This is story that brought me some cheer. A YT'er has spent close to
$23k buying every game on Nintendo's eShop before it closes down. It
really is something I like to see be formalised in law because as time
goes by computer games are effectively going to be lost. It's kinda
scary how central the video game industry is to our culture yet it's
just not considered worth saving for future generations in the same way
say books are.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/random-youtuber-spends-nearly-usd23k-buying-every-3ds-and-wii-u-eshop-game

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

This is story that brought me some cheer. A YT'er has spent close to
$23k buying every game on Nintendo's eShop before it closes down. It
really is something I like to see be formalised in law because as time
goes by computer games are effectively going to be lost. It's kinda
scary how central the video game industry is to our culture yet it's
just not considered worth saving for future generations in the same way
say books are.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/random-youtuber-spends-nearly-usd23k-buying-every-3ds-and-wii-u-eshop-game

So... yet another benefit to software piracy? It's not only that they
offer a 'cheaper' product, with less hassles (DRM) and more control
over the product, but now they're providing a distinct and useful
service in archiving our history that the publishers want to erase
because preserving it would cost them money*.

In an ideal world, all software would be required to a) post full code
and assets to some regulatory archive (like the British Library in the
UK, or the Library of Congress in the Americas) in order to benefit
from copyright protections, and b) have some method of allowing users
to acquire and/or keep using the software after the publisher decides
to sunset it.


* either due to cutting the minimal server support costs, or because
the older games were competing with new sales

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:15:10 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

This is story that brought me some cheer. A YT'er has spent close to
$23k buying every game on Nintendo's eShop before it closes down. It
really is something I like to see be formalised in law because as time
goes by computer games are effectively going to be lost. It's kinda
scary how central the video game industry is to our culture yet it's
just not considered worth saving for future generations in the same way
say books are.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/random-youtuber-spends-nearly-usd23k-buying-every-3ds-and-wii-u-eshop-game

So... yet another benefit to software piracy? It's not only that they
offer a 'cheaper' product, with less hassles (DRM) and more control
over the product, but now they're providing a distinct and useful
service in archiving our history that the publishers want to erase
because preserving it would cost them money*.

Most of the C=64 library would be gone if it weren't for crackers.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:15:10 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

This is story that brought me some cheer. A YT'er has spent close to
$23k buying every game on Nintendo's eShop before it closes down. It
really is something I like to see be formalised in law because as time
goes by computer games are effectively going to be lost. It's kinda
scary how central the video game industry is to our culture yet it's
just not considered worth saving for future generations in the same way
say books are.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/random-youtuber-spends-nearly-usd23k-buying-every-3ds-and-wii-u-eshop-game

So... yet another benefit to software piracy? It's not only that they
offer a 'cheaper' product, with less hassles (DRM) and more control
over the product, but now they're providing a distinct and useful
service in archiving our history that the publishers want to erase
because preserving it would cost them money*.

In an ideal world, all software would be required to a) post full code
and assets to some regulatory archive (like the British Library in the
UK, or the Library of Congress in the Americas) in order to benefit
from copyright protections, and b) have some method of allowing users
to acquire and/or keep using the software after the publisher decides
to sunset it.

An ideal world? You mean like under Putin's regime or something?

Regulation like that would stifle all innovation. It's tantamount to
telling the electronic music industry that every artist must provide
the patch data for every synth patch used, and every singer must
provide audio of their vocals which can be freely used in perpetuity
by anyone who purchased the song in any format.

Meanwhile I just played a cool SNES title on the Switch the other day
(all of which are offered there free of charge), which I was never
even aware of back when I owned an actual SNES. It's called Wild
Guns... first few rounds were frustrating because its a gallery
shooter and I'm not used to moving a crosshair with a thumbstick (on
the pro controller.... originally on SNES this would have been a
d-pad). I assumed this was something that was played with a lightgun,
or an arcade port, etc. but it was not, it was made for SNES and meant
to be played with the d-pad. It seemed weird at first because you are
either moving or aiming, not both at the same time. Then as you play
you realize this dynamic is an important part of the gameplay intended
by the designer. I thought it was an arcade port at first, but its
not, it was an SNES game designed for d-pad.

