Many older games, like those that were built before the time when the Internet was as ubiquitous as it is today, are playable so long as you can figure out how to install them. This can be no small feat in some instances although emulators like DOSbox do a lot of the heavy lifting for you. However for slightly more modern games, especially those that relied on DRM or activation servers in order to work, getting them installed is only half the battle. Quite often those activation servers have long since shut down, leaving you with few options if you want to enjoy an older title. Typically this meant turning to the less than legitimate sources for a cracked version of the main executable, free from the checks that would otherwise prevent it from working. This practice however is now legitimized thanks to a ruling by the Library of Congress spurred on by the Electronic Freedom Foundation.
The ruling allows gamers to circumvent any measures of abandoned games that would prevent “local play” of a copy that they legally purchased. Essentially this means that if a central server is shut down (or made inactive without explanation for 6 months) then you’re free to do whatever you need to in order to resurrect it. Considering so many of us now rely on Steam or other digital distribution platforms this ruling is critical to ensuring that we’ll be able to access our games should the unthinkable happen. It also means that more recent abandonware titles that had central DRM servers can now be legally resurrected. For many of us who still enjoy old games this certainly is a boon although it does come with a couple caveats.
Probably the biggest restriction that the Library of Congress placed on this ruling was that multiplayer services were not covered by this exemption. What that means is that, should a game have a multiplayer component, creating the backend component to support it is still not a legal activity. Additionally should the mechanisms be contained within a console the exemption does not cover modification of said console in order to resurrect the game. Whilst I can understand why circumventing console protections wasn’t included (that’s essentially an open season notice to pirates) the multiplayer one feels like it should have been included. Indeed a lot of games thrived on their multiplayer scene and not being able to bring back that component could very well mean it never gets brought back at all.
The exemptions come as part of the three yearly review that the Library of Congress conducts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the past exemptions have also been granted for things such as jailbreaking phones and the fair use of sampled content from protected media. There’s potential in a future review for the exemptions to be extended which could potentially open up further modification capabilities in order to preserve our access to legally purchased games. However the Entertainment Software Association has been fervent in its defence of both the multiplayer and console modification arguments so it will be a tough fight to win any further exemptions.
These exemptions are good news for all gamers as it means that many more titles will be playable long into the distant future. We might not have the full freedom we need yet but it’s an important first step towards ensuring that the games of our, and future generation’s, time remain playable to all.
For over 100 years rights holders have resisted any changes to their business models brought about by changes in technology. From a business perspective its hard to blame them, I mean who wouldn’t do everything in their power to ensure you could keep making money, but history has shown that no matter how hard they fight it they will eventually lose out. Realistically the world has moved on and instead of attempting to keep the status quo rights holders should be looking for ways to exploit these new technologies to their advantage, not ignore them or try to legislate them away. Indeed if other industries followed suit you’d have laws preventing you from developing automated transport to save the buggy whip industry.
The copyright system that the USA employs is a great example of where legislation can go too far at the request of an industry failing to embrace change. At its inception the copyrights were much like patents: time limited exclusivity deals that enabled a creator to profit from their endeavours for a set period of time after which they would enter the public domain. This meant that as time went on there would be an ever growing collection of public knowledge that would benefit everyone and not just those who held the patent. However unlike the patent system copyrights in the USA have seen massive reform in the past, enough so that works that would have come into the public domain will probably never do so.
Thankfully, whilst the copyright system might be the product of an arms race between innovators and rights holders, that hasn’t stop innovation in the areas where the two meet. Most of this can be traced back to provisions made in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that granted safe harbour to any site that relied on user generated content. In essence it put the burden of work on the rights holders themselves, requiring them to notify a site about infringing works. The site was then fully protected from legal action should they comply with the request, even if they restore the offending material after receiving a counter claim from the alleged offender. Many sites rely on this safe harbour in order to continue running on the web because the reverse, them policing copyright themselves, is both technically challenging and resource intensive.
However just like all the technologies and provisions that have been made for the rights holder industry previously those safe harbour provisions, which enabled many of the world’s top websites to flourish, are seen as a threat to their business models. Rights holders associations have said that the DMCA as it stands right now is too lenient and have lobbied for changes that would better support their business. This has come in the form of 2 recent bills that have dropped in both houses: the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the house of reps. Both of these bills have attracted heavy criticism from the technology and investment sectors and it’s easy to see why.
At their core the bills are essentially the same. Both of them look to strengthen the powers that rights holders have in pursuing copyright infringers whilst at the same time weakening the safe harbour provisions that were created under the DMCA. Additionally many of the mechanisms described in the bill are at odds with the way that the Internet is designed to work, breaking many of the ideals that were set out in order to ensure ubiquitous access. There’s also many civil liberty issues at stake here and whilst bill supporters have assured everyone that they don’t impact on them in any way the wording of the bill is vague enough to support both interpretations.
The main issue I and many others take with these bills is the shifting of the burden of proof (and thus responsibility) away from the rights holders and onto the web site owners. The changes SOPA advocates mean that web site administrators will be responsible for identifying copyrighted material and then removing it from their website, lest they fall prey to having their domain seized. Whilst this more than likely won’t be the downfall of the sites that made their fame inside the safe harbours of the DMCA it would have a chilling effect on start-ups looking to innovate in an area that would have anything to do with a rights holder group. Indeed it would be the sites that have limited resources that would be hit the hardest as patrolling for copyright infringement isn’t a fully automated process yet and the burden could be enough to drive them under.
It’s also evident that SOPA was put together rather haphazardly when some of the most known copyrights infringement sites, like The Pirate Bay, are actually immune to it. Indeed many sites that rights holders complain about aren’t covered by SOPA (just by the current laws which, from what I can tell, means they’re not going anywhere) and thus the bill will have little impact on their activities.
You might be wondering why I, an Australian who’s only ever been to the USA once, would care about something like SOPA. Disregarding for the moment the principle argument and the fact that I don’t want to see the USA technology sector die (I could justify my point easily with either) the unfortunate reality is that Australia has a rather liberal free trade agreement with the USA. What this means is that not only do we trade with them free of tariffs and duties but we’re also obliged to comply with their laws which affect trade. SOPA is one such bill and should it pass it’s highly likely that we’d be compelled to either implement a similar law ourselves or simply enforce theirs. Don’t think that would happen? A leaked letter from the American ambassador to Spain warned them that not passing a SOPA like bill would see them put on a trade blacklist effectively ending trade between the two countries. This is just another reason as to why everyone, not just Americans, should oppose SOPA in its current form.
The worst part of all of this is the potential for my site, the one I’ve been blogging on for over 3 years, to come under fire. I link to a whole bunch of different places and simply doing so could open me up to domain seizure, even if it wasn’t me putting the link there. I already have limited time to spend on here and the additional task of playing copyright police would surely have an impact on how often I could post and comment. I don’t want to stop writing and I don’t want people to stop commenting but SOPA has the very real potential to make both those activities untenable.
So what can be done about SOPA and its potential chilling effects on our Internet ecosystem? For starters if you’re an American citizen write your representative and tell them to oppose SOPA. If you’re not then the best you can do is help to raise awareness of this issue, as whilst it’s a big issue in the tech circles, even some of the most versed political pundits were unaware of SOPA’s existence until recently. Past that we just have to hope we’ve made enough of an impression on the USA congress critters so that the bill doesn’t pass, at least in its current form. The hard work of many people has made this a very public issue, but only continued pressure will make it so it won’t damage the Internet and the industries it now supports.
EDIT: It appears that the strong opposition has caused the American congress to shelve SOPA indefinitely. Count that as a win for sanity.