Sweet mother of the strawman, you keep confidently chattering about "entitlement to steal" and unlimited copying here.

I'm sure you are fully aware that that has not even the faintest, remotest thing to do with what this article is about. This is about archives keeping copies for preservation. No, they are NOT making copies of those games willy-nilly. No, this is NOT about people feeling entitled to pirate these games. How do you imagine people would go about playing one of the games held at the Foundation? They're not ripping copies to host on BitTorrent, for heaven's sake. You're claiming that a national library and Anna's Archive are the same thing and hoping nobody notices.

This is not about anybody's right or wish to get, keep, or play these games. It's about archiving and preservation, without which we would have no cultural artifacts at all to go on today, to try and understand the past. It's clear from your comments here that, for some reason, you consider videogames to be absolutely devoid of any cultural value and can't fathom why anyone 50, 100, or 500 years in the future would even want to know about one of the most popular mass entertainment media of our current time. But it shouldn't be too hard to find an example of some artform that you do deem valuable where, invariably, its history would have also been lost almost entirely without the efforts of organisations like the VGHF (which had to deal with a lot less malice, misinformation and foot-shootingness of creators).

You're kind of making the Foundation's point for them.

Copyright laws were written at a time where nobody considered the possibility that rightsholders could actively, willfully take actions to technically prevent the work from being usable when it enters the Public Domain.

Yes, what the publishers are doing today is entirely legal. The Foundation agrees with your statement. Which is exactly why they rightfully argue that since the technical circumstances around published artworks has changed so radically, copyright laws have to be radically changed, too, in order to restore the balance of social benefit. If the authors of copyright law had considered the possibility that artists could reclaim their works after the sale, don't you think they might have considered that and added some rules about it?

2045: PS9 may be enjoyed at licensed venues during specified hours

Do you mind me asking which country you live in?

I live in a minimum energy building, and so do quite a number of my friends. They're very wide-spread in Swiss cities, most buildings of the past 20 years or so are. But this is the first time I hear of them having fewer opening windows.

I have full opening window fronts along the entire outer wall and a large sliding door to the balcony. I also wouldn't have noticed any of my friends' minimum energy apartments having few windows they can open. It theoretically would make sense, and of course the central ventilation means you don't *need* to ventilate as much, but around here the builders seem to leave the option, and the standard seems to allow for it.

Pff, amateurs. I'm supervising my bunch of loop managing agents, which loop over looping the loop writer agents so the agentic loopers can agentically loop the looping agent loops. Catch up, you're already falling behind!

Reminds me of that old quote about how computers let you make your mistakes very accurately and incredibly fast.

Just because you're recursively automating and parallelising code generation doesn't change the fact that you're a moronic wannabe-developer and have no idea what you're doing, Jack.

Or maybe it won't. Results show that model performance starts degrading sharply as the absolute size of the context window grows -- anything beyond a certain size (I think it was about 100k) seems to approach a systemic limit, so bigger context windows are a marketing thing without much relevance.

Maybe you were joking, but I find it highly amusing that people still seem to utter the meme-ish "you'll get left behind" in earnest.

Mate, if LLMs ever become able to cash in even a fraction of the productivity gain cheques the providers have written, there's nothing to fall behind on. There very selling point is that it takes no time or skill to "catch up".

Claude seems to not have been involved in the games side of things at all, only peripherals etc. He doesn't even have a MobyGames profile (vs. his brother Yves who is credited on more than 600 games there).

Also, in pretty poor taste. Also, factually quite off. Ubisoft used to publish excellent games. Rayman. Splinter Cell. Rainbow Six. Ghost Recon. Beyond Good & Evil. XIII.

They don't need their own cameras, they can just piggyback on the network the "good guys" have set up.

We're not living in the middle ages anymore. It makes quite a difference if being in public means a neighbour could see what you're up to, or if it means there is a database that allows anyone with access to, within seconds, profile your every step, movement and action in public over the last 5 years. It feels like a big enough difference to warrant some laws protecting against it.

Godwin's law has lost a bit of its edge, now that actual, open, self-admitted Nazis are once more taking positions of power in Western democracies.

You're conflating the sale of a copy of a work with transferring the copyright of a work. Those are VERY different things. Of course you never acquired the copyright of a game you bought in a store because that would've meant you could've printed up and sold your own copies. But it's very important to remember among all the pernicious and constant gaslighting from the industry that YES, you used to own the games you bought. Your copy was yours to keep, sell on, destroy, whatever you wanted as long as you didn't infringe on the rights-holders. It's true ownership. Exactly the same as when you buy a book or an art print. Of course you didn't buy the rights to the novel or the painting, but you did fully, 100%, perpetually own YOUR copy of it.

No, that's not correct. You did, in fact, always buy a copy of the game and own it. What you didn't get is the right to distribute copies of it, that's all. If it's distributed as a download or on a physical medium doesn't make a difference either. You own your copy of the game.

It's true that the lawsuit isn't very well worded, though, because the same thing is true even today. You own the copy of the software you install even today. What's different today is that the software you buy and own and install is not the game, but a client that can give you access to the game. You still own and can keep that, for all the good it'll do you.

The discussion shouldn't be as much about ownership of the copies of the software, but whether that software is functional without external services. I agree with the lawsuit that using words like "purchase" because, while it's technically true that they sell you a copy of the client, that client is worthless on its own. The important distinction is between buying a piece of software or subscribing to a service. Selling a copy of Myst is the former, "buying" a game on PSN is the latter, and it has nothing to do with a disc being involved or not.

I told an SVP politician during the campaign that, while I disagree with the method, in principle I agreed with their position that people should finally stop having so many children already. I think he didn't get the joke.

But a lot was made during the campaign about how the right-wing SVP argued mostly with usually left-wing talking points: sustainability, preserving natural landscapes, public transportation, etc. But ultimately, it was pretty clear that their argument of "fewer people" was simply them trying to hide their actual wish of "fewer of THOSE people", because they knew how unpopular their actual demands were.

In the end, what counts is the letter of the proposed law, and I'm glad so many citizens saw through the marketing bullshit.

The campaign they ran did pretty well in painting it as not being a far-right demand. That's why it managed to still get those ~45%. But when looking at the actual wording of the proposed law and the clearly intended consequences, I do think it was pretty far-right. It would've meant completely abandoning the bilateral contract framework with the EU (hence "Swiss Brexit") and essentially forced Switzerland to violate human rights treatied. Knowing the people behind the initiative, that wasn't an unintended side effect, but one of their central goals. They initially ran on the "sustainability" arguments to try and hide their true intentions (but ultimately realised they still needed to spill some hateful racist fearmongering to reassure their core voters).