Posted by
Hemos
on from the what-else-should-the-code-do dept.
Bravo writes: "C|net has recently published an interesting
article
on abandonware and its legality. " They do a good job of covering both ends of the spectrum - the publishers who want to hold on to their old code, and folks who see it as being wasted.
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create. If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it. --
An excellent point - and one that's often glossed over by the would-be robber barons of the information age, who hope that by treating intellectual property as an absolute right, rather than a socially convenient legal fiction.
Sadly, the growing profile of Abandonware will probably be its downfall - one need only see Microsoft's attitude displayed in the article.
--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
Floyd+Tante
·
· Score: 1
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create.
Try telling that to Congress:)
If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
Exaclty. There is no rational reason for holding onto the copyrights for old software which is no longer being sold. It's simple greed and corporatism, designed to hold back geeks from things they can use in a productive manner. Personally, since it is so irrational, I see no compelling reason to play along with the little corporate games. If you don't sell it, that's no reason why I can't have it. -- Floyd
-- -- Floyd
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
mrfiddlehead
·
· Score: 3
Perhaps, but it's their code, and if they don't want to share it that's their perogative, no?
Open source is a great concept - that still remains to be proven - but those who do not subscribe to its tenets should not be castigated because of their decision. Besides, one thing OSS has proven is that nothing is impossible.
The fact that people still want whatever the work in question is shows that it still has some value, so why should the publisher / writer / whatever give up their rights to it?
--
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Intellectual property is intellectual property, no matter if it's not being sold. Just because a certain issue of a magazine is no longer on the shelves, does that give you the right to go out and copy it? This is the same issue - while it would be nice for some of the old code were made avialable, it is still the intellectual property of the copyright holder.
For instance, what if you want Microsoft to open up Win 3.1? It's old code, right? Well, Win 3.1 is still capable of being a competitor to Win 9x if it evolves in the right direction.
How many out of print movies and books are there? Hard to find - but they always have a legitimate reason for not "opening it up" - the copyright owner still wants to get something from any distribution of this, and would prefer to keep that right for themselves.
So how can this really hurt the companies involved(if they are still going)... Not financially so I guess it comes down to image. Could they be scared of what people might think when they download one of their old games that may be just plain crap and they think it might affect their image today..?
> Perhaps, but it's their code, and if they don't
> want to share it that's their perogative, no?
Authorship is not equal to Ownership.
They Own Copyright on the code. They own hard drives and other storage media that conain the code. However, the code is intangible and cannot be owned.
The question is NOT whether they should be allowed to "Not Share". Of course they should be allowed to not share. The question is whether they shoul dbe allowed to stop others from shareing it.
Copyright says that they can. However, I would submit that this is a mistake. Copyright was invented to encourage publication by ensuring that authors have a way to make sure that they get paid for their work by publishers.
The reason that copyright holders are given this "right" is to give them temporary monopoly. However, if they are no longer using it, and they use copyright to stop further distribution, they are perverting and in fact working against the entire reason that copyright exists.
They are taking something that was given to them for one reason (making it safe for them to publish) and they are using it to stop the distribution of things that they have no intention of publishing again.
This is clear and simple abuse of the copyright system, and a shining example of why it needs heavy updating.
> Open source is a great concept - that still
> remains to be proven
I dunno.... I can go, find a free software program, I can download it. I can read the source, I can modify and redistribute it. I can compile and use it. Have done each at least once and some many times. Whats left to be proven?
That is of course unless you plan to judge Free Software by the standard marketspeak of "its more effcient" "it makes more stable code" and "bugs get fixed faster". Those may be yet to be proven absolutely...but they are all side effects of the system anyway.... more bonuses than central points.
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
Floyd+Tante
·
· Score: 4
Intellectual property is
...a myth.
Just because a certain issue of a magazine is no longer on the shelves, does that give you the right to go out and copy it?
My actions are not bounded by artificial "rights" granted by others. I am, as a human, fully capable of exercising Reason in such issues. If you need something, why should anyone put up artificial barriers against it? It does nothing but hold back the progress of humanity, thus furthering the claims of those who benefit from the status quo.
For instance, what if you want Microsoft to open up Win 3.1?
Strawman. The Abandonware Movement is about free "beer" not free "speech".
How many out of print movies and books are there?
Too many. Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain. Is this "right"? Not even the most morally corrupt person could claim so much. -- Floyd
You make a faulty analogy. In order for your analogy to be correct, the magazine publisher would no longer even offer that particular issue, even if that publisher had agreed to send you another copy of that issue at a later date if for some reason you lost yours.
Also, don't confuse distributing abandonware with distributing the source code for that software, they are two different issues entirely.
I do see what these sites are doing as a public service, especially if they do as the interviewee did and remove anything requested by the publisher. It would be even better if they could work out something with the publisher, maybe even a payment scheme. Where they would pay the publisher X amount per download. Then the publisher could still see some profit from their older stuff.
Of course, the amount charged would have to be minimal to be effective, but if a million people went out and downloaded an old game, it might give the publisher the idea to re-release it for newer machines.
This "use it or lose it" view of intellectual property seems to be a pervasive one -- and the only reason for this, I believe, is that it allows people to feel a little better about themselves when they download old intellectual property that they have no right to.
Would you argue that if I wrote a book and tried to sell it, I would have intellectual property rights to it, but if I wrote a book, thought it was horrible, and shelved it, that I wouldn't have any rights because I wasn't selling it? That you could come in and make a xerox copy of it (after all, it's not actually theft since you're leaving the original copy) and distribute it? And put banner ads on the site where you're distributing it at that?
Come on. Isn't it time that people got a little bit realistic here, took a deep breath, and checked if their IP morality isn't just a convenient way of justifying illegal and wrong acts?
I don't understand your sig. Money doesn't have a speed value associated with it. Usually I can say "My car is slow" or "My pet turtle is slow", but "My money is slow" doesn't have any meaning without some context. For instance, when talking about distribution of money, and it's discovered that it takes a year for a dollar bill to move from one side of the country to the other, you could say "Money is slow". However, in absence of context, money has no speed value.
That said, I think it's time you got yourself a new sig.
Look at the relevant portion of the Constitution.
About magazines: Most magazines will send you reprints or actuall copies if you send them money.
I do not think you should copy them.
But if a magazine will NOT sell you a copy of an out of print issue, then I think you have the right to copy it(not a legal right though, unless it is old enough.)
Copyright law was designed to allow people to make money from their works(to promote creation,) for a LIMITED time. It was then intended that the work go into the collective mass of knowlege(public domain.)
Copyright has NEVER been an absolute right either, the concept of fair use has existed for ages.
Most books and movies are out of print. If you look at the combined total of all books and movies ever made, most of them are not being sold anymore. So how do you read them or watch them? You go to used book stores, or the library. How do you get old software that isn't being published? They don't have software in the library, and it's hard to find good sources of used software. This sort of abandonment library is tremendously useful for society. It really is a public service. I think it's more than fair that they remove any software that the publisher complains about.
The more I think about it, the more I like this idea: have software for checkout in the library. The purpose of libraries is to provide free temporary access to copyrighted works. Why shouldn't they have software? Software publishers could produce special versions that require the CD to run (so people can't keep using the program when they return the CD). This would be really cool. Imagine going down to the library to check out the latest Redhat CD. Or checking out Diablo for the weekend. There's the danger of people abusing the system and copying the programs, but there is that danger with audio CD's as well and libraries still carry those.
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
Floyd+Tante
·
· Score: 1
This "use it or lose it" view of intellectual property seems to be a pervasive one -- and the only reason for this, I believe, is that it allows people to feel a little better about themselves when they download old intellectual property that they have no right to.
This "pay up or go to jail" view of intellectual property seems to be a pervasive one -- and the only reason for this is, I believe, is that allows people to feel a little better about themselves when they send people to jail for downloading old intellectual property that they no longer sell.
I wrote a book, thought it was horrible, and shelved it, that I wouldn't have any rights because I wasn't selling it?
What difference would it make to you, financially or otherwise (HINT: none). These spurious strawman arguments only prove the weakness of the corpratist point of view.
And put banner ads on the site where you're distributing it at that?
You mean like Slashdot distributing M$ "trade secrets"? If that bothers you, there are other sites, you know.
Isn't it time that people got a little bit realistic here, took a deep breath, and checked if their IP morality isn't just a convenient way of justifying illegal and wrong acts?
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 2
Well, look at MAME ROMS as an example... For years, no one was doing anything with them. Then companies realized that there was still indeed demand for their games, so they're releasing all of these "classic arcade" game CD-ROM's.
It's their right. They made them. They can decided what to do with them, just as I can write a book and then throw it into a burning trashcan if I so desire.
I know that "Make money slowly!" would be grammatically correct, but it's a play on the old "MAKE MONEY FAST!" messages, which should really have been "MAKE MONEY QUICKLY!".. basically, my version has to be bug-for-bug compatible with the original. --
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create. If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
Ah, yes, the "I didn't steal it--you put it down; I thought that you didn't want it any more" defense.
But one way in which copyright encourages people to create is by providing them with the certainty that they can be secure in the rights to what they create for a set period of time, even if they aren't doing anything with it at the moment.
The purpose of a stop sign is to allow cross traffic to pass safely, but that doesn't mean that you are entitled ignore the sign if there is no cross-traffic.
I wrote a book, thought it was horrible, and shelved it, that I wouldn't have any rights because I wasn't selling it?
What difference would it make to you, financially or otherwise (HINT: none). These spurious strawman arguments only prove the weakness of the corpratist point of view.
Well, this is not exactly true. What if the contents of the book, or the quality of the book compromises my future earnings or ability to get a job. Lets say, the book was so bad, and so offensive that if anybody saw it, I wouldn't be able every publish another book again my reputation would be destroyed. By releasing that book, you could do financial harm to me. Don't I have the right to privacy? Don't I have the right for you NOT to expose me?
Of course, this argument isn't exactly relavant to abandonware, because the IP we're talking about IS published.
Are you proposing doing away with copyright entirely, or just returning it to a "founding-fathers" level?
Money doesn't have a speed value associated with it.
Actually it does. In economics, there's a concept called the "velocity of money". It's a measure of how much money changes hand in a given time period. The more money that "moves around" (i.e. the more buying and selling that occurs), the stronger the economy, or so I've been told. The more people save money, the less it moves around, and the velocity of money goes down. --
-- And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Maybe because it would cost them more to actually sell the work (and support it!) that they would get in return. Abandonware, with its lack of warentees or guarentees, is by far the most cost effective way of distributing these old titles to the small minority of people who actually benefit from them (like people who havn't upgraded their computer since 1994, or people who really like some classic game by a company that went out of business 5 years ago).
Ah, yes, the "I didn't steal it--you put it down; I thought that you didn't want it any more" defense.
Actually, in some instances that is a valid defense. The law is quite clear about how one can attest rights to abandoned physical property (IE maritime salvage, squatter's rights, etc). [Just what the law is, I don't know, because IANAL]
Since corporations persist in making the argument that intellectual property rights are equivilent to physical property rights, they have to take the good with the bad: the same standards should be applied to abandoned intellectual property as apply to abandoned physical property.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
-- Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
That would be correct - NO
Just because they have a copyright, once it is put into distribution, it is NOT their right to control the material any longer. Intentionally removing it from the market and then preventing the distribution is an obstruction of constitutionally guaranteed fair use.
The IS an abandoment concept to copyright.
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 1
It's a perfect example, in my eyes... It was stuff that the original copyright holders owned and had neglected because their games had become dated and replaced by newer fancier games. They then saw that there was indeed demand for their classics, so they came foreward and rereleased them, so as to be the only ones able to make money off of their creations... It would be messed up if someone else besides them (the authors, creators, owners) could dictate how the games were distributed and make money off of the process... In the end we all win, they get their money, we (if we desire) get access to the classics in a legitamate fashion.
Don't like it? Make your own games... no one's stopping anyone from doing that. You just can't use their characters...
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
bdavenport
·
· Score: 1
i'm writing software right now. i like to think of my self as neither greedy nor corporate.
we provide software for sale that provides automation to services people use daily. we sale that software. my compant pays me. i enjoy it.
if we wanted, we could give the stuff away.
if you feel so inclined, spend 14 months writing some stuff and then put it on the web for free.
as for me - i'll continue doing what i love and getting paid for it.
as for Its hard to make money on something you don't sell - you (as a company) losing something (a product) to the public domain if you don't protect the copyright. why protect the copyright? uh - how about licensing? wouldn't be far fetched that one day someone may feel nostalgic and want to make a new version of your old product. they'd owe you a fee to do so - if you protected the copyright.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
This is where CNET's analogy of taking a car from a carpark is totally wrong. The point of abandonware is that it's like retrieving a car from a river or a beach where it's been dumped and ignored for years, restoring it and using it again. AFAIK, there isn't anywhere has a law against picking up junk (or discarded articles) and re-using them.
If piracy is the equivalent of house-breaking, abandonware is the equivalent of beachcombing.
Don't I have the right to privacy? Don't I have the right for you NOT to expose me?
Generally speaking, and this is already taken care of by other areas of civil and criminal law. You don't need copyright for this.
Are you proposing doing away with copyright entirely, or just returning it to a "founding-fathers" level?
Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were in fact completely opposed to the notion of copyrights and IP in general (the most notable of these being Thomas Jefferson, a prolific writer and inventor).
I'd personally just be happy to see it go back to the original ~14 year term, with limitations only on publication, rather than use.
> For instance, what if you want Microsoft to open up Win 3.1? It's old code, right? Well, Win 3.1 is still capable of being a competitor to Win 9x if it evolves in the right direction.
If Microsoft is still supporting and maintaining Win3.1, that's fine. I'll bet having Win3.1 in abandonware status and available to open source improvements might motivate Microsoft to move on the ball with Win9X, NT, Win2K, etc. developments.
Plus, it'd do a great job at resolving the antitrust issues through the market rather than requiring the impartial Dept. of Justice to do it for us.
if I wrote a book, thought it was horrible, and shelved it, that I wouldn't have any rights because I wasn't selling it?
This isn't a particularly good analogy. In the case of abandonware, not only have they tried to sell the software, they did, and at some point decided that it wasn't cost effective to publish it anymore. So there obviously is no reason for them not to have it out there - it was out there.
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
AndyChrist
·
· Score: 1
Most software you'd be able to check out from a library would have to be installed to your hard disk to run it. And it would probably stay there when you returned the CD and/or floppies. People generally do not copy library books when they check them out.
Having software checkouts in a library would be effectively the same thing as an abandonware website (or a warez site, if they keep current software).
No, you don't have that right, since by publishing your book in the first place, you automatically open yourself up to "fair-use" issues. A review in a book magazine or the times, or a copy in some old bookstore on Cape Cod for $.15 makes it into the hands of your worst enemy.
I don't think thte previous author was advocating getting rid of copyright. I surely don't think that way. What I *DO* hate, for instance, is the inability for me to call up the authors of the ORIGINAL test-drive, and have them send me a copy of the software that I originally PAID for.
Or broderbund software, getting copies of all that old C-64 software I love, and could still use if the media still worked.
Or running all my ATARI games on my computer because my ATARI no longer works, but wait - I can still use the ROMs!!
60 years out of print, I can still read a book. 60 years out of print, you'll never be able to use Printshop on a C-64.
THAT is what the abandonware movement is all about. You can go ahead and cry (oh why?!?!) Doesn't matter.
Would you like it if you never got to be able to see an original copy of the constitution, simply because the last one printed was in 1788 and was locked up in some private vault?
Wrong. The creator only controls the distribution rights as long as he has copyright.
If he wants to seal it in a safe and not EVER allow anybody to distribute it, then he cannot have ever had it published, or be willing to buy up every copy that was published.
It is true that copyright has been extended for a LONG time, but it is not indefinite.
Look at the purpose of copyright law. It was to allow someone to profit from their works for a LIMITED time, by preventing someone from copying a book he/she had just printed and selling the copy. There was NO intention of granting property rights to ideas, or expressions of ideas, in perpetuity. It was intended that works pass into the public domain after a short time in order to increase the common store of knowledge.
P.S. That is very sad about the negatives...I always consider it a collective loss whenever knowledge(in the general sense, eg. art, records, even bad movies) is lost.
The current length of copyright is not fulfilling the intention of the law, in that it is not only encouraging people to live off the rewards of PAST work, it is preventing the spread of knowledge.
I wonder if Paul McCartney would cry if he read this. After all, he never _abandoned_ the original Beatles songs. They were just removed from his possession by a bizzare quirk of American copyright laws. Or for that matter, the copyright to "Happy Birthday" should have expired years ago (102, to be exact) but for some reason the Disney Corporation still can bill people for its use. Copyright law is fundamentally fucked up. There are so many loopholes and side passages; the rule should be, you own it till you die, then it's public domain. If "you" are a coroporation, you own it for a what a human being would reasonably own it for (say 60 years) and then it becomes public domain. No bribing of senators or congressmen to extend it . . .
The more money that "moves around" (i.e. the more buying and selling that occurs), the stronger the economy, or so I've been told. The more people save money, the less it moves around, and the velocity of money goes down.
Well now, are you actually saying that savings are a BAD THING(tm)? I don't think most economist would agree with you. Whether a lower velocity is indicative of a strong or a week economy depends entirely upon the reason the money is being saved.
If an economy is in deflation (like the Japanese one), people hang onto cash because prices are likely to fall, forcing prices down even more. Here an increase in monetary velocity would increase the health of the economy.
Conversely, consider an economy that is in hyperinflation. Noone wants to hold cash for any lenght of time, because it rapidly loses its value. Velocity sky-rockets. Is this a healthy economy?
If money is being saved to invest in future production (however indirectly) the savings will probably improve the health of the economy. If money is being spent because of rising incomes and confidence in the future, the increased spending will probably improve the health of the economy, but only if there is spare capacity to absorb the extra spending. Otherwise, inflation will result.
Economics is like that. The very same change in an economic metric can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. BTW, IANAE.
Tell that to grad students. EVERY grad student knows that ALL info is free. We go to the library, get journals/books/etc and copy away. THOUSANDS of pages...a month/every month. Bind them in a Looseleaf binder.
Obviously you have never been a liberal arts grad student.
This has saved me at least 100K in books. Profs do this too...especially in content rich fields like philosophy and history or literature.
Tom
-- Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots.
-Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Wrong. The creator of a work controls the rights to how it is distributed. If that creator decides, for whatever reason, that s/he does not want it distributed at all, it is the perogative of that person to just seal it in a steel safe and not allow anybody to distribute it.
Why? It's easy to sit back and say this. Now, tell me why I should respect it. If I have a piece of your work, and I give a copy to a friend, you've lost nothing unless that gift prevents a potential sell. But in the case of abandonware, there is no potential of a sell. Therefore, you have been harmed in no way at all. So what justifies your use of force against me to prevent my giving that copy in the first place?
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
if I wrote a book, thought it was horrible, and shelved it, that I wouldn't have any rights because I wasn't selling it? That you could come in and make a xerox copy of it (after all, it's not actually theft since you're leaving the original copy) and distribute it?
No, that wouldn't be Ok, because it violates your privacy. It's just like copying your unreleased-to-the-public love letters.
Is copyright an inalienable right, or is it more of a quid-pro-pro contract with the state, where both sides have consideration?
The popular view around here is that normally society gives you a monopoly on the expression in your book, in order to encourage you to release that expression. But if you're not going to release that expression, what reason does society have to give you the monopoly? What's in it for us? Why should we give you an extra unnatural right?
---
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Right. The real problem isn't that copyrights and patents are bad, it's that they last too long. Nothing has entered the public domain in decades. Twenty years from time of publication would be fair.
Isn't there a half way point to all this?
The software companies frequently claim they are selling the license-- not the software. Wouldn't it be possible for them to sell old licenses to the stuff, at a small cost? This would be in essense a kind of software version of syndication on TV. The creator would be rewarded (admittedly slightly) for their work, and would sidestep the whole abandoned issue. Admittedly, users would be "on their honor" not to abuse the perogative, but since the user is usually looking for these older apps out of nostalgia, they would most likely be inclined to thank the author.
Thoughts, anyone?
If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
I'm with you on your argument, but this doesn't make any sense. If they've gotten all that they're going to get from it, why are they being such bastards about it? Companies don't do things to spite you, they do things for profit. Whether or not they spite you is just a side effect.
So obviously since they're protecting it, they must think that they can still squeeze something out of it. (Either get a positive benefit, or avoid a negative consequence)
The trick is convincing them that this is not the case.
-- --
Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Copyright was a balance, between restricting the rights of the people and helping them via encouraging more works to be created.
Not being allowed to copy something during a reasonable ammount of time lets a publisher make money by doing that copying and selling. Like a patent, it was a temporary monopoly to encourage further development. But copyrights have changed a lot since the early days, growing longer and longer, and being seen as an absolute right instead of a trade-off.
Disney and other large companies have pushed to have insanely long copyrights and would undoubtedly go for ones that wouldn't ever expire if they thought they could get away with it. But what would be the other side in this tradeoff? The public pays the FBI who enforce copyright, the public are the ones against whom this copyright is being enforced. Where's the balance?
Then, as you say, when copyright is used to stifle publication, it's serving exactly opposite of what it was intended to do.
Copyright laws need to be completely revamped, to where they help content creators only as much as they help content consumers. Unless both sides get something out of it, it's not fair to expect one side to give up a lot of rights to give the other side a government enforced monopoly.
Exaclty[sic]. There is no rational reason for holding onto the copyrights for old software which is no longer being sold. It's simple greed
and corporatism, designed to hold back geeks from things they can use in a productive manner. Personally, since it is so irrational,
I see no compelling reason to play along with the little corporate games. If you don't sell it, that's no reason why I can't have it.
I beg to differ, as much as it pains me, there are estates, etc. which continue to retain the rights to works so they may not be commercially exploited by others. Personally, I loved a lot of the old C64 games and would love nothing better than to see them revived, alas, tracking down the rights to some of these from defunct companies, etc. may prove more of a hassle than recoding for new platforms.
As far as I have heard, Dan Bunten(sp?), one of the original creators of M.U.L.E. is deceased, M.U.L.E. was one of the best games ever, along with the original Impossible Mission. All the current genre' bore me into a coma. If I decided to recode these works for PSII or Window$, you can bet lawyers would come after me and I wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. It would be my duty, beforehand to seek out and purchase these rights, no matter how old they are.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
ConceptJunkie
·
· Score: 1
Look at it from the company's point of view:
I don't think I can sell this any more. But look! Someone is giving it away on an abandonware site. Those bastards! And people want it, too. Therefore, it has value and they are stealing from me. I'm gonna make them stop, so I can continue to sit on this dead product.
Either way they don't make money, so I would argue they're being bastards just on principle.
Of course, I recently purchased a collection of over 30 Infocom games for about US$15 in a download-only format. Guess what? I was happy to do so, and would be happy to do so for many of these old abandoned classics. But if the owners aren't willing to make this software (or music, or movies, etc), available, they have, in effect, given up any copy protection rights they have.
Of course the letter of the law doesn't see it that way, but why should the government punish me just because I don't know where the one used software store in the country that actually has a copy of this package is (if there even is one)?
I think the same setup that allows Activision to sell me all the Interactive Fiction I'll ever need for the price of dinner can (and will) be utilized by more and more companies simply because it would require almost no work on their part to participate.
All they need to do is copy a few floppies (defeating copy-protection might be an issue for the turds who were actually malicious enough to have used it in the first place), scan some manuals, sign over a cut to the Web vendor and sit back and cash the checks.
I have no problem paying a small amount of money for abandoned software as-is with no warranty. After all, I generally expect a certain percentage of software (particularly games) I buy to ultimately prove worthless to me.
The solution is out there and companies who want to generate a little good will among customers for very little effort can do so, and those that just want to perpetuate the stereotype of the greedy corporate bastards (three times in one post, I need a new word) can do so too.
Unfortunately, we've seen which way most companies go. Let's hope that starts changing a little bit.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
(semantics)But the velocity of money and money itself are two differnt things.(/semantics)
But who cares about that, lets talk about monetarism.:) While velocity is a measurement of health, when you talk about "people saving money", you are talking about the personal savings rate. In particular, the proportion of the income of C (of GDP=C+I+G fame) that is not spent in a period.
For a number of reasons, having a positive personal savings rate is a GOOD thing, and it doesn't affect the velocity of money very much. By saving that money, it flows to I (of GDP), who then moves it about and in the words of W, "takes the pie higher".
If you were talking about the cash retension rates of corperations, we could say that savings is bad [if a corperations internal rate of return isn't higher than the market rate of return, that corperation shouldn't be in business]. Of course, cash reserves are necessary, but as necessary to conduct business, not as a money making process.
Bottom line, velocity = good, personal savings = good.
I know what property rights are, and I know what property is. I also know what theft is. Theft is when I take something from you. It involves the illicit transfer of value from you to me.
Intellectual property is a different thing. You insist that you have these rights. I'm asking you to justify that claim. Why do you have those rights? Where do they come from? Tell me WHY I should respect them. And all you keep doing is yelling about their existence.
As for your lithographs, certainly nobody has the right to reprint them and sell or distribute them as one of the original. That's forgery; it's fraudulent. But that scenario is totally different from a clearly abandonded piece of software.
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
BinxBolling
·
· Score: 1
If I have a piece of your work, and I give a copy to a friend, you've lost nothing unless that gift prevents a potential sell. But in the case of abandonware, there is no potential of a sell.
Not true. When you give away an old game that is no longer being sold, you may be preventing a sale of a more current game - maybe your friend will go replay the original Legend of Zelda instead of buying Zelda 64.
But while I think you can't look at individual programs in isolation when trying to understand the copyright holders' motivations, my suspicion is that you're right: Nostalgia gaming (which I sometimes participate in) doesn't interfere much with purchases of current games. There are significant differences in the psychology behind the two. I recently downloaded an NES emulator and a number of ROMs. I wanted to try out some games I'd wanted as a kid, but had never actually played. Had the emulator and ROMs not been available, I wouldn't have gone out and bought a more recent game, instead.
With Microsoft, it's not that they think they are going to make any money off the old software... they just want to force people to buy the new software.
Microsoft depends on people always, always having to upgrade.
Imagine if Windows 95 and Office 95 were good enough that companies could still use then today. They would just buy nice new computers from Dell with no operating system, and install their old, perfectly legal copies of Windows 95 on them.
This would be fatal for Microsoft. This is why they have always forced old software to become unusable. They refuse to sell it, refuse to support it, and make their new software incompatible with it.
Microsoft is getting caught in a tight spot. If they don't make their software better, Free Software will take over. But if they make it good enough, people will buy it once and never upgrade. Either way, Microsoft is screwed.
This is why Microsoft is making moves to a subscription model of software, where you cannot buy the software. You will only be able to lease it on a yearly basis.
If Microsoft succeeds in doing this, they have it made. They won't even need to put out new software anymore - just minimal support, and let the money roll in.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
-- Torrey Hoffman (Azog) "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
God you're fucking dumb, no wonder you're hiding as an AC.
To reprint a 'signed and numbered lithograph' would be fraud, for reasons completely seperate from the copyright issue. If you're too stupid to come up with an analogy that works, don't use them.
