The Electronic Software Association remains uninvolved in game preservation efforts.
Last week, a lawyer steve england You asked about the possibility of allowing libraries to preserve legacy games. On the other hand, he is currently saying,[no] combination of limits [ESA members] Supports providing remote access. ”
In 2023, the Video Game History Foundation revealed: 87% of the game Anything released before 2010 is not currently preserved in any form. An earlier attempt by the Library of Congress was halted by the ESA. rely on the publisher We need to do those things ourselves.
England suggested working with Ivy League schools to set up remote access or some kind of academic application as an alternative. Still, he paradoxically said, a physical office housing his game collection wouldn't be completely satisfying to him.
To him, the worst thing a nonprofit (or any place with an online archive) could do is put a saved game online with “very few restrictions.” This type of remote access is a “poor advance” when it comes to preservation.
The only person on England's side was AACS lawyer Mike Ayers. In his eyes, there should be “more substance” to fighting already restrictive preservation rules.
“Anyone can have an email address,” Ayers said. If you're just checking a checkbox instead of validating something, that's a concern. […] it's not clear [physical premises] It will actually work. ”
During the hearing, other speakers were adamant that something needed to be done about saving the game and that both Mr. England and Mr. Ayers were missing the point.
VGHF Library Director Phil Salvador argued that public libraries lack the human resources, expertise, or interest to create meaningful game collections, physical or digital.
He estimated that the number of institutions actively working on this remains in the single digits. Only specialized institutions and collections can actually take advantage of the remote digital access exemption.
Technical attorney Kendra Albert argued that the ESA has been reluctant to meet with researchers and preservationists during these efforts. They said that any changes made or proposed will “never be enough” for the rights holders of these games.
Similarly, they said it was “upsetting” that they argued that the efforts of academics were undermined by the idea that people cared about these games. In Albert's eyes, this comment highlights how deeply out of touch both England and Ayers are about the game as a medium.
“To undermine scholarship and education because people might be interested in recreational play feels unfair to the people who put so much effort into making these works available to the public.”
Game Preservation Hearing Available to Stream here.