Anyway point here is that any game worth playing will eventually
resurface free of charge anyway.

The SNES cartridge if you should want one, can be had for $20k https://www.ebay.com/p/1222

..or a little less if you shop around :)

Any notion of regulation requiring developers to open source their
code would only filter out anyone with any talent from ever writing
games.. trust me you don't want that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 21:31:47 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:15:10 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

In an ideal world, all software would be required to a) post full code
and assets to some regulatory archive (like the British Library in the
UK, or the Library of Congress in the Americas) in order to benefit
from copyright protections, and b) have some method of allowing users
to acquire and/or keep using the software after the publisher decides
to sunset it.

Regulation like that would stifle all innovation. It's tantamount to
telling the electronic music industry that every artist must provide
the patch data for every synth patch used, and every singer must
provide audio of their vocals which can be freely used in perpetuity
by anyone who purchased the song in any format.

I did specify software as opposed to other forms of media.

And I disagree strongly that it would stifle innovation in the
software market. It does not 'open source' any code. It does not
remove copy-write protections from the product. It does not give
anyone license to use the code. What it does do is ensure that people
who paid to use a product can continue to use it after the creator
decides it's not worth his time to keep supporting it.

Anyway point here is that any game worth playing will eventually
resurface free of charge anyway.

Except, the point is that, increasingly, with modern software, this
isn't possible anymore because assests required to run the software
are kept server-side and thus can not be 're-released' without the participation of the publisher. This not only includes multi-player
games but increasingly single-player games that simply won't work -
despite the best efforts of hackers and pirate.

Example: "Dark Sun Online: Crimson Sun", an MMORPG that - despite
being largely client-based* and requiring relatively little
modification, still can't be run today because what little server-side
code is not just unreleased, but effectively lost. And with the
publisher and developers both out of business, and the licensing a
mess, it will never be recovered. to get it running would require a
full re-write of the server code, essentially creating a new product
that won't be the same as the original.

Any notion of regulation requiring developers to open source their
code would only filter out anyone with any talent from ever writing
games.. trust me you don't want that.

Which is bullshit. This isn't asking companies to give away their
products for free. This is asking them to provide code that will allow
users to be able to keep using that code after the publishers don't
want to support it anymore. Which they only will do after they decide
it isn't profitable for them to do so anymore. People would still
create new software for profit because new software will still be
marketable (novelty almost always trumps older wares in the
entertainment business). And meanwhile, people who are interested in
the older goods are still able to use it even if the publisher has
unilaterally decided they don't want them to.

Copyright is intended to give creators a temporary restriction on the
right to copy and use their creation in order to give them a temporary
period to profit from their works, after which those works are
intended to go into the public domain. It is generally held that
copyright terms are far too long already for general media; with
software the near century-long terms are extremely excessive because
of the medium changes so swiftly. But even if the medium remains the
same, without changes to the law existing works still NEVER go into
public domain because the code remains locked up by DRM and other
methods.

Regulating software publishers to essentially eschrow their code to
ensure that the code remains usable and fully accessible would not
destroy the industry. Might it increase costs somewhat? Possibly, but
not in any signifcant way (some paperwork, and sending an archive of
code and assets to wherever).








* those were more naive days, when publishers assumed the client-side
software could be trusted to 'do the right thing' when it came to
combat, or trading, or anything. ;-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/26/2023 8:16 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 21:31:47 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:15:10 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

In an ideal world, all software would be required to a) post full code
and assets to some regulatory archive (like the British Library in the
UK, or the Library of Congress in the Americas) in order to benefit
from copyright protections, and b) have some method of allowing users
to acquire and/or keep using the software after the publisher decides
to sunset it.

Regulation like that would stifle all innovation. It's tantamount to
telling the electronic music industry that every artist must provide
the patch data for every synth patch used, and every singer must
provide audio of their vocals which can be freely used in perpetuity
by anyone who purchased the song in any format.

I did specify software as opposed to other forms of media.

And I disagree strongly that it would stifle innovation in the
software market. It does not 'open source' any code. It does not
remove copy-write protections from the product. It does not give
anyone license to use the code. What it does do is ensure that people
who paid to use a product can continue to use it after the creator
decides it's not worth his time to keep supporting it.

