The number of times industry leaders or manufacturers have cited how public alterations would “ruin” an industry or infringe on copyright are numerous, especially in the entertainment industry. From idiotic film companies pulling down satirical or homage fanfilms, to music companies pulling unauthorized versions of anything including the shortest snippet or hint of a copyrighted song (even #RandyPants can’t go unaffected), these large companies are overprotective to a fault.

Oftentimes, the fans drive far more revenue with their efforts than is lost, and in almost every case, no product is replaced or bettered – it’s simply supporting an already known commodity and raising further awareness. Star Wars spawned an entire genre of fanfilms, permitted by Lucasfilm (against the grain of the industry) which even hosted an annual awards competition for the best fan-created Star Wars content. Disney smartly didn’t poke that bear and continues to allow fan content to use characters, places, etc. from the Star Wars universe. This heightens fan engagement and gives added life to older products.

The video game industry also deals with this issue. Sometimes companies with popular characters will in fact look the other direction if copyrighted characters are is used in an unauthorized way, as long as the game is free to the public. For example take “Super Mario Bros. Crossover,” which provides the player with the option of using Mario, Link or Mega Man in the classic side-scroller. Despite this, some game publishers have taken a bizarre stance in regards to older, unsupported games that fans are seeking to keep alive.

From the EFF:

EFF, along with law student Kendra Albert, is asking the Copyright Office to give some legal protection to game enthusiasts, museums, and academics who preserve older video games and keep them playable. We’re asking for an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions (Section 1201) for those who modify games to keep them working after the servers they need are shut down. Many player communities, along with museums, archives, and researchers, want to keep the games they own playable after publishers shut down the servers the games depend on. Section 1201 creates legal difficulty for these communities, which is why we’ve asked the Copyright Office to give them an exemption. Section 1201 is often used by the entertainment industries not to prevent copyright infringement but to control markets and lock out competition. So it’s not surprising that ESA (the trade association for the largest game producers), along with MPAA and RIAA, have written to the Copyright Office to oppose this exemption. They say that modifying games to connect to a new server (or to avoid contacting a server at all) after publisher support ends—letting people continue to play the games they paid for—will destroy the video game industry. They say it would “undermine the fundamental copyright principles on which our copyright laws are based.” ESA also says that exceptions to Section 1201’s blanket ban will send a message that “hacking—an activity closely associated with piracy in the minds of the marketplace—is lawful.”

Hacking is legal in more circumstances than it’s not, but let’s cast aside that ridiculous straw man argument that the publishers are making. That’s their legal reason for fighting this, but they clearly see another threat that lies in pure terms of money. Namely that they believe if people can play the old games forever, on their own, they won’t buy new games. That, in a nutshell, is absolutely idiotic.

Not only has the video game industry produced games and game systems that were playable until the end of time if one simply kept a system and cartridges neat and clean, but also relies on next generation technology to drive sales. If this wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t invent new systems every 4 years. They’d simply create more games for the current systems. So the viewpoint that this would somehow cost them money is ridiculous.

The other claim that this “hacking” would somehow “ruin the industry” is also ludicrous. Players already create “mods” regularly. One of the most popular games ever in the history of gaming is named “Counterstrike.” That game is a first person shooter, player-v-player team game tht is based off of a published game called “Half Life II.” A mod is a hack. That hack made “Half Life” publisher Valve millions of dollars in profit. So hacking has driven the industry as much as it has hindered it.

In this specific circumstance, museums and players of games that are defunct and unsupported are trying to gain a legal exception to continue to play and remember the games they love. For the industry to fight this is shortsighted and stupid. Let them play these games . Instead of using obscure and rights-infringing copyright laws to prevent consumers from modifying their games, let the games flourish and then make a new version and reap millions. That’s smart business.

And lets not forget as well that these people want to play games they already bought and paid for. Hacking something they own.

For a somewhat similar case regarding the automotive industry, check out John Odermatt’s Morning Roar from earlier in the week, where he asks “Do You Really Own Your Car?”

Liberty Links!

– John Stewart on Rand Paul’s announcement.

– YouTube pulled that very same Presidential announcement over a Copyright dispute.

– Iceland vs. the Banksters!

– Reason on discrimination and the new “inclusive” America.

The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+

Check out our YouTube Channel!

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!

Join our brand new Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum