All of the information here.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/victory-users-librarian-congress-renews-and-expands-protections-fair-uses

I heard about it here.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1130528

What I find interesting is that this law makes this legal.

The exemptions are needed thanks to a fundamentally flawed law that forbids users from breaking DRM, even if the purpose is a clearly lawful fair use. As software has become ubiquitous, so has DRM. Users often have to circumvent that DRM to make full use of their devices, from DVDs to games to smartphones and cars.

The law allows users to request exemptions for such lawful uses—but it doesn’t make it easy. Exemptions are granted through an elaborate https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking and places a heavy burden on EFF and the many other requesters who take part.

For shorter.

The exemptions are needed thanks to a fundamentally flawed law that forbids users from breaking DRM, even if the purpose is a clearly lawful fair use. As software has become ubiquitous, so has DRM.

So does this mean this law if video games are abandoned lets users circumvent the Digital Rights Management (DRM)?

Edit for clarification: Yes apparently it's allowed only if you have purchased the video game(s).

Well this will make people who do LP's on YouTube happy and piss off video game companies.

It only seems logical if a business sells you something and then tries to steal it back by claiming that because of the DRM you can no longer play what you have rightly paid for once the business discontinues supporting it, that the law would provide the consumer a remedy.

Hah! In your face, evil publishers!
And non-evil too, i suppose

Very nice. But it's only a baby step.

I just shake my head. It sounds like good news but to be honest it's not really that much.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/u-s-govt-grants-limited-right-to-revive-games-behind-abandoned-servers/

So you can bypass "authentication" methods to play a game you paid for if the company shuts down the servers. But you can't set up a 3rd party server for online play because "piracy". (I assume from the article they're talking about jailbreaking a console, not about routing PC games through gameranger. It's not clear.)

At least they clarified that working on your car is not piracy.

I tend to have a hard time with legal talk. Could someone please explain to me in layman's terms what the article is about? From what I understand, someone is trying to make it legal to tweak your own game, like a mod? But the DRM gets in the way because the gameing company says the product is theirs so you can't tinker with it?

Or did I get it all wrong?

I don't get the part with working on a car. I've seen people work on cars all my life with no one getting in trouble.

As I read it, the issue is that some games require you to be online to play (or at least periodically log in to verify you've paid for the game, like Steam) and once the company who sold you the game turns off the servers you can't play anymore. So this new ruling says that under these circumstances, where the company that sold you the game abandons it, someone who paid for the game could then legally crack the DRM to continue playing on their own machine, but could not set up their own server for multiplayer or online play.

So it gives consumers some rights to enjoy the games that they have paid for, but does not give them the right to enjoy everything they paid for since you are still not allowed to crack the DRM for multi player and online play.

Ahh ok. Thanks for explaining it to me.

Sorry, that had nothing to do with gaming but it was covered in the OP's links. Basically most of the big auto makers earlier in the year filed a copyright petition that could have made it illegal to work on your car because so much of today's cars are are software-controlled and also "piracy" lol. https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html?nf=1 maybe not the best article but it's short. Anyway the ruling today told the auto makers to stuff it, nah, "fair use," which is actually a really big win for consumers. But it illustrates how ridiculously broken the DMCA is that this even had to be argued at all.