Kendra Albert criticizes the evidence assessment in the game-preservation decision
Kendra AlbertTechnology lawyer, speaking personally
Albert argues that the Copyright Office did not seriously engage with evidence against market harm.
“I do believe we made the best case we could that scholarly access to video games *that are not commercially available* does not harm the market. I do not believe that this evidence was seriously engaged with by the Copyright Office.”
Original post
Where this statement fits
Copyright Office rejects a remote research-access exemption for preserved video games
The 2024 copyright review rejected a proposed exemption for remote research access to preserved video games. Preservation advocates argue that screened access is needed for scholarship. ESA supports the decision and argues that the proposal did not adequately protect copyright interests.
Source and context
Original post
About this source
Kendra Albert's post comments on rejecting expanded controlled remote research access to preserved video games. The post was published in October 2024.
Before the quotation
Earlier in the thread, Albert reports that the final rule declines remote access to preserved games even when each request is individually vetted, and describes being gutted by the result. The post itself begins by noting that Albert speaks only personally, not for clients.
After the quotation
In the next post, Albert says on-the-record comments from re-release publishers that scholarly access would not harm their market do not appear to have mattered in the Office's market-harm analysis.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the decision to refuse remote research access, Albert argues that the Copyright Office did not seriously engage with evidence that scholarly access would not harm the market.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseFrank Cifaldi condemns the remote game-research access decision
“This fails the needs of citizens in favor of a weak sauce argument from the industry, and it's really disappointing.”Read statement
VGHF criticizes the Copyright Office's decision on remote research access
Video Game History Foundation
“Unfortunately, lobbying efforts by rightsholder groups continue to hold back progress.”Read statement
ESA welcomes the Copyright Office's 2024 video-game preservation decision
Entertainment Software Association
“the U.S. Copyright Office confirms that the current level of video game preservation is appropriate”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Kendra Albert criticizes the evidence assessment in the game-preservation decision
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6374-albert-argues-that-the-copyright-office-did-not
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Kendra Albert criticizes the evidence assessment in the game-preservation decision". First published: 2026-10-21. Last updated: 2026-10-21. https://disputeindex.com/events/6374-albert-argues-that-the-copyright-office-did-not