actually own it in a hard-to-read text wall?
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
Right now people say "I'll just wait until you go free-to-play.".
After this passes, those same people will say "I'll just wait for the private server after you go bankrupt.".
F2P is extending the life of games that otherwise would fold, true. It's a Frankenstein approach.
The market doesn't want to support this many titles at the profit levels demanded by publishers. Clever marketing and monetization is making up the difference, but it's becoming more and more brash to do so.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
Right now people say "I'll just wait until you go free-to-play.".
After this passes, those same people will say "I'll just wait for the private server after you go bankrupt.".
you are trivializing what it takes to reverse engineer a games server architecture. Most multiplayer games requiring dedicated server architecture would not get people to dedicate the time to make them from scratch.
Games that get private servers almost always get them before the game goes under. Legalizing private servers for abandoned server based games just makes it more worthwhile for volunteers as they'll know they won't get sued as long as they don't make any money.
The minute a company abandons the game the clock should start ticking imo. But I don't see this getting passed. Disney, Activision-Blizzard and many otherswon't let it happen.
Realizing any of those services could one day change or go away, if you insist, CompuServe and Genie Online Services. Used to pay them for some of the earliest online games like Neverwinter Nights, and Air Warrior, money down the drain now.
Again, the fact that we're so accepting of that situation is exactly my point about how the paradigm of thinking around software purchases is incredibly off-base in favor of the producers. If we're applying logic, you merely leased those games. So why were they allowed to market it to you like it's a purchase in the first place, burying the part about how you don't actually own it in a hard-to-read text wall?
Never the less I've always understood and accepted online services are a temporary thing and your analogy of a lease or rental is sound.
If fact, you can lease property, and build on it. When the land lease expires, you lose access to the property and any improvements you've made.
While rarely done for personal dwellings the arrangement is common for commercial properties.
Like you said, I've been used to this model since the mid 80s, its not anything new or unusual.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We have a small coffee shop in my town, where several local artist will have their work displayed for sale.
One of the artist decided that they no longer wanted to sell their art, so I made copies of their existing work and put it up for sale myself.
Why should thy have any say if their work is for sale or not.
Who is selling anything here? This exemption doesn't give anyone the right to sell the game to anyone else just because the devs don't offer dedicated server support anymore.
The whole idea that you seem to miss is that it is their creation.
It's supposed to become public domain after a while. Are you arguing that things shouldn't automatically become public domain and Shakespeare's descendants should get a check every time someone performs one of his plays? Or are you arguing that the system should usually go:
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while. 2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while. 3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
You obviously feel entitled to someone else's work.
Let me ask you a question, at what point, do you lose ownership of something you bought? I would wager you might say never, so why should you get to keep something forever simply because you paid a bit of cash for it, where someone who created something would lose ownership instantly. Seems very unfair.. but.. that is the nature of entitled people, they want to take from others, and keep for themselves.
So, If you don't feel you should lose ownership of something you bought unless it is purely on your terms, why should someone lose ownership of something they made, unless it is purely on their terms?
There are three logical possibilities here:
1) There should be no such thing as public domain, but people should still have to pay for things centuries after the original creator died. 2) It should be common that works are not legally obtainable for a period of time before they become public domain and everyone can make arbitrary copies of them. 3) The copyright should expire and works should become public domain when their creators are no longer interested in trying to sell them.
Which of those three do you think should be the case? And no, your apparently preferred approach of ad hominem isn't a valid option.
How about we start with you answering my question.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.
I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.
Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service." Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date. Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.
The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.
that's not really true. You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
Right now people say "I'll just wait until you go free-to-play.".
After this passes, those same people will say "I'll just wait for the private server after you go bankrupt.".
you are trivializing what it takes to reverse engineer a games server architecture. Most multiplayer games requiring dedicated server architecture would not get people to dedicate the time to make them from scratch.
Games that get private servers almost always get them before the game goes under. Legalizing private servers for abandoned server based games just makes it more worthwhile for volunteers as they'll know they won't get sued as long as they don't make any money.
The minute a company abandons the game the clock should start ticking imo. But I don't see this getting passed. Disney, Activision-Blizzard and many otherswon't let it happen.
Why would there be reverse engineering when you have the full "archive" ready to go?
Show me in the proposal where the companies have to give up source code. The archive of single player games don't require source code so it's apples and oranges.
As far as I can tell, people will just get the right to emulate servers. But the legwork is on them.
Comments
We're talking solely about games the creator is already making zero revenue off of. If someone else provides server support for it free of charge, where does that do any harm to the creator's ability to create and profit off of new projects?