Anyway point here is that any game worth playing will eventually
resurface free of charge anyway.

Except, the point is that, increasingly, with modern software, this
isn't possible anymore because assests required to run the software
are kept server-side and thus can not be 're-released' without the participation of the publisher. This not only includes multi-player
games but increasingly single-player games that simply won't work -
despite the best efforts of hackers and pirate.

Example: "Dark Sun Online: Crimson Sun", an MMORPG that - despite
being largely client-based* and requiring relatively little
modification, still can't be run today because what little server-side
code is not just unreleased, but effectively lost. And with the
publisher and developers both out of business, and the licensing a
mess, it will never be recovered. to get it running would require a
full re-write of the server code, essentially creating a new product
that won't be the same as the original.

Any notion of regulation requiring developers to open source their
code would only filter out anyone with any talent from ever writing
games.. trust me you don't want that.

Which is bullshit. This isn't asking companies to give away their
products for free. This is asking them to provide code that will allow
users to be able to keep using that code after the publishers don't
want to support it anymore. Which they only will do after they decide
it isn't profitable for them to do so anymore. People would still
create new software for profit because new software will still be
marketable (novelty almost always trumps older wares in the
entertainment business). And meanwhile, people who are interested in
the older goods are still able to use it even if the publisher has unilaterally decided they don't want them to.

Copyright is intended to give creators a temporary restriction on the
right to copy and use their creation in order to give them a temporary
period to profit from their works, after which those works are
intended to go into the public domain. It is generally held that
copyright terms are far too long already for general media; with
software the near century-long terms are extremely excessive because
of the medium changes so swiftly. But even if the medium remains the
same, without changes to the law existing works still NEVER go into
public domain because the code remains locked up by DRM and other
methods.

Regulating software publishers to essentially eschrow their code to
ensure that the code remains usable and fully accessible would not
destroy the industry. Might it increase costs somewhat? Possibly, but
not in any signifcant way (some paperwork, and sending an archive of
code and assets to wherever).

* those were more naive days, when publishers assumed the client-side software could be trusted to 'do the right thing' when it came to
combat, or trading, or anything. ;-)

Spalls, while I understand and sympathize with your frustration there is
a fundamental problem with your suggestion. (Which by the way has been proposed a number of times in different forms for different types of
products.) The right of ownership includes the right to NOT sell. At all.

At its core your proposal is that if the owner of something refuses to
sell it to you then the government will. Which at its most basic
concept of "ownership" means the seller _doesn't_ own it. This basic
concept of "owner" does not change just because the item in question is computer code.

To do what you want would destroy the entire concept of Intellectual
Property, copyright and patents. It would require removing ALL
protections that those laws and concepts provide and in the process
destroy the world's economy.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You really haven't thought this through have you?

Do you have any idea how many vintage arcade games are still making
money for whoever paid for that intellectual property in the first
place (whether that's the guy who programmed it or whether he
personally feels "done" with it is irrelevant... someone somewhere
owns the IP)? Regardless of whether the original machine or platform
it was designed to run on is still even in operation, those games
still find a home in various distribution scenarios many decades after
they were developed. Someone owns the IP and thus owns the right to
continue to profit from it. It's not much different than the idea of
music royalties (which is why I gave the example I did in my earlier
message).

As far as "after the creator decides it's not worth his time to keep
supporting it"...

You are basically saying that the owner of a particular intellectual
property forfeits all rights to that property unless they provide
"support for it" in perpetuity. And by that definition, it means a
software developer is on the hook to constantly reinvest in the code
as well as the build and deployment processes to be sure that it works
with all future operating system versions (despite factors that
developer has no control over). If they ever falter at that, they
forfeit all rights to the product they created and must turn it over
for support from the communist regime.

To expect that is incredible.

