In the end, all those arguments basically say "any exemption to hackers legitimizes hacking and helps pirates" along with a few tired arguments about disappearace not equaling disappearance, which is the same rule that keeps so many old books locked away decades after the rights owners have all but vanished.
It's the same song the ESA has sung for years to step in the way of legitimate hacking, and is not too far away from "won't someone think of the children!"
>In the end, all those arguments basically say "any exemption to hackers legitimizes hacking and helps pirates" along with a few tired arguments about disappearace...
No, no they don't. You're doing exactly what the EFF is doing - being intellectually lazy and recasting their arguments into unrepresentative excerpts that you then proceed to dismiss. A number of points tptacek listed are nuanced legal arguments, and I see nobody addressing them.
Umm, not really. They say there's no legal definition for 'abandoned game' but the EFF is trying to make one, as is permitted in the DMCA exemption process. They say that turning off online services isn't 'abandoning' the game... c'mon, really? They're 'only' making it unavailable and ensuring that the general public--who will collectively OWN all of this property when the copyright expires have no way to preserve their property from destruction.
Please also note that it would require a constitutional amendment to make copyright terms unlimited ... not that they're not trying to backdoor that by creating 'extensions' whenever some are about to run out.
It's the same song the ESA has sung for years to step in the way of legitimate hacking, and is not too far away from "won't someone think of the children!"