ESA SAYS PRESERVING OLD GAMES IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT'S 'HACKING'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jehan-reznor**

Saw this via AlphaOmegaSin.

Spoiler:

IGN article http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/09/esa-says-preserving-old-games-is-illegal-because-its-hacking

BY JENNA PITCHER The Entertainment Software Association wants to prevent the preservation of old games because it believes the process of restoring them is illegal 'hacking'.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions (Section 1201) prevents users, including communities, museums, archives and researchers, to legally modify games to keep them playable after publishers shut down the servers.

EFF staff attorney Mitch Stoltz says Section 1201 presents serious issues for academics, museums like Oakland, California’s Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment and non-profit organisation the Internet Archive.

Last year, the Internet Archive launched the Historical Software Collection, a collection of classic console and computer games and software. The organization recently added nearly 2,400 MS-DOS games to its growing library of classic titles, including Bust-A-Move, Commander Keen, and Metal Gear, along with 900 classic, coin-operated arcade games late last year.

“Thanks to server shutdowns, and legal uncertainty created by Section 1201, their objects of study and preservation may be reduced to the digital equivalent of crumbling papyrus in as little as a year,” Stoltz wrote. “That’s why an exemption from the Copyright Office is needed.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is asking the Copyright Office to give academics, museums, and archivists an exemption from Section 1201 and some legal protection to preserve older video games and keep them playable.

However, according to the EFF, the ESA, MPAA and RIAA have contacted the Copyright Office to oppose the exemption, saying it will send a message that “hacking—an activity closely associated with piracy in the minds of the marketplace—is lawful” and undermines “the fundamental copyright principles on which our copyright laws are based.”

The ESA also proposes to reject research bodies from exemption, essentially barring them from modifying consoles as tools for research. The ESA suggest that researchers should use cloud computing to conduct their research, rather than hacked PlayStation consoles. IGN Logo.

The Idiocy is big in this foundation.

**MrMoustaffa**

Its a console they bought. Whether they use the damn thing to play games, as a doorstop, a dirt cheap server solution or just kick it around the parking lot shouldn't matter, its that person's property.

Companies may be able to force me to sign an EULA agreement just to get online with my console, but they didn't stick an EULA on the box when I bought it, so they can deal with it.

Why on earth this idea still gets traction is beyond me, I've never even heard of it anywhere besides games.

**LordofHats**

Brain dead stupidity.

**Trondheim**

Wait what? And these people get paid to do their job? Almost tempted to belive that the employes has been replaced with monkeys in this case

**TheDraconicLord**

I have nothing more to say, really.

**Ouze**

Subverting copyright protection schemes on your media is hacking by any reasonable definition, and certainly by the legal one. When you own a game, you don't own the rights to do whatever you want with it, you have a limited license to it, just as buying a DVD doesn't allow you to, say, broadcast the movie commercially.

The solution to this would be a personal use, fair use clause such as phone unlocking has. I certainly don't believe it should be unlawful to crack your own legally owned games.

**Melissia**

Nope.

**Howard A Treesong**

I don't believe you buy a time limited license on a game, you buy the rights to play it forever. As I said on the other thread, the want to power to enforce planned obsolescence. Once they're done with supporting a game they want to pull the plug on their servers and end your game use. Go and buy a new one.

No one expects companies to run servers forever, but they shouldn't be able to determine when you can no longer use a product you paid for, particularly when you didn't pay for it on a limited subscription basis.

**Soladrin**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't believe you buy a time limited license on a game, you buy the rights to play it forever. As I said on the other thread, the want to power to enforce planned obsolescence. Once they're done with supporting a game they want to pull the plug on their servers and end your game use. Go and buy a new one.

No one expects companies to run servers forever, but they shouldn't be able to determine when you can no longer use a product you paid for, particularly when you didn't pay for it on a limited subscription basis.

This isn't publishers and developers arguing the point, it's just the ESA, a thing should've been put out of it's misery for years now.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
say, broadcast the movie commercially.

But you can use it for education and preservation purposes (because exemptions exist for that).

**Talizvar**

What I like is the remark of fundamental principles of copyright.
The original intent was to prevent secrets and have the copywritten material documented and them made public domain when it expires.
Now they want it to be forever even to kill a product from use to force consumerism, rather irritating.

**flamingkillamajig**

Trondheim wrote:
Wait what? And these people get paid to do their job? Almost tempted to belive that the employes has been replaced with monkeys in this case

More like soulless businessmen that smoke cigars and p*ss on the poor people for a living asking for more money any way they can.

**Asherian Command**

We had a discussion about this in game design and we all agreed even the industry professionals said it was quite stupid......

**Trondheim**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
Trondheim wrote:
Wait what? And these people get paid to do their job? Almost tempted to belive that the employes has been replaced with monkeys in this case

More like soulless businessmen that smoke cigars and p*ss on the poor people for a living asking for more money any way they can.