As far as games requiring online servers to be playable in the
future... well, that's just the way it is. From a gamer's
perspective, yeah I do understand the desire. I would love to be able
to just jump online at any time and find FarCry2 online games active
so I could relive some of the fun I had circa 2008 or so, but the fact
that I want that does not take precedence over the fact that the
owners of the IP are under no obligation to continue to support a
product that doesn't sell anymore. And they are perfectly within
their right to sit on that IP as long as they want to, to wait for the opportunity recycle profits for that game *

* note I'm not suggesting they should have the right to re-sell the
same title again to PC platform players, but they might want to
release it on another platform, or set up a paid service that allows
the user community to continue to create new maps and publish to
servers where they are played, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/03/2023 15:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:36:40 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

This is story that brought me some cheer. A YT'er has spent close to
$23k buying every game on Nintendo's eShop before it closes down. It
really is something I like to see be formalised in law because as time
goes by computer games are effectively going to be lost. It's kinda
scary how central the video game industry is to our culture yet it's
just not considered worth saving for future generations in the same way
say books are.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/random-youtuber-spends-nearly-usd23k-buying-every-3ds-and-wii-u-eshop-game

So... yet another benefit to software piracy? It's not only that they
offer a 'cheaper' product, with less hassles (DRM) and more control
over the product, but now they're providing a distinct and useful
service in archiving our history that the publishers want to erase
because preserving it would cost them money*.

In an ideal world, all software would be required to a) post full code
and assets to some regulatory archive (like the British Library in the
UK, or the Library of Congress in the Americas) in order to benefit
from copyright protections, and b) have some method of allowing users
to acquire and/or keep using the software after the publisher decides
to sunset it.

* either due to cutting the minimal server support costs, or because
the older games were competing with new sales

I'll try and cut this into sections as I think there are a number of
points being made.

Archiving: That's probably the biggy to me as I think gaming has become
a part of our cultural history and as like other parts of that should be preserved for future generations to explore. Exactly how it's done, I'm
not sure as logistically it's not as easy as say music CD's but I do
think it should be done nevertheless. I even believe that there was a
step in the right direction when in the US it was ruled that it's legal
to bypass copy protection mechanisms for the purposes of archiving
although there's still the issue of games that rely on server side code
for in-game functionality.

Keep playing games: If it's games a service then I basically accept that
they don't live for ever. The problem I do have is when you can no
longer play single player games because the publisher doesn't want to
support it. In that case the publisher should either release a patch or
if they don't have no right to legal redress if someone releases a patch
that removes the need for an online component.

Acquiring sunsetted games: I'm not so sure about this one but maybe
reduce the copywrite protection period to say thirty years.

So there are my thoughts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:54:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

Spalls, while I understand and sympathize with your frustration there is
a fundamental problem with your suggestion. (Which by the way has been >proposed a number of times in different forms for different types of >products.) The right of ownership includes the right to NOT sell. At all.

Except the creator already has sold the product but nonetheless is
still limiting the end-user's usage, and furthermore the creators
right to control the distribution of his work ends when copyright
ends. Putting the full work in eschrow to be fully released at some
point - whether when the creator decides the cost is no longer worth
the it, or at the end of copyright - ensures that creations are not
lost, and that end-users aren't robbed of their rights.

To do what you want would destroy the entire concept of Intellectual >Property, copyright and patents. It would require removing ALL
protections that those laws and concepts provide and in the process
destroy the world's economy.

Not in the least. Patents actually require the creator to fully detail
what is being patented. After seven years, the patent is open to
anyone to use. This is a similar technique. Oddly enough, people seem
to be making new gadgets despite this limitation. It's not too
different how publishers need to deposit their publications with the
British Library in the UK. Even piracy - where the product is being
given away for free - hasn't been able to stop that tendency.

The fear-mongering about how this will somehow destroy capitalism is
provably false. What it will do is restore some of the balance between
the consumer and the purveyor, who can now end-of-life products
customers have purchased at any time and there's often nothing the
customer can do about it.

The methodology and details? I admit, that will be difficult to parse
(hence my initial 'ideal world' in the earlier post). For instance,
what gets deposited? How do you deal with third-party software (e.g.,
Havok physics, or Unreal Engine, or whatever)? When is the archive
made public (at the end of copyright, certainly, but perhaps earlier
if abandoned?) If the later, when can it be declared abandoned? What
if the creator changes their mind? (This would be less of a hassle of
copyright for software wasn't so abysmally long, of course). Then
there's the whole issue where software purveyors claim they aren't
'selling' the software but merely 'licensing' it, oy vey. Unravelling
that mess probably take a lifetime.

