Sadly the ruling directly forbids reverse-engineered protocols and custom made servers that emulate the original server. The ruling also states that these abandoned online games could only legally run at a museum/library and that it's against the law to distribute them to the internet or host them publicly.
> and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.
IANAL, but it’s not just that particular game, but sequels, alternatives, or the right to release a remastered version that they could claim damages on. And really they just need standing to sue to make it not worth a hobbyists time, I can’t see most of these things making it to court.
So what does this even cover then? If you can't reverse engineer the server, it would have to be provided by the copy-write holder, no? And if the holder has given the code willingly to someone, then you don't need the exemption in the first place, right?
A closer comparison is the Vancouver International Film Festival. From their website:
> Under the laws of our province, only registered non-profit film societies such as VIFF are allowed to screen films that have not been classified by Consumer Protection BC. Only members are permitted to be present at the place where a non-classified film is being exhibited.
...so they charge $2 annually for membership, where you can pay that fee along with your ticket (and then keep the membership for any other shows you're going to see that year.)
> [copyright owner] has issued an affirmative statement
indicating that external server support for the video game has ended and
such support is in fact no longer available or, alternatively, server
support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months
I am not a lawyer, but the awkward phrasing `or, alternatively,` seems to be the complex legalese separator clause here, which would seem to indicate to me it is not a part of the affirmative statement requirement, but an alternative to it.
(It is somewhat fascinating that lawyers use written languages like programming languages in trying to avoid logical ambiguity, but of course the legal approaches to such questions evolved so entirely different including very different environment pressures.)
The Obama Administration's "CTO" office pushed for more laws to include working/testable Python code as artifacts to work through conditional logic in the law. A very small selection of Federal laws did get that added, I don't recall which ones.
Exploring the boundaries between legal code and programming code is a fascinating subject, and one of these decades maybe there will be the right combination of nerds in government to see something systematic attempted.
This covers legally obtained server code, but what about reverse engineered third party servers which allow the use of abandoned game clients?
As an example, a popular 'Blizzlike' Vanilla WoW server (ie. authentic to the original, pre-expansion game) has been built without using the official server software. Recent announcements from Blizzrd aside, it's hard to argue that the original game is not abandoned, as it's been unplayable since 2006.
The original game is radically different in major ways to the current version.
Maps are different, class mechanics are different, races are different, models are different, enemies and bosses are different, classes are different, etc.
It's a completely different game now under the same banner. Theseus' Ship comes to mind; yes, there's been a continuous migration process in place, but you cannot play World of Warcraft v1 any more.
A more reasonable comparison would be Windows 95 vs Windows XP or something. Yes, XP is backwards compatible, but it's obviously a completely different OS in most ways aside from the name.
WoW seems like a terrible example for this, in light of their announcement of WoW Classic remastered. A remaster is a pretty solid way of saying "we haven't abandoned the game".
There's thousands of abandoned MMORPGs and you pick the one that's getting remastered? :)
The first expansion came out in 2007. It's coming up on eleven years.
We're talking about a decade.
So even if you take the announcement as an implication they're actually going to do it (I personally don't think it's going to happen, we will not see a 1.x.x release go live again without dramatic changes), six years ago it would still be illegal under this framework to fix a game you bought because at some indeterminate point in the future the manufacturer could appear again.
> So even if you take the announcement as an implication they're actually going to do it
I have the files on my computer as I write this, they're downloadable unencrypted off their CDN (use this tool I wrote if you want them, with the remote `ribbit://us.version.battle.net/wow_classic`: https://github.com/HearthSim/keg). The demo will be playable at BlizzCon, if you're going there (come say hi if you are!).
There will be a playable demo of WoW Classic at Blizzcon this week (Nov3-4). Virtual ticket holders can play the demo at home. The play-at-home demo has the same playtime restrictions as the Blizzcon demo (e.g. 15 minutes per play session).
Where does one draw the line that it's markedly different? Expansions? Major patches? When 8.1 is released are we allowed to emulate 8.0? 8.2 means 8.0 is fair game? Or the day after Wrath of the Lich King and the Burning Crusade?
I don't believe it should be _illegal_ to create, or operate, a compatible backend for the software at any point.
The first-party solution, with all of the historical knowledge, employees, codebase, marketing budget, and so on and so forth, is going to be superior enough that these emulations will never gain significant traction anyway.
To me, it seems like an issue of legal departments getting out of control.
Should the emulators be able to patch code, or make ehancements? If someone grabbed WoW 8.0, with a decade and a half of work put into it, and then threw in a battle royale mode and that took off like crazy, is that totally fine?
This isn't just taking their IP, this is taking their effort, modifying slightly and then reselling. It seems intellectually dishonest to take a copy of a movie, put a new opening scene on it and then sell it again.
You do know what the purpose of IP/patents originally was, right? The fact that companies have brainwashed you into thinking it's "dishonest" for the rest of society to benefit from their original invention is depressing. Why shouldn't other people be able to make their own WoW back-end and offer a competing service? Maybe it'll give Blizzard a proper kick in the ass after nearly everybody else in the MMO space failing abjectly.
> You do know what the purpose of IP/patents originally was, right? The fact that companies have brainwashed you into thinking it's "dishonest" for the rest of society to benefit from their original invention is depressing.
Dude, harsh.
As a developer, I wouldn't want someone taking the work I'd spent years to build, taking a slightly older copy and then iterating on it and selling it.