If you research any of the history behind copyright law, you'll see it's a two-sided law. You get protection for your work, but ONLY if it's released later into the public domain.
There is no stated provision for allowing someone to copy an abandoned but still copyrighted work, but why do you really think it's bad?
What reason, that anyone could care about, could the author have to let something sit unreleased and probably go completely missing? And if they just want to keep people from playing older games so they'll be more likely to buy new ones, why should we care what they want?
Their 'property rights' are being enforced by our tax money... Every FBI agent tracking down some warez dealer is being payed for by the taxes of the citizens, doesn't this mean we own a little bit of that copyrighted work, that we should stand to collect when the copyright expires? But the movie studios would rather destroy old works, and software companies would rather nobody could play old games, instead of allowing the people that which they payed for.
Too many. Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain.
Do you have any evidence of this? Considering that all films made since 1927 (I believe) are still under copyright, it seems hard to believe.
There's one thing that I don't understand about all these anti-IP fanatics. You guys like to throw around words like "evil" a lot, and compare Bill Gates to Satan, but of course everyone knows that big corporations aren't really evil -- they just want to make as much money as possible.
That's why the whole abandonware argument doesn't make much sense. The fact that companies still protect old software is proof that it still has some value. Are we really supposed to believe that executives hold on to copyrights just because they enjoy making people suffer?
How nice....you make a straw man then don't even have the common curtesy to knock him down. Very nice. Not terribly effective though.
You see the whole point of mis-representing what I say, is so that you can attack what I said based on flaws in reasoning that were introduced in your representation of what I said, rather than in what I actually said. All you did was mis-represent what I said, you never attacked the flaws.
As I said in my post, Authorship is not Ownership. Your analogy shows a complete lack of understanding of this concept and of the foundations of copyright.
As I said, an author has every right to share or not share his own physical copies of his work. Which is the only thing that is anaolgous to your car. So in short, no. I would not feel that anyone should be able to take your car because you stop using it. That was very strongly stated in my original post.
Now copyright is another matter entirely. Ownership does not end. If you own something, you do not cease to own it (unless you discard or sell it) until you die. When you die, it becomes property of your heirs (assuming that you have any). However copyright lasts only a limited time (a long period of time when compared to our daily lives, but limited none the less).
After copyright ends can NEVER be claimed again on the work. Again, not so with property. Property can be owned again by someone else after you die with no heirs.
In short, copyright was designed NOT to "protect authors rights to property" but to encourage them to produce and publish works. When copyright is used solely to stop the distribution of old works, it is an abuse of the system. It is an abuse against the very people who gave up their rights to the authors, so that the authors could profit initially.
It is right use of the system for an author to publish his work and stop unauthorized publishers from profiting off his work without paying him. It is a gross abuse of the system to use copyright to stop the continued distribution of the work, after the author is no longer using his copyright to profit.
--Steve
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
This "use it or lose it" view of intellectual property seems to be a pervasive one -- and the only reason for this, I believe, is that it allows people to feel a little better about themselves when they download old intellectual property that they have no right to.
"use it or lose it" used to be the way copyright law worked. Before 1978, in order to obtain a copyright, the work had to be clearly marked with a copyright notice. In addition, after 28 years, you had to file a form with the copyright office to renew your copyright, or it fell into the public domain.
If the law had not been changed in 1978, abandoned software from 1972 would be falling into the public domain. Abandoned software from 1976, the Apple II days, would begin entering the public domain in 2004. I would be perfectly happy to sit back and wait four years. Under the current laws, that same abandoned software will not enter the public domain until the year 2071.
The problem is that in 1978, the media companies, tired of having to actually identify, keep track of, and renew their copyrighted works, got Congress to change the law so that everything is copyrighted for 75 years, and eliminated all of the "use it or lose it" requirements. Two years ago, they went back to Congress and got an extension to 95 years.
The result is that the public domain has been effectively wiped out. There is no contemporary public domain. Here we are, approximately 28 years after the invention of the first software, about the time when it is supposed to be falling into the public domain, having to rewrite it from scratch and put it under the GPL -- an "emulated", copyright-enforced replacement for the destroyed public domain.
So the real situation is that the law has been changed, and the public are being ripped off. It used to be that in exchange for the public honoring the copyrights of authors, their abandoned work would enter the public domain in 28 years. No longer. Nothing created within my lifetime will enter the public domain within my lifetime. Why should I honor copyright when I can expect to receive no benefit? It's as if I took out a 20 year mortgage, paid the mortgage regularly, and 20 years later, when I was about to make my last payment, the bank told me, "Sorry, but we decided to extend your mortgage payments by 20 years." That bank would be committing a moral crime. No different when the MPAA comes to Congress and says, "We want another 20 years for all copyrights so that none of our work enters the public domain." Fuck that. That is stealing. That is immoral.
An alternative to your theory is that people are seeking justification for breaking an immoral law, without having to acknowledge that the law itself is immoral. A messy thing to have to reconcile with a general respect for the law.
What we are seeing is a growing sentiment, a giant and growing "fuck you" to the corporations that have bought Congress, and bribed them into subverting the copyright system into a system where all information is owned perpetually by corporations, and anyone wanting to use that information without permission is branded a "pirate."
Since copyright no longer works to the benefit of the public, the time has come for it to be destroyed. Sorry, but this is a revolution, and the MPAA and RIAA just happen to be the first ones up against the wall.
Actually, in some instances that is a valid defense. The law is quite clear about how one can attest rights to abandoned physical property (IE maritime salvage, squatter's rights, etc).
The key phrase here is "in some instances." There is no general right to appropriate unused property, although there are some specific exceptions. Both of the examples you cite are rather exceptional circumstances: in the one case, you have been living on a property for years, with no objection from the owner; in the other, you have engaged in a dangerous and expensive retrieval at sea operation. And in fact, there already is such a provision in copyright law: copyrighted items eventually revert to the public domain.
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
aardvarkjoe
·
· Score: 1
Sure. They don't have to share. But once they decide to release it, sell it, and make some money... they've already given it away. If they didn't want people to own their software (which is, in general, what these companies want for old programs... they want them to be completely obliterated so that they can sell you new stuff) then they shouldn't have released it in the first place.
It seems like just an act of wastefulness on the part of these companies. Some of the best games ever made are now nearly lost, and completely unsupported by their manufacturers. (Case in point: Corncob 3D, one of the best and most entertaining flight simulation games ever produced. The company's website now doesn't even mention having made it, and my disks were corrupted long ago. I did finally manage to get it from somewhere.)
Even if the companies refused to make them freely available, it would be nice if they would continue to sell them to people who request it. They wouldn't have to advertise or even mention them, but if people requested an old game, they'd throw it on a floppy and send it to them for a few dollars. Heck, same for old nintendo ROMS and so forth. I'd be more than willing to pay a few dollars to play my games legally.
--
How can we continue to believe in a
just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
aardvarkjoe
·
· Score: 1
That's why the whole abandonware argument doesn't make much sense. The fact that companies still protect old software is proof that it still has some value. Are we really supposed to believe that executives hold on to copyrights just because they enjoy making people suffer?
Um... no. If you haven't noticed, no copyrighted software has naturally entered the public domain. The reason why they hold on to the copyright is because they don't have any proof that they do not have any more value. (Follow that?)
That said, they do have some value -- to a game player. because they're fun. By holding on to the copyrights like that, though, they have no value to the company. As I said in an earlier post, most people who use abandonware are actually pretty reasonable. They like the companies that made the softare or games that they use, and would be willing to buy it legally if given the chance.
--
How can we continue to believe in a
just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The reason why they hold on to the copyright is because they don't have any proof that they do not have any more value. (Follow that?)
Yup. But the act of releasing old software also has value, maybe considerable value. (Just picture the chaos on Slashdot the day that MS frees Win 3.1...)
There's just one catch... Execs choose to hold onto their copyrights because they think that they are more valuable closed than open. They can be wrong... in fact, in the case of software, they are almost always wrong. (IMHO) But that's incompetence, not malice. That's why the original poster's claim about movie copyrights set me off... destroying movies with expired copyrights would not benefit the owners in any way that I can see, and I just can't believe that they would do it out of sheer malice.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by having the common curtesy to know down strawmen, English is only my second language, and I have never heard that expression before.
However, I actually find it quite provocative that you don't think people should have the rights to their own work, and calling it abuse if they won't give away what they won't sell. To me, the situation is just the opposite. If I take something without permission, I am stealing. I must admit, though, I have been downloading several games from Abandonware sites myself. There are a lot of great old games, and because I play them instead of buying new games, the games manufacturers loose money.
You would have full rights to do what ever you wanted with it. How ever, should you sell me a copy of that book and state that if it is damaged that you will suport/replace it and then down the line deside that it's too much truble for you then we have a problem. At that point you are not honoring your contract with me. I hold the right to a RPL copy of the book, yet you refuse to alow me to have it. Am I wrong to get it someplace else? Granted if I never paid for the book I shouldn't just copy it and take it, but if I pay for it and our agrement says I am entitled to a replacement copy then what is wrong with me getting it from some one else if you refuse?
A 'strawman' is a type of argument where you elaborate on what another person said and then criticize your interpretation. (Say, for example, that arguing gun control, someone for absolute gun control says someone against any further gun control, 'So, you think people should be able to use deadly force with impunity all the time? That would cause the health costs to skyrocket not to mention the moral questions... ' Putting up the strawman is the first sentance, and knocking it down is the arguing against it.)
In common usage, a 'straw man' is a man made by taking clothing stuffing it with dried grass, or taking bundles of dried grass and tying them off in a man-shape, sometimes used as a scarecrow but in this day and age usually only as an autumn decoration.
Parity, who does not have any critical thinking or debate books in possession at the moment, so there may be some errors here.
mrfiddlehead wrote:
Perhaps, but it's their code, and if they don't want to share it that's their perogative, no?
Well, there are two responses to this. The first is to point out that the whole idea behind copyright is to protect the author's ability to profit from his work in order to encourage him to produce for the good of society. (BTW, the justification for following this rule is that it generally works well. People tend to produce if they can profit from the production.) It is not the purpose of copyright law to prevent people from obtaining copies of a protected work. Therefore, if the author no longer benefits financially from the work, then it is not clear that copyrights are supposed to be used to exercise the prerogative you describe.
The other argument is that the longer the copyright period extends, the less likely it is for people to care about whether or not a copyright is being violated. People who pirate Tommy Dorsey recordings using Napster aren't the reason behind the RIAA's lawsuit, but they make up a goodly chunk of the user base. That means that not sharing older works simply, well, doesn't work. As long as one copy exists in the world, it can be duplicated and, after 28 years or even 14, who really cares? If the copying isn't stopped, then the concept of easement comes into play and copying becomes legal.
It is clear, to me at least, that the copyright system is out of whack. The length of copyright protection is vastly longer than most works need. However, I do not favor fixed-term copyright protection. Instead, I suggest requiring substantial fees to renew copyrights after a fairly short period of free protection. That way, those whose works are still commercially profitable enough to cover the fees can still profit from their work, but the other stuff just doesn't worry about it.
Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, Spider Robinson wrote a story a while back that kind of covers the debate we're holding today. It's called "Melancholy Elephants" which was printed in a collection of the same name. With all the IP-related news recently, it's not been far from my mind.
Hate to tell you this but in alot of states in the US if you leave a house or land and I deside to move in then after about 5 or 10 years depending on the state I can clame it as mine and you are S.O.L.. in other countries it can be even faster, put up 4 walls and a roof and the land enclosed is yours. Then of cource there are the other salvage laws, cars left for 6 months in some states or 1 year in others can be clamed by the owner of the property it's on {make sure you're in one of the states with these laws befor trying this}. Why should programs be any different? if you abandon something they you are showing you nolonger have an interest in it and in the case of programs you may be breaking your cotract with the people who did pay for it {not a good way to make paying customers happy}. Perhaps what is needed is not the sites to pass it out but a class action against the owners of the copy rite that nolonger follow thier contracts by refusing to reissue disks to paying customers.
Since politicans are so much in favor of the death penalty, why not have the death penalty for corporations? I don't think Amensty International will mind.
So if I have a car I no longer use, and probably never will, you feel you should be allowed to take it without my permission?
More along the lines of if you stop producing a car and don't plan to produce that model again, I can start producing exact replicas. (actually, I can do exactly that under existing law since you can't copyright a car's design)
With any luck, that is probably what will take Linux to dominate the desktop (with *BSD not far behind). Actually Caldera's DR DOS starts to look very, very good.
Well, Here in Columbus, Ohio the Columbus Metropolitan Library Has quite a bit of software available for checkout. Yes, it has games like Chessmaster 7000 and Simcity 3000 which I got from there. Lots of MS stuff particularly games. There is some sort of a sticker on top which says you are responsible for any copyright violations occuring. That's all. Interestingly I could not find any Open Source stuff like *any* Linux distro there.
FarHat
-- At the intersection of computation and biology.
>The reason that copyright holders are given this "right" is to give them temporary monopoly. However, if they are no longer
>using it, and they use copyright to stop further distribution, they are perverting and in fact working against the entire reason
>that copyright exists.
Good point.
One of the most hated things about copyright goes back to when it applied only to books. And that item was the fact that if a publisher bought the rights to your book, botched the selling of it, & let the work fall out of print, there was nothing that you, the author, could do to bring the book back into publication unless you could get the suits at the publishing house to return the rights to you.
Yeah, right. And Random House got to be the biggest publisher in the game by being such a nice guy.
There are a lot of books out there that remain out of print because the publisher can't figure out how to make a profit from it, but they don't want someone else doing it.
Well, at least if you can find the book in the library, you can read it. If a software manufacturer wants to sit on a product, there's no way for someone to use the program -- other than to download it from an abandonware site.
Geoff
-- I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would
be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce
p
Look at the purpose of copyright law. It was to allow someone to profit from their works for a LIMITED time, by preventing someone from copying a book he/she had
just printed and selling the copy.
Another aspect which appears to have been co-opted into the US version of copyright is the idea that the copyright holder has "ownership" not only of their work, but also on anything which may be derived from it.
So if I have a car I no longer use, and probably never will, you feel you should be allowed to take it without my permission?
This is confusing physical and intellectual property.
Physical property is expensive to duplicate, IP isn't. If the creator of IP doesn't have any use for it anymore, how does it harm the creator in any way if I make a copy?
The historical background for copyright law clearly shows that the purpose was to make it more attractive to write books, make music, write newspaper articles, etc. Generally speaking - encourage sharing of ideas. The creator is granted a time-limited monopoly on distributing the work, but is not allowed to control how we use a copy of the work. This is why we have concepts like "fair use".
Today copyright is increasingly used to hoard IP away from people, which was clearly _not_ the intention.
Once the economic value of the work is zero, I fail to see how I damage the author by distributing copies. If I follow the letter of the law, this is illegal. I however fail to see how doing this is against the _intention_ of the law.
-- If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
no rational? how about the fact that they own it, they paid for its development, its distribution?
Yes they do. But they do not own it in the same sense that they own property.
Copyright law gives them a distribution monopoly for a limited time to make it possible for them to profit on their investment.
The other part of the copyright contract, however, is that when the time-limit expires (or, as abandonware advocates argue, when the work has no economic value anymore), the work enters the public domain.
-- If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
If I own two houses - one bought in 1982 and one bought in 1998 - and I move in to the more recent purchase, leaving the older one empty inside but still in my posession, is there any reason why you "can't have it"? Software takes many programmers working many hours just like workers building a house. Houses are often sold to make money just like software. It just happens to be much easier (and cheaper) to copy software than to copy a house.
Physical property and intellectual property is not equal! Read the copyright law.
Authors of IP are granted a time limited distribution monopoly. In return for this monopoly, old IP enters the public domain.
What the abandonware sites are arguing, is that the current time limit is too large and that commercially unavailable software with no sale value should enter the PD.
I like downloading abandonware. I am a criminal. At least I don't just rationalize it. Take it like a man/woman people, and admit it to yourselves!
There is something called civil disobedience. The last changes in the copyright law (28 to 90 years time limit) was caused by commercial interests. Some people feel that those changes destroy the original intent of the law.
I find it extremely short sighted to say that something is illegal "because the law says so".
-- If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
The fact that people still want whatever the work in question is shows that it still has some value
There is sale value, and there are other values.
For me, many old C64 games have a large nostalgic value. However, the market is often not large enough for the publisher to justify the cost of a reprint.
-- If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
> I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by
> having the common curtesy to know down strawmen
I would highly recomend the jargon dictionary:
http://www.netmeg.net/jargon
and everything2:
http://www.everything2.com
Very good for jargon. Strawman isn't in common usage (ie most people on the street don't know what one is)
> However, I actually find it quite provocative
> that you don't think people should have the
> rights to their own work, and calling it abuse
> if they won't give away what they won't sell.
Again, not what I said.
People DO have rights to their work. They certainly are allowed to not give it away or not sell it. The question is this: What gives them the right to stop someone else from selling it or giving it away?
The answer is "Copyright". Which means, they are given FOR A LIMITED TIME exclusive rights to copy. Once that lapses, its gone. Anyone can copy and redistribute.
Copyright was NOT intended to allow authors to stop the distribution of their own works (nor was it ever intended to protect publishers, it was intended to protect authors FROM publishers who would distribute and sell copies of the authors work and not pay the author)
If an author's work is being sold and distributed activly, then he certainly has the right, via copyright, to stop its redistribution. The ENTIRE REASON for this is to encourage publication. That is key to my argument.
When an author/publisher uses copyright to stop redistribution of something that they have stopped publishing and "Abandoned", then that goes against the fundamental purpose of copyright. It is an abuse of the system.
> If I take something without permission,
> I am stealing.
Stealing is wrong not because you get something,
but because the rightful owner loses it. In the
case of a copy, the rightful owner loses nothing, he still has his copy.
This is not stealing, it is unauthorized copying. Its a different action. Again copyright is not ownership like physical property ownership. It is very different and can't be expected to follow the same rules.
> because I play them instead of buying new games,
> the games manufacturers loose money.
Its not their money, how can they lose it?
They can not lose money until that money is in their bank acounts or hands. Then the money is theirs, and they can lose it. You can't lose something that you don't have.
-Steve
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Purpose of Copyright
by
plague3106
·
· Score: 1
The comment was directed against you in 50years, when you are not selling that software but some people still want it. There's nothing wrong with selling software, i never said that. So what if someone makes a new version of wolf3d? And if you justlet the software into the public domain, there is no requirement that you open the source. It would just be a free game for those that were true fans of it when it first came out. If a company is afraid of someone taking thier ancient product and making a new version, well why don't they make thier own? I personally would feel honored that someone still wanted to use my 10year old code, and trying to force a profit out them someone wanting to do just that WOULD be just plain greed at that point.
I don't know about deliberate actions, but there are certainly films which have been lost, because the copyright owner did not take good care of the media. If you do a trivia search on 'check your attic' on IMDB you'll find a list of some of them, eg thi s one filmed in 1948. Some of these losses are through deliberate action of the copyright owner, for example the BBC destroyed several hundred episodes of Dr Who, and many of these episodes only exist because of various people recording off of the air.
Regardless of incentive, it's obvious that current copyright laws are not resulting in good maintence of media.
In a more perfect world it would be impossible to actually save money copying an entire book in a coin operated photocopier. As it is, the vast majority of scholars who create these works recieve a pittance as far as royalties are concerned. Many of them create these books more for their academic reputations than for money, although the money probably helps too.
I'm looking cautiously forward to the dawn of electronic books. I think that students in general would be a lot better off with free textbook downloads more in line with the free software model. Not just because they wouldn't have to pay so much money, but I think the quality of the texts might improve as well. Errata could be corrected on the fly, for one thing. For another the publishing companies seem to like coming out with lots of new editions, pointlessly re-organised and often not as good as older editions, to combat the used versions of the older edition that are cutting into their profits. The very large expense of the publishing process could be taken out of the production of schoolbooks altogether. Peer editing could replace the traditional editor at the publishing company, or freelance editors or companies devoted solely to providing book-editing services could also work. As for monetary compensation for authors, there could be a grant system under the dept. of education. Perhaps private educational institutions could also charge a small book fee as part of tuition.
The last thing I want to see is the current publishers continuing to gouge students by charging half a million of them five dollars for a book file that cost them fifty thousand dollars to create. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way things go. Until, of course, some academics start to release texts for free. Of course, by then, legislation may have been bought making it illegal to sell electronic books without copy protection built in and also making it illegal for even a non-profit to just give away intellectual property. Once you have laws like the DMCA and UCITA I can see it being argued, further down the slippery slope, that people who give away their intellectual property for free aren't competing fairly in the marketplace. It's a dire view of the future, but I can see the big media companies pushing for that sort of thing if it's the only way they can hope to survive. After all, if you push the "intellectual property is no different from physical property" argument far enough, you can throw out the public domain altogether because, like land, if it exists, someone must own it.
Ok, that's enough of that rant. I also wanted to point out that I've always bought my text books. However, I've photocopied sections from books in the school library in the interest of having a copy I could read later while still leaving the book in the library for the fifty other students in the class. I've also photocopied entire workbooks that I own so that I could do the exercises on the photocopies and turn them in while keeping the workbooks pages intact so that I could do the exercises again later if I chose to. Like most people I consider myself morally clean photocopying if I know for a fact that I wouldn't have bought what I copied, even if I couldn't have copied it. I simply would have read the books in the library rather than taking home the photocopy, or I would have done the exercises on the original workbook pages, handed them in, gotten them back, then used lots of white out if I wanted to re-do them. Many people find the "copying is always theft" argument as idiotic as you probably find the "copying is never theft" argument to be.
Abandonware == Good thing
by
MaxVlast
·
· Score: 2
The NeXT community survives on abandonware. A fantastic set of productivity apps (the Lighthouse Suite) was bought by Sun and basically given away. There are a whole bunch of other such apps. It's quite refreshing in that it keeps the old platform alive. I suspect people will always use the old platforms while there is software available, and abandonware (mostly legal) is the way to do it.
The question of illegal abandonware is a little more sticky. I suspect that most people are less queasy about trading abandoned apps than they are about currently available programs.
-- Max V.
-- There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Abandonware == Good thing
by
daviddennis
·
· Score: 2
I wonder what the status of the Lighthouse Suite might be once MacOX X makes NeXT software viable again. It might suddenly turn from worthless to a viable product.
What does the NeXT community think of MacOS X? Is it going to make NeXT programming once again a valuable skill?
D
----
Re:Abandonware == Good thing
by
MaxVlast
·
· Score: 2
NeXT programming will be a valuable skill--I suspect that once the platform is shown to be viable, people will begin coding for Cocoa (the OpenStep libs) in earnest.
Some of the old NEXTSTEP programmers (the Omni Group, Stone design) are preparing large-scale ports of their OpenStep apps to MacOS X.
Alas, it looks like Sun has killed further development of the Lighthouse apps, so they won't show up on X. It's too bad--I'd rather use OpenWrite than MS Word on my Mac any day.
The community is somewhat divided over MacOS X. Some people are just glad to have the wonder OpenStep development environment back in any form. Others are upset about the lack of elegant integration that NEXTSTEP provided (Services, universal color managment, copy-paste of fonts, etc.)
-- Max V.
-- There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Abandonware == Good thing
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 2
Others are upset about the lack of elegant integration that NEXTSTEP
provided (Services, universal color managment, copy-paste of fonts, etc.)
It's my experience that the current MacOS provides support for copy and paste of 'styled text', which includes font information. Is that what you're talking about?
(If you copy something from an application that uses styled text (such as SimpleText or AppleWorks) and paste it into another such application, styles are preserved. If you paste it into an application that only supports plain text (such as Alpha or NiftyTelnet SSH) it is converted into plain text; similarly, if you copy text from a plain-text program and paste into a styled-text program, it is pasted with the current style.)
I don't see as Apple would abandon this feature in MacOS X.
Re:Abandonware == Good thing
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
Right - in the sense that 8-bit emulators make 8-bit software viable again. I would gladly pay $20 for a CD that contained a significant proportion of ALL C-64 software ever published. That's hardly viable...
Re:Abandonware == Good thing
by
WillAdams
·
· Score: 1
Frater said:
``It's my experience that the current MacOS provides support for copy and paste of 'styled text', which includes font information. Is that what you're talking about?''
No, that's not what he's talking about.
I just had this discussion on CSMA, to re-cap, NeXTstep provides multiple pasteboards, one of these is controlled by 3 and 4, the former copies font _formatting_, the latter pastes said formatting onto the selected text, but doesn't otherwise change the text---very handy, with no equivalent in Mac OS per se, though character styles in apps pretty much obviates the need for it in those apps which support character styles.
William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams
By now, it should be pretty well-known that any attempt to control digital media in the Internet age will be a complete failure (cf Napster, Gnutella, etc). Who worries about the legal status anyway? If you want to download a copy of Ultima 7, then you're going to do so no matter what the law says.
The only real difference between abandonware and mp3 audio is that abandonware is generally distributed on centralized web sites rather than de-centralized systems like Napster, which means that they can be shut down much more easily. I personally look forward to the day when all of it is available on FreeNet of Gnutella.
I bought mine from a software Etc as part of a Ultima 1 through whatever box set about a year ago. Wizard Works through Interplay, I think? There was one for the old AD&D gold box games, too, but it sold so well they broke it into three parts and charged an arm and a leg for them. Now if only they'd sell the hint books in one big collection, too. I need the one for Pool of Radiance.
-jpowers
--
-jpowers
Abandon Ware is Important
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
If we as a people are to progress, we must Abandon our Wares. Why are we afraid to be naked? Weren't Adamn and Eve naked?
I've run a Commodore 64 website for five years with a large collection of C64 software available. It has been my experience that most authors are pleased that their work has been preserved for posterity... I've even had a couple of original authors contact me and ask if there's anything they can do to help crack their old code to work on emulators. For this I am grateful. But, there are the occasional emails from authors/publishers that want me to remove a game or two, because they are still commercially available (Infocom adventures come to mind). I have no problem with this - they are still legally the owners of the work, and as I have no rights to their software (other than the license I purchased when buying the actual software), I respect their right to administer the copyright as they see fit. Personally, I think that's the way abandonware should be handled.
Link, please?
I miss my C64 - it was where I learnt how to program assembly!!! By hand!!!
Anybody have links to the whereabouts of Shaun Southern, Andrew Braybrook or Archer Maclean?
And is it just me, or do Paradroid, Infiltrator and Raid Over Moscow (better rename it Raid over Baghdad) really deserve remaking?
*crosses fingers and hopes...*
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
--
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:Respect the authors
by
Wind_Walker
·
· Score: 2
most authors are pleased that their work has been preserved for posterity
That's an excellent point. I know that if I were to write a program for any platform, I would want to milk the most money out of it as I could (this is the USA, after all, build upon principles of greed and hoarding)
My problem is with your definition of how abandonware should be handled. You say that you put programs up on your website until the authors ask you to take them down. What if they don't know about it, and hundreds of people nab it before the e-mail hits you and you take it down? Then you've become nothing more than a w4r3z site.
