IDSA Forces Arcade Game Manual Archive Offline

AtariKee writes "The IDSA and the DMCA has struck again, this time forcing the maintainer of Stormaster.com, a coin-operated video game manual and tech information archive, to shut down. Stormaster has been an invaluable resource for collectors of classic coin-operated video games for years, and this loss further demonstrates the idiocy that is the DMCA. I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals? The full text of the IDSA's letter can be read on Stormaster's site." Previous Slashdot posts about IDSA (Interactive Digital Software Association) show that this is typical of the organization.

read carefully

[ummit]

...forcing the maintainer of Stormaster.com to shut down... I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals?

Well, I notice that the IDSA letter does not demand that those 25 year old manuals be taken down, or that the site be shut down -- the letter refers only to a list of 7 "game products" (which are presumably ROM images).

Anybody notice this:

[Guspaz]

At the bottom of the page/letter:

"
Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
all computers."

Isn't posting it on the internet the same as retransmitting or disseminating?

25 year old

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, last time I checked, copyrights lasted longer than that [unc.edu]. How is this wholly the DMCA's fault?

Re:read carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright stormtrooper organizations love to use robots to search the web for copyright infringemnets, then threaten website holders whether or not they have actually done anything wrong. Remember the incident where the BSA demanded an OpenOffice mirror shut down? Or the time when RIAA demanded an academic website be shut down because some file names set off the robots keyword algorithms (there were no copyright infringements, just a coincidence in keywords and the use of a .mp3 suffix in a filename).

What has likely happened here is another stupid webcrawling robot went through, found several keywords including Tron, DigDug, etc., assumed that it was copyright infringement. and then sent an automated letter threatening a lawsuit. Probably this has happened to this poor guy way too much and he is tired of it.

Re:The best part...

[Dun Malg]

Read it carefully:

"Any reproduction... by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited."

He's the "intended recipient", so he can do ANY of the actions listed. Get a clue. Learn to read.

Motivation?

[niom]

I fail to see the motivation in some of these cease and desist actions by large companies; Blizzard recent shutdown of Freecraft is another example. What's the point? Simply showing they can?

Why is it shut down?

[pclinger]

The notice tells the owner of the site to stop offering for download a few specific items that the letter claims were on it's site. There was nothing in the letter which stated the entire site must be taken down.

I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals?

Read the letter. It doesn't say to take down any manuals. The person who shut down this site shut it down on their own accord. They could have just removed those specific items for download and they would be in the free-and-clear.

Is it just me?

[oaf357]

Is it just me or does it seem like these DMCA claims are always targetted at people who can't really fight them?

Bot.

[mrseigen]

I think this is a bot; the IDSA has gone after tons of innocent game sites before with their scripts. I severely doubt a real human would confuse "manuals for download" with "ROMS for everyone".

Clever Idea

[Esion Modnar]

Let's say that your site needs a boost in traffic. Just cook up a fake letter from some non-existent lawyer, saying cease-and-desist, then leak said letter to /. to get the effect we all know and love.

BAM! Your ISP staggers for half a day or so, but you'll probably enjoy residual traffic as a result of the exposure...

Not saying that's the case here, but what if...

Perhaps this has happened already?

Small claims court for cabinet owners?

[beacher]

Looking at the manufacturers of the games in question -
Dig Dug - Atari/Infogrames
Donkey Kong - Nintendo
Frogger - Konami
Mario - Nintendo
Pac Man - Midway
SWAT - Sega
Tron 2.0 (game)
Okay I think I may understand the Tron 2.0 [gamezone.com] given that a new PC game is soon to be released. The only other game that is still "current" with successful sequels is Mario. I can understand protecting all rights with those two. Frogger? Every sequel has sucked monkey nuts (Swampy's revenge anyone?). Dig Dug Deeper? The other games have found their way to the Best of Arcade CD's that retail for 9.95 at walmart and they don't even play as well as the cabinets.

In all reality they're going for the arcade game manuals though.. Not even the ROMs, so they're not even allowing the lawful owners of cabinets to get manuals without having to pay $9.95 to buy reproduction for a damn Frogger manual [ebay.com]. I don't get it.

