lnc0

Assigned Essex Lad at birth

  • Fae/Faer

Sebastiana
In that 3rd Decade cycle
Autistic as in Eat My Ass
Agender / A System / Cute

Currently writing Beastiary Beas


Read Beastiary Beas (and my other stories) here:
archiveofourown.org/users/lnc0
Please fund my stories
ko-fi.com/sebastiannoel

dog
@dog

As far as the ESA and its members are concerned, video games are just products and their availability is a product decision. There's a reason they release remasters, remakes, and even totally unrelated games with identical titles: they want to replace older products that don't match their current branding and product strategies. They want players playing the new thing that aligns with their marketing priorities. They don't care what it does for games studies, and if anything they'd rather that even people studying games get forced into only paying attention to whatever their current strategy is.


shadsy
@shadsy

Last year, the Software Preservation Network and Library Copyright Alliance submitted a petition to the Copyright Office for a new copyright exemption would let libraries remotely share their out-of-print game collections with researchers. Right now, the only way to study game collections is to visit a library/archive/museum in person, which is obviously a significant burden, and it's not one that researchers face for other materials like rare books.

Back in 2021, a similar exemption was proposed for video games but was shut down. The ESA objected to the idea because there is (and this is true!) a market for re-releasing classic video games. The Copyright Office held off on approving the exemption that time.

Remember last year when we released a study proving that ~87% of classic games are out of print? We did that study specifically to push back on this! Limited remote access to game collections will NOT harm the game market, because most games don't get re-released due to a combination of tech issues, rights issues, and limited commercial potential.

In fact, we got statements from Antstream Arcade and Limited Run Games backing us up on this. They agreed with our findings about why games don't get released, and they said not only would the exemption not hurt the re-release market, it might actually HELP it in the long term by encouraging more research into out-of-print games that would increase interest in those titles.

Last week, we had an hour-long hearing with the US Copyright Office, where they asked the pro/con sides to answer some specific questions they had about the exemption. I feel great about how our hearing went. But the ESA said some truly incredible stuff in that hearing, including:

  • Even though the exemption has strict requirements that games can only be used for research purposes, and each request has to be approved by a librarian, this isn't good enough.
  • In fact, there are no conditions under which the ESA would support a remote access exemption.
  • Antstream Arcade and Limited Run do not have valid perspectives on this issue because they are not ESA members (despite the ESA having cited Antstream Arcade as an example of how great the classic game market is).
  • 87 percent is inaccurate because games go in and out of release at different times, which is a deliberate business strategy.

For context, the lawyer representing the ESA is the same guy hired by the MPA and the RIAA for these sorts of copyright hearings. His job is to be a copyright absolutist and object to literally any change to copyright law. But I also think the lawyers who get thrown at this issue may genuinely not understand how it works! I'm not even sure ESA members are aware what the ESA is saying on their behalf.

The good news is that the ESA doesn't get to make the law. The Copyright Office has the final say on this. They've heard both sides, and they will make an informed ruling sometime in October. But I feel like we made a strong case.

There will be an official recording going up soon on the Copyright Office's website. You can also find all the statements/petitions we submitted there if you want to dig into it more.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @dog's post:

You've already been answered and you probably already found it, but ESA is the association that used to organize and profit from the E3 event.

What I'm wondering is why right now this organization holds power of veto in congressional decisions, and supported by no other than a guy related to DVDs and Blue-Rays copyright, if I'm reading well the AACS acronym.

After ESA stopping their most public and notorious activity, the E3 fair, what do they even keep doing to have such privilege? I thought they might be related to age ratings, but no. Apparently these people will just send a cease and desist to your ass under command.

And I guess the AACS still has some influence being a standard in the architecture of the physical disc market, though I see more and more crates of discarded, unsold video game boxes at my outlet supermarket.

I don't think physical market of video games will completely dissapear any time soon, nor I want that to happen, truth to be said. But isn't stupid to leave the weight of the history of video games, of that craft, in the shoulder of such biased and apparently declining organizations?

What I'm wondering is why right now this organization holds power of veto in congressional decisions

The US has a system where every few years, the librarian of congress is able to establish specific limited exemptions to the DMCA. These are often targeted at preservation organizations. There are public hearings and comments as a part of this; because the ESA represents all the megapublishers, it's one of the organizations that was invited to comment in the current set of hearings for the next set of DMCA exemptions.

No problem! Pretty much, except that they don't yet have a bare minimum to share - these are the hearings for the next round of rules that haven't been decided on yet. So the ESA's goal is to try to present literally any exemption for research as unacceptable to try and keep any new exemptions from being granted.

in reply to @shadsy's post:

Isn't it completely obvious that the existence of the original title isn't a burden for a re-release, but what sparks the interest on it?

I mean, when you launch a classic game again, it will come usually with improved graphics, some quality of life tweaks or even extra features like lost levels, etc. If the new version has been somewhat well done, most people will usualy want to play that one instead of the classic due to the inherent retro-breaking effect.

They are simply talking nonsense. That kind of gatekeeping (no conditions are good enough for us to accept sharing our classic games) it's pure obstructionism. Hope the petitions go through and the ESA and similar organisms get pulled by the ears a bit!