A better method would be to contact each author/corporation before posting it. While being inconvenient, it's really the best way to ensure you aren't violating anybody's rights. ------
I miss my C64 - it was where I learnt how to program assembly!!! By hand!!!
As opposed to programming assembly by manipulating the quantum insecurity fields surrounding the RAM in your computer with gestures and strange incantations, making the assembly code pop up by magic?
Actually, I make it a point to see if a program is still available before I post it. In the Infocom example, I never posted their games, because I knew they were still for sale. There was one game that I missed, however (an obscure game that didn't do very well, but was in their "Masterpieces of Infocom" collection. I have a couple of contacts at Activision, and they let me know of the oversight. So I removed it.
A better method would be to contact each author/corporation before posting it. While being inconvenient, it's really the best way to ensure you aren't violating anybody's rights.
Well, at least that would make it legal. But how effective would it be? Individual authors who want to see their works preserved for posterity would probably be happy to cooperate, but corporations wouldn't consider granting such permission without the approval of their lawyers and executives. Lawyers are usually loathe to forfeit any rights, on general principle. Executives are similarly loathe to forfeit any possible source of revenue, however small or theoretical. (Even if they don't choose to exploit it, they will rarely relinquish the right to do so.) Executives could potentially even be held liable by stockholders if someone concludes that they passed up a moneymaking opportunity. These things make it difficult and risky for corporations to be good citizens; the path of least resistance is to refuse permission, even if they don't actually care about the code anymore. The corporation might be willing to turn a blind eye (probably protesting ignorance of the flagrant copyright violation, and doing some symbolic sabre rattling when pressed), but asking them to grant express permission is asking a lot more of some (usually) conservative people.
Another possible problem is identifying the proper legal owner of the code; many old software companies have gone out of business, and finding out who inherited the intellectual "property" may be quite difficult. (Unfortunately, even if the actual author is sympathetic, some company or another usually owns the copyright and won't be as sympathetic, unless they still value that author.)
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission." This seems to be the operating principle of these abandonware sites. Is it legal? Obviously not. Is it right? That's a moral question, and laws alone cannot answer moral questions. If they're not in it for a profit, and they're not harming the business of the copyright owners, and they're willing to remove anything by request of the proper owner, then at least it can be argued that their motives are pure. Legally, they're still at risk, and could take a fall. Or they could get away with it indefinitely. (Minors who run such sites may have some legal protection, unless tried as adults!)
--
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible."- Alan Kay
Re:Respect the authors
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 1
Raid Over Moscow - THAT was a game. I still remember how to launch the ships (move horizontally SLOWLY, accelerate out FAST, move up a bit). Then flying through the defenses, blowing up the silo, and doing it again three times, all with the six minute clock counting down. Then on to Moscow, to blow up bits and pieces of the Kremlin with a mortar, and finally destroying the robot in a scene reminiscent of Tron, except you had to hit it from the back, five times, and then do it again before the reactor blew up.
Another possible problem is identifying the proper legal owner of the code; many old software companies have gone out of business, and finding out who inherited the intellectual "property" may be quite difficult. (Unfortunately, even if the actual author is sympathetic, some company or another usually owns the copyright and won't be as sympathetic, unless they still value that author.)
Being involved with this on the ZX Spectrum side of things (see World of Spectrum), the problem isn't so much companies not being sympathetic (almost all give their permission) as just ignoring you completely...
Actually, paradroid was the basis of a playstation game called Machine Hunter. Not quite the same as the original, but close enough for a twinge of nostalgia. --
-- Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
A better method would be to contact each author/corporation before posting it.
While being inconvenient, it's really the best way to ensure you aren't violating
anybody's rights.
Well, at least that would make it legal. But how effective would it be?
You'd be amazed. I'm part of an effort to find copyright holders of Apple II software and to persuade them to reclassify their programs as freeware. In the last couple of months I've managed to free The Ancient Art of War, Ancient Art of War at Sea, Balance of Power, a set of statistical programs, and I've sent copies of ThinkTank and Advanced VisiCalc to their respective authors to post on their sites. Just about all Beagle Bros and Penguin/Polarware programs are now freeware. Yes, the big corporations are a problem... especially Apple, I'm sorry to say. But what can be done is pretty amazing.
If the author asks the program to be removed, why not leave the site intact, but remove the file and instead link it to a page explaining the file was removed by author request and the reason the author asked. This would be a further disincentive for the author to remove the game "just because." I know I'd be peeved if I saw my favorite game from 10 years ago was still unavailiable because of the author's stubbornness. I might consider writing to complain or boycotting their products.
You'd be amazed. I'm part of an effort to find copyright holders of Apple II software and to persuade them to reclassify their programs as freeware. In the last couple of months I've managed to free The Ancient Art of War, Ancient Art of War at Sea, Balance of Power, a set of statistical programs, and I've sent copies of ThinkTank and Advanced VisiCalc to their respective authors to post on their sites. Just about all Beagle Bros and Penguin/Polarware programs are now freeware. Yes, the big corporations are a problem... especially Apple, I'm sorry to say. But what can be done is pretty amazing.
Well, it's good to hear that at least some companies will act rationally. Were you able to convince them to make the next step and release the source code as well? (i.e. free beer or free speech?)
--
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible."- Alan Kay
Releasing the source would be nice, but I would wager that the source code is long gone... if a high-profile, somewhat more recent title like Ultima 7's code has been lost, code that is twice as old has disappeared long ago in most cases
--
Editors remember only copyright
by
Vincent+Bernat
·
· Score: 2
I find the article has one particular interesting point. An "excuse" to mount an abandonware site is that many people bought the game but don't have the original disks any more (because they are corrupted).
It is not an unfair excuse. When I got my CDR burner, I have archived my old games on a CD. I haven't been unable to put them all since some disks became unreadable.
I am not a lawyer but I remember if a game (or just a piece of software) has copy protection, the editor must provide a piece of backup if the customer ask it. I don't think this is limited in the time. I don't think if I ask some game editor for 15 years old game's disks, it will send them to me. But finally, some of them won't forget they own copyright on these titles...
However, I don't know any game editor for computer (not for console) that have fought this kind of "piracy". Do someone knows one ?
Re:Editors remember only copyright
by
NetFu
·
· Score: 3
I agree on the issue of not having to pay for software you already paid for because you lost it over the years or because you spilled coffee on the install media or something like that.
How would I prove to the publisher that I bought their computer game "Nuclear War" 12 years ago and I want another copy because I lost the original one during one of my many moves back then? Sure, if the only way to get a replacement copy is to buy it, then that's the price of stupidity and I'd buy it, but if I can download it off the internet then what's wrong with that? Oh they don't like that because then people who didn't pay for it could download it and they'd be losing money... even though they don't even sell it, let alone support it any more, so how much money could they really lose?
Why don't you software companies stop letting the bean-counters run your companies and do what some software companies *have* done and post the old software on your site as an unsupported free download? Then, if you find it is popular, you can re-release it and make money off of it... oh, I guess you won't do that because then you'd find out that next-to-nobody wants those old games anyway, only a few of us who really loved them.
Anybody know where I can download (or even buy) copies of those ancient InfoCom games we used to have so much fun with?
Re:Editors remember only copyright
by
fatphil
·
· Score: 1
"I agree on the issue of not having to pay for software you already paid for because you lost it over the years or because you spilled coffee on the install media or something like that."
Lost it? Your own silly fault.
Spilled coffee on it? Your own fault again.
Media unreadable due to no fault of your own -
yes a replacement should be provided (though read the smallprint about how long the warrantee holds)
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:Editors remember only copyright
by
Ketzer
·
· Score: 2
It happened to me.
I recently got an itch to play Star Control 2 again (that was such an awesome game) and couldn't find my original floppies. So I bought it for $10 online at some vintage game store. They offered it for download, along with the manual in pdf and a pic of the map, both for reference and copy protection.
There definitely needs to be some sort of archive. The Library of Congress for games. If the manufacturers want to, they can license their stuff to the archive and have it sold for a reasonable price. If a copyright expires, set it to free download. I would love this.
Re:Editors remember only copyright
by
sshoop
·
· Score: 1
My problem with this is that I repeatedly hear the mantra that you do not own the media (floppy disk in this case), but rather you own a license to use the software.
No matter how the media is destroyed/lost, you still own the license to use the product. I feel that the company you purchased the product from should give you a method to get new media (I'm more than willing to pay a marginal price to cover their cost of media). If not, I'll happily download a new copy from any Warez site...
Re:Editors remember only copyright
by
AndyChrist
·
· Score: 1
Heh. That never occurred to me.... Someone moderate this post up!
Anyhow, damn right! If software publishers want to make that bed, they damn well better be ready to sleep in it!
how can these guys can do this and think of it as a good service?
this is illegal.
to use the oft cited collolary - books - if a books is out-of-print, do you as a public citizen have the right to make copies for people? even if you take no income from it? aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the author's rights?
i fail to see where this 17 yr old is any different than any other pirate copying games and throwing them up on an FTP site.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
What about the publisher who went out of business? If someone owns the rights to the program, call them up and asked to be removed.
There will be a argument for every piece of softare he's got posted.
Publisher out of business = no copyright
Publisher sold rights = copyright
publisher won't support = ?
-- ....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
i fail to see where this 17 yr old is any different than any other pirate copying games and throwing them up on an FTP site.
The difference is that nobody is being deprived of an income they wold otherwise have had.
The traditional argument against piracy is that the owner is being denied the payment for their property. In this situation, where the owner is refusing offers of payment, this is clearly not happening.
The purpose of Copyright is stated in the Constitution -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Out of print titles do little to further this aim.
If a book is out of print, it increases the liklihood that your use can be found a "fair use" since the infringing act does not have an effect on the market for the book -- there is none. If it's done non-commercially instead of for-profit; if it's done for educational purposes; these things just come down on the side of "fair use".
-- I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Most of the other comments on this thread have mentioned how I feel about this stance, as for books, there is some interesting stuff going on with copyrights and books. If a book goes out of print for a certain amount of time, then even if the publishing company still owns the copyright at that time, the writer is given a legal ability to publish the book without the consent of the publishing company. Or something like that.
If the company is not producing or supporting a product and does not pursue illegal reproduction of said product then it might as well be legal. He is different than a regular pirate because his act of piracy does not cost the company that he is pirating the software from any money. He is providing a service that people want and the legitimate companies don't wish to do.
The difference is that nobody is being deprived of an income they wold otherwise have had.
The traditional argument against piracy is that the owner is being denied the payment for their property. In this situation, where the owner is refusing offers of payment, this is clearly not happening.
I can't say I'm really against abandonware, but there are some thing from the corporate side people seem to be forgetting. With all the different media out there right now (DVD, video, computers, video consoles, etc) most companies are competing for overall entertainment time, as well as directly against competitors. If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
Also, don't forget that some game companies release collection of old games every so often. Abandonware hurts these collections more than anything else. I could go and buy a collection of all the old King's Quest games, or I could get them for free...which is more likely to happen? Yes, this is a minority of the games, but it is still something that needs to be considered. While abandonware can be good, I can completely understand why many companies are against it, usually with at least some good reasons.
--
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
"to use the oft cited collolary - books - if a books is out-of-print, do you as a public citizen have the right to make copies for people?"
Yup. It's called public domain. After a certain (currently inordinately long) time, the public does have the right to do these things, whether or not other people are making profit from it. It becomes even more suspicious if *nobody* is currently making profit or attempting to make profit, or even supporting in any manner the items. Even *more* so with software because the lifetime of a piece of software is *years* not decades or centuries, like books, etc.
In any case pirates don't copy games. They roam the seas steal loot, bury it, and kill people. Pirate is a loaded word that doesn't make sense in digital copying. Digital copying does not "deprive" the originator of the work, and is not stealing per se. That is not to say it is good or legal, but that it means something different with respect to digital, conceptual, and other non-tangible things. See the FSF and Jefferson's opinion on this.
In terms of Books there are libraries that keep copies of books. And is push comes to shove there is the library of congress which has every book published in the last 50 year and older. (I don't know exactly how long the library has existed) Software on the other hand does not have a place to get it if it no longer published. I know that if a publisher was willing to sell me a download of old software if I needed it that I would pay for it. But publishers are not willing to do that. Thus abandonware sites.
On a side not abandonware is exactly why copyright laws need to be modified for software. Maybe something along the lines as "as long as the program can still be purchased from the original manufacture" 70 years is a bit long for software. Also copyright laws are 40 years plus a renewal of 30 years OR the life of the author. Many of the companies that wrote games 10 years ago are no longer in business although the publisher is but the copyright laws are for the benefit of the author not the publishers.
You know Shakespeare? Or Charles Dickens? Anyone can reprint their work - their copyright has expired. Does copyright expiration exist for digital work too? IIRC, book copyrights vanish after 80 years. But that's way too long for code..
I fail to C wat you fail to C.
I feel sorry 4 U. M$ alike people should know
when they'v got all the dow they can.
If you can't see what the difference is,
then I feel very sorry for you.
Ps. M$ say's nothing about the people and company's they'v wracked... (eg Netscape, stacker)
If a book goes out of print for a certain amount of time, then even if the publishing company still owns the copyright at that time, the writer is given a legal ability to publish the book without the consent of the publishing company. Or something like that.
Actually, I think this is a feature of the CONTRACT that the author signs with the publisher - giving the publisher unique rights to publish the work, but reclaiming those rights for the author when the publisher chooses to stop executing them. This is how it worked in situations with which I am familiar - a textbook author I know has been notified by his publisher that they will not reprint the book, ergo he is free to re-contract with another publisher (or self-publish)....
If you are spending time playing an old
abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies
are against abandonware.
As others have posted in this story, this seems a really silly argument. At any given moment, the endeavors which I am currently undertaking prevent me from doung countless other things. Nintendo should sue Sega for having a product that takes away possible Nintendo revenue by keeping people from playing Nintendo games. The recording industry should sue the publishing industry (or vice versa--the publishers were here first) for offering products that occupy people who might otherwise be purchasing CDs.
--Phil (Ithink I'll sue Slashdot for occupying time I would otherwise have spent reading books.)
-- 355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
immoral is a judgment call, it's not up to you to decide for the author, that is THERE right. They put time and hard work into creating a piece of software so they should be able to decide what hapens to it down the line. if something is illegal it can be proven (it breaks a law). If something is Immoral there is no hard proof, let the author decide.
your argument is to take the path of least resistence. want an alternative? how about:
software company makes product ABC. ABC sells well, gets old, and eventually lives out its product lifespan. company stops sells ABC.
some people still like ABC. they use it daily. they like it for various reasons, but the most compelling is use.
company loses touch with the market place, goes bankrupt. company makes millions, sells to some corporate monolith who has billions of products. etc. (think of a way for the company to die - choose one.)
ABC is now no longer avail. users still like it, but can't find it. it's not sold, it's not free, it's lost!
enter kid who sees ABC, sees demand, and decides to put it up for the public for free use. essentially re-publishing it.
did said kid try and get rights to do so? did he call the company, attempt to contact the owner of the copyright, did he attempt to legally do what he wanted?
no? why?
(i can hear it now) "well, that would be to difficult. it would take time to track this down, might take months. all for a single program."
uh-huh. but it would be legal.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
So, please Mr Legalist tell me where I can legally buy a copy of Frontier. Or Elite. Or "Psi5 Trading company". Or "Supremacy". They are "out of print". If a bok is out of print, I can go to the library and LEGALLY (at least in my country) photocopy it. It is called fair use and as you speak with a lawyer's firmness, you're probably aware about this revolutionary concept.
So tell me, how you would apply this to a copy of say.. Norton Utilities for DOS 3.0? (If such a thing EVER existed), on a computer you NEED to keep running, or simply WANT to keep running and don't want to upgrade?
Or something equally similar and stupid to many, but vital to someone? I guarantee you'll never a see a "Best System Admin Tools of the Early DOS Years" CD. At least, not for 70 years, when it'll be a vintage virtual tour through a cyber implant and 100000baseT.
Or quarterdeck's memory management tools, or DeskView, or Xtree?!?
If you are spending
time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be
playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came
out with.
By that logic, shouldn't the game companies
sue me if I put up a page explaining how to
play baseball? In that case also, I am spreading
information that could potentially make them
lose money; and imho, the original creator of the information
doesn't make any difference, ethically
speaking.
immoral is a judgment call, it's not up to you to decide for the author, that is THERE right
If you don't want your thoughts to be spread, don't speak them. The idea that you have the right to control your ideas and creations is absurd, and it is a "right" that could only be exercised in an era of few-to-many communications. That era is over now, and that's a very, very good thing. Of course, some people are always trying to pull us back into the Dark Ages.
I propose a more human concept be applied to this topic. Software that hasn't been worked on/supported/sold in x years can be declared brain dead/legally dead.
This would keep the rights to release the thing to the public domain in the hands of the company. But if the company goes out of business without passing the software on or no longer uses any code (question: is Windows 2000 still using any Windows 3.1 code?) the code is declared dead and public.
On a different note, would that make GPL like right-to-die groups?
Actually, even in the case of a Book - Copying it would be legal.
This is LEGAL
For example, I had a Professor in College assign a Book that he wrote which was out of print, but manadorty for the Course. The Professor sued the local copy store for providing copies of the Book. The Copy Store counter sued, and won BOTH cases.
The judge essentially laughed the professors claim out of the court.
It was clearly fair use.
If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
As others have posted in this story, this seems a really silly argument. At any given moment, the endeavors which I am currently undertaking prevent me from doung countless other things. Nintendo should sue Sega for having a product that takes away possible Nintendo revenue by keeping people from playing Nintendo games. The recording industry should sue the publishing industry (or vice versa--the publishers were here first) for offering products that occupy people who might otherwise be purchasing CDs.
This is a great arguement except they don't have anything to do with these other projects. They do hold the copyright on games they created, so if they don't want to have the games they control out there for these reasons, they can. Think, you it be preferred (from the company's standpoint) that you keep playing the original SimCity, or buy the new version and play that? If you can't get the original, then if you want to play a version of SimCity, you need to go buy the new one. If you could get the old one for free, you might be settled with that, and not buy the new one. This way they don't have to keep competing against themselves. They will always have to compete against the "real" competition, but the don't have to compete against their own older products.
--
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
you are more than allowed to copy materials for personal use. you are also allowed to get author permission to reproduce materials for classes (see next post.)
what you are not allowed to do, without permission, is to copy a material and then provide it to ANY AND ALL comers unregulated. that sir, is illegal.
not sure how it works in your country, but in ours (U.S.) material that it copyrighted is just that - protected to prevent undue replication and dissemination.
feel free to disagree, but the crux of the matter is that this young man is illegall providing a a copy of someones else's property.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
You guys really don't have a clue about property rights, do you?
Actually, most people here (yourself perhaps excepted) have a perfectly good understanding of property rights.
However, Intellectual Property is a misleading term. It is not property per se, but a privelege granted by the government for a limited time[1] that allows one exclusive control over the first sale of their product.
That is all. Calling such Intellectual Privelege "Intellectual Property" doesn't make it an actual piece of property, any more than calling a Pig a Duck would suddenly cause the pig to grow feathers.
As an aside, concerning property rights, there are such things as easements, abandonment, and squatters rights which allow people who have been tresspassing for a certain period of time to retain defacto rights to do so in the future even if you, the property owner, don't like it. In the case of squatting, ownership of the property can actually change hands as a result. In the case of abandoned property, typically anyone can come along, pay back taxes, and take possession (again, after a period of time).
Such periods of time are typically measured in years (I believe Illinois allows 10 years for easement, 20 years for squatters, and 7 years for taking possession of abandoned property, but I haven't checked the law recently and could be off by several years either way. Regardless, this is a far cry fron 120 years [corporate copyright] or life plus 95 years [individual copyright]).
So even your misplaced and misguided example doesn't apply, as the property rights you hold so dear, and are so eager to misapply to the intellectual realm, have clear limitations and provisions which kick in after a remarkably short time, when compared with period of time for which copyright grants authors and corporations such near absolute priveleges of monopoly over the works they market.
What is more likely is that the collection of all the old King's Quest games sells and is profitable because the individual abandoned games are available, free or otherwise. Unless you have the enthusiasts, there is no market.
You didn't answer my question: where I can get
old software legally ?
A.
Attitudes like this are the problem
by
Rico_Suave
·
· Score: 1
Just because something *can* be done, doesn't mean it's right. Attitudes like this are going to severely hamper the abandonware scene. It'll just encourage companies to crack down on even the semi-legit sites like The Underdogs (which makes every effort to point users to purchase legal copies if they are available)
--
Re:Attitudes like this are the problem
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
Right. I *can* shoot you; that doesn't make it right. However, in a democracy, when most people want to do something, it by definition *is* right, unless it violates some human right. Copyright is not among those; copyright is a legal fiction.
I would argue that unenforceable laws are not just stupid, they are wrong. When everyone wants to do something, and it's against the law, and it's impossible to completely enforce the law, guess what? People do it anyway. In doing so, they knowingly violate the law. They learn that they can break the law and get away with it. They learn disrespect for the law. Authority breaks down. Society collapses. We wind up cooking squirrels over burning copies of Stephen King's last novel, and all because of Lars Ulrich and his crowd. It's just not worth it.
legality, morality, and other stuff
by
dabadab
·
· Score: 1
As an interesting note: here, in Hungary, our copyright law says that copying is illegal if it hurts the copyright owner's interests. While that is quite vague, SW publishers still would have a hard time proving that a freely accessible copy of a SW that they do not sell any more, does hurt their interests.
Besides, I think that morality prevails over legality (God, Jehva, Allah or your own conscience can be much worse than a jury:) and I see no moral problems with freely distributing abadonware.
And, as a last point: was I the only one who felt that this article was a little biased?
-- Real life is overrated.
Re:legality, morality, and other stuff
by
adamooo
·
· Score: 1
> As an interesting note: here, in Hungary, our copyright law says that copying is illegal if it
> hurts the copyright owner's interests. While that is quite vague, SW publishers still would have a hard
> time proving that a freely accessible copy of a SW that they do not sell any more, does hurt their
> interests.
Not so hard to prove, or at least claim, in my mind: every copy of Windows 3.1 someone runs is a copy of Windows WhatYearIsItNow that they're not running (or, depending on the application, OpenDOS or microLinux or VxWorks or...). Every minute I spend playing a ripped-off King's Quest I is a minute that I'm not playing King's Quest XVIII or whatever they're up to now.
I'm all for the availability of older games/programs, and (like bands allowing taping at shows or Id giving away the DOOM engine) I'd think that having older software available for free could drive interest in a company or author's newer work.
However, I also believe that current (US) copyright law gives the (US-based) company/author the right to make that choice, whether they're currently selling the title for money, or not.
MORE IMPORTANTLY - can anyone suggest an alternate copyright/patent system that would encourage creativity and innovation but recognize the realities of the digital age (massive interconnection/distribution, many smart minds on hand to break copy-protections, cheap storage and bandwidth, waning public recognition for restrictive intellectual property) ???
Re:legality, morality, and other stuff
by
guinsu
·
· Score: 1
>Not so hard to prove, or at least claim, in my
>mind: every copy of Windows 3.1 someone runs is
>a copy of Windows WhatYearIsItNow that they're
>not running (or, depending on the application,
>OpenDOS or microLinux or VxWorks or...). Every
>minute I spend playing a ripped-off King's Quest
>I is a minute that I'm not playing King's Quest
>XVIII or whatever they're up to now.
By that reasoning, any time you spend doing anything else hurts the company's interests. You might be using MacOS or Linux instead of Windows. You might be playing old games you bought instead of buying new ones. Shame on you. Maybe we should all be required to buy a certain percentage of copywritten works each year so as not to harm a company's interests. See by making your arguement, you take away the consumers choice. If I choose not to support a company's new titles, that is my choice. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what else I decide to do with my life, whether it is use software I bought from some other company or play abandoned games from this company. Arguements about what you would have done are completely irrelevant and take away an individual's freedom to chose.
Re:legality, morality, and other stuff
by
MaxGrant
·
· Score: 1
At what point is a company entitled to a profit? If they are no longer actively seeking that profit, from that product, they cannot claim that you or I are taking it away from them by this kind of activity.
The entire idea that our governmental system exists to further corporate profits is revolting. Those companies take a risk when they do anything, and it is their risk, not the government's, not the public's. I do not believe our system was founded to protect huge corporations from risk.
Publishers doing the Right Thing
by
Phil+Wherry
·
· Score: 3
While I'm certainly a big open-source advocate, I think it's at best questionable to make abandonware available in an uncoordinated fashion.
This doesn't stop the publisher from doing the Right Thing, however. It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while, a former publisher of software will do the right thing and make copyrighted works available at no charge after their commercial value is gone.
There are some examples of this actually happening. I started off my small-computer career using the venerable TRS-80 line of computers, which were actually decent machines for the day when outfitted with a third-party operating system. A number of applications (including source and binaries for my OS of choice in those days) have been made available by their copyright holders -- see http://www.research.di gital.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html if you're interested in these specific examples.
I'd love to see terms written into a license agreement that allow unrestricted free distribution of the software either immediately or X years after the software is no longer sold and/or supported. I'm not, however, holding my breath, since the point of most license agreements is to disavow everything said elsewhere on the product's packaging.:)
You know, I know I'd be willing to shell out a dollar or two for some of those old classics. Hell, a lot of companies are putting their old games out on free CDs for magazine promotions. There may not be a large market for this stuff out there, but it could definately get a bit of money and I'm sure customers would love to see companies do this.
And also, as a progammer, if someone was getting joy out of a program I wrote that long ago, great! Chances are I don't have copywrite on it anyway.
I'm sure that the companies would be much better served (from an economical viewpoint) by going after people who pirate modern software that can get the company around $50 now rather than some punk haX0r who's tossing around 1 meg of code from 1992.
Just a couple of thoughts.
-- The Blaster Master
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Don't you ever see those $10 "CD-ROM Classics" games at Future Shop? You get all the best games from those! Yay Relentless! Yay Wing Commander 2!
But still, I see particular advantage in distributing Dune II for free - it's the basis from which the entire Command and Conquer series came from (down the the same sound effects and everything!). This stuff is like free promo for the company!
Yep - I'll bet the PC Gamer that came out a couple of months ago with 14 full "oldies" games sold very well.
Although, I did have to smack the bagger at the grocery who said all 2d games sucked
--
If they won't replace disks...
by
evanbd
·
· Score: 3
So these older titles shipped on diskettes, and then the diskettes failed, and in a moment of nostalgia someone wants to play an old game or something. The publishers had a card in the box saying they would replace the diskettes if they failed. So is there any recourse when they don't? I guess one could try something in small claims court, but would that work? Is there really any other way to get these old titles back? I still have several old shareware titles (registered! imagine that!) that I *occasionaly* dig out and play. I now have them moved to CDROM, which makes things easier, but if I hadn't I'd be grateful for such a site.
---
Re:If they won't replace disks...
by
G-funk
·
· Score: 1
I had a problem, I bought a copy of Warlords II off some bloke, and one of the disks was f**ked. So I called SSG, and the employee I spoke to sent me two floppies he obviously grabbed off his desk and just diskcopied...
I don't see too many companies not providing you with copies of old software if you just ring up and explain yourself.
