Correct, and "eventually entering the public domain" is presented as though it were part of the bargain and not merely a consequence of the limited nature of IP law. There is no obligation for work to "enter public domain" if that is some explicit act, this part is merely the ending of protections.

"eventually entering the public domain" doesn't place a burden on creators, though. The burden on creators is limited to the creating itself. Creators are under no obligation to assist in the "entering".

Absolutely correct, and the very point I made as first poster for which this AC seems to be the first to also understand. Creators are under no obligation to support piracy, copyright exists to encourage them to create, it doesn't impose burdens AFTER creation.

Greytree's bogus comment duplicated by an AC, literally using the same words.

If da Vinci were to have just painted the Mona Lisa, would he not have copyright protection? And would da Vinci not allowing unlimited duplication for "research" mean he should have "no right to copyright at all"?

What we have here are children who feel entitled to steal other people's work.

Greed afflicts both sides of this issue equally. At least one side doesn't lie about it.

"Right now I have no choice."

You ABSOLUTELY do. Choose not to do business with companies that do these things you object to. You're a "free market capitalist", right? Are you now a socialist because of a video game?

The free market offers a solution to this problem, but it requires you pay and make choices. That's just too much for entitled people.

"Using copyright to prevent the people accessing creations breaks that deal ..."

False. You are assuming the "benefit of the people" includes access in perpetuity. You are literally begging the question. Furthermore, copyright eventually ends, withdrawing access at that time would still deny permanent access while respecting your bogus interpretation. No problem is solved.

And what is this alleged problem anyway? Lack of "research"? LOL

More conventional art forms have costs associated with distribution and may not be "distributable" to the public anyway. Your "the people" interpretation implies everyone, copyright doesn't entitle you personally to access to someone's work AT ALL. That's what this is about, you getting access to copyrighted works for free. It's piracy dress up in new language.

Then use your power to fight against IP rights, and good luck.

How do you define "part of your daily life" for a corporation? Do corporations not have "property"? What about governments? Do they have "property"? Are governments "kings, dictators and capitalists" because they "control or limit what others can do"? And is that wrong, something that "we should collectively reject"?

What rules are they not abiding by? Is there a rule that they make their product available to copyright violators? Since when does an IP holder have to provide their IP in commercial form?

IF you are suggesting that, after copyright expires, that others are free to duplicate the work for an archive, then have at it. Just don't expect all that effort to be rewarded with protection of its own and don't expect original creators to contribute.

...is a minor contribution to computing efficiency, a contribution that may or may not be preserved through an archive depending on what was archived, and a contribution that, if sufficiently valuable, might we have been preserved in a patent independently. Finally, the Quake engine, including the technique, was released as open source, so this example is entirely moot.

Except that it's not, and this comment was certainly bot-generated. "Research" is an excuse, the person offering it is a liar.

Not even remotely. And an original creator is legally entitled to control over his work. And what does this "geared towards research mean"? What "research" needs to be performed on video games? And how do you justify violating IP rights in order to provide it?

Let's be clear, this isn't about research it's about having access to the games regardless of the rights of owners.

"...then we'd also like to see trade groups like the Entertainment Software Association offer meaningful solutions for archives and museums to legally preserve digital-only content and make it accessible for research."

Why? What's the value of this "research"? And how does this research justify violating the property rights of creators?

Yeah, that's definitely the problem and you've definitely found the solution.

"The advertised 97% round-trip efficiency is a joke."

Is it? You haven't provided numbers that say one way or another.

Your equipment is on full-time and has operating costs associated with it, your numbers work out to be about $10/month where I live. Concerning at my really low energy cost. It would be $50 a month for my sister, a cost she'd had to further recover with solar. Imagine paying that monthly for the mere presence of backup capability, not the purchase or maintenance costs.

But your "total discharge energy" what is that? If a battery backup is never activated is there any discharge energy? Round trip efficiency needs to be determined with appropriate data, that would be the total energy required to discharge that 4.5MWh, not the parasitic losses for when discharge isn't occurring.