But the core conceit remains viable, well within the purpose of
copyright, in line with the much-tested end-users rights to use their
purchase product when and how they wish, and in no way damaging to the
core concepts of capitalism. It in no way challenges owner rights; if
anything, it strengthens them. If a creator does not want to submit
their software to such an archive, they are free not to... unless they
want to sell it to the public, in which case some sort of eschrow is
required to protect the new owners' rights too.

Because right now, without it, you can hand over a wad of cash for an
app, and five minutes later the publisher can declare it out of
support and takes down the DRM server. The end-user is then left
withwith useless code, and no legal recourse to getting it to work. I
think most people would argue that's far more damaging to ownership
rights and the ideals of capitalism than anything else.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/03/2023 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Because right now, without it, you can hand over a wad of cash for an
app, and five minutes later the publisher can declare it out of
support and takes down the DRM server. The end-user is then left
withwith useless code, and no legal recourse to getting it to work. I
think most people would argue that's far more damaging to ownership
rights and the ideals of capitalism than anything else.

That's a thumbs up from me. Isn't one of the bedrocks of capitalism
property ownership?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/27/2023 8:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:54:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

Spalls, while I understand and sympathize with your frustration there is
a fundamental problem with your suggestion. (Which by the way has been
proposed a number of times in different forms for different types of
products.) The right of ownership includes the right to NOT sell. At all.

Except the creator already has sold the product but nonetheless is
still limiting the end-user's usage, and furthermore the creators
right to control the distribution of his work ends when copyright
ends.

Not quite. When the copyright ends the creator can no longer forbid
others from copying extant instances of the work. It does NOT mean the
creator has to allow copying of something they never released to the
public in the first place.

Putting the full work in eschrow to be fully released at some
point - whether when the creator decides the cost is no longer worth
the it, or at the end of copyright - ensures that creations are not
lost, and that end-users aren't robbed of their rights.

The end-users under current law have no rights here.

Here's an analogy for you. A writer produces a book. They publish the
book minus the last chapter. Anyone who buys a copy of the book can
read everything except the last chapter. To read the last chapter they
have to go to a specific location and pay a fee to read the ONLY copy of
the last chapter printed, which is under the legal and physical control
of the author. Said author can, shortly before copyright ends, stop
allowing anyone to read the last chapter. Once copyright ends anyone
can print copies of the book _THAT WAS PUBLISHED_. Which does not
include the last chapter. The author is under no legal or frankly moral obligation to publish the last chapter. Others are free to write their
own versions of the last chapter and sell that separately.

This is what the server side code of online games is, that unpublished
last chapter.

To do what you want would destroy the entire concept of Intellectual
Property, copyright and patents. It would require removing ALL
protections that those laws and concepts provide and in the process
destroy the world's economy.

Not in the least. Patents actually require the creator to fully detail
what is being patented. After seven years, the patent is open to
anyone to use.

I've actually had to deal with patents as someone working for the small
company that held one. Its not that simple. And its 20 years in the
USA, not 7.

As I said I understand and sympathize with your frustration but what you
want requires a fundamental change to copyright law. Getting any change
thru will be a stone-assed bitch and getting a change that doesn't make
things _worse_ will take many years. I wish you luck and the House of
Mouse lawyers will thank you for the decades of billable hours.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:29:49 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 3/27/2023 8:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:54:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

Spalls, while I understand and sympathize with your frustration there is >>> a fundamental problem with your suggestion. (Which by the way has been
proposed a number of times in different forms for different types of
products.) The right of ownership includes the right to NOT sell. At all. >>

Except the creator already has sold the product but nonetheless is
still limiting the end-user's usage, and furthermore the creators
right to control the distribution of his work ends when copyright
ends.

Not quite. When the copyright ends the creator can no longer forbid
others from copying extant instances of the work. It does NOT mean the >creator has to allow copying of something they never released to the
public in the first place.