Gfunk007
-- Send lawyers, guns, and money!
A legal mechanism to abandon?
by
Matt_Bennett
·
· Score: 1
Is there any sort of legal mechanism for abandoning software? I think abandonment would become more popular if they could declare it "use at your own risk" and prevent others from selling it. This would have to place any and all risk of running the unsupported, undistributed software squarely in the hands of the user. I guess there would have to be some anti-modification rules in there too.
These companies are buisnesses- they are in the game to make money, and to protect the money they already have. They have every right to whatever profits should come from the product. We can encourage them to participate them in this "corprate charity" but it shouldn't be mandatory- it should just be something that they have an option to do to better their corprate image, which may lead to new sales of their current products.
Re:A legal mechanism to abandon?
by
AndrewD
·
· Score: 2
Easy enough. A public announcement that they intend never to pursue remedies in respect of the copyright, and that people are free to use the thing so released (maybe adding that henceforth it's on the GPL, if they're feeling that way out) amounts to a license granted to the world at large and off we go. While it isn't supported by consideration to make it completely enforceable, it's still thereafter impossible for anyone to sue on the copyright.
The C|Net article implies that people who don't own the software are the ones that are downloading it, but it seems to me that most of the people downloading really old software have bought it in the past. Otherwise, why not pirate something new and shiny?
I grew up playing computer games, so you can imagine my joy at finding out that all of those old C64 and PC games were still around. I could relive Rock N' Bolt, Ghetto Blaster, Zak McKracken, and all the other classics! I owned all of the copyrighted stuff a while ago, isn't it legal for me to get it back?
-- F0 07 C7 C8
Re:Mmm... Abandonware...
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 1
I've paid for all the books in the Hitchiker Trilogy (albeit at a used bookstore). Do I now have right to go to a public website and download text files of that same information? I've already purchased a license to that information, right?
This analogy is not faulty because one is a book and one is software. Much abandonware, especially old C64 stuff, is not intended for use on original hardware, but to be used with an emulator on a more modern computer.
While I can support the notion that inspires abandonware distribution, I can't support the legality of same. It is indicative of the exploitive behavior of the larger software firms that they behave in this way. The solutions are to encourage lawlessness through unauthorized duplication (not a major threat to society, imho, but it is illegal), to change the laws (good luck), or to stop doing business with these firms by buying their software in the first place.
The last of these solutions is the only one that will actually force these companies to change their tune, since the first path gives them legal standing to prosecute the "good guys" and the second is unlikely given the Constitutional basis for copyright and the current trend in copyright legislation towards more rights for publisher's rather than less.
If only it could be taken a step further. Like some way to have firms actually take seriously a license that GPL's (or BSD's) a piece of software x years after it's no longer supported. (Preferably where x=0.)
It increases the value of the software, by making consumers know that if it is good, someone will always be there to take up development on it.
Maybe they could put the code with some sort of escrow company, who reviews all the software and GPL's it as appropriate.
Anyone working on this?
Steve
Abandonware /= Free for the Taking . . .?
by
TOTKChief
·
· Score: 1
You know, when I first read this, I sat wondering about it. We at TOTK.com Sports run a great Web site, The Rodman Archive, which archives online content about Dennis Rodman. Much of the older archives -- about Dennis with some of his older teams -- are no longer available online. As many of you know, this is pretty common practice -- even Deja had to dump its online storage of NNTP for a short period of time.
In some ways, what we do is the same that Abandonware does -- if any publishing entity asks us to take down the content, we do so happily and willingly. Most of our readers consider it a great service -- they can watch the progression (and regression) of Rodzilla's career in the words of the nation's sportswriters.
But what we're publishing is content. What Abandonware pirates publish is code. I've got to wonder where you draw the fuzzy gray line -- between content and code, or to either side, right or wrong?
Why do I say that? I think the pirates are wrong, and that we are right. But that's damned petty.
Re:Abandonware /= Free for the Taking . . .?
by
Sabotage
·
· Score: 1
The argument could be made that they're publishing content as well... there's a lot more to a game than just code.
Re:Abandonware /= Free for the Taking . . .?
by
gi_wrighty
·
· Score: 1
If I read the article correctly the so called pirates are putting the software (not code) up for download. As these packages were commercial products and/. has not been jumping about screaming that they've been GPL'ed or whatever I guess that the source is not available.
So it's really just a warez site that's five years out of date, hoping that the publishers are too busy chasing the new warez while they serve their banner ads under the guise of public service. Or am I just being cynical?
But then being able to wallow in nostagia firing up stuff like XTreeGold or Commander Keen is quite a nice and fluffy idea, although probably not very legal.
wrighty. (rip me to shreads, I double dare you)
Legally very interesting indeed.
by
AndrewD
·
· Score: 5
Let's leave the criminal penalties out of it for a moment.
The civil measure of recovery for breach of copyright is one of:
Damages, so as to place the wronged party in the position he or she would have been in had the harmful act not occurred;or
Account of profits, whereby the wrongdoer has to pay over the entire profit made by the infringement.
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages? He's not making any money at all off the abandoned software, so there's no possibility of damages. He can't say he's lost any fraction of zero sales that would sound in damages.
As to an account of profits, only those sites that actually make some form of money gain from offering abandonware are vulnerable, and at that there's a good argument that the profit is only that fraction of profit represented by the illegally distributed title. If there are thousands on the site and it's making peanuts, damages could well be very small indeed.
I would certainly be advising a copyright holder not to waste his money, were any of them to come to me over this sort of thing.
On the other hand, I imagine the criminal penalties for breach of copyright in the US are rather more fierce and fiercely enforced than they are here in the UK. It would be doubtful whether offering abandonware on the web, free at the point of sale would actually be a crime here, absent advertising to make it "in the course of a business". And even then you'd have trouble getting the weights and measures people interested - they're more interested in the pirate recordings and dodgy-chanel-perfume-made-with-air-freshener-and-c at-pee markets.
--
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
freebe
·
· Score: 2
Sure, sure, sure, just like Mitnick's stolen copy of the Solaris source "cost" Sun the entire cost of engineering the source code.
I'm certain the copyright holder could use such an argument to the court - and claim about $10 million in damages. And they would get away with it, because they have expensive lawyers.
Disclaimer: Do not construe my comment as defending or attacking Mitnick.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
ratbag
·
· Score: 1
He can't say he's lost any fraction of zero sales that would sound in damages.
The softco's argument could be: 'The user used an old copy of Microsoft Word 2.0. This stopped them needing to buy a copy of Word 2000. This denied us a sale.'
Rob.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
PhilHibbs
·
· Score: 4
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages? He's not making any money at all off the abandoned software, so there's no possibility of damages.
If in getting a free copy of Word 2.0 I decide that I do not need to buy Word 2000, then they have lost a sale, and could claim the lost revenue from that sale. It's tenuous, but that's what expensive lawyers are for.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
Pxtl
·
· Score: 1
One problem - They don't need to win. They just need a long, drawn out legal battle to force the defendant to surrender to save his or her wallet.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
What if your computer simply cannot run Word 2000. Say it is a 386 with only the base 640k of memory. You simply cannot buy a Word processor today that will run on your system, so you have to go find an old version that will. Microsoft lost no sale, and perhaps only Intel could sue you for lost sales.
There are times when the laws, especially the laws that affect corperate earnings, aren't in touch with reality. I think a lot of Slashdot posters are forgetting this, and merely posting a lot of "stealing is wrong, if you steal you are worse than hitler, abandonware is stealing" posts.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 4
The softco's argument could be: 'The user used an old copy of Microsoft Word 2.0. This stopped them needing to buy
a copy of Word 2000. This denied us a sale.'
It is unreasonable to count old versions as competitors but not to count competitors as competitors. That is to say, a bootleg Word 2.0 denies WordPerfect a sale just as much as it denies Word2k a sale.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
AndrewD
·
· Score: 2
This is why I limited the initial post to the UK.
In the UK a claim like that is susceptible to being thrown out at an early stage as having no reasonable prospect of success at trial under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or as an abuse of process under Part 3. The winning party gets to claim the loser's costs from the winner as well.
--
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
Scurra+UK
·
· Score: 1
It also denies a free word processor (eg StarOffice) a "sale" - if they weren't using Word2 for free it strikes me as more likely they'd use a differant free word processor.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
AndrewD
·
· Score: 2
I think you overestimate the ability of expensive lawyers. I am one, and know whereof I speak: the difficulty with running specious arguments like that in court is that the judge, who used to be an expensive lawyer himself, tends to ask inconvenient questions about how breach of copyright puts the Claimant out of pocket by the whole development cost in any way that hadn't happened by reason of the software's obsolescence.
Remember always that the aim of damages is to place the claimant in the position he would have been in, so far as money can do it, had the harmful act not occurred. Punitive damages can sometimes be levied over and above that measure for an assortment of reasons, but none of those reasons that I know of in various jurisdictions cover not-for-profit actions that cause zero or nominal loss to the aggrieved party.
--
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
walnut
·
· Score: 1
I'll claim this... what is the difference between word 2000 (for most people) and word 2.0?
In truth, probably not much... My experience with most people who use wor d need is:
1. something to edit text.
2. something to change the font.
3. something to print it.
4. a way to see it.
5. a way to save it.
Granted, there are some that embed spreadsheets, graphics, and so on, but for day to day buisiness this is all you need.
A very good friend of mine used to say "Monichrome monitors for everyone!" Unless you have a specific reason for needing color (graphic artist, cad designer, etc), I don't see the point in having one in the workplace. "Fun charts" is a bogus reason. Of course, you can't buy a monichrome monitor anymore (or when I first heard him say it for that matter) so everyone, even the receptionist who plays solitare all day can do it in color.... Do customers need color? No. Is it an added expense to the customer? Yes. Do we have a choice? No.
Products which do more are great, but if you're never going to use the equation editor or the shapes editor in word, you don't need them. If the program works, a company should have the responsibility to sell it, if they choose not to, they loose the right to tell someone that they can't give it away. (LucasArts, for example still bundles and sells really old software together - which is great.) I don't think it is fair to expect fixes, and patches released anymore, but I expect the product to at least be mail-orderable... If they can no longer afford to keep it in production, then guess what, they probably won't miss it.
A computer is a tool like a hammer, not a toy like a stereo.
-- You say you want a revolution?
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
Upsilon
·
· Score: 1
Word 2.0 kicks ass! I used it for years and years and years. Even when everyone else was using Word 6.0 or higher, I was still chugging away with Word 2.0. When I told people I used Word 2.0 they looked at me in shock, like I was just thawed out a 1000 year old block of ice or something. The thing is, Word 2.0 did everything I needed it to. I looked at later versions, but they were all bloated messes filled with "features" that I neither needed nor wanted. Word 2.0 was quick and light, and it ran without any difficulty on OS/2, which was my operating system of choice for a while. I couldn't understand why so many people shelled out so much money for the next version every time it came out. I was using 2.0 and liking it!
I'm really getting off-topic here, but what the hey.
-- I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps I cannot afford a new computer, or I don't belive in the forced upgrade cycle that the computer manufacturers seem to like. If my comptuer does what it needs to, then why should I upgrade? Just so I can run the newest version of a piece of software with features I can't use/don't want? That is perhaps the dumbest reason to upgrade I've ever heard. If MS still sold Word 2.0, I'd buy it to run on my computer, but since they don't I have to get it some other way. IIRC MS has publicly stated that they do not support the 386 platform anymore, therefore I see no reason to support MS.
It must be tough to ski when you can't see the moguls because your world is all black and white.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed.
by
rhdwdg
·
· Score: 1
Read Microsoft licenses. All their licenses give you the right to run the then-current version or any prior version of the same product. So it's not like you can't buy a proper license to Word 2.0: buy Word 2000, then get a hold of the binaries by hook or by crook -- you're legal. (Probably better off too -- WinWord was manageable in those days and if Win98 hasn't broken the Win16 ABI it should kick ass today.)
Now, I don't know if anyone other than Microsoft does that. So if you've got a hankering to get WordPerfect 5.1 running on that AT you picked up at a garage sale, maybe you do have to go looking for it. (WP5.1 being one of the best word processors ever, and 12 MHz being plenty to run it beautifully.) And Microsoft's ideas of 'same product' can be hazy -- does Word 2000 license me for Word 4.0 (DOS, circa 1988) which I could in theory want to run on the same XT class laptop I used ten years ago?
The first game I took from an abandonware site was "Microprose Pirates Gold".... nice irony isn't it?
I loved that game! Sometimes I really prefer the good old games over the new stuff that comes out...but that could just be me:-)
-- Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware
by
meckardt
·
· Score: 4
Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware is done for one reason only: control. Why would a company want to keep users from having access to old versions of software? So the users have to buy the new versions!
As a rule, new versions of software are more feature rich (read: fatter) and may or may not be more useful. But it is certain that the company that produces the new software can get a lot more money from it that they would if they kept selling the sold software.. Rather than sell and support both, they would just as well force you to upgrade.
Of course, that makes it hard to keep using those old Win3.x machines with currently available programs.
Gonzo
Re:Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware
by
Xoro
·
· Score: 1
But doesn't it work the other way? Wouldn't access to a great old version generate enthusiasm for some new, enhanced, souped-up graphics version? I don't think they have to be free, but if companies don't even make these games available, then somebody will. Doesn't it seems like the popularity of these old games points to a major opportunity overlooked by distributors?
-- Kill, Tux, kill!
Re:Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware
by
freebe
·
· Score: 2
You're right. That's why the makers of the new Asteriods wouldn't let the old version be distributed for free - because the new version includes the old version! As long as there are opportunities like that, I fail to see how opening abandonware can be good for the companies in question.
Re:Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware
by
Tony-A
·
· Score: 1
In this case, the old version is NOT abandoned. So you have to buy the new version to get the old version, but the old version is still commercially available and presumably supported.
Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
BaronM
·
· Score: 4
As far as I know, copyright is an exclusive right conferring the specific power to prevent others from copying a piece of work. The fact the a copyright holder no longer wishes to provide copies is not an abuse of their right, it is straightforward exercise.
Maybe that shoudl change. Books go out of print, music stops being published, and software that is still useful dies because authors and publishers no longer have an economic interest in providing copies. In all cases, cociety is poorer for the loss.
Maybe copyright should be modified to impose an obligation to provide copies to all who are willing to pay for them. If an author wants to be released from their obligation to provide copies, they must release their copyright.
This is too simplistic, but cay you all see the basic idea?
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
radja
·
· Score: 2
>The fact the a copyright holder no longer wishes to provide copies is not an abuse of their right, it is straightforward exercise
In many cases the copyright holder has stated in the license that I am entitled to replacement copies if the media breaks, becomes corrupt or something. Thus, by not providing replacements, they are infringing on rights they explicitly gave me.
//rdj
--
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
Kickasso
·
· Score: 2
So I'm obliged to provide a copy to everyone who's willing to pay. Fine. That'll be 1,000,000,000, sir. Sorry, we can only accept cash. --
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
TOTKChief
·
· Score: 1
Maybe that shoudl change. Books go out of print, music stops being published, and software that is still useful dies because authors and publishers no longer have an economic interest in providing copies. In all cases, cociety is poorer for the loss.
Society may be poorer for the loss, but the fundamental point here is that the publishers retain copyright to the situation. If they choose not to publish it, it is a business decision on their part. You pull stuff from production when it fails to make you money any more.
I can see where this sentiment is fine in the OS world, but in the business world, where people crave copyright (not saying that it's a good or bad thing!), it won't happen. Sad, maybe, but I think I agree with the business people. But that's because I create IP.
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
Erasmus+Darwin
·
· Score: 1
Maybe copyright should be modified to impose an obligation to provide copies to all who are willing to pay for them.
One way to implement this might be through some sort of micropayment system. I certainly wouldn't object to the idea of being able to pay the publisher of an older game a couple bucks in order to be able to immediately download one of their older software titles.
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
javatips
·
· Score: 1
The law already account for this.
A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).
So in 45 years, you will be able to do whatever you want to with Windows 95 (you may want to throw a crash party!).
The only problem with the law, is the same with software patent. The period is far too long for software.
nb: in 10-15 years, the old COBOL code used to create the banking system will become public domain... Happy hacking in the future:-)
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
Kickasso
·
· Score: 1
If replacement costs are specified, it's a contract, and contracts ought to be respected. If, however, you try and pass a law that forces me to continue sales...yeah, right. --
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 1
That seems fair to me. You'd need to include a "right of resale", so the copyright could be remaindered, or perhaps that could be explicitly be given to the original author. And you'd need to allow a period of lapse (it can be out of print for a year before this comes into effect). And something about you can't charge more than triple what you charged when it was new. (That sounds excessive, but reasonable. I sort of based it on the relationship between the price of a hardback book and the price of a mass-market paperback, even though I know that the hardback is released first.)
I don't even think that most publishers would object very much (of course they would some... this takes away some potential of profit, though probably no actual profit).
The sticky point comes with what to do about package deals: does that count as keeping the original in print. No principle that I accept allows this to be resolved easily, so probably some compromise is necessary. Say, partially, it prevents the copyright from lapsing further while it is being done, but doesn't reset the timer so the copyright will lapse more quickly after the package is no longer being issued. Something like that.
This would keep the works around. I would also propose that publication of the same work (not an edited version) be required for the maintenance of copyright. Too often the edited re-writes are hideously inferior to the original.
Please remember what the purpose of copyright is: To encourage the promulgation of information (I forget the original phrasing, but that's the essence). I believe that this formulation would serve the purpose more fully than the current version does.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright?
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
I've thought about that, too, but it would clearly be an abuse of such a law. You would not be permitted to charge more for a copy than the lowest cost you had previously charged for a copy, plus the actual cost of copying. And if you charge excessively, and this is proved in court, you lose the copyright and the work goes into the public domain.
In short, if you are given rights, you are also given obligations, and if you violate the obligation, you lose the right. Sort of like the right to own a gun. Commit a felony with a gun, lose the right to own a gun.
The idea is not that you're forced to continue sales--you must continue sales to retain copyright protection. That doesn't seem completely unreasonable. It probably make sense to have some sort of time limit (e.g., if you discontinue sales for ten years, then copyright goes away).
And it's not completely without precedent. Companies that stop using trademarks can lose the exclusive rights to them.
And large companies might actually support this idea. The big megamedia giants like Disney are always selling things, so they can keep their copyrights forever. But they can start pillaging the works of less-successful authors and companies that have gone out of business.
What about abandoned music?
by
Remus+Shepherd
·
· Score: 5
There's a band I really like -- Big Daddy. (Not the current rapper known as Big Daddy, but a 50's style band of the same name who did parody songs in the '80s.) Big Daddy put out 4 albums, only two of which were released as CDs. The other two were vinyl-only...and are totally unavailable. The record company doesn't sell them, used record stores can't find them. Those songs are in serious danger of being lost forever.
And yet, if I were to rip my Big Daddy albums into MP3s, burn them to a CD, and give the CDs to friends so they can experience Big Daddy's music, I'm breaking the law. Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
I have a hard time understanding how preservation of music or software became illegal. If the publisher doesn't supply or support it, and it's unavailable through normal means, why not let the public do with it what they will? There's no more money to be made on these works -- the creators aren't even trying to make money on them anymore. They should be in the public domain, and if the public wants to preserve them they should be allowed to do so.
Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.
-- Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
Kaa
·
· Score: 2
I have a hard time understanding how preservation of music or software became illegal.
One of the rights of ownership is the right to destroy.
If you want to preserve something that is not yours -- tough luck. The owner gets to decide what happens to it.
I am not saying that letting old software die is a good thing, or even a reasonable thing to do. However, the copyright holders are perfectly within their rights.
Kaa
--
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
Lion-O
·
· Score: 1
Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw) and make sure you are the first one to claim the rights. After that you can do with the music whatever you want. Even sue others for violating the copyright on which you spended your hard earned money.
Oh; and if you want examples; I guess you've heard of the Abba teens? And I don't know about other countries but didn't you notice a large amount of "easy reconizable" tunes in commercials and stuff like that? The fact that you reconize some is not allways because of the way the music is composed. In most cases its due to the fact that the company is using music which is more then 30 years old.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
mitheral
·
· Score: 1
But that is where the fuzziness in copyright comes in. The authors of the IP only own the work if they never release it to the public. Once released to the public they no longer own the work; They merely have a state sanctioned monoply to control the first sale of the IP for a limited (or not so limited as is the case now) period of time. The person who bought the IP actually owns it. This is why the same book can be sold over and over with only the profit from the first sale going to the IP owners.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
Rude+Turnip
·
· Score: 2
It is my understanding that copyright does not mean that you "own" something. For instance, MSFT can't walk into my office and break my MS-Office CD because they hold the copyright. The doctrine of first sale states that I own the physical disc and the little bumps burned into it. I can microwave it, use it as a coaster, or do my job with it. Copyright law states that although I own it, MSFT has the right to say that I cannot share it with others. So, no, copyright does not give you the right to destroy.
Copyright was created to promote the creation of works. You are simply given distribution/copying rights (hence - copy*right*). The copyright laws were designed to promote the arts for the betterment of *society* by giving artists an incentive to create.
If you no longer distribute or support your art (such as games) and you use the copyright laws to prevent others from preserving the art, then you are harming society as a whole. I must emphasize that copyright is ultimately for the benefit of society, which will last much longer than any shortsighted individual or corporation.
I agree with one of the above posters that if copyright holders do not want their old progs. being distributed by others, then they should at least provide the progs. themselves.
In the end, I do not believe we should voluntarily burn another library of Alexandria for the temporary monetary gain of just a few individuals.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
mitheral
·
· Score: 1
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw)
Copyright proctection is much longer than 30 years. The formula is kind of complicated but from this summary from the NMPA the term is somwhere between 70 and 120 years.
In general, the bill extends the term of copyright protection in the United States by 20 years for all works still in their term of protection. Specific provisions of the bill provide that:
for works (other than works made for hire) created on or after January 1, 1978, protection will endure for the life time of the author plus 70 years after his or her death;
for works made for hire created on or after January 1, 1978, protection will endure for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first;
for works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978, the term of protection will endure until December 31, 2047;
for works in their first 28-year term on January 1, 1978, the automatic renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years (for example, a work first published in 1975 would be protected through the year 2070, or a 28- plus 67-year term);
for works in their renewal term on the effective date of the new law, protection will endure for a term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured (for example, a work first published in 1955 would be protected through the year 2050).
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
It would be in RIAA's interest to stop you. You're not supposed to listen to Big Daddy; there isn't any Big Daddy merchandise. Get with the program and listen to Britney Spears and Korn!
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
One of the rights of ownership is the right to destroy.
This is SO wrong. You don't OWN intellectual property (what a ridiculous concept!)- you hold in trust for the public good. Copyright and patent holders are granted a monopoly in exchange for their willingness to eventually place their work in the public domain.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
I agree - one of the obligations that should go along with copyright is the obligation to ensure that the work is eventually placed in the public domain. Is your performance copyrighted? Did you distribute copies? Very well, then; you have now created an obligation for yourself to see to it that the work is ultimately placed, undamaged, in the public domain. Want to keep the copyright for the whole 120 years? Fine; just be sure it's recorded on non-degradable media, and that the devices that play back the media are still intact 120 years from now.
This is what libraries should be used for. You create a work, you sell a work, you donate one copy to a library. That library then assumes the responsibility of seeing to it that the work remains intact.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 2
Two choices:
1. You don't live in the US
2. You live in the US and are severly confused about copyright laws. If you look hard enough, you can find (as I once did) an intellectual property FAQ (for US law, of course) on the net somewhere. It's a good source of basic info.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
rhdwdg
·
· Score: 1
It's some sort of surprise that the legally and morally right things to do are different?
If you believe in, or accept, copyright as is then you have to accept that the holder has the right to create scarcity as well. There are legitimate economic reasons for doing that, and some businesses do it masterfully. Ask Disney, or maybe George Lucas. If you don't think so, then you must think the system needs some pretty radical changes (beyond changing a few constants).
On the other hand, sometimes works are lost out of stupidity, and everyone later regrets the loss and prays that someone broke the law and has a copy. Ask a fan of Doctor Who about Patrick Troughton's tenure and how much of it they've actually seen.
The morally right thing to do is to digitize the stuff and spread it far and wide. The legally safer way to do that is to do it quietly and have each of your friends give it to a few more rather than distributing 1,000 copies yourself. You'll be vindicated in 100 years. And if the law ever gets back in line with the will of the people, maybe even sooner.
Re:What about abandoned music?
by
DeeKayWon
·
· Score: 1
Spot on. I'm a big fan of Bill Cosby's stand-up comedy. It's clean, it's tasteful, and beyond all, it's hilarious. I first got hooked on it from a bunch of bootleg tapes my parents had. I took the opportunity four years ago to see him perform live, and now I'm in the process of building a collection of his works.
This is where it becomes relevant.
I was on Napster a couple of weeks ago searching for MP3s of his works. One person had MP3s from two albums - "Bill's Best friend" and "My Father Confused Me". I had never heard of these before - So I did a search of the various online music places and found on Borders.com that "My Father Confused Me" is no longer in print. "Bill's Best Friend" was nowhere to be found. There was a bunch of other stuff as well that was no longer available. I had already scoured the local record stores and bought all I could find, but these out of print works were not among them. Auction sites and such had nothing. Who loses money if I were to keep these MP3s? Nobody, and that's why I have no moral quandry in keeping them, at least until I can find a used CD of them somewhere.
I recently decided to Abandon Warez too, it is a liberating experience, however now I only buy old games with decent manuals. Modern games that come in a jewel case and a litle install pamphlet (insert CD, click install) arent worth a dime. Give me manualsfrom the good old days!
They do a good job of covering both ends of the spectrum - the publishers who want to hold on to their old code, and folks who see it as being wasted.
I disagree.
1. The only publisher they listed was Microsoft, who isn't terribly well-represented when you look at what's really available in the abandonware community.
2. The representative to whom they spoke hadn't heard of abandonware before! Her only comment was that Microsoft does go after piracy. They could have at least dug around until they found someone from the publishing community with some knowledge of the situation.
C|Net, you should be ashamed of such shoddy journalism.
Re:No, not a good article
by
Kevin+T.
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree. I find it interesting that Microsoft's spokeswoman could make a legal policy judgement based on info given to her by, apparently, CNet's interviewer, and then of course CNet could quote her on it...it reminds me of the advice in _Glengarry Glen Ross_: "Never open your mouth unless you know the shot."
CNet could have done a lot better by talking to people at Infocom, people who still run Amigas, NeXT, NuBus Macintoshes, and other discontinued-but-old platforms. They probably knew that MS would give them a simple answer, and MS is easy to get in touch with, so that's what they went with.
"There isn't any difference between abandonware and piracy," says Diana Piquette, antipiracy manager for Microsoft.
Does this mean that Microsoft are going to stop selling any more DOS-based operating systems, due to the fact that the intellectual property was stolen from someone else.
Just as an addendum, Microsoft considers everything apart from pre-loads and shrink-wrap purchases to be 'piracy', so their opinion is a bit dubious anyway.
