The U.S. Copyright Office denied an exemption from the DMCA to allow gaming historians to access out-of-print games they can’t legally get.

“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.”

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    2 months ago

    Guess I don’t understand, are they saying places Like Vintage Stock that sells old games illegal? Or are they talking about digital backups of these games. Regardless fuck them and the copyright office. This makes me want to pirate more not less.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      I answered your question on another thread of the same topic, but I’ll answer it here too for anyone else who has the same question: The law is just about digital backups. Vintage stores are still legal, and if anything this would boost sales at a vintage stores. If the game you’d like to play is unavailable at a vintage store or on eBay (or wherever else) then it will be entirely inaccessible for you to play legally.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • lad@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          2 months 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