Shponglefan wrote on 2023-03-30, 19:05:

Shagittarius wrote on 2023-03-30, 16:03:

I think the correct path forward is to bring a class action lawsuit against the companies themselves. I don't believe the EULAs should legally protect them from morphing the requirements of software after purchase even if their distribution platform/DRM is separate from their product.

The potential consequence if companies start getting sued over this is a further push towards subscription models.

Not if they can't make money off that either. Besides I see steam as a subscription model anyways, just pay by game instead of a low monthly fee. An expensive subscription that will run out someday, for multiple reasons.

Shagittarius wrote on 2023-03-30, 21:10:

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-03-30, 19:05:

Shagittarius wrote on 2023-03-30, 16:03:

I think the correct path forward is to bring a class action lawsuit against the companies themselves. I don't believe the EULAs should legally protect them from morphing the requirements of software after purchase even if their distribution platform/DRM is separate from their product.

The potential consequence if companies start getting sued over this is a further push towards subscription models.

Not if they can't make money off that either. Besides I see steam as a subscription model anyways, just pay by game instead of a low monthly fee. An expensive subscription that will run out someday, for multiple reasons.

It seems to me a good description of the situation in a few words.
Again, it is not a sale, it is a payment for a service, I think it is a clear conclusion, Steam does not really sell, since without its service you are left without being able to use what you have "bought".
At least in my country, a sale and a service are different things.

I found this very ironic: Half-Life 2, one of -- if not "THE" -- most successful game by Valve, was first released in November 2004 when XP was the mainstream OS just about everywhere. Its demo pack required Steam installation (which went online in September 2003) but Steam ended its support to XP on the first day of 2019 and soon will end support to 7-8.1 by the end of 2023, so any Half-Life 2 player can only enjoy it on an OS more than a decade younger than itself. 🙄

dormcat wrote on 2023-03-30, 22:07:

so any Half-Life 2 player can only enjoy it on an OS more than a decade younger than itself. 🙄

The flipside of that is that it's kind of amazing that it can be enjoyed on a contemporary OS a couple decades after release. While we may be losing backwards compatibility, we are at least retaining forwards compatibility.

Though I imagine they should probably update their minimum requirements, which still lists Windows 7, XP and Vista. 😒

dormcat wrote on 2023-03-30, 22:07:

I found this very ironic: Half-Life 2, one of -- if not "THE" -- most successful game by Valve, was first released in November 2004 when XP was the mainstream OS just about everywhere. Its demo pack required Steam installation (which went online in September 2003) but Steam ended its support to XP on the first day of 2019 and soon will end support to 7-8.1 by the end of 2023, so any Half-Life 2 player can only enjoy it on an OS more than a decade younger than itself. 🙄

I was fortunate to find an old repack of the game for my XP machines, so it is indeed possible to play the original 2004 variant on XP today : ) just not through Steam, which is a bummer. Valve completely has the power to act as preservationists in a world that constantly moves forward and leaves old tech behind, but they don't. It's understandable. At least there are other places to pick up the torch and keep old games and systems running.

It's understandable that they wouldn't release updates, but blocking old versions from connecting goes too far.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-03-29, 11:55:

And the games never were yours to begin with.

EULA is misleading. Games are yours, but Steam itself is not, that's a free service. So Valve is not obliged to keep system requirement from 20 years ago or give you capabilities to resell games, for example. But at the same time, they can't legally prevent you from selling your account.

But when you buy games, that gives you the right to play them in perpetuity, so they have to give you the means to keep playing those games, or else they should refund all your money.

They are giving you tools to play them though. You still can log-in on Windows XP.

So was doing some reading today:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/202 … -access-control
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-1 … /2021-23311.pdf

Unfortunately this document fails to cover CD based games that rely on the physical CD but where the DRM fails to work due to a newer OS. Sometimes there are two layers to this DRM, the check for the CD and then the check for an online server. For those games that also check for the online server then likely the game is covered but for those that only check for the CD then it's likely not.... I think that this an oversight since if you read the document then it would be allowed if it had been brought up but it wasn't since they were only concerned about online games losing connectivity.