One could compare this to a situation with out of print books. There is a definite owner of the IP, (s)he is still alive and owns the copyright, but the work is no longer commercially available. If there was a surge of interest in such a book, and I had a copy, I would never consider it acceptable to just scan it in and let people read it without asking the writer.
Thats the problem. Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner. They know who the owners are. Why not (scarey thought coming) ask them? The guy profiled in the article has ad revenue coming into his site. He is likely making money off of other people's IP. Why not send a form letter stating the purpose of the site, what titles they would like to feature and offering a profit share based on downloads?
In most services, requiring an "opt out" rather than "opt in" is considered predatory marketing. In a situation where the legal lines are so well drawn, simply offering to remove is not enough. There are ways to do this right, and making money off of doing it wrong is not aulteristic, no matter how you try to spin it.
Kahuna Burger
-- ...will work for Chick tracts...
Re:Out of print books?
by
KahunaBurger
·
· Score: 2
It's also far easier to get forgiveness than permission from any company. Companies don't want to get involved in lawsuits. Well, some do. But most see it as a huge expense they'd rather avoid.
On the other hand, getting permission requires legal effort and decisions on the company's part. And companies are populated by folks who don't want to make decisions...
Not to be simplisticly moralistic, but doing the right thing is often harder. And don't underestimate the difficulties one could have hunting down permission for a book. Small presses go out of business, authors use pseudonymes, move to different cities, etc.
An honest site trying to "provide a service" would check to see if a piece of software was truely abandoned (is it avalible in a compilation or re-release, if so post a link to the provider) and ask permission of those that were. When the owners were not providing the software and said no to the abandonware site, the site could keep track of requests and periodicly report the consumer demand and ask again. It would be more work. But providing a service is usually work.
Out of print books stand a chance of being re-printed. You also might be able to get it through a used book store.
There are only two legit ways someone can obtain old software. One, the company releases it into public domain (ala Ultima 4). Two, the company re-writes the software for modern tastes (possibly upsetting all of the old fans... see 'Archon' as an example.) With a few exceptions, most old programs will not sell unless updated.
Old software is not typically re-sold in "used *"
stores. Furthermore, if old software is not copied and placed on new media, it stands a chance of being lost forever.
I agree with you that it is illegal, bad manners, and quite possibly just plain wrong. But I think that the annalogy doesn't work.
We have and do ask publishers to release old software. However most don't respond, and when I have gotten a response - it's been from a customer care representative saying they would pass it on to their manager.
Profit share? That would be a great idea if we made a profit. Actually running that site with the ad's still brings us deeper in the hole every month. If I were making money off the site (let alone enough to share with software publishers) I would not be working at Cub Foods.
One could compare this to a situation with out of print books. There is a definite owner of the IP, (s)he is still alive and owns the copyright, but the work is
no longer commercially available. If there was a surge of interest in such a book, and I had a copy, I would never consider it acceptable to just scan it in and let people read it without asking the writer.
This is just plain silly. To say that it's unacceptable to scan in a book that is no longer commercially available and pass it around for free is ridiculous (horrors! somebody is reading something they didn't get permission from the author to read)! Nobody's losing any money, and gee, it just might stimulate enough interest in that old book to get it back into print!
Hmm...
Also consider:
Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner.
Again, silly. Abandonware is the perfect name for it--speaking as one who works in the industry, the company I work for regularly abandons certain versions of their commercial software when it no longer makes any money for them.
I notice that the examples given are mass-market software. Large companies have been aware of the risks of enterprise-level software being abandoned, and try to avoid it happening. Some purchasers demand software escrow, where the source code is deposited someplace where it will be available to the customer if the manufacturer goes out of business. However, I have seen a preference for the accounting packages for which source code is available -- even if is not currently needed, executives like having it on the shelf so the company's accounting system can be revised if the software manufacturer is unable to keep up with the newest twists in local, state, or federal laws and taxes. And if the manufacturer abandons the package, the company can maintain the software and is not forced by the next major tax changes to select a new accounting system.
Allthough I do wonder if that time span of 5 years isn't a bit short. In some cases vendors tend to bundle their software together in order to sell it, once again, in some form of "the best off". IIRC its adventure games (they need some time to solve anyway) which tend to be bundled over the years.
The most recent examples of this coming to my mind are the Dragonlance series from SSI (Champions of Krynn, Death Knight of Krynn and the Dark Queen of Krynn (see the Dragonlance site) which were bundled in the so called "Forgotten realms collection". And there is offcourse the Ultima series which also got bundled (episode 1 - 8 iirc).
If you compare that with an action game like Half Life you'll notice a difference. It was quite recently when I picked up a bundle offering Half life & opposing force. So basicly I think its kinda hard to take a period of 5 years and consider everything older then 5 years obsolete.
How about games for defunct platforms? I agree that 5 years MAY BE too short but look at games that run on Amiga or Commodore64 or Atari. I'd say - 5 years since the publisher stopped supporting the platform.
Whether we, as Linux users, like it or not. Software that has been copyrighted has a copyright FOR EVER, unless the developer says otherwise. The developers of these software packages have full legal right to stop 17-year-old kids from giving away their software. I use Linux and download TONS of software for my Linux box but 95% of it is open source. If I want to give away this software, fine, it is within the law. I know it is frustrating for people when a company will not support an older product. This is the companies fault, WOULD FORD or CHEVY NOT SELL PARTS TO A CAR BECAUSE IT WAS MADE 10 YEARS AGO!! No. But we have come to expect this from software companies in the age of Sun, Micro$oft, Oracle, Apple, etc., etc. Bottom line is if you complain to the company enough or stop buying their software and use an open source alternative you would not have this problem. Don't go to jail or get fined because of something stupid.
-- "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
Copyright actually lasts some number of years (I think 75) past the life of its creator. I'm not sure how long it is for corporations - I think it's a fixed span then.
I think car companies are required to sell spare parts for a specific amount of time after they stop production, and I think that period is quite long. However, a car is very different from hardware or software. Would you still drive a 10 year old car if the new ones cost 1/10th what old ones did, and the new ones were 20 times as fast and efficient? There wouldn't be many old cars actively used if this was the case.
Kenyon's site, like other abandonware sites, offers hundreds of classic games and applications free for download, including Dune 2 and Syndicate... Kenyon and his peers define abandonware as software that is at least five years old and is no longer sold or supported by its publisher or developer.
I know Syndicate is still available for purchase from Electronic Arts under its 'Classic' label.. and I'm sure quite a bit of the software on abandonware sites is still sold in stores. Most of my software purchases are classic games, because you can get excellent games for a great price, and you can know the game won't suck. If abandonware sites claim they are doing a service for people who need replacements for bad disks, why don't they have sanction/permission from the publisher? Oh, wait, it's just like how Napster, et al is really used for freely distributable music.
If you want classic games, pick them up for $5 at the store, on CD-ROM no less. You'll be doing everyone a favour - you will have a great game, and publishers will be encouraged to re-release more classics for cheap prices.
Re:Not All "Abandonware" is Abandoned
by
Rico_Suave
·
· Score: 1
True - I see Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Ultima series, King's Quest series, etc. on abandonware sites, despite the fact that these games are still available. I try to purchase as many of these as I can, if I enjoy the game. Like you said, you can get these for dirt cheap
--
Re:Not All "Abandonware" is Abandoned
by
Swizzlely
·
· Score: 1
You should not find any software title which is still sold or supporter by their authors at my site. We have a list of software that we know is still being sold or supported by their authors
http://www.abandonwarering.com/index.php?id=faq#R0 7
Software you find in bargain bins may not still be sold by their authors. Most likely it's just a companies over stock that they are selling off cheap. Chances of finding that software at my local retailers are not that high (I think Best Buy just throws the older stuff out).
There are MANY sites that call them selfs abandonware sites. But they knowingly offer new game downloads, and game downloads that are still for sale. So they are really not abandonware sites, just usually old warez sites trying to make it look like there's a moral right to what they are doing.
Re:Not All "Abandonware" is Abandoned
by
Rico_Suave
·
· Score: 1
Yep - they certainly do exist (who do you think released Homeworld/Half-Life?) Even if Sierra didn't exist, retailers would still have their games for sale... I recently purchased the King's Quest collection (1-7) for $15 at Chips & Bits
...and here we are my friends. The open source circle finally meets.
"We are not out to get [software publishers] or to steal from them," says Kenyon. "We are just here to provide the public with software that can't be obtained by any other means."
Everything is free, past it's shelf life, the expiry date.
heh, the highest form of hypocrisy.
I bet the Napster and Nutstella fans will be all over this one.
Copyright, Intellectual Rights, and your right to freely distribute, at no cost, that which is not yours.
In the UK, this would, in common parlance, be called "Fencing". It's where thiefs offload thier goods to middlemen.
most of these pieces of software should have had their copyright run out. However, the (Sonny) Bono/Disney amendment to copyright law made copyrights expire 100 years after the author's death. THis practically made coporate-owned copyrights immortal.
Since this is a bad law, we as moral people, have an obligation to not only disagree with it, but also to not follow it. Civil Disobedience, if you will.
The video games from 20 years ago should be in the public domain by now. The only theft, is by the corporations who are robbing the public out of public-domained knowledge/works of art.
The immortal copyrights need to be amended to something reasonable, like 17-20 years. If not less, considerring the speed of internet development.
Abandonware sites are perfect examples of times when current legislation no longer seems quite relevant.
The purpose of a copyright, trademark, or patent is to protect the intellectual property of the author or authors, preventing other people from makking money off their creations.
In the case of abandonware and sites devoted to it, there seems little to protect. After all, the software is no longer generating any revenue because it's not sold or produced any longer. Therefore, there is really no reason for software to be still covered by copyright law after about 5 years, when the current technology had advanced far beyond that in the old software.
It would a make a little more sense if old software entered the public domain at the "Internet Speed" the media tells us we live at. Perhaps software could be posted online 5 years after its release (for non-commercial use only) unless the publishing company filed otherwise.
Just my $.02
Attitudes like this are the solution
by
Floyd+Tante
·
· Score: 1
I have a hard time taking a self-proclaimed "troll" seriously, but....
Just because something *can* be done, doesn't mean it's right
It doesn't mean it's "wrong" (by whose definition? The lawmakers who were paid off by Big Money?), either. Learn some logic before you try arguing.
It'll just encourage companies to crack down on even the semi-legit sites like The Underdogs
There is no such thing as "semi-legit". The Home of the Underdogs is "illegal". Does that make it wrong? I think not. If a game is no longer sold, how are you hurting the company by downloading it? If for example, you downloaded Ultima 7 (my previous example), you might like enough to buy Origin's current offerings: Ultima 9 or Ultima Online. Your argument sounds suspiciously like the RIAA whining about Napster users not buying CDs when the exact opposite is true.
Abandonware helps users and companies! It's not a zero-sum game. -- Floyd
-- -- Floyd
Re:Attitudes like this are the solution
by
GoVegan
·
· Score: 1
Ultima 7 is rather a bad example, as you can still purchase it just about anywhere. Origin sells an Ultima Collection CD with Ultimas 1 - 8, and Garriot's first semi-Ultima game.
So in this case you'ld be depriving Origin of the price of that collection (currently about $15 most stores.)
Abandonware is a tricky subject. A couple of points the article failed to bring up:
1. In some cases, people _need_ older copies of programs. There are some document formats that, for one reason or another, are no longer supported--even through modern conversion software. If that old document happens to contain password-protected tax data, and no modern software will read it, where does the user turn to but to abandonware?
2. On the other hand, compilations of old games are a relatively popular low-budget option for game publishers. They're almost guaranteed to make money for the company (since they're dirt-cheap to make). I for one jumped at the chance to purchase Interplay's compilation of the SSI Gold Box games. However, if these games are freely available on popular abandonware sites, then it makes it difficult for a publisher to convince anyone to buy it.
3. Here's the real sticking point (which I'm also the most out-of-my-league about): if it can be proved that a copyright holder knowingly allowed someone to infringe on that copyright and did not take action to prevent it, then the rights to that material can be permanently lost. This prevents selective enforcement, but at the same time obligates the companies to go after abandonware sites if they want rights to a future version of the game.
It seems that this whole area is in a kind of legal void, with the two sides of the argument brought up in the article both having valid points. It will be interesting to see if this ever gets brought to court--doubtable, though, since people running abandonware sites will probably never be able to afford a lawyer for a case like that.
I agree with most parts of your posting, yet this one puzzles me: If that old document happens to contain password-protected tax data, and no modern software will read it, where does the user turn to but to abandonware?.
When talking tax data they should dive into their software archive IMHO. If they own files containing stuff like tax data they also owned the software. If they threw out the software before converting their data they got no one to kick but themselves. IMHO this is not a valid excuse to break the law.
Actually, I made the unstated assumption that the article mentioned--your old program disks go bad, etc. Sure, this would require you to be rather foolish (running an old program off of your one copy of the disk) but it isn't entirely impossible.
Also, I'm not sure that it's a valid excuse to break the law--I just think that it's not immediately obvious that retrieving data through abandonware should be illegal.
Actually, I made the unstated assumption that the article mentioned--your old program disks go bad, etc. Sure, this would require you to be rather foolish (running an old program off of your one copy of the disk) but it isn't entirely impossible.
Also, I'm not sure that it's a valid excuse to break the law--I just think that it's not immediately obvious that retrieving data through abandonware should be illegal.
Consider that many programs use a "Key" disk or other form of copy protection, this isn't farfetched. Or what happens to a dongled program when the dongle dies and the publisher won't send you a new one?
Or are you going to say it's their own fault for using software that requires a dongle or key disk?
-- "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
3. Here's the real sticking point (which I'm also the most out-of-my-league about): if it can be proved that a copyright holder knowingly allowed someone to infringe on that copyright and did not take action to prevent it, then the rights to that material can be permanently lost. IANAL, but I consulted one over this very issue (in my case, it was an abandoned role-playing game - the old fashioned pencil and paper kind). This is wrong. Copyright is absolute, period. I can let you violate my copyright for 100 years without losing a single one of my rights under copyright law. You can make billions of dollars over the course of decades by violating my copyrights, and I can sue your for every last time the day before my copyright expires.
Trademarks, however, work exactly as you describe.
Or the fact that these are the same people who claim that honest-to-the-Gods 'backups' are illegial.
Or do things like use non-standard disk formats that mean you simply cannot copy them.
And it may sound paranoid, but I'm convinced that commercial floppys were designed to self-corrupt after x uses.
Hell, how about the fact that it's getting somewhat difficult to find 5 1/2 inch floppy drives that work?
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Has a court said so? The purpose of copyright protection is to increase the material available to society. If a program is unavailable by any means other than copying without the consent of the author or their agents, then a court might well decide the copying is fair use, as that is the only way to achieve the purpose of the law.
"aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the
author's rights?"
I have a right to, say, park my car in a public parking space. But if I choose not to use that right, other people are entitled to use it instead. If an author or publisher chooses not to publish, they have little claim to loss when other people choose to publish instead.
Discovery in such a case might reveal that a publisher, by their own evaluation, would have to expend $100,000 in costs to create and distribute copies of a program that would reap $80,000 in revenue. Thus they would lose money. The defendant who provided copies of this abandonware would have cost the company to lose the opportunity to lose $20,000. Thus there are no damages, and hence should be no court award.
Things may be different in the cases of books, which are sometimes reprinted years or decades after the original printing. We have not seen such a market for software yet, and we are not likely to, except for nostalgia. So software should be ruled and judged by a standard appropriate for it, not for books.
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in
any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors.
Copying abandonware is not commercial, and has no effect upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. So that's 2 of 4 points. I think it's not unreasonable to treat such copying as fair use. (Not all 4 points must be satisfied; courts will consider all of them and their relative importance in each particular case.) Granted, this is not scholarship or research or news reporting, but it need not be. For instance, backup and timeshifting are not mentioned here, but they were found to fall under fair use. --
Note that those items are "factors to be considered", not absolute rules. Furthermore, in many cases companies will go straight for guideline four. In a number of cases (enumerated multiple times elsewhere in this topic), companies have rereleased old games for newer platforms. Most companies' knee-jerk reaction to "abandonware" is along the lines of, "Yeah, we're not selling it right now, but we still own it and we might want to try to make more money off it in the future." They would argue that making a game available for free right now would undercut their sales if they ever tried to remarket the game themselves in the future.
For other, non-game, software, there are usually more recent versions out, and the company owning the software would probably take the stance that, if you want program X, you ought to be buying the latest version, not getting an older one for free. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I tend not to like counting non-purchased programs as "losses", because that gets silly very rapidly, but it seems vaguely wrong to use, for free, an older version of a program in place of purchasing a newer one.
Personally, I think we just need to drastically shorten copyright duration. That would make a lot of these issues a great deal simpler and would result in a lot more reuse of ideas, in contrast to today's information hoarding.
--Phil ("Rereleased"--now there's a word that looks horribly redundant.)
-- 355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research
playing a game for personal enjoyment is not covered in the purpose of fair use.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
So If I'm a etailer that hangs onto old stuff in it's original box or buys other's surplus to sell later for a small profit, when it's a few versions behind, am I stealing IP? The few places I've seen that did this have been consumed and no longer do it.
Again, the "we want things for free" mentality.
by
AugstWest
·
· Score: 2
Assuming that because a product is not currently being marketed and sold, it has no commercial value is ludicrous.
Especially in a country so obsessed with nostalgia, things come in and out of vogue, reunions happen, Williams releases emulators for their arcade software for various platforms....
There's a case in point. I know people who didn't buy any of the arcade reissue discs for the PSX, even though they were avid fans of the included games. And why not? Because anyone can get their hands on MAME... because there is a mentality that "they're not making money on it right now, it's languishing, so it's free for us to release it."
Copyrights are copyrights. Fight them all you want, go ahead and change the laws, but until you do, they're still law.
Re:Again, the "we want things for free" mentality.
by
PigleT
·
· Score: 2
"Assuming that because a product is not currently being marketed and sold, it has no commercial value is ludicrous."
How about backing up that assertion? No-longer being actively sold means exactly no commercial value to me.
Yes, folks will want stuff for free - the alternative, always having your wallet dripping out of your pocket for every little thing is downright offensive - and if a company could give it away for no loss to themselves, they should be encouraged to do so.
Of course that means the copyright laws and IP laws are a crock of crap - holding on to something beyond usefulness. If you want to support that corrupt legalistic system, feel free, of course. ~Tim
-- .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
-- ~Tim
-- .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Re:Again, the "we want things for free" mentality.
by
AugstWest
·
· Score: 2
Ah, a young anarchist who doesn't want his/her money to leave his/her wallet... because it's "offensive."
I did back up my assertion. Did you read the post? Williams was the example I used. They lost revenue due to piracy in the name of abandonware. A number of other companies do as well. See? That's not your "no loss" situation.
If you visit some of the abandonware sites, you'll see lists of games that have been deemed no longer abandonware, due to their being put back on the market again. There are at least 30 games in some of these lists, and they don't always overlap.
I think it'd be a good thing to create a climate in which companies can, if they choose, release their software or source when *they* choose to, as is happening more often lately.
so...if the scope of the abandonware scene is as large as the article maks it seem, one could live in a time warp of sorts--a fully functioning ~1994 computer.
and since most corporations are throwing away most old parts like hard drives, 486dx2 mobos etc, you could do this all for free.
just think, if you're willing to be fix years behind the curve (more like five years behind the gentle initial incline of the curve) you could compute for free.
You, sir, have found the very nub of the gist. Using abandonware and old computer parts enables people^H^H^H^H^H^Hpirates to gouge software companies for untold sums of lost revenue because they are gaining the exact same benefits of the modern technology from using the older, obsolete technology.
Just think back to what your brand-new Pentium 75 with 32 MB of RAM and a 1 GB HD would have cost you in 1994. Would $3,000 be too much? Or too little? And all the software installed, just imagine!! Windows, an office suite, maybe some accounting packages, some games. Why that's $4,000 in revenue that the Wintel Cartel is not getting because you are using their now-obsolete equipment.
Which begs me to ask the question: was that shit ever worth $4,000 in the first place? Or is the upgrade treadmill not what we thought it was, a path to ever greater speed and performance? After all, you can boot up a P75 with Win31 and watch it scream!! Right into a wall, to be sure . . .
Even though I am against software piracy, I am for abandonware. Which puts me in a situation where I want it but cannot morally get it. I have an old 386SX25 laptop with 4MB ram that Win3.1 would work great on (for playing DOS games and solitaire). However in the local places I have looked there is not a single vendor with a legal copy for sale, at least not at a reasonable price and/or w/o a "must buy with a new system" clause to support the OEM contract. Currently it sports Win95 that I have a spare license for.
I think ID software has the right idea with Doom, after it's "dead", GPL it. NES ROM sites have the same situation: they want it but can't get it by other means. Where else can you find Defender for the Atari 2600?
Almost noone tries to make a catalog of old software for historical records. Books have libraries, software has lawyers.
--
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance
-- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Defender for the 2600? Same place I've found the majority of my 2600 carts...thrift stores, garage sales and flea markets. Usually for $.50 to $1. NES carts are going for around $2 (or less). The systems themselves are not much more. I doubt I've spent over $20 for my NES and about 30 carts.
I don't see as much justification for pirating
carts as for software which is usually on much more fragile media.
What about if the original author decides to rerelease on budget/compilation? There have been plenty of "classic" games ported to the PlayStation (eg. Atari VCS, R-Type).
If there is a rerelease of the original, does it then stop being Abandonware? Will he take it off his site?
It seems from the article that no-one has actually bothered approaching the publishers about this. From quotes that I have read from various developers/publishers, most seem to be quite happy to let people release old games into public domain, as long as they are polite enough to ask first.
Many would probably be interested in seeing the response to these being made available, as they could see which old title it is worth rereleasing/porting.
3. Here's the real sticking point (which I'm also the most out-of-my-league about): if it can be proved that a copyright holder knowingly allowed someone to infringe on that copyright and did not take action to prevent it, then the rights to that material can be permanently lost.
IANAL, but... ...the kind folks from the SPA had a nice talk with me, which prompted me to do some research into the subject. Under the Berne convention, copyright does not need to be policed by the copyright owner. Trademark and patents, yes, copyright, no.
And there's the rub. Duke or Doom are copyrighted titles... but they're also trademarks. Not defending the copyright is the same as not defending the trademark. That's why publishers are so quick to take action when copyright infringement is brought to their attention.
Not patents either, although with patents, if you
violate my patent, and I don't sue in a timely manner, I lose the right to sue you, but don't lose the right to sue others.
Trademarks, yes, can be lost, but only by other people doing business under them. (e.g., if I copy your copy of quake, I'm just infringing the copyright, not the trademark, because I'm not using the quake logo to promote my business. Now if
i sold illegal copies, and used the quake logo,
I'd prolly be infringing on both their trademark and copyright.
The article links (through a redirect script) to http://www.abandonwarering.com/ as the main web page for the abandonware thing. It's got links to many warez sites, use at your own risk. Doesn't seem too legal to me, seems like they're making money off other people's work - it's got banner adverts.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Yeah, but I bet the banner ads don't even cover the cost of keeping the site up and running. They aren't making money, they're just losing money at a slower rate.
Disclaimer: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I seriously doubt that the 0.01 cent/visit you get from the banner ad will get you any profit after you pay your ISP.
I would love for you to show me a warez site on my listing. We constantly go over our listing to make sure we are only linking to abandonware sites, and we keep a updated list of titles publishers have begun selling again. Over the past year the list has been shrinking overall - I think the only addition has been the game's Interplay now sells in it's Forgotten Realms Archives Silver Edition.
Making money? Ha! We lose money every month, the banner's just there to help us pay for the servers.
It would be nice if software companies were required legally to place all obsolete, discontinued, or simply old software into the public domain (at least at the binary level -- source code would be super-cool, but that's not likely at all) 2-3 years after they stopped selling it. This would benefit scores of end users, at pretty much no cost to the company. The software publisher is no longer selling the product, so it's not like they are losing revenue from that particular version of the product.
At my school, for example, there are many students whose home computers consist of 486 and slower Pentium based systems, as well as a small cadre of users who are still using older PowerMacs (and a few clones). The vast majority of these users are simply interested in a machine that they can do simple word processing on. A 486-66 running Win95 rev. A ain't gonna be able to hack running Office 2000. These guys don't have the bucks to shell out for a newer machine (or an upgrade) so that they can run MS' latest bloated version of Word. Word 6.0 or WordPerfect 6/7 will suit them nicely, but guess what? They can't buy it anywhere, and if they copy someone else's, then they're suddenly a pirate in Microsoft's eyes . . .
I've tried to set a few guys around campus with Linux and AbiWord, but in most cases they've either gone back to Windows (Linux is too much for them to bother with, AbiWord doesn't do page numbers yet, etc.) or I end up doing 24/7 tech support for 'em. So that option, while it's inexpensive in terms of money, isn't really an option for folks who aren't as technically inclined as most of us.
The problem with AbandonWare (in the case of products like Word and WordPerfect) is that the 486 user that doesn't have the horsepower to run Office 2000, and copies her friend's old Word 6.0 to do simple word processing represents a potential sale to MS. And when there are thousands of potential sales that end up copying old software instead of shelling out whatever the latest version of Office costs ($300? I have no idea really . ..) then suddenly the suits start to worry. Sure, 50,000 users *not* buying a $300 software package that otherwise would buy it only represents a total of $4,500,000 to Microsoft, whose assets are far past that amount, but each chunk of revenue lost equals a hit to the bottom line.
And, in the end, it's the bottom line that counts to pretty much any company (at least the ones that want to stay in business). Microsoft doesn't really give a rip about whether Bob and Sue can afford to upgrade their computers to run Office 2000, or if they can't stretch their budget to buy Office 2000 itself. They care about money. Period. And, even though I use MS as an example throughout, I'm not just picking on them -- most large software companies are going to feel the same way.
On an entirely different note, it sure is fun to run across a copy of a game you played 10 years ago, and play it again though . ..
-------
--
/* "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind." */
It's not about whether they want to share - if they released it in the past, they've 'shared' it with the world already. We're talking about old games and programs that the authors can't or won't support anymore. It's like saying you don't want your little sister to glue the eyes back on to the rag doll you threw out 3 years ago.
I for one support abandonware - IF you're not making money off of it. Doing it in the Open Source spirit is perfectly fine, IMO.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Zero information decay and its impact ...
by
LL
·
· Score: 2
The whole fundamental basis of the current capital framework is the concept of depreciation of durable goods. You purchase an item, then you write off its cost over n years. Now if you are a manufacturing entity, you'd like to shift the equation towards more frequent purchases of lower-cost goods (amortise R&D base across wider spectrum) leading towards a consumer/throw-away mentality.
Now apply the same thinking to software, if your profit margin is in the first sale, then any activity which results in suppression of repeat sales of the next upgrade is to be severely discouraged. Entities like Microsoft have tacitly acknowledged this by noting that their biggest competitor is actually their old products.
