Last month, the Software Preservation Network (SPN) made arguments in support of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act amendment that would allow libraries to bypass digital locks on video games so that academics and credentialed researchers could study them. But the games industry is fighting back.
I really struggle with the justification present in the article. “I need to emulate to do my job as an academic” is pretty hollow. “I want to emulate because I want to learn” is the real reason and, as an academic myself, I don’t feel like there’s a higher ground that gives me access to literally anything I want just because I want to learn.
If the argument was “the copyright system is fucked and knowledge needs to be more open” I would be 100% behind that. I feel that way. I just don’t think someone should get to say “show me your secrets because I’ve arbitrarily decided to make my next publication about your secrets.”
The argument is that “we would like to study these works of art in a purely academic setting, and are willing to limit access to academics only, we just need to make sure it’s going to work even if you guys stop supporting it”
The corporations involved seem to read this argument as “we are looking to start a game streaming service, please give us free access to all your games to distribute at our whim”
The ridiculousness of this is that out-of-print game libraries are already freely available online for no effort. Pirating games of the late 90s and early 2000s is trivial. This is yet another case where a legitimate use of software (academic research, preservation) is made more difficult than just simple emulation by broken DRM and copyright rules.
Call me crazy, but if libraries and academics are legally prevented from preserving art while alleged “illegal piracy” is forced to do the bulk of game categorization, research and preservation I’d say your copyright system has thoroughly failed at its intended purpose.
Just wanted to say I share your complicated thoughts on this. It’s not as simple as “Rah! Rah! Piracy!” No one is entitled to another person’s work. But things get nuanced and messy fast once you move beyond that narrow contextualization.
I really struggle with the justification present in the article. “I need to emulate to do my job as an academic” is pretty hollow. “I want to emulate because I want to learn” is the real reason and, as an academic myself, I don’t feel like there’s a higher ground that gives me access to literally anything I want just because I want to learn.
If the argument was “the copyright system is fucked and knowledge needs to be more open” I would be 100% behind that. I feel that way. I just don’t think someone should get to say “show me your secrets because I’ve arbitrarily decided to make my next publication about your secrets.”
The argument is that “we would like to study these works of art in a purely academic setting, and are willing to limit access to academics only, we just need to make sure it’s going to work even if you guys stop supporting it”
The corporations involved seem to read this argument as “we are looking to start a game streaming service, please give us free access to all your games to distribute at our whim”
The ridiculousness of this is that out-of-print game libraries are already freely available online for no effort. Pirating games of the late 90s and early 2000s is trivial. This is yet another case where a legitimate use of software (academic research, preservation) is made more difficult than just simple emulation by broken DRM and copyright rules.
Call me crazy, but if libraries and academics are legally prevented from preserving art while alleged “illegal piracy” is forced to do the bulk of game categorization, research and preservation I’d say your copyright system has thoroughly failed at its intended purpose.
Just wanted to say I share your complicated thoughts on this. It’s not as simple as “Rah! Rah! Piracy!” No one is entitled to another person’s work. But things get nuanced and messy fast once you move beyond that narrow contextualization.
People are absolutely entitled to other people’s work, it’s called “public services”.
I get what you mean, but the absolute way that trope is stated always rubs me the wrong way.