For CD based games that require the client to download the game then these are "complete games" and are covered by the Exemption even if they don't have any data since these were "lawfully acquired as complete games". For the ones that do have all the data you'd have to use a tool to extract the original content but you've also been denied the updates but you are covered to get the original content on the CD as well as the updated content and circumvent that DRM due to the below:

(12)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay, solely for the purpose of:

(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game for personal, local gameplay on a personal computer or video game console; or

(iv) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(12), the following definitions shall apply: […]
Show full quote

(iv) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(12), the following definitions shall apply:

(A) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(A) and (b)(12)(ii) of this section, “complete games” means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.

(B) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(B) of this section, “complete games” means video games that meet the definition in paragraph (b)(12)(iv)(A) of this section, or that consist of both a copy of a game intended for a personal computer or video game console and a copy of the game's code that was stored or previously stored on an external computer server.

(C) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized representative has either 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; provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.

(D) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an online service or facility.

For online games Valve and other stores will have "ceased to provide access to an external computer server" due to them not updating their software to connect to said server.

I was looking into this since I've been thinking of the legality of xdelta diff files so people could convert their games to not require online connectivity for a long time. This would require that the original file be present, user drops the diff file and xdelta in the directory (or path), runs a batch and patches their own executable and/or other files. Verbage could be added to the tool that it is only to be used for this purpose. This would be covered under the DMCA Exemptions.

So if I'm reading this correctly then for <= Vista such files can be posted now (if server cannot be connected to). For those online services that don't currently support 7 then those files can be posted. When the date comes when those online services cannot be connected to then those files can be posted. Usage of older clients doesn't invalidate the above since they may not work and are not supported. In cases where xdiff not needed a just an online store emu is needed then that still counts as modification but I'm unsure about hosting so likely an xdelta or a verbage to search for x using x search engine may do.

Thinking on this further it's really about what game is compatible with what OS. The Exemption only covers when the game is unable to authenticate so any game that works on less than the OS supported by the client should be able to have a diff posted to be covered by the Exemption.

DosFreak wrote on 2023-04-01, 19:00:

I was looking into this since I'm debating the legality of xdelta diff files so people could convert their games to not require online connectivity. This would require that the original file be present, user drops the diff file and xdelta in the directory (or path), runs a batch and patches their own executable and/or other files. Verbage could be added to the tool that it is only to be used for this purpose. This would be covered under the DMCA Exemptions.

I really like that idea...I would love to have access to something like that.

Okay updated my thoughts after reviewing the document some more.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201 would seem to conflict, so the user is allowed to modify their game but would have to do that themselves in all aspects? Have the know how to modify the game, Load up debugging tools, hex editors, etc? Seems unrealistic.

This states:

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

"(b) Additional Violations.—(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"

The newer document states "when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay" which I'm thinking supercedes the older one since the below from the newer document states:

"The Librarian of Congress, pursuant to section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, has determined in this seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding that the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of certain classes of such works. This determination is based upon the Recommendation of the Acting Register of Copyrights, which was transmitted to the Librarian on October 5, 2018.[1]"

BUT then there is

"Significantly, exemptions adopted by rule under section 1201(a)(1) apply only to the conduct of circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a copyrighted work. Other parts of section 1201, by contrast, address the manufacture and provision of—or “trafficking” in—products and services designed for purposes of circumvention. Section 1201(a)(2) bars trafficking in products and services that are used to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works (for example, a password needed to open a media file),[10]
while section 1201(b) bars trafficking in products and services used to circumvent technological measures that protect the exclusive rights of the copyright owner in their works (for example, technology that prevents the work from being reproduced).[11]

The Librarian of Congress has no authority to adopt exemptions for the anti-trafficking prohibitions contained in section 1201(a)(2) or (b).[12]
More broadly, activities conducted under the regulatory exemptions must still comply with other applicable laws, including non-copyright provisions."