Or evil bussnies monkeys on crack, both things would go some way to make me understand this madness

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:
Ouze wrote:
say, broadcast the movie commercially.

But you can use it for education and preservation purposes (because exemptions exist for that).

Sure. I was just throwing out a single example. However, there exist no such exemption, legally, for video games.

I'd consider cracking a single copy of a game you own to avoid having to put a disc in (for example) to be fair use, but I'd certainly be wrong, legally. As the law stands there is no lawful fair use for software in the manner described in the OP... which is my beef with premise as posted (well, my secondary concern; my primary is WHY DID THE THREAD TITLE NEED TO BE IN CAPS).

The law on this is clear. Of course, the law represents the will of the people (stop laughing) so if you feel strongly about it, write your legislators to pass a reasonable fair-useexemption.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Trondheim wrote:
Wait what? And these people get paid to do their job? Almost tempted to belive that the employes has been replaced with monkeys in this case

Oh hey, Games Workshop is outsourcing.

**Trondheim**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Trondheim wrote:
Wait what? And these people get paid to do their job? Almost tempted to belive that the employes has been replaced with monkeys in this case

Oh hey, Games Workshop is outsourcing.

Indeed, seems they need new sources of income

**Asherian Command**

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/140405-Entertainment-Software-Association-Says-Preserving-Old-Games-Through-Hacking-Is-Illegal

Escapist just came out with an article....

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ESA is blocking efforts to preserve classic games on the basis that hacking is a crime.

There's a growing concern right now that most classic games we grew up on will be impossible to preserve for future players. DRM software, out-of-date hardware, and licensing issues will make it extremely difficult for historians to study these titles - especially once servers providing access shut down. That's why the Electronic Frontier Foundation proposed an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, allowing anyone to alter games to make them playable when publisher support ends.

Sound great? One problem: The Entertainment Software Association - alongside the MPAA and RIAA - are opposing the exemption on the basis that hacking game files encourages illegal piracy.

This issue revolves around Section 1201 of the DMCA. As the law stands, if you hack a game's files to circumvent DRM, you're breaching copyright and committing a crime no matter what your intent. The EFF's exemption would allow access controls to be circumvented for third-party historical preservation. But according to a blog post by the EFF, the ESA doesn't want to send a message that "hacking-an activity closely associated with piracy in the minds of the marketplace-is lawful".

The EFF continued by saying that hacking is well within the boundaries of the law, and that the ESA knows it. "Of course, 'hacking' is legal in most circumstances," its post reads. "ESA, the spokespeople for a group of software companies, knows this full well. Most of the programmers that create games for Sony, Microsoft, EA, Nintendo, and other ESA members undoubtedly learned their craft by tinkering with existing software.

"If 'hacking,' broadly defined, were actually illegal, there likely would have been no video game industry."

In response, the ESA sent The Escapist a copy of its Copyright Office filing, which states that Section 1201 is essential for the industry. "The proposed exemption would jeopardize the availability of these copyrighted works by enabling-and indeed encouraging-the play of pirated games and the unlawful reproduction and distribution of infringing content," it reads.

The filing goes on to state that the ESA isn't against the preservation of games - and in fact has taken action to preserve such titles itself. "The Entertainment Software Association worked with the Smithsonian Institute to offer The Art of Video Games, which was one of the first exhibitions exploring the evolution of video games as an artistic medium," it continues. "ESA also has partnered with GlassLab, an unprecedented research and development effort that is exploring the potential for existing digital games to serve as powerful learning environments and providing real-time assessments to improve student learning."

**LordofHats**

All I'm seeing is the industry's brain dead obsession with 'pirates' taken a another level of stupidity.

**Asherian Command**

LordofHats wrote:
All I'm seeing is the industry's brain dead obsession with 'pirates' taken a another level of stupidity.

Funnily enough there are quite a few in the industry who are a bit more lenient on the problem. I mean there are sometimes where the industry says go ahead steal it, especially to avoid embargos set up by stupid governments like australia which outright block games from being sold.

**KalashnikovMarine**

If I want to play Star Trek Armada 2, a game that has no support, and do the work required to make it function right for a modern system, and don't sell it and use it for myself... what's the issue there? Or even bringing a game back to life as a community project? Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries for example has an active community and is even Microsoft approved.

**Desubot**

TheDraconicLord wrote:

I have nothing more to say, really.

**daedalus**

I've always found it odd and kind of alien to think that changing bits on my own hard drive is illegal.

**LordofHats**

daedalus wrote:
I've always found it odd and kind of alien to think that changing bits on my own hard drive is illegal.

Well its because you don't own the Harddrive. The EULA says you're 'leasing' it