Discussion: Fair use for video games expanded in the US

On October 27th, the United States Librarian of Congress redefined what can be considered fair use in video games. They clarified that players were allowed to circumvent server based authentication (DRM) when the original servers are no longer online, like say you wanted to play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (#1). There are also exemptions for archivists to be able to modify/jailbreak consoles to preserve the functionality of games.

This is good news, because currently the biggest fear most people have about online-DRM like Steam, Origin and Uplay is that, when the servers eventually go down, the games won't function anymore, but because of this ruling, the law will now be on your side to restore functionality of the game.

Sources:
http://www.destructoid.com/fair-use-for-video-games-expanded-in-the-us-317812.phtml
https://www.eff.org/document/library-congress-2015-dmca-1201-rules
 

Titillating

Expert
Ambassador


Still, it's something! A step in the right direction if nothing else. Besides, this is more in relation to DRM services and the implications it would have on the actual functionality of the game; multiplayer games would still need game servers to host it, which we probably won't be legally allowed to do any time soon.
 
so seeing the game today even if you buy the retail disk you still got to go to say steam and down load the game or a major portion of it and there client in order to complete loading /install

so with all that where do you now get them files ??? pirate site ?? or say you got the game from steam and now there gone or what ever and you lost your hard drive and cant recover ?? send them a letter for a refund of the game you now cant recover that you [lol] bought ??

good thing I'm an old gamer and got plenty of games on full retail disks cause none of this affects me in any way

steam/u-play/origin is sooo great -
 


Yes, a "pirate site" is exactly where you'd get the files, the same with all abandonware titles. Just because the server hosting the files is gone, the game files are likely still around, and the pirates who have always been "stealing" the files are suddenly the only ones providing working copies.
 
why I don't support any games that require any3ed party involvement.. full ready to load and play on a retail disk only [like it use to be in the real pc gaming days] - glad I'm not so desperate to play a game I got to stoop to something like steam to do so -just there eula is enough to tell me NO WAY i'll pass to start

 


Yeah, but it's also very difficult for you to meet with other people to play online with, and no efficient way to manage your friends, or see what games your friends are playing.

 
I did not know I was not able to talk to my friends and set up our own servers ?? as we all ways did ?? and could invite outsiders in as well ??

when was I not able to do all that before ??

heck look at quake ? world wide and never had anything like steam or what ever ?? come on
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
666
3
19,015

The question I have is "Why should we not be allowed to do that?" If the company in question has closed down the game servers and does not want to run them anymore, why should the Library of Congress not say "You have said that you do not want to support this game anymore for the multiplayer. Now because of that it de-facto falls into the public domain and you have to release the code so that anyone can run a server for this game!"
That would be more than fair in the real world.

 
The question I have is "Why should we not be allowed to do that?"

Because doing so would violate the EULA in regards to unlawful modification of the software. The LoC is basically invalidating that portion of the EULA as far as restoring basic functionality should the external servers go down.
 


EULA's aren't Laws though, and they don't have much legal strength.

They don't hold anywhere near the weight of an actual contract.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
666
3
19,015
Exactly, James Mason. I do not really give any about those EULA's, they are basically a bunch of legally iffy bullplop rolled up for the consumption of the populace who most do not bother to read them.
 


The EULA is a legally binding contract you enter into the second you hit the "Accept" button, so it's legally binding. Most nowadays have clauses where you give up your right to sue and agree to binding arbitration instead, with the arbitrator picked by the company, of course. This issue came up to the Supreme Court a few years back, and the Court rules these agreements are legally binding.

Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if this decision starts up a major court fight down the line, since the companies could argue that the LoC is basically overriding the US Supreme Court, which they obviously can not do.