SO

"Circumvention" IS allowed if but "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" a tool required to circumvent is NOT ALLOWED is the way I read it. Instructing how to acquire the tools and use them is not covered and is allowed.

So the only way legally to allow "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" of these tools would be on a server that is not under U.S. jurisdiction and also likely not managed or used by a U.S. citizen to ""manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof". Directing people to such a server isn't covered.

So the various steam emulators on github, gitlab, source ports (if used to bypass DRM), ScummVM (if it removes\bypasses copy protection) etc are in violation of of 1201(2) and 1201(b)....

Guess I'll keep on posting lists then....sigh. I can likely expand though and provide better instructions.

"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" is kind of toothless. It allows the user to circumvent but the bar is incredibly high for them to modify their game so they can play it. Realistically someone else has to produce a tool and provide it so the user can use it to be able to use this Exemption.
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-conseque … ears-under-dmca

So the various steam emulators on github, gitlab, source ports (if used to bypass DRM), ScummVM (if it removes\bypasses copy protection) etc are in violation of of 1201(2) and 1201(b)....

Not necessarily , I think it's primarily targeted to attempts to commercialize protection removal. Non-commercial falls into "jailbreaking"territory and is legal.

The fair use doesn't cover the trafficking, as far as the circumvention then it's covered.

There is no difference in 1201 if the tool is free or not.

I do see "effectively controls" or "effectively protects" mentioned so there may be a loophole there, they can't "effectively control" or "effectively protect" anything if they've prevented the ability to connect to the server therefore it doesn't apply.

https://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Copyright … A/Potential.php

The court went on to reference the legislative history, which stated �if, in the ordinary course of its operation, a technology actually works in the defined ways to control access to a work �[t]his test, focuses on the function performed by the technology.� Basically, �effectively control access� to a work requires only a mode of operation that accomplishes this objective and it does not need to be efficient. Presumably, if the protection does not work at all then it does not satisfy the requirements of the statute.

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

See: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx? … 78-6f8cccae2dcc

But Warden does prevent access to WoW’s dynamic, non-literal elements that are accessible only when connected to Wow’s servers. Accordingly, the appeals court found that Warden is a technological measure that “effectively controls access” to a copyrighted work, and that MDY had engaged in trafficking in a technology, Glider, that circumvents that control, in violation of Section 1201(a)(2).

And, because WoW players using Glider who are able to log on to the game server and access the dynamic non-literal elements of the game despite Warden’s efforts, Warden doesn’t “effectively” protect against copying.

So if I'm reading this right then 1201 (a) 1201 (2) and (b) do not apply for providing tools to those to use to enable their games to work when the company has prevented their access control from working since there is no "ordinary course of its operation" since it's not operating.

So looks like it's fine to go forward, heck providing the original tools instead of just diff files is even allowed. Of course proving that to whomever is hosting is a different story, considering stances github has previously taken then github is probably fine.

Looked into this a bit further and it looks like games that depend on CD based DRM are allowed to be circumvented as well as tools trafficked as well if/when the OS no longer supports the copy protection and there are no updates for the copy protection. The DRM does not effectively control access since it does not work.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations.—(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

Okay so that takes care of Circumvention and Trafficking of "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" for DRM but what about the content itself, for instance a pre-cracked executable is still distributing content that you aren't allowed to distribute (where is this stated? 501 and 506?). In those cases I'm thinking the xdelta .diff will be needed since the primary and only purpose would be to allow the user to circumvent the DRM not to host content they aren't allowed to distribute.

This seems to sum it up nicely.

From what I gather from the below as long as users are informed that the purpose is to Circumvent and Traffick for cases where the DRM is no longer "effectively controlled" or "effectively protected". Distribution of the product is not, so differencing would need to be used for any files that are the same. For any new files that are part of the circumvention that is allowed for modification but those files must not have come from any version of the game and would need to be only for circumvention of the DRM.

