this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
847 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

60015 readers
2615 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
847
Feds Say You Don’t Have a Right to Check Out Retro Video Games Like Library Books (gizmodo.com)
submitted 1 month ago by iN8sWoRLd to c/technology
146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Most of the world’s video games from close to 50 years of history are effectively, legally dead. A Video Games History Foundation study found you can’t buy nearly 90% of games from before 2010. Preservationists have been looking for ways to allow people to legally access gaming history, but the U.S. Copyright Office dealt them a heavy blow Friday. Feds declared that you or any researcher has no right to access old games under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly this is pro "book" burning. Only in this case it is games. If a group or entity wants to make a piece of history more scarce or wipe it from the planet because they disagree with it, buying up or destroying as many physical copies that exist would work because people legally can't back them up or print more copies essentially?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The IP owner can print more, but if the owner is gone or legally unclear, then yes. Although I don't think this was the real intention, because greed looks like a simpler reason and fits