If the response is they might draw players away from newer titles, it begs the question: why do gamers prefer the older title to the newer? In this era of F2P, "it's free" is a pretty paper thin argument.
And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game? I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway. It may keep a couple of them running longer
I'm not in support of offering the base game as open source code to anyone who wants to give it a shot. But if I purchased the original product, and the creator discontinues server support, the idea that I can't then utilize alternative server support to continue enjoying the product I purchased is completely ludicrous and is an incredibly heavy-handed situation in favor of the producers.
It's a win-win. Producers continue to profit (albeit in a small manner) off of defunct projects, they have to provide no customer support whatsoever beyond that transaction, and folks can continue to purchase and enjoy the product they purchased legitimately.
That's why it is, I feel, key to separate the two things provided to a consumer when we speak of online games: the game itself (product), and server support for the game (service).
And there's no way a law would pass forcing those companies to give up their server code. so only games with a big enough population to justify reverse engineering them will get private servers
1) You can buy a work from the original creator for a while.
2) It's illegal to buy a work at all for a while.
3) The work becomes public domain and anyone can make copies for free.
What is the point of having step (2) in there, rather than skipping directly from (1) to (3) whenever the author is no longer interested in (1)?
I pay for cable TV and they even "sell" videos on it. If I cancel my service I lose access to them for good.
I once took a PM training class, and was given access to their materials and practice exams for the months I subscribed, but the minute I stopped paying I lost access.
If you want access to a number of online databases you only have it as long as you keep paying.
Why are online games any different?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So basically games that close down will have to keep an active website, and at least a cheap server to circumvent the law Awesome.
And what if they drop servers for one platform but not others, can it still eventually qualify as being abandoned?
Let me ask you a question, at what point, do you lose ownership of something you bought? I would wager you might say never, so why should you get to keep something forever simply because you paid a bit of cash for it, where someone who created something would lose ownership instantly. Seems very unfair.. but.. that is the nature of entitled people, they want to take from others, and keep for themselves.
So, If you don't feel you should lose ownership of something you bought unless it is purely on your terms, why should someone lose ownership of something they made, unless it is purely on their terms?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1) There should be no such thing as public domain, but people should still have to pay for things centuries after the original creator died.
2) It should be common that works are not legally obtainable for a period of time before they become public domain and everyone can make arbitrary copies of them.
3) The copyright should expire and works should become public domain when their creators are no longer interested in trying to sell them.
Which of those three do you think should be the case? And no, your apparently preferred approach of ad hominem isn't a valid option.
Hollywood studios aren't forcing you to abandon your DVDs because they offer those movies through a DirecTV service. Hollywood studios aren't forcing you to abandon your old DVDs because they have released a new movie. DirecTV isn't the creator or license owner for those movies.
The training class was providing you with materials as part of their service. You didn't purchase the materials on your own, then pay them for lessons, only to have them confiscate your purchases after the classes end.
I purchased Dark Age of Camelot for 50 bones. That included the game itself, and I continued to pay for the service they provided, which was server support. But my 50 dollars wasn't paying for that continued service. My sub payments did that. If you think my 50 bucks paid for the server support, I'd challenge you to do the math on how box sales alone have provided that support all these years. Those are separate purchases, one being for the service of server support for a calendar month, the other being for the game product.
These products were sold as is: a box with discs in them containing a game. I could purchase that game and never activate an account for the server support if I want; there was no obligation to ever even let the producer know I have one of their copies. I can choose to completely avoid using their service related to that product, and it does not mean that product is not mine. If I purchased that product and legitimately own it, the only thing we're talking about here, in reality, is the server support for the game. That's a service, and if that service is discontinued, the product I still legitimately own becomes impossible to use whether I want to or not. The idea that we shouldn't be able to foot our own server support so we can continue to use the product we legitimately purchased speaks to just how tilted the entire paradigm of thinking around software purchases has become.
The market doesn't want to support this many titles at the profit levels demanded by publishers. Clever marketing and monetization is making up the difference, but it's becoming more and more brash to do so.
Games that get private servers almost always get them before the game goes under. Legalizing private servers for abandoned server based games just makes it more worthwhile for volunteers as they'll know they won't get sued as long as they don't make any money.
The minute a company abandons the game the clock should start ticking imo. But I don't see this getting passed. Disney, Activision-Blizzard and many otherswon't let it happen.
If fact, you can lease property, and build on it. When the land lease expires, you lose access to the property and any improvements you've made.
While rarely done for personal dwellings the arrangement is common for commercial properties.
Like you said, I've been used to this model since the mid 80s, its not anything new or unusual.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As far as I can tell, people will just get the right to emulate servers. But the legwork is on them.