Except you again ignore that their methods (DRM, whatever) prevent the
usage of their creation to others who should - either because of
lapsed copyright - or because they paid for the product. This violates
the doctrine of first sale, which (among other things) says that the creator/seller cannot restrict the general usage or resale of a sold
item

(barring copying, due to copyright, of course. But using software as
intended does not cross that line. Software publishers get around this currently by claiming they are merely 'licensing' their wares, which
is often seen as loophole abuse and in fact has been ruled against in
some countries).

Because the issue is not just one of copyright.

As I said I understand and sympathize with your frustration but what you
want requires a fundamental change to copyright law. Getting any change
thru will be a stone-assed bitch and getting a change that doesn't make >things _worse_ will take many years. I wish you luck and the House of
Mouse lawyers will thank you for the decades of billable hours.

I am well aware that it isn't likely to happen in the near future. As
I said, in an /ideal world/ these changes would take effect. It would
require a significant revamping of the law, which has largely been
crafted in favor of large copyright holders. However, the changes
suggest are consistent with copyright, ownership, and the doctrine of
first sale (you may disagree but you haven't convinced me). It would
not, as some have claimed, doomed capitalism to a communist hellhole
where nobody wants to work anymore.It is completely workable in

Fortunately, there are others who are working towards these changes
(it's not an idea I invented on my own, there are other people smarter
than me working on this). Will it happen? No time soon, but perhaps
one day. Already some nations (even in the ultra-libertarian USA) are
taking a stronger stance against DRM and similar methods that allow
publishers to control how a product is used after its sold. And it
will be a better world for it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/2023 6:33 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:29:49 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 3/27/2023 8:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:54:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

Spalls, while I understand and sympathize with your frustration there is >>>> a fundamental problem with your suggestion. (Which by the way has been >>>> proposed a number of times in different forms for different types of
products.) The right of ownership includes the right to NOT sell. At all.

Except the creator already has sold the product but nonetheless is
still limiting the end-user's usage, and furthermore the creators
right to control the distribution of his work ends when copyright
ends.

Not quite. When the copyright ends the creator can no longer forbid
others from copying extant instances of the work. It does NOT mean the
creator has to allow copying of something they never released to the
public in the first place.

Except you again ignore that their methods (DRM, whatever) prevent the
usage of their creation to others who should - either because of
lapsed copyright - or because they paid for the product. This violates
the doctrine of first sale, which (among other things) says that the creator/seller cannot restrict the general usage or resale of a sold
item

Which is why they don't "sell" games anymore. (And haven't for a very
long time actually.) They sell subscriptions to a service or offer you
a temporary license to use the product. Its all laid out in the Terms
Of Service that we all just click "I Accept" on rather than taking the
hour or two to read them and possibly the expense of hiring a lawyer to translate them into common language.

(barring copying, due to copyright, of course. But using software as
intended does not cross that line. Software publishers get around this currently by claiming they are merely 'licensing' their wares, which
is often seen as loophole abuse and in fact has been ruled against in
some countries).

Because the issue is not just one of copyright.

As I said I understand and sympathize with your frustration but what you
want requires a fundamental change to copyright law. Getting any change
thru will be a stone-assed bitch and getting a change that doesn't make
things _worse_ will take many years. I wish you luck and the House of
Mouse lawyers will thank you for the decades of billable hours.

I am well aware that it isn't likely to happen in the near future. As
I said, in an /ideal world/ these changes would take effect. It would
require a significant revamping of the law, which has largely been
crafted in favor of large copyright holders. However, the changes
suggest are consistent with copyright, ownership, and the doctrine of
first sale (you may disagree but you haven't convinced me). It would
not, as some have claimed, doomed capitalism to a communist hellhole
where nobody wants to work anymore.It is completely workable in

Fortunately, there are others who are working towards these changes
(it's not an idea I invented on my own, there are other people smarter
than me working on this). Will it happen? No time soon, but perhaps
one day. Already some nations (even in the ultra-libertarian USA) are
taking a stronger stance against DRM and similar methods that allow publishers to control how a product is used after its sold. And it
will be a better world for it.

Oh, I agree the laws need to be updated to account for the technology.
And as it has always been in human history changing things to be fair
and just is a long, uphill slog against strong entrenched forces. But understanding the reality of the problem is one of the prerequisites for _solving_ the problem.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)