Thus if your business model relies on forcing customers to go through an endless upgrade cycle (cough*Wintel*cough) the Internet is a threat because so long as there is one person with the passion and resources to keep a copy, others will be able to find it and offer some exchange/trade/resale. Think of web-rings, freshmeat and mirrors, all which collectively serve to persist information and minimise bit rot. This may not suit companies accustomised to high information decay rates as it forces them into a service model which is human intensive and because they've bid up the price of programming labor to insane levels in hiring software engineers to churn out the next killer-app, can't compete as service model requires a somewhat different skillset (more diagnostic and less development). Lower margins = less profits = collapsing share prices = pissed off investors.
As AbiWord CEO points out, "Users are tired of the crazy upgrade cycle which has become the norm for so many desktop applications", primarily because it puts the real cost of software in wasted time learning applications which may be deprecated in the next release cycle. From the software developers and distributors point of view, old software is also a disincentive for upgrading and thus their desire to shorten the half life of information or put time-limited licensing terms into their EULA.
OpenSource sorta gets around the problem as their real business is stability and interoperability, despite all too frequent plaintive cries that Unix is not "innovative" or "bleeding-edge". Until the marketing/advocacy people realise this and emphasise low "cost of repair/replacement", they will be perceived as at a disadvantage to "mainstream" software. However, despite similar functionality, it is a distinct business from licensing IP blocks (drag,drop,script) where all the value is retained by the manufacturer. Just like abandonware is not really a software distribution, it is in the nostalgia business. As such, it can probably carve out a small niche for its proponent provided he's smart to avoid copyright lawsuits, given that the majority of software purchasers have short-term memory (when did you ever come across a piece of non-gaming software that you really *enjoyed* using?).
LL
Re:Zero information decay and its impact ...
by
eflanery
·
· Score: 1
(when did you ever come across a piece of non-gaming software that you really *enjoyed* using?)
But Disney doesn't want to give 'Steamboat Willie' away, so every so often the copyright period gets upped. In related news, some US states are suing the cartel over CD price-fixing. When is the DOJ going to get off it's collective backside and apply the anti-cartel laws as vigorously as it has been applying the anti-trust laws to everyone's favourite monopoly?
The reason for this is involved with IIRC trademark law. If a trademarked character is in a work that enters the public domain, the trademark goes with it.
Disney can't afford to lose Mickey Mouse, and unfortunately we're all stuck suffering because of it.
-- --
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Cross Platform Compatibility?
by
hymie3
·
· Score: 2
What's the legality in purchasing a version of software for one platform and then getting a warez version of it for another version? For example, I legally own copies of the Zork series for the C-64. Can I legally run these games on my BSD box?
I can legally copy a tape of music onto a CD (or visa versa). Is there any relation between the music and software worlds as far as copyright is concerned?
Well as far as Zork is concerned you could extract the story file from the game and play it on a PC Z-machine interpreter perfectly legally, but otherwise in the eyes of the law it's illegal:-(
Ultima VII is completely ignored on the support front from Origin. They attempt to sell the game as a "Classics" package and knowing that the software will not likely run on a modern computer system. Rumors have it that the source to the game was lost a long time ago.
Have you guys seen Jeff Freedman & the Gang's "Exult" project?
Exult is a completely original port of Ultima VII to Windows & Linux and is nearly 80%+ complete.
Check it out at
http://exult.sourceforge.net
Hmm...Microsoft seemed rather against the whole abandonware concept...yet...when I go to the Abandonware Ring page...what do I see? An MSN ad banner.
I love it when stuff like that happens.
-- "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
id ahead of the the times
by
UnknownSoldier
·
· Score: 1
It's funny, that id has "allmost" doing abandonware for years now. Releasing sources for CW3D, Doom, and Quake.
DOS creator not that badly off?
by
daviddennis
·
· Score: 2
The conventional wisdom is a juicy story: Microsoft founder Gates buys DOS from Seattle Computer founder Tim Patterson (those names might be off a little, feel free to make a correction) for $ 55,000, MS goes on to make billions, and Patterson's company goes bust.
But if my memory serves, Patterson was hired afterwards by Microsoft. If he got the stock options normally offered at that time, he'd be pretty rich right now, thus giving his story a happy ending.
BSA - aka Bidouilleurs Sans Argent (Means something like Moneyless Hackers) - is a non-profit organization aimed at giving people free software : not only GPL'ed but also FreeWare and even "Official Abandonware".
We created it in France something like 2 years ago after long discussions that even involved Richard Stallman himself (co-author of the BPL - BSA Public License).
We gather all the related software on our Web Site (in French) and we actively harass Abandonware editors to let us publish their "old", though often useful programs.
Of course, this might look we have not gathered that much software but whatever we get we publish it and if you help us convincing editors there'll soon be loads to pick.
FYI, the BSA name comes from the fact that we remarked that the Business Software Alliance didn't have a legal existence in France : So, we just picked the acronym before them...
--
There's another class of abandonware, stuff that is activly published but whose developer (a different entity) doesn't want to know.
I've had a few cases where the software either had a serious bug, or needed modifying to adapt to some other change (such as a revised API). Getting the fix was impossible, yet the product was still being sold.
Any ideas on how to workaround this, other than hand-hacking the binary?
One of the reasons abandonment is not a problem with books is that there is a well-established library system. Almost all books of any significant interest or value are available for free loan. It might be interesting to establish a software library -- a web site where you could "check out" and download software the library had acquired. Then the library would not let anybody else download the software until you returned it, by visiting the web site and going through the return process, which marks the program returned and deletes the downloaded copy. If a patron did not return a program on time, the library would charge a late fee.
Libraries could easily acquire material through donations of old software. In fact, once the library had acquired its first copy of a program, additional contributors do not need to upload new copies; they merely need to tell the library they are donating their rights to the copy they have. "Click here to donate your copy of Zork to the library."
Nothing in this model prevents a person from copying the software while it is in their possession, but nothing in the book library model prevents that either. Lending libraries would not be useful for people looking for software to run regularly on their computers, but it would be useful for playing games and for working with old documents in obscure or no-longer-supported formats.
abandonware and its effects on
by
tenzig_112
·
· Score: 1
If "out of print" constitutes abandonment, then slow sales may be a sign of impending public domain. Someone might say that they don't want to go see a movie because they can wait for the rental - or a little longer for the abandonware.
-------------
today: What Would Deney Terrio Do?
http://www.ridiculopathy.com
The publisher will allways (ok 50-75 years) hold the rights to their software, games or otherwise. If they choose to stop supporting it, or to burn it, that doesn't give any rights away.
It will always be theft -- though a great convenience. if you download "abandonware", find out the original cost of the game, and make the donation to its creator -- sans interest and inflation. it won't be ekpensive, and it will be legal -- you one-day-to-be-screwed-back criminal bastards.
Isn't it amazing how so many of these "It's the Law!" posts seem to have no idea what the law actually is, especially in regard to time limits on copyright and the broad exceptions for fair use?
While it's amazing how many of these "It's the Law" posts are flat out wrong, it shouldn't suprise anyone. Many of them are posted by people paid to put out disinformation. In fact, the entire article is an example of disinformation.
Theft is illegal because it harms society as a whole. If I steal something physical from you I can't get as much for it with a fence as you could have gotten by selling it on the open market; thus the total wealth in society has decreased. A society based on theft would fail in a constantly spiraling decline of wealth as everyone stole from everyone.
Please note that there are people who do benefit from the theft of physical objects; the thief has and increase in wealth, and the manufacturer of the object benefits, since they get to sell another copy to replace the one which was stolen. This does not compensate for the direct loss of the victim, and the loss to society as a whole from the decrease in value of the original stolen object.
In the case of intellectual property just the opposite occurs. If I copy an existing disk the wealth of society INCREASES; there are now two copies of the original which can do more work than the previous existing copy could. Who loses? The owner of the disk does not lose, he still has his original copy. I benefit, I can now do something I couldn't do before. The only possible loser is the manufacturer of the software - who was deprived of an additional sale by my act of copying. Notice that I said the MANUFACTURER, not the CREATOR; there is a difference. Under the free market system the person who creates software is very rarely the person who benefits from the sale of that software.
Please note that in the case of physical theft the manufacturer benefits. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A MANUFACTURER COMPLAIN ABOUT BENEFITING FROM PHYSICAL THEFT. Have you? By failing to do so they lose the moral right to complain about the loss in sales caused by duplication of disks.
There is a critical difference between material goods and IP; in the digital world the digital equivalent of the 'Star Trek Replicator' exists, it is a CDROM burner or a floppy disk drive. Given a pattern to work from these can replicate the original. Think how much the economy would change if physical replicators existed. Manufacturing would become obsolete - each person with a replicator would in effect become a manufacturer.
What the software MANUFACTURERS want to do is to benefit from the fact that replication exists in the digital world while preventing everyone else from using their own replicators. Of course they do, if physical replicators existed physical manufacturers would try to keep people from using them while they got to use them to make outrageous profits.
Last year Microsoft had NET profits of 40% of sales. That is NET, not GROSS profits. The net figure comes after their accountants have pulled every trick in the book trying to reduce the number to minimize taxes. Microsoft's huge profit occur because they are using replication technology to build their product, it costs them less than a dollar to create a copy of a program which sells for hundreds of dollars.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
The free market system has worked well for us in the past when it comes to the manufacturing of physical goods. However it breaks down in the face of replication technology. We need to come up with a system which rewards the actual CREATORS of software instead of rewarding people who are using digital replicators to gouge the public for billions of dollars, while trying to deny to individuals the use of that technology.
I think the loss of security/privacy is a greater cost to society with respect to physical theft. I (and my friends/family) care a whole lot more about the fact that somebody was in my house than the fact that they stole my laptop.
With IP, there is a danger with stolen IP. For most small time IP producers (I'm thinking of authors and musicians), if their producers don't make money off their work, contracts will not be extended. I think widespread IP theft could very well hurt creators who don't have the financial backing of a M$. Society as whole would definitely lose out if it lost the IP that these creators would have otherwise developed.
-- The perception of reality is more important than reality itself.
That is why I distinguished between creators and manufacturers, the creators do deserve to be rewarded. It is also why I said we as a society need to come up with a system to reward them for their creations.
I can't believe an article with so many logical fallacies was moderated up.
>If I steal something physical from you I can't get as much for
it with a fence as you could have gotten by selling it on the open market; thus the total wealth in society has
decreased.
This is an incorrect analysis and a circular argument. It does not explain why we make theft illegal, because the reason a fence will not pay as much is because theft is illegal, so they have to discount their payment for the danger of getting caught. Theft actually damages society as a whole (that is, the gain to the thief does not balance the loss to the victim) because the thief only gains the property, but the victim loses the property and has to go to the trouble of replacing it and is not able to rely on their property being there day after day. So there is more loss than gain, and that is not even considering the damage that often accompanies theft and the disruption that occurs if people had to take it into their own hands to discourage theft without legal support.
>The only possible loser is the manufacturer of the software - who was deprived of
an additional sale by my act of copying.
The manufacturer is deprived of a sale only if you would have purchased a copy had you not been able to copy one. Such instances are a fraction of the total numbers of illegal copies made. (This just modifies the amount of the loss, not its existence.)
>Under the free market system the person who creates software is very rarely the person who benefits
from the sale of that software.
The fact that the future value of a piece of software was estimated and negotiated in a contract between publisher and creator does not mean the creator does not benefit from future sales. The fact that a market exists and can be estimated just means the creator can be paid in advance.
>By failing to do
so they lose the moral right to complain about the loss in sales caused by duplication of disks.
This is a non sequitor. Taking physical property and copying information are distinctly different acts, and failing to complain about the former in no way implies any lack of right to complain about the latter.
>Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which
Microsoft...
I hear compensation for software engineers in Washington state is pretty nice these days.
>We need to come up with a system which rewards
the actual CREATORS of software...
The issue of whether to permit copying of software in various circumstances has nothing to do with whether rewards go to the creators versus the publishers. Creators can negotiate compensation from publishers based on what the publishers reap from the market. Changing what copying is legal would change how much publishers make but would not fundamentally change arrangements between creators and publishers.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
If you divide Microsoft's R+D budget by the number of employees in R+D, you get over $300,000/year. You can only use so much equipment, so most of that must go to wages and benefits. You could feed a lot of chickens with that, and that doesn't include stock options.
Creators and manufacturers are not in equal bargaining positions: in business the golden rule applies: "He who has the gold, Rules".
If creators and manufacturers were in equal bargaining positions the creators would write about half of the contracts of which you speak, They don't write any. Their choice is turn over their work for what ever wages they can pry out of their employer, or starve. That is not much of a choice.
I can write on the subject of IP for hundreds of pages, I chose to shorten what I had to say about theft.
All arguments are circular if you take them far enough. As long as we are on the subject of logic, here is a little puzzle for you.
X/X = 1
0/X = 0
if X = 0 these two equations become identical and contradict each other.
Aristotle said "No thing can be both A and non A at the same time and in the same way". That is the postulate of identity which keeps contradictions from happening. I have presented an example of a contradiction. The ONLY conclusion you can reach is that Aristotle was WRONG.
Postulates are not logically defensible, they either stand or fall on their own. All that is necessary to invalidate a postulate is to show a counter example. I have done so.
By the way, don't try arguing that division by zero is not an allowed operation: that doesn't make the contradiction go away, it just sweeps it underneath the intellectual rug.
The correct postulate of identity is: "Accept in so far as something refers to itself, no thing can be both A and non A at the same time and in the same way."
If Aristotle had been correct Rand would have been correct. If Rand had been correct, you would be correct. He wasn't, neither was she, and neither are you.
The revised postulate of identity is compatible with the Yin and Yang nature of reality, Aristotle's original one is not. It is just as wrong as his belief that heavy object fall faster than light ones.
respecting copyright IS cooperation
by
adamooo
·
· Score: 2
> Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain.
> How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps along at all when nobody is willing to cooperate even minimally with others...
Looked at the right way, Copyrights (and all other laws) ARE an agreement to cooperate with each other. When you abide by the law because it's what you'd do anyway, it's worthless. When you abide by the law because it's the law, you are making a decision that the public good (being able to rely on certain rules of behavior) is worth sacrificing personal liberties (e.g. by not yelling "fire!" in a crowded room, or by not stealing music just because someone else CAN rip a CD and CAN post it on the web and you CAN download it for "free" (like beer)). Society CAN be tightly restricted by laws, but a basic level of law CAN insure that the majority of people have the elbow-room to live decent lives without someone sticking a gun in their face to get their wallet or selling bootleg copies of the CD their band works on.
Violating copyright is tresspassing on someone's Homestead (see ESR's page) on the Noosphere - people who care about software development should consider whether they think this is akin to tresspassing in their physical home. The answer will vary for each of us - but in some sense Copyright law does (or can) give each of us the right to make that choice (let people in - OSS; keep people out - traditional) just as physical property laws allow me to protect my home (or open it up, whether for a weekend party, or every day).
Re:respecting copyright IS cooperation
by
B'Trey
·
· Score: 2
When you abide by the law because it's what you'd do anyway, it's worthless. When you abide by the law because it's the law, you are making a decision that the public good (being able to rely on certain rules of behavior) is worth sacrificing personal liberties (e.g. by not yelling "fire!" in a crowded room, or by not stealing music just because someone else CAN rip a CD and CAN post it on the web and you CAN download it for "free" (like beer)).
Laws should be written to protect the individual, not to support the common good. It isn't wrong to yell "fire!" in a public theater because it protects the common good. It's wrong because my individual right to attend a theater in relative safely over-rides your right to free speech in that particular instance. If you obey the law solely because it's the law, you're making a decision to allow someone else to think for you. I refuse to do that.
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Oh Please...That was the worse discussion on Copyright I've ever seen. What was the purpose of the Chart on Piracy Loses - which in of itself is Bogus.
Copyright does not create property - it's a limited license.
I disagree that the article did a good job covering both viewpoints. Although it did mention both sides, it hardly did so in an unbiased way. At times, it said something like, "providing abandonware is illegal and infringes on the intellectual property rights of publishers and authors." Then it said, "The pirates claim that they are providing a service to the community." I hardly call that an unbiased report when one side is presented as fact, the other as a mere allegation.
Re:"Both ends" of the spectrum
by
Foogle
·
· Score: 2
I won't speak for the rest of the article, but the sentence you gave as an example was fairly unbiased, regardless of whether you agree with who it makes look better.
Providing abandonware, without permission, is illegal. You may not think it should be, but right now it is; that statement was as factual as possible.
The pirates do *claim* they are providing a service. That's not something you can really substatiate on -- Maybe it's a service, and maybe it's a morally reprehensible crime against intellectual property. You may think it's a service, but I guarantee you that the original game publishers don't think so. If you can dispute it, it's not a hard-line.
Didn't you ever cover opinion versus fact in fifth grade?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Pirated "Abandonware" for sale in British Shops
by
Contact
·
· Score: 2
I work in central London, here in the UK. Just yesterday I was in one of our larger record shops (HMV on Oxford Street) and was rather shocked to see a compilation CD for sale offering "over 3,000 ZX Spectrum games, plus emulators!" (I believe the Spectrum was marketed by Timex in the US?).
I seriously doubt that the manufacturer of this compilation had authorisation of the publishers for this collection. There were pretty much all the old classics on there, from numerous different software houses (some now long gone, some still here).
Naughty music retailer.:)
Re:Pirated "Abandonware" for sale in British Shops
by
Rico_Suave
·
· Score: 1
Were they selling it for a profit? I have seen C64 game compillations sold, but only for the cost of the media plus shipping. Not that big of a deal, IMO. What chaps my hide is people on ebay who auction off these collections on ebay, and ebay does nothing about it!
Another thing to consider, is that most emulator authors explicitly state that their emulators are *not* to be bundled with rom/disk/tape images
--
Re:Pirated "Abandonware" for sale in British Shops
by
Contact
·
· Score: 1
It was cheap enough that I doubt they were making much money off it (5 pounds, which is about 8 dollars). However, it was still certainly a commercial item.
I'm not particularly bothered by compilations of games that are all about fifteen years old, but if major corporations like HMV are prepared to profit from doing this, it seems a little unfair for FAST etc to start chasing private users who are mirroring old games with no intention to make money.
Purpose is to encourage DISCLOSURE, not creation
by
MacKay
·
· Score: 1
The purpose of copyright, and intellectual property rights in general (save for trade and service marks), is only part to encourage people to create. In theory, those who have a burning desire to create are going to create whether we encourage them or not, and whether or not society rewards them for doing so.
The other purpose of copyright, and other intellectual property rights (save for trade and service marks), is to encourage people to share their work so that society may benefit from the creations. By assuring the creator that s/he will be able to exploit the creation, economically or otherwise, for a limited period of time, theoretically the law encourages creators to share with society. Society then theoretically benefits from the disclosure of that information (can build on it, secure permission to create derivative works, be inspired to create something entirely new, etc.), and the creator is rewarded for sharing. If you do any research into the Statute of Anne, which was the first copyright statute, you'll find that getting creators to share their work was actually the dominant concern.
As an aside, even if you abandon your work, I believe (but could be wrong) that you are still entitled to the so-called "moral rights" under the Berne Convention. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview .html
Overall it was a well done article, providing insight into both views. However, my only gripe is the bit of propoganda in the form of the bar graph depicting the billions of dollars lost due to software piracy.
First of all, that bit of information has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand, and second, those numbers are greatly exaggerated.
For example, I would bet that the majority of people who posess a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop would be unwilling to fork out the money to actually purchase the program. They would find a much cheaper software solution that would meet their needs.
The numbers presented by the graph are grossly bloated. (Like many of programs and prices that the manufacturers offer consumers.)
A long while ago (but not that long ago) I acquired a customer who had a requirement that their C programs be compiled with Microsoft C 6.0. They had a DB library that wouldn't support any other compiler. At the time, MS had just started selling Visual C++ 2.0, which had a 16-bit compiler, but it wasn't compatible with 6.0.
I called Microsoft. They told me that I couldn't have 6.0, as they didn't sell it any more. However, if I copied 6.0 from my customer and bought VC++ 2.0 at full retail, they would turn a blind eye. Not that I could get that in writing, of course, but I had the personal assurance of the guy who answers the phones.
This actually sounds quite reasonable, until you realise how much more VC++ 2 cost than C6. IIRC it was about 4 times the price.
I can only say that abandonware (although it's the first time I've heard the term) is the only reason I have ever seen that justified pirating to me.
I still consider it pirating, but it's the only reason I've ever accepted as legitimate.
To sum up some of the other posts that think this is still morally wrong, we have to look at exactly what this is: published material that is relatively old and NOT SUPPORTED by the company that published it, and not sold by, or in anyway available from, the company that published it or anyone else.
Personally, I have a copy of Falcon 3.0 that I tried to install recently and one of the 3.5" disks (possibly more, since I didn't get past it) was corrupted. By RIAA standards, it's illegal for me to download somebody elses copy, even though for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
So there's a difference between intent of the laws and actual wording (and morality is a completely different issue).
Someone gave the counter argument that you don't legally have a right to not stop at a stop sign, even though you know no cross traffic is coming. That's true, that's the letter of the law, but the intent is to protect lives and allow traffic to proceed in a fair manner - and by not stopping (or coming to a complete stop), you are not violating the intent of the law. You are also saving gasoline and causing less pollution. Of course, a cop'll still give you ticket, because they are typically instructed to follow the letter of the law - it's not their place to determine what's right or wrong.
But who are we to judge when it's ok to violate the letter of the law? When it's so blatently obvious no one is coming (you can see for a good distance in all directions before getting to the intersection), and when the original copyright holders have no purpose in protecting something they no longer sell/support, I just don't see the problem. No counter examples really capture what's going on, here.
I agree with these "abandonware" people, and I WILL download Falcon 3.0 if I see it.
----------
Personally, I have a copy of Falcon 3.0 that I tried to install recently and one of the 3.5" disks (possibly more, since I didn't get past it) was corrupted. By RIAA standards, it's illegal for me to download somebody elses copy, even though for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
Is it really illegal? I don't think so, though IANAL. Assuming you bought the original disks from the company, you also purchased the right to use that software. Does it matter from where you get your particular version of that software? You have the right to use it, as dictated by the copyright license. If you download a copy of it from B0B'S W4R3Z, you are just retrieving a backup of the IP to which you have the right of use.
Quite frankly, I've never saw a license ala microsoft on game I bought... so it's still unclear to me we really buy a license to use in the case of games (I don't think such thing is implicit for software)
-- . . . . . . ... . . . . . ..
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
I certainly don't think so, but the RIAA victory over my-mp3.com sets a precedent that it is. That's how these corporate victories against consumer rights are can affect other areas as well.
To summarize, the my-mp3 system verified you had the physical CD, and then you could download already mp3'ed tracks from that CD. They lost against the RIAA because of the distinction that the copies the consumers were receiving were not copied from the CDs that the consumer purchased.
It's a ridiculous hair-splitting point, but the RIAA won.
----------
-- Stupid sexy Flanders.
Don't Require the CD to run...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
I've returned Diablo II 3 times already, because they decided to copy-lock their CD with a system that's incompatible with many of the newer CDROM drives, including my own.
I can copy the cd to get Diablo II installed, but unless I break the cd-lock system, I can't actually play the game.
Copy-locking has never been a good idea. It just insures that people who want to buy your product can't, and that when your product is pirated (because you know somebody is going to see it as a challenge) EVERYONE will want a pirated copy. Even the legal folks, just in case they ever purchase the product and actually want to use it...
Re:Don't Require the CD to run...
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
Starcraft and Broodwars are the worst I've seen. They install fine, but then they'll never recognize the CD in my system. I have two cd readers, and I installed from both, and it didn't work either time. When I downloaded their CD tester it declared my CD drivers were invalid, that I'd have to buy a new one to play their game...
So I went off to astalavista.box.sk and downloaded a crack.
I'll *never* buy a Blizzard game again, the email I sent them complaining about how their copy protection system kept me from playing their game went completely unanswered. I guess once they sell it, they don't care if it works or not... that doesn't get them anymore sales.
And it's not like I have an old PC, all the components are new. The oldest is my 2x DVD drive, the 48x CD drive I just got months ago. (And I tried to use my old SC/BW CDs in the new system.)
So, seeing as how much fun it was to be able to play without throwing the CD in, I went and cracked all of my games. Nothing currently requires the CD in the drive. It's wonderful.
(And in doing so, I researched a bit of the law... It's not illegal in any way to crack software. The exception being if you live in the USA, in a state that has ratified the UCITA, where the 'no reverse engineering or modification' clause is binding.)
So, take a lesson from this and simply crack all your games. Not only do they work better but you don't have to mess with keeping the CDs handy.
(Even Q3A cracked, and allows me to play online (with my legit CD Key)... I was impressed.)
Re:Don't Require the CD to run...
by
fedos
·
· Score: 1
(And in doing so, I researched a bit of the law... It's not illegal in any way to crack software. The exception being if you live in the USA, in a state that has ratified the UCITA, where the 'no reverse engineering or modification' clause is binding.)
Is legal if I use a crack that was not created in the US?
You neglected to state your Country of Residence
Re:Don't Require the CD to run...
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
I live in Canada.
For you, as a US resident, using a crack is completely legal, unless you fall afoul of the DMCA or the UCITA.
The DMCA will get you anywhere in the USA, but shouldn't get because the crack has a usefull purpose beyond breaking copy protection, it allows function on computer where the copy protection doesn't work. Considering the companies rarely do anything about this, they've lost the right to complain (I think, though a judge could be bribed to say otherwise.) Reverse engineering to facilitate compatibility is specifically allowed under the DMCA.
But, if you're in one of the states that ratified the UCITA, using a.CAB viewer on the install files is probably a violation of the 'No Reverse Engineering' clause...
So, it depends on where you live and if you have legitimates copies of the games... If you own legit copies and just crack them to play them better or get around a broken CD check, the DMCA can't touch you. If you sell the cracks as such, or are pirating, they can likely get you for another charge under the DMCA as well as regular copyright law.
The UCITA though, makes nearly everything illegal and provides that the software doesn't need to work, so by living in those states, you basically agree that buying an empty box that claims to contain software is just fine...
Re:Don't Require the CD to run...
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
Exactly, backups, where needed, aren't against the law.
What remains to be seen, is if it's against the law for companies to provide media you can't backup... In some cases, obviously not, they can provide a DVD game and it's not their fault it costs a lot to back up a DVD, but if they provide a CD with special laser marks burned into it and the game refuses to play off of any other disk, does that unfairly circumvent your right to make a backup copy.
I think it does, and that software companies shot themselves in the foot when they started ignoring requests to replace damaged media... That leaves no choice but to be stuck with a useless product or to make a backup as soon as it's received (or to make a copy of another identical program, as a backup for your broken one.)
Re:Don't Require the CD to run...
by
fedos
·
· Score: 1
The UCITA though, makes nearly everything illegal and provides that the software doesn't need to work, so by living in those states, you basically agree that buying an empty box that claims to contain software is just fine...
Well, I live in Rhode Island, a state that has not yet even looked at UCITA. As far as I know.
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw) and make sure you are the first one to claim the rights.
If the works were published in 1964, say, the earliest they would go out of copyright would be 2059. That's more than 30 years.
For works published more recently, it's generally is the lifetime of the author + 70 years. Works of corporate authorship are under copyright for the shorter of 120 years from creation, or 96 years from publication[1].