If the user does not abide by the intent of the tools to only bypass DRM when the external server is no longer available then that is on the user, not the tool or the site hosting the tool.

https://www.eff.org/document/abbey-house-media-v-apple-inc

While it is alleged that Abbey House informed its customers of a third-party’s product that would enable them to strip DRM from […]
Show full quote

While it is alleged that Abbey House informed its customers of a third-party’s product that would enable them to strip DRM from their e-books, such stripping is not itself an act of copyright infringement

With the demise of Abbey House, the stripping was as essential for their personal, noncommercial use as it was for a commercial misappropriation of the publishers’ works.

Here, Abbey House discussed only a noninfringing use in the Announcement: the removal of DRM protection by consumers so that they could continue to read their purchased e-books on new devices after Abbey House went out of business. This does not promote the infringement at issue here

That some users may have used the e-books in an infringing manner after removing DRM protection does not change this analysis; this was not the use for which Abbey House gave instructions or that it encouraged

. The act of infringement underlying the inducement claim, however, is not the removal of DRM protection. Rather, it is the copying and distribution of e-books to others after such protection has been removed. The counterclaims do not allege that Abbey House encouraged such infringing acts

he counterclaims for inducement of infringement are dismissed. Because both counterclaims based on copyright infringement are dismissed, Abbey House’s argument that no actual infringement has been alleged need not be addressed

So with all of the above in mind I'll see if I can summarize and post on github, mabye we can get this info spread so there isn't so much FUD.

/EDIT Added verbage to https://github.com/vogonsorg/OfflineGames

It looks like floppy cracks or emulation of media to allow copy protection are allowed as well since on operating systems that no longer support the copy protection and/or media it cannot be "effectively controlled" or "effectively protected" unless the plan was to make the games obsolete so new ones had to be bought which would be hilarious if that came out in a trial.

DRM systems aside, if they sell you something and then by their own decision they prevent using it as they sold it. Wouldn't that go against the right to property, that is, they would prevent you from exercising your right to the property of the game you bought.
Even if they have copyrights, wouldn't the owner of the game have a property right to use the game under the original conditions?
In other words, the game, once purchased, is the property of the buyer, and he/she has the right to use it as he/she bought it for life, since that is the definition of sale if I'm not mistaken.
We all understand that if we buy a house, and then the seller, who kept a copy of the key, changes the lock, I think this is a crime.
Well, maybe you can look at this in a similar way, Steam sells a game and keeps the key and then changes the lock whenever they feel like it.
As a note, I did try to install my version of Skyrim on a fully updated Windows XP Pro, I even installed the update with WGA.
It was not possible, the Steam client got updated but nothing else.
Another thing would be a rental. And it smells like that to me, Steam is renting the games, not selling them, since they can prevent you from using them at any time.
For those who know more about laws than I do, how many mistakes have I made here?

Unfortunately software is treated differently. The laws (depends on the country of course) are structured to protect the rights of the copyright owner and not the rights of the "licensee". It does seem by the above that at least as far as the right of breaking the DRM we should be covered at least as long as they are unable to "effectively control or protect" the product when the DRM is broken due to their ineptitude......until they throw money at it to get that changed as well. When they do it will be interesting to see what justification they come up with, more likely it will be snuck in and no one will be paying attention.

Hoping wrote on 2023-04-03, 16:07:

DRM systems aside, if they sell you something and then by their own decision they prevent using it as they sold it. Wouldn't that go against the right to property, that is, they would prevent you from exercising your right to the property of the game you bought.
Even if they have copyrights, wouldn't the owner of the game have a property right to use the game under the original conditions?

The right to use the software is sold as a license. Most licenses include clauses regarding the revocation of those rights.

Whether or not the terms of the license are legal will ultimately depend on individual jurisdictions and what the courts decide.