I'd be open to expanding IP protection for smaller businesses. But something like WoW - it's a billion dollar product that has more than paid for itself over the years. Blizzard doesn't need the protection of IP. It's just rent-seeking at this point.
I'm not sure what moral justification there is for them to keep milking it, while preventing other people from effectively remixing their work - forever. I think of all the awesome things that could be done with WoW as a base if only Blizzard's profiteering wasn't the only relevant factor.
Perhaps draw the line where client compatibility stops without extra payment?
I've never played WoW nor do I know anyone who still does, so I'm out of touch. At what point (if any) were users forced to pay extra (a paid for update and/or increased subs) to continue to play the game? Can those without the expansions still play? That certainly seems to be a fair place to draw a line.
Having to accept changed game mechanics via free-but-compulsory patches is a much harder to define distinction as the matter is very subjective: what to some is a wonderful improvement may to others be a game breaking change.
> I've never played WoW nor do I know anyone who still does, so I'm out of touch. At what point (if any) were users forced to pay extra (a paid for update and/or increased subs) to continue to play the game? Can those without the expansions still play? That certainly seems to be a fair place to draw a line.
It doesn't quite work out the way you're imagining. A WoW expansion does one thing that require you to buy the expansion: the level cap goes up (e.g. in Cataclysm the level cap was 80 if you were paid up through Wrath of the Lich King, but 85 if you had bought Cataclysm). An expansion may or may not also prevent accounts that haven't bought it from entering new zones.
But it also makes a bunch of other changes that you get whether you want them or not. Content may be removed from the game, like original Naxxramas. Game mechanics will shift around. Every raid below the level cap goes out of support -- it isn't possible to play supported raids without being at the most recent level cap, and it also isn't possible to play old raids the way they were when they were current, as mechanics changes are not evaluated for impact on unsupported raids.
There were so many conceptual problems with having multiple different expansions that weren't current that Blizzard has moved to the model of "you've either bought the current expansion, or you haven't" -- when one expansion releases, the previous one is now automatically rolled into everyone's account.
In that case, the client has always been compatible (not binary compatible, but you can always download the latest version for no additional fee).
It's that the game changed beyond recognition over ten years.
The simplest analogy I could give is - imagine that you started out playing chess, and ten years later the game was chequers.
Each individual change was small, but they add up. You can still play 'something', but it's not what you bought, or perhaps more relevant what you invested significant time and emotional energy in to.
The core root of the game changes, mechanics, graphics, etc, and those with the expansion get additional content, but even if you don't buy the next expansion you can continue to play the game (assuming you don't mean to take advantage of the expansion content).
Maybe, however I see a court stuffing siding with consumers as the game as released is no longer playable. Compare with StarCraft Brood War. The ability to play on a lan connection means the game remains playable (It's also still sold).
To look back further I'd point to games from Lucas Art. SCUMMVM allows to games to continue being played, while not sold.
I don't think WoW is a good example, its still being sold and maintained. I don't think you can claim something is abandoned just because it was patched or updated. A much better example would be Star Wars Galaxies which was actually abandoned and the servers turned off in 2011.
Different software companies have vastly different criteria for differentiating between "a patch update to the same product", "a new major version of the product requiring you to buy it again", and "an entirely new product."
For example: assume that at some point, Super Mario Maker (which is effectively solely an online service) is going to get a release for the Nintendo Switch. Like with the 3DS version, a hypothetical Switch version would probably get its own global level-uploads database, partitioned off from that of the Wii U version.
Let's say Nintendo then, eventually, shut down the servers for the Wii U version of the game, while keeping the servers for the Switch version online.
Under the "separate games" interpretation, the backend for the Wii U version of Mario Maker would probably become abandonware as soon as it was shut down. People could set up their own compatible backend to put their level data back up and keep playing SMM on their Wii U's, and it'd be entirely legal.
But under the other two interpretations, it wouldn't be legal.
And keep in mind that, even if the client was a complete re-write, the servers would likely consist of 99% the same code between the two "generations" of the game. You could say that the Wii U version's servers "became" the Switch version's servers. One "evolved into" the other, without the Wii U version's ever actually "shutting down." They just, at some point, dropped compatibility for speaking to the old Wii U client software.
Given that what you bought in this case is the client software... would the previous paragraph matter? It's entirely an implementation detail hidden to you.
Technically WoW 1 and WoW 8 (current version) have very little in common. But they are remaking it under WoW classic brand, so definitely not abandoned in this case.
The process doesn't work like this anymore; now the copyright industry has to argue that the exemption should be removed and there are a narrow number of reasons why this could be done.
This exception is so limited that I don't even get how it is potentially considered circumventing DRM to begin with. Once you have legally acquired the source wouldn't you normally also have the right to modify it to remove the DRM?
Does this open the door to future debate surrounding variations of game versioning as time continues forward?
Let's say Blizzard does implement WoW Classic, but they choose a specific permutation of classic that makes some people happy and others angry. Do those who wish for variant A of WoW classic but get a drastically different variant B have any legal leg to stand on for their version of the game being abandoned?
>Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.
This is only for non-profit museums etc. so third party servers are still not legally allowed. It's a big step in the right direction and I think it's a good sign that one day we might get an exemption that allows third party servers for home play but it's not there quite yet. It also requires a statement saying the owner is abandoning support and it remains to be seen if the standard "we're shutting down all the servers required to play this game" will count legally or not.
I don't know how it looks technically, but it's often highlighted that many digital sales are actually in form of a lease (or right to use), and not an actual purchase of a product. How would this work then?
> and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.