Has anyone tried to buy an original manual and then sue the IDSA for the difference between official/out-of-print price and the retail price? I'm tired of the "corp/little people" thing. I'm tired of the corporate squeeze on the most asinine stuff.
-B

Re:Why is it shut down?

[NukeIear]

He says

Sorry everyone but stormaster.com has been taken down! I'm tired of dealing with DMCA lawyers.

So I would guess that after being bothered numerous times he doesn't care if he can remove a few more manuals and make that lawyer go away since another will be pestering him next week.

Isn't this quite standard copyright?

[Kjella]

25 year old manuals are still copyrighted for many years to come, and is fairly common worldwide (not that that equals good, but anyway).

The parts I really don't like about the DMCA is that is makes it illegal to use my own property, like play my DVD under Linux, or make a back-up of it for my DVD-less laptop.

Soon it'll get here too with the EUCD. Sigh.

Kjella

Doesn't mean you agreed to it.

[mccalli]

I could send you an email prohibiting you from eating ice cream for the rest of your life. Until there's some binding agreement between us, rather than just a one way message from me, the correct response to such a prohibition is "ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..."

Cheers,
Ian

Copyright in this case

[Anonymous Coward]

This may well be a case of an automatic script generating a cease and desist letter. However, what the site is doing, by merely offering manuals for download is, strictly speaking, most likely breaking copyright. In the US, material published before 1989 has to have a copyright notice on it to be in copyright, otherwise it is public domain. However, if the material has a copyright notice on it, then it is not public domain, and will not be until 95 years after it is published. Outside of the US, it will be public domain 70 years after the death of the last author of the manual.

Abandonware, of which this is a form, sounds nice, but it is breaking copyright laws. Lobbying to change the copyright laws to formalise abandonware is probably a good idea. However, big entertainment companies are likely to counter-lobby a great deal harder. If there is another 20 year extension to copyright when Mickey Mouse is about the come out into the public domain in 15 years time, then there will be a definite pattern to things.

Re:The best part...

[Igmuth]

Actually that applies to most any unsolicited item.

If the merchandise was truly unordered, whether or not marked as a gift, the recipient may use or dispose of the items as desired. -

NYS BBB [bbb.org]

While the above is specifically New York, other states have similar laws.
So the recipient can actually do anything he feels like, including wiping his a** with it...

I guess I just can't see it happening.

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

I know with private correspondence, say a letter from me to you, it is certainly the case that republishing without permission is legally-uncool, and there are some reasons for that I can agree with.

I would also wager that there are lawyers who for fear of bad P.R. for their sponsors would love the concept that they can bully people and automatically gag them at the same time. I also understand that they may have included this clause with that hope in mind.

What I can't see as likely is to go before a judge and attempt to convince them that a notice of copyright infringement posted to the webmaster of a publicly accessible website has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they aren't being bullies and they genuinely believe they are doing the "right thing" in good faith then what damages can they claim are occurring as a result of having their notice publicly posted?

The simple version of the logic is: If shrink wrap lic. agreements don't stand up in court. I don't see that a "Note:" at the bottom of an e-mail is going to do any better. Especially if they can't prove it was untruthful.

If there is a sound legal backing for such silliness, every spammer in the world should use this technique, and complain if any of their mail gets handed over to [e-mail] that it is a violation of their âoenote:â clause and therefore illegal.

Re:25 year old

[norton_I]

The DMCA forces the ISP to take the complaint as legitimate and take down the content or risk being included on a future suit, leaving the site owner responsible to prove his innocence before being allowed to put the material back up. With no penalty for unjustly accusing someone of copyright infringment, it make is too easy for lawyers "representing" IP holders to crawl the web looking for names that seem similar products they own and send out automatic threatening emails, with no human ever checking to see if the content is actually what is alleged, that it was not placed there with the owners permission, does not constitue legal use, or that the copyright owner just doesn't care.

In all likelyhood, this warning was sent based on a robot that assumes that the site was hosting ROM images. Redistribution of the technical manuals might (though unfortunately, probably not) constitute fair use, especially if the owners of the games are no longer selling said manuals (since it contains information require to make the machine you own work). Finally, people who actually have the authority to make the decision on whether they want this stopped probably don't care, and if they do, they shouldn't.