The US Copyright Office denies a request from video game preservationists to let libraries, archives, and museums lend games via remote access for study
The ruling extends a long-running conflict over how far preservation rights reach once games depend on aging software, servers, and hardware. Earlier DMCA exemptions gave institutions a narrower route to preserve games when they could legally obtain the needed game and server code, rather than a general right to distribute access remotely.
It also arrives after courts backed publishers in the Internet Archive's ebook-lending dispute, reinforcing the legal sensitivity around digital access by cultural institutions even when the stated purpose is research or preservation.
First-order effects
Libraries, archives, and museums do not receive the requested permission to provide remote game access for study, limiting that use case to other available legal pathways and, in practice, more location-bound access.
Preservationists lose a proposed mechanism for reaching researchers who cannot visit the institution holding the game collection.
Second-order effects
Institutions will have greater incentive to build preservation workflows around the narrower DMCA preservation exemptions, including lawful acquisition of the underlying game and server materials, rather than remote lending.
The outcome strengthens the relevance of the boundary contested in the Internet Archive ebook-lending case: digitizing or preserving a work does not by itself establish a right to offer it online to users.
Third-order effects
If this approach persists, game preservation may remain split between technical conservation and public research access, with the latter constrained by rights clearance rather than archival capability.
The result points to copyright exemptions as a piecemeal policy tool for software heritage: they can enable specific preservation acts without resolving access to works that are no longer commercially supported.
The trend: Digital preservation is increasingly colliding with copyright rules that treat remote access as distribution, even when institutions frame it as research use.
You should read @GameHistoryOrg's full statement, but I just want to highlight that one of the most significant causes of video game piracy of commercially unavailable games is the ESA's fear of piracy of commercially unavailable games. [image]
The ESA quote “there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes” is absolutely insane thing to say. Love to talk about NES games like they're restricted narcotics. Very normal industry. https://www.gamesradar.com/...
I'm always thinking about that Charles Stross quote about how corporations have remodeled our world into one that exists to serve non-human entities with non-human goals
I'm proud of the work we and the orgs we partnered with did to try and change copyright law. We really gave it our all, I can't see what else we could have done. This fails the needs of citizens in favor of a weak sauce argument from the industry, and it's really disappointing.
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation
Publishers are absolutely terrified “preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes,” so the US copyright office has struck down a major effort for game preservation