Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjcm | Hacker News Reader

I would argue that server binaries are less important now in the age of AI. The ability to reverse engineer them is so accessible now.

I think more importantly / more digestible is that you can't pursue legislation against people running their own game servers if you no longer offer the game yourself.

View on HN

This is definitely the most defensible position. I'm sure others want stronger protections, but taking lawsuits off the table for any item no longer for sale (be it a game, other software, hardware, media, etc) would make a ton of sense.

No one can reasonably claim to be harmed in such a scenario. Enshrine abandonware into law.

I find myself in general agreement but I wonder what second order issues would come about. Will we see companies listing an old game for a trillion dollars a copy just to keep rights?

Bob Dylan pulled some shenanigans like this. He "released" an album which only had like 100 copies, but in doing so he maintained copyright of all his old work (and let's be real that's all that anyone would ever listen to anyway).

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jan/08/bob-dylan-box-...

I think Japan has an interesting model though for abandonware, at least when the copyright owner can't be tracked down: anyone can sell an old game, but a portion of the income goes into an escrow account in case the copyright holder is located.

It's currently accessible, but I'm sure they will start adding whatever roadblocks they can. e.g. Requiring attestation before running game, keeping some logic in server side which will be sent only to clients which pass the attestation, requiring platforms which grant more protections etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com