[m000]

> I have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership.

I'm pretty sure that Sony and others would work their way around such legislation. E.g. spin-off shell "studios" that would be the legal game sellers, and when the time comes to sunset a batch of games, these "studios" would magically go bankrupt and cease to exist.

Then the onus would again put on the commuinity to break any encryption or otherwise reverse-engineer and preserve the games so they remain playable for legal owners. And the top-level companies would still be able to salvage and own the game franchise rights, so they would still be able to harass the game preservation community.

I don't think there's any workaround to stop this kind of cheating, other than mandating that (a) all DRM-protected or service-bound content needs to be submitted to an escrow organization (Library of Congress?) in a form that can be used to reproduce it locally, and (b) all submitted content is released to the public after X years.

[Schlagbohrer]

Loopholes like this can be closed with government regulation.

[m000]

Governments have failed to patch much more important loopholes that directly affect them. E.g. loopholes for corporate tax avoidance. I doubt they will put any effort at all for fixing loopholes related to dodging game preservation obligations.

The best way to not have loopholes is to put some effort in not creating them in the first place, not patching them later.

[Schlagbohrer]

Can you come up with a theory off the top of your head why governments might have "accidentally" failed to patch a huge hole that their wealthy backers benefit from?

I have news for you, in a democracy in which bribery is illegal, these loopholes can be closed by politicans who actually want to.

[account42]

Government-mandated source code escrow is certainly a reasonable requirement for copyright protection but you could also just legislate that "licensing" a work for resale also means being ultimately liable to make third party buyers whole if they have not received a local copy before - at the threat of loosing copyright protection for the work entirely.

[matheusmoreira]

Surely judges would not be fooled by these completely transparent shenanigans?