this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
417 points (99.3% liked)

PC Gaming

8770 readers
261 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
417
US copyright law 'forces researchers to explore extra-legal methods' for game preservation, say historians who are 'disappointed' after being denied a DMCA exemption (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

Does anyone else also think that buying Steam games makes even less sense now that this has happened and Steam has clarified that we're only buying licenses?

I'm asking this as it feels like right now Itch.io might be the only company that allows devs to directly sell and share their binaries/source code and even then, since Itch.io is under the MIT license there's no guarantee that they wouldn't go source available and then proprietary afterwards.

I feel like as gamers, we're kind of in a shitty situation atm as old games are highly unlikely to go FOSS, Steam's not "selling" games (they legally can't say that anymore), and the last potential solution isn't guaranteed :/

It's hard to see games preservation going anywhere in North America with this ruling. We got dealt a real shit hand man

Sorry for the rambling, I'm just real unhappy about the state of the gaming ecosystem

[โ€“] waitmarks 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You were never actually able to buy a game, it has always been a "license" to play it. Even for physical cartridges and disks. The difference being, legally speaking, if you actually owned it, you could make and sell copies of it or take the assets from the game and make a new game with them and then sell that. Owning a license means you can play it, but cant make copies or reuse the assets.

Even with physical media, that license could in theory be taken away if the rights holder chose too. Realistically it would be impossible to enforce since there is no way of tracking down all the physical copies, so no one has ever tried to do it. But legally it works exactly the same as on steam. The only change is that a new california law is going to require steam, and other stores, to be transparent about it, but nothing is actually different.

Even on GOG, where they give you a DRM free binary, if the rights holder doesnt want it available anymore, they have to take it away. You wouldn't be able to download it and if you had saved a copy of the DRM free binary, playing it would legally be the same as piracy at that point.

Despite all of this, game preservation is alive and well and isn't going anywhere.

load more comments (5 replies)