Cool. Guess I'll leave you and them in the past.
All the best games are cool about providing software resources to players, mod abilities, self-hosting, so on. It's kind of like the Steam license thing. I love Steam but there's no way I'm starting Helldivers 2 or Destiny 2 up in ten years to play nostalgia. But Shattered Pixel Dungeon? Deep Rock Galactic? Valheim? Minecraft. I'll still be rocking those.
guess what publishers, your videogames are going to be preserved if you allow it or not.
I suppose you could have allowed it to happen to garner some goodwill from the community, but you have instead chosen to shit on that goodwill.
guess we'll just do whatever we've been doing for the last 25 years and continue to "archive" your "property" that's been abandoned.
What I don't get is that they're not sizing the opportunity to do this on their own terms and maybe make some cash off it. Idiots.
More proof that if they were a new idea, libraries would be fought tooth and nail by book publishers
Could you imagine trying to get there to be libraries today if the concept was new? "We can't possibly just let people read for free! What, do you think literacy is a right? It's a privilege!"
Same for firefighters.
"PAY people to sit around in case a fire breaks out?? That almost never happens! Also, ignore everything else they do. It's everyone's responsibility to keep fires out of their homes. We'll sell them a new one if something happens, though. And their neighbors. And THEIR neighbors. Also, literally buy a fireplace from us, please."
k I guess everyone will continue to dump roms and make emulators.
preserved games might be used for entertainment
Umm, yeah, that's what a lot of preserved media is used for. You think publishers are losing their shit over people enjoying Shakespeare?
I subscribe to a lot of YouTube channels that have silent films and films from the 1930s and 40s. Also I have a lot of movies from the 70s to 90s on my drive (and some more recent, too). I don't always watch the more recent stuff.
It is ironic, too. Because when VHS first came out, it didn't take long for film studios to start to release tons upon tons of their old classics (that were often shown on TV anyway) on tape and frequently capitalized on people's desire for owning and watching older media. Sure people got the new stuff (for both rental and ownership) like there was no tomorrow, but if you were in the 80s and wanted to watch 40s stuff (which was like the 80s for people living in the 80s... feeling old yet?) you wouldn't have had that hard of a time finding the classics.
This is what really baffles me about the industry. They could be making some real decent cash off of this old IP if they just made it accessible and put a tiny bit of effort into it. Imagine all the old games the switch already runs. Imagine it running EVERYTHING! ugh. Dummies!
Big Book hates him!
games being used for recreational purposes? the horror
Damn right that old video games would be used for entertainment. I have old books, which predate me by decades, that I still read. I watch old movies on DVD's. I see no reason why games should be any different.
I'm lucky that ever since I've been a gamer, I had a PC. Hardware is thus not a problem, and in my case, so is emulation, via VirtualBox. I kept the install disks and license keys (if applicable) for all operating systems I've used, so now I have several virtual images I spin up when I want to play a certain game. And I'm finding that I'm still spending most of my time with the older titles...
This will not help anyone who'd like to play their old favorite from the NES or Dreamcast era. And it's too late to advise only buying games that are platform independent. So kerp up the good fight. In the past you purchased games to own, not a "limited license". You are entitled to kerp using your entertainment product as you see fit.
I read an old book, and it didn't need batteries, nor had it microtransactions, nor advertisements, nor did it need updates. Worst of all, I got it for free at my local library. The terror!
Trump: "lol, you mean you used to."
Ha! I used to do that, too. They also had video tapes at mine, and audio. You could do all sorts of things there. It was publically funded, as it should.
I always enjoyed the ads in some youth books, like the "one chapter teaser" of the next adventure in the local translation of "Famous Five" by Blyton
Yo ho...
Just use it for llm training and it'll be OK!
What good is preserving old cultural products if you can't use them the way they were intended? Oh yeah, we've got that old record of a book/piece of music/movie in our archive. No, nobody can access it, it's not fair for people selling newer ones!
Ugh, playing games for fun? They're not toys!
Patent law is 20 years. Copyright should be no different.
copyright should also expire when something goes out of print or, if its hardware locked, when the hardware is no longer available.
I've been collecting abandonware since 2000. I lost good chunk of my collection due to a harddrive crash some years ago, but I recovered it and expanded upon it. My logic has been the same. It isn't about wanting to play it (I don't play the majority of the games I download) it is entirely about perserving them. Maybe one day I'll make my collection a torrent for all to share.
Copyright should belong to the lifetime of the person who is creator or 20 years from the original creation if transfered or created by a non-person entity.
Nah, even an artist should lose monopoly after 20 years. What is their incentive to make new stuff otherwise?
Their incentive is.... making art is fun and a passion. Holding copyrignt allows artists to earn a living while freely pursuing their passion. Artists already struggle to get paid well for their work... and you want to strip away their rights to their work? Do you also pay your artists in impressions?
US copyright was originally for 14 years, with the option to extend it for another 14 years. It kept getting extended over the years. I think it's life of the author plus 70 years now.
Isn't that Disney's fault (and their government lapdogs) with their efforts to hang on to Mickey Mouse as long as they can?
It's the fault of a political system that allows private companies to lobby for oppressive laws.
The current iteration is, yes, which was created in the 90s. Copyright lawyers sneeringly called it the 'Mickey Mouse Act' due to just how involved they were in writing it.
But before that in the 1970s there was another major rewrite that gave them the original extension. Without that law in the 70s Mickey and Minnie Mouse would have entered full public domain in... 1984!
Can you imagine a world where the most recognized cartoon characters have been in public domain for over 40 years? If that law didn't it, the entire original Disney cast (Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald Duck, Goofy, et al) would have been public domain, and ditto for Warner Bros characters like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and others. They all would have entered public domain in the 80s to the first half of the 2000s.
Comic book superheroes like Spiderman would have entered public domain in 2016! Can you imagine what the cinematic and comic landscape would be if anyone can publish their take on the majority of superhero comics?
Can you imagine a world where the most recognized cartoon characters have been in public domain for over 40 years?
To be clear, only the original versions would have been in public domain for over 40 years. Every time they change something about the character, it creates a new copyright for the new version.
Basically, Steamboat Willie Pete (released in 1928) would have been in the public domain decades ago, but Kingdom Hearts 2 Pete (released in late 2005/early 2006) would have only recently entered the public domain a few years ago.
There are even conspiracy theories that this is why Disney has been so focused on creating awful live action remakes of all of their old works; It resets the copyright timer on the new versions. Disney has historically used copyright as a cudgel to bully smaller content creators, because they took all of the old fairy tales (which were in the public domain) and slapped copyrights on them with their movies.
The conspiracy theory is that the awful live action remakes are simply a way to maintain copyright claims over those original fairy tales. They don’t care if the movies are successful; They just want to prevent anyone in the foreseeable future from ever making a Snow White/Sleeping Beauty/etc film based on the same fairy tales. Because even if a smaller content creator’s work is only based on the original fairy tale, Disney’s army of lawyers can claim that it is based on the Disney version. And the smaller content creators (who can’t afford a long drawn-out legal battle) will be bullied in court and forced to concede.
I wonder at what temperature do preserved video games burn?
Fahrenheit 999, then the score counter ticks back over to 0
198451° degrees
Of course they'll be used for "recreational purposes". How do they think museums are supposed to work?
Among us
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of art to enrich society. Making money for copyright holders is a means to an end, not the end itself.
We need a new copyright law that shifts media to public domain if the copyright holder no longer makes it available.
Oh, heaven forbid someone go to the library and enjoy a book they check out.
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
If you see these please report them.