A work published today will most likely not enter the public domain until sometime in the mid-22nd century...
...that is, assuming copyright terms are not retroactively extended again as they have been consistently over the past few decades (c.f. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act).
Audio CDs have a lifetime of about 50 years. If people don't start making their own copies of things after they go out of distribution, very large chunks of our culture will begin dissapearing.
Excessively long copyright terms are producing the cultural equivalent of slash-and-burn agriculture[2].
[2] I am seriously considering voluntarily releasing my own works into the public domain after 14 years (the original term for copyrights) to combat this.
--
DNA just wants to be free...
Re:Purpose is to encourage DISCLOSURE, not creatio
by
MrBrklyn
·
· Score: 1
That's COMPLETELY wrong. The only purpose of Copyright is for the encouragement of the creation of creative works. This is EXACTLY the one and only reason expressed in the Constitution for the creation of the seperate Power of Congress to optionally give a Copyright if it so choose to.
If you create something and then intentionally remove it from the market to bring out something else, which will be forced on users, this is the very definition of Copyright Abuse!! It's immoral, and it's NOT legally defendable.
It's exactly want the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in regards to making sure Copyright was NOT an unlimited property right. And this is the most important point...obtaining a Copyright on a work of art does not create property!! See
Fair Use for a further education.
my original missive is simply me playing devil's advocate.
as for morality - i long ago gave that up. i think amoral would be the correct word.
yes, Laws are not perfect, but they are laws. maybe trying to change them before violating them would be nice. this argument is all ways thrown out when people feel that the status quo needs to change - ie change only happens because the brave have the guts to stand up to laws which are antiquated and out-of-step with the real world. ah - so we destroy a property right with legal context b/c they are somewhat out-of-date? we have courts, rules of law, and social norms which dictate that one should operate within the bounds of a legal society. if any yahoo could decide what he thought was right and then act upon it, we'd have a anarchy.
and to be frank, i trust few people. it should be harder for people to act in any way other than one that effects only them. so if this young man wants to pirate this software, fine. but to throw it up for public consumption? little to far for me.
-- /* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
Appealing to logic would be better
by
Morgaine
·
· Score: 2
You write: this is illegal.
So, you never exceed the speed limit because that would be illegal, right? Yeah, right. In reality, questionable laws don't get respected and don't get obeyed by anyone except sheep who are unable to distinguish right from wrong.
Any argument based on a statement of "this is illegal" is basically not a logical argument at all, but an appeal to authority. And "violating the publisher's/author's rights" is no better -- it presuposes that the case for rights is a priori granted or obvious, which may not be the case.
Here in particular such reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, because the very concept of intellectual prioperty is being re-examined in the light of the new realities of unlimited distribution and sharing on the net. What the law established in pre-Internet days is not necessarily right in today's world, any more than Victorian laws regarding horse-powered transport are right on today's highways. The law either adapts rapidly or it gets ignored.
-- "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw) and make sure you are the first one to claim the rights. After that you can do with the music whatever you want. Even sue others for violating the copyright on which you spended your hard earned money.
(emphasis mine)
This is just wrong on so many levels. Once a work is in the public domain, it's public domain. You shouldn't normally be able to copyright anything but your own derivatives of said public domain work.
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting holding onto the sole copy, and then leveraging copyright to extract licensing on copies of that, I think that's just morally reprehensible...
The fact that you reconize some is not allways because of the way the music is composed. In most cases its due to the fact that the company is using music which is more then 30 years old.
Usually that means that the music has been licensed from the original publisher, not that the copyright has expired.
... you know, I just realized you're in Norway. [Sorry, American arrogance strikes again:/] I may be completely off base, then, but I sincerely hope Norwegian copyright law isn't as twisted as you make it sound to me (although I daresay 30 year terms aren't bad)...
In any case, as regards copyright terms, international law is slowly serving to synchronize copyright terms in various countries (which was one of the contributing factors to the US extension). I'm not sure you will be able to rely on 30-year terms for long.
--
DNA just wants to be free...
Re:Resurrecting Abandonware [and Demos!]
by
Knos
·
· Score: 2
If only they still had the source code or the developement environment to run/compile the software!
Actually we have the same problem in the demo scene, old demos are very hard to watch as most emulators fail to cope with the kind of tricks a demo needs. And we still don't have any decent 8086 emulator which would emulate the Gravis Ultrasound, a necessary step to be able to watch the old pc demos!
Of course if we had the sources for those demos we may be able to port them, but this demos are the kind of productions where the binary is really the end product..
It would be really sad if this part of the modern culture disappeared in such way..
-- . . . . . . ... . . . . . ..
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
Yeah, it is just you. Because the cybersquatters have not created anything, therefore they deserve no consideration and have no rights to a particular domain name. Software developers, on the other hand, DO have the rights to whatever they have created, regardless of how old it is.
--
Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful
by
skoda
·
· Score: 2
This is an interesting issue. Like every other high school student with a computer, I pirated games (for my Atari 800XL:) I gave that up in college, suspiciously close to the time that I began working summers as a paid developer. So now I am reflective as I consider the non-legal distribution of software from my childhood.
If a company made a non-expirable contract with a buyer to replace software media, they ought to live with it (especially if us consumers gotta live with their EULA's). If this is not fulfilled, the "legal" recourse would be to sue. Since suing over $1 in media is not tenable (it's downright stupid), the more reasonable recourse is to just download the software. Not legal, really, but I think it is ethical.
But that only applies to previous purchasers. What about those who download it, never having paid for it, claiming that it's abandoned, making no money, and thus should be freely dessiminated?
The financial argument doesn't hold, since "abandonware" can become "commercialware" quite easily. Since someone had the copyrights to PacMan, Centipede, Frogger, etc, Microsoft (I think) was able to acquire them and release their "retro" gaming packs a couple of years ago, selling "abandonware" games for profit. Likewise, Hasbro was able to purchase them, make new versions, and sell them. Further, copyrights can be used (or sold) so that a sequel can be made, e.g. Syndicate. If the copyrights were thrown out after some short period of non-use, then everyone and their brother could resell, remake, or sequel-ize the games, which I don't think is a good thing.
Whether it is a good, bad, or ugly thing that copyrights can be held, sold, utilized, and employed to sequels, is perhaps the real issue, since this is relevant to movies, books, and other things, as others have pointed out.
Re:Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful
by
Luminous
·
· Score: 1
Would there have been a demand for re-releases of PacMan, Asteroids, etc. if there weren't all those hacked copies around? Eventually, people like myself, get tired of the cracked copy and want something substantial. This is what had led me to buy SimCity classic -- after playing it for free off the web. Nevermind I have enough other Sim games to keep my happy, nothing scratches an itch like some of those older games.
But would I have realized I had that itch if I didn't get a chance to play SimCity classic again?
I doubt it. It wasn't until my girlfriend brought over her old Atari game system that I had a desire to play Dig Dug and Pitfall. In the entertainment world a demand has to be created. No one is sitting around dying because they can't play Hunt the Wumpus.
-- This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Re:Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful
by
TrentC
·
· Score: 2
Further, copyrights can be used (or sold) so that a sequel can be made, e.g. Syndicate. If the copyrights were thrown out after some short period of non-use, then everyone and their brother could resell, remake, or sequel-ize the games, which I don't think is a good thing.
Why not? People wouldn't have to wait for a commercial developer to decide it's financially viable to re-release a game, or to make a sequel.
I bought a copy of Tomb Raider (yes, the original Tomb Raider) for my fianceé when I got my PC a little less than a year ago. Guess what? It looks horrible on my Diamond Viper 770! No 3D! I can't find any kind of patch for Direct3D or for my particular card. (If anyone knows of such a patch -- or even an *gasp* unofficial hack -- I'd love more information.)
Eidos seems unwilling to support the product which I have already purchased -- but I bet they'll be willing to sell me "Classic Tomb Raider" in another five years, all updated for whatever version of Windows...
Jay (=
Re:Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful
by
skoda
·
· Score: 1
I was expecting this sort of comment:)
You raise a good point. There are a couple of reasons, I think, that it is good to prevent others from using copyrighted work willy-nilly.
1) Prevents others from building their work on the backs of the original author - this goes for all media, not just games.
2) Protects the public perception of the property. Copyright & trademark laws give artists the power to protect their work from undesired manipulations that could potentially hinder future marketability of products based on their works. e.g. If someone sold a game where you play Mickey Mouse and the point is shooting Minny Mouse, Donald Duck, etc., people might not realize it's not a "sanctioned" product, and thus could hurt Disney's marketing of its characters.
3) Relevant to maintaining trademarks. If a trademarked name becomes a generic word for that general category of process or product, the trademark is lost, and anyone can use it. This is why e.g. Xerox works hard to distinguish a "Xerox" machine and the photocopy process. I imagine if people could use "abandonware" images & sounds without limitation, it might negatively impact trademarks.
Consider - Infocom games could have been considered "abandonware" a few years back. But then Activision revived the Zork series for a while with new graphical versions, and also sold compilations of the original text games. By possessing the rights to the works, they could market so-called abandonware, and have recourse to stop others who would give it away for free (and thus hurt their sales).
I don't think that it is necessarily in an artist's or company's best interests to hold copyrights to apparently dead works. But I think they should have the ability to do so.
Re:Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I found an original, still shrinkwrapped copy of SimCity recently in a thriftstore. It's identical (presumably, I am not breaking the shrinkwrap) to the copy I purchased back in 1989(?) when it first came out. Presumably it has the piece of dark brown paper with the black ink lookup table of difficult-to-describe symbols on it that served as the copy protection key. I may try to sell it on eBay someday in the future. It was quite satisfying to find it at a thrift store for $1.80.
The original copy protection is broken, btw (and not just with the binary hack....) With a good platen scanner, you can 'tune' the setting enough that the black-on-brown comes out quite clear and printable.
Not that I'm on topic or anything...
The right of future exploitation.
by
dbrower
·
· Score: 1
Let's ignore for the moment the specifics of programs, and go back to the out-of-print book analogy. The book is out of print; the publisher has folded; the author died in a car crash. Why not scan it, or run it through the copy machine?
The traditional argument is that the rights didn't vanish -- they probably fell to the author's estate, the one that is trying to keep three cute little kids and a puppy out of the poorhouse and pay for the operation for the dread disease. Unauthorized copies floating around possibly dilute the market for future versions, should something turn up. Maybe Kubrick rises from the dead and adapts it as his next film, and their are suddenly publishers wanting to put out a new edition with a 7 figure advance.
Yes, it's true that the work might get lost if the rights holder doesn't do a proper job exploiting the opportunities. Or, perhaps, is embarrased by the work and wants it surpressed. That's done, you know, and it's within the copyright holders' rights.
Returning to programs, the opportunities to commercially exploit older programs seem to be thinner than old books. Of the genres most likely to be exploitable, entertainment software seems highest. By analogy, it's entertainment books that are most likely to be exploitable after several lifetimes, not non-fiction (functional) works. See also movies and sound recordings, which have turned out to be more valuble than rights holders imagined (esp. old movies).
My feeling on abanonware is that it is right to seek some kind of approval from the rights holders. There -always- is a rights holder, though possibly difficult to locate.
I'd agree that in general copyright is too long. On the other hand, every now and then you get a story about some descendant of the author of an ancient work getting a pile of royalties long ago filched by some slimy intermediary. This might have been all the money long due someone who got screwed 80 years ago. The case of bluesman Robert Johnson is an case in point. A now old-man who is probably Johnson's only son has just gotten slice of the rights to the songs written a very long time ago.
-dB
-- "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Virgin Interactive was working on a Playstation 4-player fighting game called "Thrill Kill." Like the name suggests, it's gorier than Mortal Kombat even (yep, it gets pretty silly...)
Electronic Arts (I think,) bought Virgin Interactive, decided they didn't want a game like that being released under their name, and canned it... a week before launch.
I have downloaded this game (don't ask how, you can find anything on the net,) and I found that it only has a couple of minor bugs, and obviously a lot of work was put into it.
Now, do you think it was wrong to download, because the original programmers aren't getting royalties for every copy sold, and the company doesn't want the game out?
...or do you think it was acceptable because the game was never released anyway, so there's no loss to the company? Also that the programmers are probably proud of their work, and wouldn't want it wasted?
I'm not looking for justification to download it, I've already made my choice... but what does the/. community at large think of this?
Re:Thrill Kill: A strange case
by
scorbett
·
· Score: 1
As a programmer, I would say that I would much rather see a game that I wrote being pirated than to see it be buried and forgotten by some prudish corporation. The knowledge that someone out there is enjoying the product of my hard work is more important to me than whether or not I receive royalties.
However, I can also see the business perspective. Image is everything in the business world, and if you don't want a certain product to be released with your corporate logo on it, that is your prerogative. I've never seen the game you mentioned, but it sounds as though it could draw a lot of criticism from "concerned parents" and/or religious nuts. Most corporations like to avoid negative publicity wherever possible.
All things considered, though, I don't think that what you did was morally or ethically wrong. Just my $0.02.
Actually, its really a good idea. Consider the fact that as software ages, it slowly becomes bloatware. Especially apps such as word processors, spreadsheets, stuff along those lines. Noone wants to run a piece of bloated software, especially if the older version did everthing that you needed it too. Who needs Star Office when we have vi? Of course, games should be as bloated as possible to provide the maximum sensory intake overload!
Intellectual Property Conservancy
by
EricEldred
·
· Score: 3
Many posters comment that Abandonware sites are technically illegal. So here's a plan. Provide an incentive for copyright and patent owners to donate their works to the public, in return for a tax deduction. Don't steal the works, pay for them.
Set up an Intellectual Property Conservancy that is a non-profit, educational, publishing corporation. Donations of intellectual property could be tax-deductible (Congress could even make the tax deduction higher than normal for a superincentive, or provide a monetary incentive in lieu of tax deduction). Accept donations of copyright, online publication rights, source code, patents, trademarks, books, software, development environments, the whole lot.
When a company finds the income from an old work no longer makes maintenance worthwhile, then they can donate it to the public domain and the rest of us will distribute it and support it for free (or even for money). They will have an incentive to consider this, and if the company goes under the creditors will probably force it, since otherwise they would not get money back.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution wisely set up a balance between the rights of authors and inventors, and the public domain, by limiting copyright term and recognizing fair use rights. However, copyright term in recent years has been extended far too long. While it started at 14 years, now it is 95 years for a work made for hire (in other Berne Convention nations, it is 70 or 50 years after the author's death).
The copyright holders (mostly big publishers) howled that they needed protection for more years, because works had value that long. This is doubtful, but if it is true, then surely the copyright holders will get behind this plan, and find a way to realize more profits.
Since the public is the one to benefit, the public should pay. A difficulty with previous ideas is that the government does a bad job of setting prices for public goods. Okay, I say let the normal process of the market or fair appraisals, as is done today with tax deductions, be used instead.
Richard Stallman has pointed out that it might be immoral to reward those who take out software patents, for example. It might be considered like paying money to redeem a child from slavery. So there is room for a lot of debate and discussion on the issue. What do you think? Can you help get the services of a tax lawyer to vet this plan?
Re:Intellectual Property Conservancy
by
TrentC
·
· Score: 2
So here's a plan. Provide an incentive for copyright and patent owners to donate their works to the public, in return for a tax deduction.
It's kind of sad when we have to have this conversation, given that the whole point of copyright and patent was to provide incentive for people to create in return for their eventual release into the public domain.
In other words, imagine having the following conversation:
So here's a plan. Provide an incentive for the house painter you paid to paint your house this week, in return for a tax deduction.
Silly, ain't it?
Copyright holders have gotten their due from the system; they have control over the works they have "created". (The term is used in quotations since it's often a record label or publisher, not the actual creator, that enforces the copyright.)
But when it comes to living up to their end of the agreement, we instead get Sonny Bono copyright extensions, films being destroyed as they near the end of their copyright term, and everyone cries "oh, think of the author's heirs" and "shouldn't authors be compensated for their hard work?"
Jay (=
Re:Intellectual Property Conservancy
by
EricEldred
·
· Score: 2
we instead get Sonny Bono copyright extensions
Well, I am fighting that battle too, with a lawsuit against the Copyright Term Extension Act. See the OpenLaw site and add your comments.
It is sad, but maybe we can use some judo on the system to turn it to good ends.
Some old software has been published for free. For example, Visicalc, Borland C, even Microsoft Word 5. But what we need is to have the source code go back into the public domain so the public can benefit from it. Then the ideas can be reworked by the next generation and better products developed from it.
So we need an incentive to accomplish this. Simply publishing or stealing the object code is not enough. Of course, it would have been better if the Copyright Office had required registration and deposit of the entire source code, but it hasn't. So we need to develop some private institutions that can perform the way the Framers intended, and reinstitute the idea of copyright as a way to produce more for the public good.
Paradroid, was: Re:Respect the authors
by
Skorpion
·
· Score: 1
There is a open source remake of Paradroid for Linux. It is called Nighthawk. As usual, debian package listing got helpful.
Alex
OK. If an individual owns a copyright, the copyright will remain in effect 70 years after their death (for now--I'm sure they will increase this again). Now, if a corporation (an artificial entity that is given certain rights as if it were a person) goes out of business, isn't this the same thing as death? The only difference is that a person, after dying, has an estate that can continue to claim profits; a corporation does not have an estate--it simply ceases to exist. Therefore, if the corporation goes out of business, and they have no estate, the copyright ceases to exist as well. Can someone (possibly even a lawyer) comment on this? What is the legal viewpoint of a corporation that ceases to exist? Do they have an "estate"?
While the right to make archival recordings is well-established, this is largely a digital phenomenon: No one would say that I have the right to make duplicates of out-of-print vinyl albums simply because they're not available any more.
Now that copying is trivial, we all of a sudden see it as our right and duty? Please.
Personally, I think anything that has been out of print for an extended period of time should be fair game, but that's not likely to happen.
See the spirited discussion that's taken place on thejudys.com (a great 80's band that barely had a presence in the record stores to start with, and so very hard to find) for more on the issue of whether it's OK to copy even things that are flat impossible to get hold of.
-- "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last./ post
Corporations thrive on scarcity.
by
JCCyC
·
· Score: 1
Just imagine that mannah (sp?) starts falling from the sky, just like in the Bible. Edible, tasty, with high nutrition value, cholesterol-free mannah. What would McDonald's think of it? Would they like it? Hell, NO! More probably they'd lobby for a law making it illegal, then secure exclusive right to themselves somehow. McMoses or something like that.
Anything that solves some kind of scarcity (be it food, music, software, books, clothes, whatever) is bound to piss off some big corporation. If people can eat/read/play all they need/want for free, why buy? Doesn't matter if the game is old or new, if the food is burger or veggies. There's only so much space in your stomach / time for playing / body surface to wear.
What does all that mean? The bottom line is, corporations wish our ill-being, period. That doesn't make them "evil" in the Biblical sense, that's just the way they are. Just like a hungry shark can't help but eat you if you're floating around.
The natural solution, therefore, is to fight back. Either with the Law or with other means (boycotts, political activism etc.)
1. Not being able to get an old piece of software is like not being allowed to fab a part for a classic car. My prefered model for software has always been "software as product" where we simply treat it as a physical, destructable product, even though it isn't. Now, since the company that oroginally made the product is no longer manufacturing it, and refuses to do so, I believe it's fair game to allow others to "fab parts" as best they can.
This, by the way, is the same reason I hate Microsoft's EULA. Not being allowed to move Windows to another box is like not being allowed to pull a Chevy V8 and put it in another car.
2. If the authors aren't selling, they aren't losing money. In this case, the only argument they can make that they are losing money is that it interferes with their planned obsolecence plans. That's a poor excuse.
Another reason I side with abandonware is that I'm sure there have been many companies that have been bought for some reason, and then the purchaser decided they didn't want to develop the product.
If we want to extend the whole "piracy on the high seas" analogy, there is a precedent in maritime law. IANAL, but aren't people allowed to "salvage" ships abandoned at sea? I think this is very similar.
Now, how could we legislate to make abandonware legit?
Well, the five year rule is one good guideline. I would also say that the distributors of abandonware should not be allowed to sell it for any more than the cost of distribution. If the original manufacturer decides to start selling it again, they should be allowed to re-start sales at no more than the original retail price of the package, and the abandonware distributor should cease and desist.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
That's completely Bogus.
Advocates of redefining Copyright Law to a new definition of absolute property, which is NOT what it is currently, it's a VERY limited license it subject to Fair Use, love to talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Yeah - Software is Art, blah blah blah, the Artist's need to have control, blah blah blah. What a bunch of bull.
They come to the public and talk up the rights of the creators and then they talk to Congress to pass copyright laws which take the ownership of the Copyrighted material away from the artist who are descibed as mear "Employees". It's reached a point where the artist doesn't even OWN any part of the work, and never ever will.
I'm sick of the double talk. If we're protecting artist, then we should END corperate ownership of Copyright and restrict it to the Artist. Then the Artists will stop being ripped off by the same companies running around fighting for "the right of the Artist" under copyright, which they've managed to legally reduce to Artists having their work ripped off, lock stock and barrel by Time Warner sharks.
I was not talking about *copying* Windows. I was talking about *moving* windows. The EULA does not even allow you to even *move* Windows, even if you agree to forfeit tech support.
As for the rest of what you are saying, I am not saying that the authors forfeit rights to their work. Notice that I said the abandonware distributor can make *no* profit, and must cease and desist on order of the author.
I fully agree with the "don't buy, don't get" concept, but what we have is a situation where certain distributors are taking the ability to buy out of that equation. That is no better than price-fixing
The larger issue here is planned obsolescence, which has never been dealt with as a legal issue as far as I know. REPEAT: I DO NOT EXPECT PEOPLE TO JUST GIVE AWAY THEIR WORK.
There are very good reasons "abandonware" should not be expected to be free.
1. We are not talking about source code here. Abandonware is binary only. If source were available, people would be maintaining it via patches, and there would be no issues.
2. Waiting until a package no longer makes money to take it would *not* damage the profit motive, because by definition, the profit motive is already gone. Notice that I asserted the right of the author to issue a cease and desist and resume sales whenever they want. Alternatively, destributors could be allowed to sell the product simply by sending a standard royalty to the author/publisher without a contract. DO YOU REALLY STAND IN DEFENSE OF PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE???
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Here's A Shocker.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Your points on abandonware being binary only is wrong. Software can be reverse engineered back to the source.
And waiting for a product to longer make money *does* hurt the possibility of future profit. Who's to say that they may not want to re-release their product at a later date? You are assuming they never will. Countried develop at different paces. Where we are running 32 bit stuff, Africa may be still in 386/486 days. You are saying they should give up their rights to make money in other markets.
In fact I do stand in defense of planned obsolescene, as you put it. Why would they forever need to support an old product? Once again, just because it's not supported doesn't mean it's now free. You bought it, if you want to upgrade then do. If not, keep using the old stuff. Nowhere does it say in any license that you *must* upgrade.
No company is ever expected to continue to sell the same version of a product indefinately, nor support old products. Time and technology change things. Occasionally secondary sources will support older products, so you just have to make a choice as a consumer. You either upgrade, or stick with what you've got.
Most Windows users have OEM versions, not full retail.
Here is a direct quote from the OEM license to Windows95: "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a sale or transfer of the COMPUTER..."
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm not advocating turning abandonware into "free as in speach" software.
Exactly how could you interpret my statements as saying they should give up rights in other markets? I said nothing of the sort.
Where did I say anything about support? Support is not the issue. Sales is the issue.
I'm not saying that this piracy shouldn't be stopped either. Under the current legal framework, it's illegal. I *am* saying that we should look into revising the law so that the phrase "you can't get that anymore" becomes less common.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Do you see how silly that is? Imagine walking into a car dealer, and you have to agree to a contract saying you will never remove the engine and put it in another car. If you want an engine that you are allowed to remove, you can buy another engine and put it in the car, but you cannot buy a car without an engine. Instead, you must throw the OEM engine away.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
No. As I read it (and I admit I may be quite wrong) they are saying the engine cannot be sold independently of the car.
And computers (unlike cars and their OEM engines) can be purchased sans OS.
Which is something I insist on doing - this discussion notwithstanding Microsoft have now required OEM producers to physically "lock" distributed OEM "engines" to the computer models they ship in.
This clearly bites. What the EULA giveth... what the EULA doeth not taketh away explicitly, the OEM agreement taketh away.
*sobbing* I thought there were no sane people left on Slashdot, they were all here 2 years ago, but then I looked around and they were gone...thank god you finally showed up. Save me! --
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
What the interviewer should have done
by
JCCyC
·
· Score: 1
MS Drone says in the article:
Piquette says Microsoft does not differentiate between abandonware and traditional software piracy and will pursue both with equal vigor.
- OK, I want a copy of Windows 3.11. No, I don't want Windows 98. No, I don't want Windows 2000. I want Windows 3.11. Here's US$ 100,00 (waving Ben Franklin). What should I do?
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
Luminous
·
· Score: 1
You are right. I wonder what M$ would do if they started getting ten requests for a piece of software they refuse to support or distribute.
DOS 6.0, please.
-- This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
Lordfeff
·
· Score: 1
You're so wrong... Nothing microsoft makes is art:)
-- We're all a bunch of glorified monkeys.
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
JCCyC
·
· Score: 1
You're so wrong... Nothing microsoft makes is art:)
Ha! Couldn't have answered better myself. By the way, that AC failed to spot Ben Franklin waving in the air and insisted on saying "why should them give it away". Is this what you Americans call a "straw man"?
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
Lordfeff
·
· Score: 1
So if I defecate in my bathroom, that's art?
-- We're all a bunch of glorified monkeys.
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
ODiV
·
· Score: 1
I saw a copy of Windows 3.11 on sale at a local computer store a couple of months ago for around $80 Canadian. I'd be happy to ship it to you.
Re:What the interviewer should have done
by
JCCyC
·
· Score: 1
> I love puzzles!
> Is that jcastro@appi.com.br up there?
> Or is it jbatista@apapproximationforpi.com.br?
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create. If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
Let's say that's true, and it's violating the spirit of the law to enforce copyright in these cases. Unfortunately, the law needs to be enforced according to how it's written, not on a case by case basis where every instance is sent to a judge to decide where the benefit to society lies. It's simply not possible to run a legal system that way.
Part of the entire problem is the ever-increasing "limited period of time" that keeps getting tacked on copyrighted/patented works. The letter AND spirit of this law is for TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM protection. After this period, it loses its protections.
There should be no more protection to perpetuity (practically speaking) or protection beyond the grave. I think a reasonable time period for protective cover is 7 to 10 years. After that, it belongs to everyone and anyone. If you can't benefit from your creating in that period of time, then you are simply not going to. Move on, create something NEW, let go of the old.
-- In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Laws also need an easier review process where if a case comes up that is against the spirit of the law but follows the letter of the law, that law could be rewritten.
This isn't to say that we should all follow the spirit of laws and never the letter, but today it's seeming that the spirit of the law is lost...
The RIAA mde one little wording change to a barely-related bill and classified recordings as works-for-hire.
Disney/MPAA/etc are extending copyrights until they're past the lifetime of the average citizen. (Currently 75 years, male life expectancy is 73 in the USA, last I heard...) If something was written when you were born, it'd still be copyrighted the day you died, in an average case.
The DMCA was supposed to stop piracy, but was written in such a way that it makes any attempt to circumvent the illegal sale restrictions (region coding, forced commercials, etc) illegal.
It's hard to have any respect for the laws when they're obviously written for the sole benefit of the people who pay to have them written.
I agree with you and the guy below -- my point is that the answer is to make changes in the law, not to enforce the law selectively according to who you think deserves its protection.
Disney/MPAA/etc are extending copyrights until they're past the lifetime of the average citizen. (Currently 75 years, male life expectancy is 73 in the USA, last I heard...) If something was written when you were born, it'd still be copyrighted the day you died, in an average case.
I'd respond in more detail but I'm busy trying to erase an image from my mind -- a bunch of 76-year-old women in the future firing up Napster. "At last, I can download that Kid Rock album!"
Unfortunately, the law needs to be enforced according to how it's written, not on a case by case basis where every instance is sent to a judge to decide where the benefit to society lies. It's simply not possible to run a legal system that way.
This only says that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Of course it's easier for a judge to rule by the letter but the intent of the law is in its spirit.
Am I the only one to question why all the laws are written in such a complicated language? The US constitution is a simlpe one, made to be comprehensible by anyone: why do we have now laws that are so complicated that we need a lawyer to interpret them for us?
A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).
It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)
--
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible."- Alan Kay
I don't know about anyone else...
by
Zarniwoop
·
· Score: 1
Here's my experience.
I bought Privateer way back when it was a new game. A lot can happen over the years, and I got two new computers and managed to loose the disks. I still have the box, the manual, but no disk.
I found a copy of it on an 'abandonware' page. I feel entirely justified downloading it, since I bought the software originally. Can I not download a copy of a game I already own? Or perhaps Origin is going to get me new binaries. Yeah, right. I even looked around on their site for a place to order it as a classic game. Didn't find it- even though they have a page advertising it here, they don't seem to sell it anymore, and I only found that after doing a google search.
Am I wrong?
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
I agree a re-release puts the abandonware issue on uneasy ground. But a re-release would/should include some updated code tweaks or other stuff to give it value.
The question comes up as to why it is being re-released? Where did the demand for the product come from? Most likely it is because people have been using the abandonware but want to 'own' it again.
If I had a nickle for every game I've purchased for my TI-99/4a and my C-64, I'd have a hellava lot of nickles, my friends. I've purchased these games once, if I can find them for my Windows machine, then I'm getting them. If the programmer does the work for me and does a compilation of the games, I'm all over it.
I feel the ball is in the producer's court. If a demand is there, fill it. If the demand isn't enough to make a profit, then let it grow through the abandonware and then capitalize upon the free marketing the game has been getting.
At the end of this year, Microsoft will drop all support for Windows 95. You will no longer be able to get upgrades or patches. Calls to their support line on Windows 95 related issues will no longer be answered. In my humble opinion, that is abandonment. My company has 8,000 users of Windows 95. We cannot possibly upgrade them all in five months. Even if we could, it's going to be very expensive. $80-some times 8,000 . . .
If they're going to do it, this action ought to null and void the copyright. After all, we the consumers paid something for this shit. We are entitled to value for what we bought, and forcing us onto the upgrade treadmill ought to put them in court as surely as if they were running a price-fixing scheme. But as the clueless posts of "it's the law" continue to mount, it becomes clear to me that the consumer in this country is no longer entitled to a pot to piss in a pay toilet. Only the corporation is entitled to a profit.
Original Length of Copyright
by
Deven
·
· Score: 4
Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.
The U.S. Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a 14-year duration (a quite reasonable timeframe and a good balance of author incentive vs. public good), with another 14-year optional extension (in the 14th year), for a maximum of 28 years, which is plenty of time to capitalize on a creative work. (Especially when you consider that businesses usually make their plans based on expected returns within 5 years or so!) Works had to be registered with the Copyright office to receive protection; many works entered the public domain directly because the author didn't bother to register the copyright.
Copyright has been extended many times since then for the further enrichment of the rich, with no consideration given to the balance inherent in the "bargain" between the author and the public that copyright is supposed to represent. It's been twisted into an entitlement in many people's minds, a tool to enrich a few at great cost to the public. Copyright extensions (especially the last one) are enacted to preserve corporate profits (and the GNP), public be damned. It's a gross perversion of a system that was originally designed to benefit the public, not to enrich authors and "IP" owners.
--
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible."- Alan Kay
The only problem I had with the article was the it went on to talk about how much money is lost due to piracy. Granted, a whole lot is lost, BUT, if say a game, or work processor hasn't been available for purchase in the last 10 years, have they lost any money when it's copied? I don't think so.
I believe that if a company wishes to maintain their copyright on some software, then publish archive CDs of all your all apps every now and then so we can get a hold of them.
(Personally, I think the source code for all of the really old programmes should be made available too! The program is not being used commercially anymore, let's use it for some educational purposes to look at techniques on how things were done)
-- ---
I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Now this is an interesting litmus to determine if software is truly abandoned, and give Microsoft and other large companies a way out. Essentially, for software to keep its copyright, the company has to show it has published it every five years.
It would almost be like Disney and its movies. Microsoft could publish Windows 3.1 every five years, demonstrating it has maintained an active commercial interest in the product, while giving anyone who wants/needs it (hey, I still have a 386) a chance to get a copy of it.
Software that can't find someone to release it in a five year time is abandoned. Then some amount of bickering can be done for a company to 'reclaim' the rights, but that is for the lawyers to figure out.
-- This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
The best kind of abandonware is *source*
by
DG
·
· Score: 2
Far better than just posting the binaries, it would be _fantastic_ if some of these abandonware sites could contact original authors and get _source code_ released.
Why emulate, when you can port?
Is there any example of such a thing ever happening, outside of ID's sourcing of Quake/Quake2/Doom?
Copyright is a two way street
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 2
Movie companies usually destroy films when
the copyright expires rather than allow them
to enter the public domain.
How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps
along at all when nobody is willing to
cooperate even minimally with others...
Looked at the right way, Copyrights (and all other laws) ARE an agreement to cooperate with each other.
It is the movie studios that are not abiding by the copyright law, by destroying movies as they enter the public domain rather than adhere to the other side of copyright law (the other side of the "contract" if you prefer), namely that eventually such material over which they enjoyed such exclusive priveleges would enter the public domain and enrich us all. Instead, they are deliberately destroying stuff which has entered the public domain. In a sane society, this kind of behavior would be punishable as an act of vandalism against all of us.
Compared to the movie industries systematic misuse and abuse of the copyright system, even the damage done by those consumers who do violate copyright is minimal. Destroying old, valuable footage rather than giving it over to the public domain as is there obligation is merely the most flagrant and appalling example of an ethical and moral bankrupcy which infects that industry at virtually every level.
The diminishment of our culture by such greed is an outrage of dimensions seldom achieved, comparable in both scope and breadth to the nazi sponsored destruction of so much art and culture prior to the second World War.
Re:Copyright is a two way street
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
If they're not living up to their end of the copyright laws, don't bother living up to your end... It's a pretty simple thing.
They demand protection, payed for by our tax money to keep piracy down, in compliance with copyright law, but they refuse to repay that tax money with their creative works later, that's a direct violation of that social contract, imho.
But it's only one of the more blatant. Usually they just write one-sided laws that they don't want to break and then pay some corrupt politicians to pass them. Not hard to be cynical.
If a book goes out of print for a certain amount of time, then even if the publishing company still owns the copyright at that time, the writer is given a legal ability to publish the book without the consent of the publishing company. Or something like that.
Actually, I think this is a feature of the CONTRACT that the author signs with the publisher - giving the publisher unique rights to publish the work, but reclaiming those rights for the author when the publisher chooses to stop executing them. This is how it worked in situations with which I am familiar - a textbook author I know has been notified by his publisher that they will not reprint the book, ergo he is free to re-contract with another publisher (or self-publish)....
Yes, it seems that book authors really have it better than musicians when it comes to contracts. It seems that the norm in book publishing is that the author retains the copyright and grants a temporary exclusive (renewable) license to the publisher to make copies, and that the author can re-publish later if the original publisher loses interest. Musicians, on the other hand, usually assign copyright to the publisher, and no longer have rights to their own work. (I believe recent copyright law changes have even codified this as the default for music!) Gee, could this have anything to do with the fact that the RIAA monopolizes the recording industry? Hmm...
--
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible."- Alan Kay
Now that copying is trivial, we all of a sudden see it as our right and duty? Please.
It's more that for the first time copyright terms now vasty exceed the lifetime of the media the works are recorded on (e.g. audio CDs). Ease of third-party copying is incidental, if convenient.
This stuff will dissapear if second and third-generation copies aren't made, and if something's out of publication, the publisher is obviously not willing to do that.
Personally, I think anything that has been out of print for an extended period of time should be fair game, but that's not likely to happen.
Personally, I think copyright terms should be reduced to something more reasonable (less than the median lifetime of the media would be nice), so this would be a nonissue.
I don't actually have plans to be doing any copying of "abandoned media" myself at the moment, but I am seriously thinking about dropping my own work into the public domain after maybe 14 years (the original copyright term).
Here's an intersting (if only tangentially related) thought, actually: does the Library of Congress have copies of The Judys' albums? (they appear not to, from a cursory look at their catalog) If not, shouldn't they? Why wouldn't they?
Out of the four local libraries at home that I go to regularly (hey, I read a lot:), three of them have a collection of software CDROMS. And also Audio CD's.
You mean that for once, the UK is actually ahead in something?
From what I can tell from the article, the abandonware sites are possibly legal, despite what the software publishers say. The article also has some significant inaccuracies of law.
The article says: According to copyright law, the creators of intellectual property such as software, books, and music have full ownership of the property. This is wrong (at least as to U.S. law). The creators of a work have a large number of substantial rights, the most absolute of which is when or whether to publish the work. As an incentive to publish ("make public") the work, the government agrees to provide certain limited monopoly rights on the work for a limited time, and back those rights with the power of the state. However, those rights are limited in a number of ways.
Copyright expires - the U.S. Constitution explicitly mandates that copyright last for a "limited time", which Congress has chosen to currently set very, very long.
Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit "fair use" by anyone else without permisiion of the creator.
Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit certain types of copying by libraries and public archives. This limitation is very relevant to the discussion of abandonware. More below.
The "first sale" doctrine and section 109 of the law prevent creators from restricting re-selling of a work, or (for most works, with some important restrictions) the lending or renting of the work. (Programs and sound recordings can't be rented commercially.)
There are some incredibly arcane rules that I don't begin to understand allow some re-transmissions of (lawfully) transmitted works.
Composers MUST license their published songs and other music (excluding operas and other "dramatic" musical works) under terms of a compulsory license for making "phonorecords" (sound recordings - tapes, records, CDs, etc.). The rate of payment is fixed by an arbitrator.
Publishers of "phonorecords" must license them for use in commercial jukeboxes, but have the option of trying to negotiate a deal that suits them better than the deal set by the arbitrator.
Owners of a copy of a computer program may make whatever copies of a program are essential to its use, or may make (an unspecified number of) backup copies. Section 117
The copyright on a building or other architectural work doesn't prohibit pictures or other images of the work (as long as it's constructed and in public view).
If the rights or a right to a work have been transfered (sold, licensed, or otherwise) an author or his statutory heirs may terminate (undo) the transfer unilaterally without compensation, within a window of 35 to 40 years after after the transfer. An author may waive this right by contract but cannot do so on behalf of his statutory heirs.
In other words, copyright ain't property like personal property...
But back to "abandonware". Section 108 of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:
(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!
Except for some works explicitly released into the public domain, nothing since about World War I, in fact...
From a cultural perspective, what happens when the most recent body of public domain work is more than 100 years old, and anything else over 30 years old starts dissapearing as publishers lose interest in publishing it?
What is with that chart of "loss due to piracy"? Note the source: Business Software Alliance. These numbers come from multiplying an estimate of the number of pirated copies of software by the price of that software. Of course, if all those people could not pirate software, only a fraction of them would actually buy it.
Not only is this chart a lie, but it adds nothing to the article. Does the fact that someone estimates that software piracy was low in 1996 have anything to do with abandonware? No. The whole chart, with its kitschy hardware-store font, is just there to give your brain a rest from reading. The c|net reporter wants a technical-looking visual, and the BSA is right there in his rolodex, ready to provide. It is essentially free advertising for the idea that software piracy is bad for the economy.
I happen to agree that software piracy is immoral. But I hate it that the BSA gets to be the Respectable Source that, by inclusion in every story remotely regarding piracy, sets the terms of the debate. So here are a few platitudes on the other side:
- morality and economy are not the same thing (unless you decide they are, in which case I pity you).
- a certain amount of software piracy is good for the economy and even good for the software industry. Whether we have more or less than that amount is debatable.
Copyright Laws as they exist...
by
pabstblueribbon
·
· Score: 1
Copyright laws as they exist should not apply to software. Originally copyright laws were written for books and musical recordings. These things do not change or get better or become obsolete. Software does. There needs to be an ammendment to copyright laws regarding software, which takes into account the average turn around period on a piece of software. I would figure, on average, software become totally obsolete in about 10 years..maybe as few as five years. Books don't..but software does. Music doesn't...but software does. Software is basically a disposable commodity...it is practically guaranteed that you can not get vendor support for a game or other program created 10 years ago, so why is the copyright relevent for 70+ years? I really don't think there will be much of a calling for windows 3.11 in 2050...there really isn't a calling for it now, most machines won't even run it now (properly that is)...this leads all the way to emulating gaming systems that don't exist anymore...theoretically..you cannot download PONG and run it...its still in copyright....or any atari 2600 game....why? Nobody would have a good answer, so make software copyright only last 10 years after production has ceased. If a company wants to keep producing the game/program/etc etc forever to maintain copyright, then let em...otherwise it should be dropped to public domain.
-- - drink, fight, and fuck..thats all that really matters
They call it a copy/right/, but in the U.S. at least provisions for copyright (and patent) protection are granted to congress by the constitution in order "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," which pretty much means you have an obligation to continue using your exclusive right to progress or you should lose it. Just like if you fail to enforce your copyright or especially your trademark you could lose the right to enforce it.
Now sure, they say that not being able to copy Word 2.0 forces us to buy word2k but there are plenty of other alternatives. Like WordPerfect, does MS get a copyright on them all of a sudden because they might keep their software from advancing? I'm as likely to use a free word processor (and if you doubt me, there/are/ some out there) as I am to use Word 2.0 or WP 3.0 anyways--except that I already own multiple legits of WP 3 so that copying isn't an issue--so how can they argue that losing copyright on their abandonware will undercut sales of their advancing stuff?
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
-- "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Re: Freely available Infocom games
by
neilster
·
· Score: 1
None of the other Infocom classics are currently free, that I know of.
It's certainly a pleasure to take advantage of those publishers that have decided to relinquish their right to not distribute.
Thank you Activision and Douglas Adams.
-- --
Neil Cerutti
That's not a realistic argument
by
JPelorat
·
· Score: 1
I don't see how you folks can say that, for example, a freely available King's Quest I is going to give Baldur's Gate II a hard time at the cash register. Gee, id better not release Castle Wolfenstein to PD, or else Quake I/II/III sales might decline.
Would you really truly play Ultima Underworld I to the exclusion of ?? Or would you kick up a session for nostalgia's sake but soon realise that the graphics are woefully out of date, and then head back to the new stuff?
Just recently PCGamer made a CD with over 10 'classic' games, the full versions. So we know it can be done: old games can be 'given away' without it affecting sales of new games.
-- Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Stagnation. Fortunately, We have a habit of getting away with theft if it's fun (see Q. Tarantino's career), so that recycles some things, but it could be a problem in another 20 years, if the trend towards ever more restricive copyright law continues.
On the other hand, simply ignoring stupid little laws is part of our society. I can think of only one 4th of July when the fireworks we used were legal (NH, late 80s), every other year, we set off enough explosives to level a small town, all without a permit. So I say pirating outdated software falls under the "I smoked a joint in college" exception.
if I were to rip my Big Daddy albums into MP3s, burn them to a CD, and give the CDs to friends so they can experience Big Daddy's music, I'm breaking the law. Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
You're confusing two different acts: transferring a copyrighted audio work to a different medium, and distributing copies to your friends. The former is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, and the latter is not. Of course, at any time you could also fully transfer (as a loan, or permanently) your only copy of the copyrighted work to one of your friends, and that's legal, too.
So if you can hold onto your copy, make other copies for personal use (for backup or for use with a different playback device), and lend your copy to your friends, I don't think you can fairly say that the music is in danger of disappearing. You can't even fairly say that your friends cannot appreciate the music.
I agree with you on principle that no-longer-available works can be copied without harm to the copyright holder, but copyright law overrides principle if you get caught.
Public Domain aspects of Copyright
by
Red+Bishop
·
· Score: 1
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
To PROMOTE the PROGRESS of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (EMPHASIS ADDED)
The intent of the Framers was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", NOT to make inventors and authors rich. If they do become rich, that's great, but the intent of copyright and patent law (originally) was to improve society.
I think it would be more than fair to add a clause to the UCITA, DMCA, etc. which, in exchange for the other goodies the corporations get, adds the RESPONSIBILITY to support and maintain their software. If the holder of the IP chooses not to do so, the software reverts to the public domain 3 years after the last copy of the software was manufactured. This would fit nicely with the original syntax of the Constitution and return more of the value of IP to society, the way the Framers, and early Congresses, intended.
With the "Mickey Mouse" extension of copyright to something like 10^18 years after the death of the author, we've drifted away from the original (and I think, good) balance between creators and the public. Part of the problem businesses are having now is that they've grabbed too much, and large minorties of the public feel no qualms about enforcing the "limited time" clause on their own.
"It may seem like a bravado thing to do," says Piquette, who prior to being interviewed for this article had never heard of abandonware. "But they'll be caught and charged." "We go after everything," says Piquette. "We have a full-time group that does checks on the Net." I guess all I can say is...what a fucking dork.
The reason that the music, movie, and software industries are such hard-asses when it comes to old work is because they're pack-rats... they never know when their intellectual property is going to be useful/popular/profitable again.
Think of it this way... there's a classic 50's song that Warner Brothers has the rights to. This song hasn't appeared on an album in 30 years, it's not on the radio, and it's not producing a dime. In fact, it probably exists at a loss to Warner Brothers because they are paying to keep it in archival all these years.
BUT, a movie comes out that happens to use this song and it suddenly resurges in popularity. All the sudden, there's a huge demand for this song that hasn't generated a profit in 30 years. Warner Brothers re-releases the song on both the soundtrack and a "best of" album. Suddenly this song is generating real revenue. If Warner Brothers had released this song into the public domain (or was forced to), they'd lose out on this revenue stream.
They hold the rights just in case something like this happens. If you have a million songs and just 1/2% of them produce $250,000 a piece, that's a big chunk of money. Now, I'm sure the percentage is much lower than that, but the music, movie, and software companies aren't relying on that for their sole source of revenue. --
-- All opinions presented here aren't mine.
Re:There's that word again
by
Luminous
·
· Score: 1
I used to think as you did, that piracy involved some sort of monetary element (i.e. stealing cargo) but according to the defination of piracy, it is any infraction against a copyright.
You have a point, but I'm not sure it's true that this is the first time length of copyright has exceeded the life of the media.
We are losing countless numbers of books each year simply because they were printed on acid paper, and I'd argue that loss is far more substantial in the long run than the loss of performace art, but that's simply because text has a much higher thought density. I dragged some books back from my mother-in-law's house last week, and there are a lot of things only 50-60 years old that are rapidly disintegrating.
It would be nice if the Library of Congress or someplace else would archive everything, but that isn't likely to happen. (I'm not sure how things are *supposed* to get into the LoC - are publishers supposed to submit a copy? Are congressmen responsible? (For this, not in the general case, we know they're not generally responsible!)
-- "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last./ post
Another reason companies bury "abandonware"
by
Robert+Link
·
· Score: 2
Note also that some companies will refuse permission to redistribute their abandoned software, even if they have no intention of ever selling it again because they regard it as competition for whatever they are selling today. For example, a game company might reason that time you spend playing their old "abandonware" is time that you will not be playing their latest release. Therefore, the company might refuse permission to redistribute old games in order to reduced the competition that their current titles face.
Methinks those companies will be soon out of business. Creates an incredible amount of ill will. Imagine Ford suing a Model T enthusiast club.
The reason companies don't like Abandonware
by
Supercoz
·
· Score: 2
Suppose I download an old copy of, say Castle of the Winds, and (its actually not a bad game, although its graphics are bad) play this for a month.
Well, since I was playing Castle of the Winds, I didn't buy Diablo II. Software companies are simply afraid people will choose older, free software over newer, better (one hopes) software that costs $50+.
Part of the problem here (at least in the gaming industry) is that graphics are not nearly as important as many people think. I know a lot of games that are a blast to play even though they don't have super-up-to-date-graphics. Many older games have better gameplay than current ones.
The bottom line is, companies are worried about you getting the old software for free, because then you won't buy the new software. -Coz
Authorship IS equal to ownership. If I create something, you damn well better believe it belongs to me. But once I sell or give away a copy to a person, things change. I now own the ORIGINAL.
The core problem with software is that it can be copied. So once it has been distributed, whether by sale or for free, it is "out there". There's not much that can stop people from copying it. Copyright is designed to classify the author differently from recipients.
As you pointed out, the only issue here, is whether or not the author should be able to prevent other people from sharing. He certainly SHOULD be able to, otherwise he couldn't sell his creation. The main problem I have with the copyright system is the length of time these things stay in effect (thanks Disney!)
But the sentiment I'm seeing here on Slashdot is more like: "you're not using it anymore, so you should just give out the binary and source code to anyone who wants it".
Well, guess what - the author wrote it, and he is under no obligation to do anything else. I get so sick of the crowd that thinks they are entitled to everything. Go create something of your own.
Software is written and sold, with some reasonable expectation of some degree of support, EULA's notwhithstanding. If the software is abandoned by the author or assigns, what is the recourse of the poor saps still using it.
For example, dBASE5/DOS has a very nasty bug which under just the right circumstances writes back to several database files the first 6 (IIRC) bytes from stale buffers. This resets the record count of affected databases, causing newly inserted records to be lost. Without source or support, all you can do is try to work around it. (Hint, avoid USE AGAIN.)
With Open Source, or Abandonware, if there is a bad problem, it is at least theoretically posible to solve it, not easy, but possible.
With source, ultimately I am responsible for what the program does, particularly if I mess with anything. Without source, ultimately the author has to be responsible, since I am not really in any position to correct the problem. For finding and taking advantage of holes in a system, source can be more of a liability than a help. It requires a lot of expertise to set up the test harness, but once established, you get a view of what is actually going on uncolored by the programmer's expectations. Once set up, you can have a better handle on the system than the guy who wrote it.
I don't know where you get these ideas but let's see if you can follow along.
Software is written and sold, with some reasonable expectation of some degree of support, EULA's notwhithstanding.
Wrong. The level of support is completely up to the author. If you don't like what he offers, then don't use the software. It's the exact same thing for the non-software sector. E.g. if I sell you a snowboard and you don't know how to ride it, I'm under no obligation to teach you.
If the software is abandoned by the author or assigns, what is the recourse of the poor saps still using it.
Don't use the software.
With source, ultimately I am responsible for what the program does, particularly if I mess with anything. Without source, ultimately the author has to be responsible, since I am not really in any position to correct the problem.
Once again, though, it is the author's CHOICE whether or not he wants to release the source or support his software. The rest of your post is simply arguing the benefits of open source. But that's beside the point. If you're feeling shafted because some program you use turned into abandonware, then find a vendor more to your liking. But there's no default degree of support offered or implied with software as a whole. Expecting that is asking to get burned.
> Authorship IS equal to ownership. If I create
> something, you damn well better believe it
> belongs to me. But once I sell or give away a
> copy to a person, things change. I now own the
> ORIGINAL.
Right. Thats actually what I said. Authorship is NOT ownership. You can own the original, the original is a physical thing. You can own a copy of the original, a copy is a physical thing.
However you can't own the words, code, sound thats encoded into it. If you sell a copy to someone, you no longer OWN the copy...they do. However, you still retain Authorship of it.
Authorship is not ownership. It remains even after ownership is transfered. (does that make more sense?)
> Well, guess what - the author wrote it, and he
> is under no obligation to do anything else. I
> get so sick of the crowd that thinks they are
> entitled to everything. Go create something of
> your own.
You rmissing the point. Noone is asking the author to DO anything. This is not about releasing source or anything like that.
The question is this: Does the author have the right to stop copying and redistribution? Yes he does. but WHY does he?
He does for the reason you say: if he didn't, he couldn't make money because publishers would just sell his work and not pay him. That is why copyright exists...to make it safe for authors to publish and thus to encourage publication.
Using copyright to stop someone else from distributing a work is fine then. However I contend that doing it, solely for the purpose of stopping distribution, in and of itself, when the copyright holder is NOT doing it themselves or liceing someone else to do it, THEN it is an abuse of the copyright system.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly, given not because it is deserved, but as a reward to encourage more works. If it is not used, it should lapse. If your not going to take advantage of you rmonopoly, it is right that you lose it.
IMNSHO the only reason that this isn't the case today is that when copyright laws were written, noone imagined the situation that we have today.
And now that we have the situation, there is too much special interest in that NOT happening.
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Compulsive licensing DOES exist.
by
jms
·
· Score: 2
Yes. If you write a song, you have the absolute right to release the first recording of the song. After that, any other band has the right to "cover" your song on their album if they choose, or perform your song live, and they pay a royalty to you that is defined by law. You don't have the right to say "no."
This law was created to break up the player piano roll monopoly. It's an old law.
Why is this law still important today?
Without that law, each band that wanted to perform or record someone else's song would have to obtain permission from the original songwriter.
This would seriously harm up-and-coming musicians. Most bands don't start out writing a suite of completely original material. A bunch of guys get together, and they pick a bunch of songs that they all know and like, and that they think will play well to an audience. They learn those songs, learn the craft, and play the local bar. The bar pays the compulsory licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP. Then, hopefully, the band gets good and starts writing their own songs, becomes famous, and other new bands start performing their songs, and paying BMI and ASCAP in return. It's an important part of the cycle of how musicians are developed.
The Beatles started out as a bar band playing covers -- other people's work. So did the Grateful Dead, Phish, and probably nearly every musician in the world. How many musicians can you find that have never performed a cover song?
Without compulsory licensing (not "Compulsive licensing" -- an interesting concept:), most amateur and semi-professional musical performances would be illegal. Your band could be sued for performing, for instance, "Satisfaction", without the express written consent of the Rolling Stones.
In short, Congress recognized that when the recording industry had the absolute power to pick and choose who was allowed to perform and record works, a destructive monopoly was created. This law has nothing to with Socialism and everything to do with preventing a destructive monopoly.
What about PCVR? Sorta On-Topic...
by
cr0sh
·
· Score: 2
It has been debated on this article over the legitimacy of distributing "abandonware", and out-of-print books. But what of out-of-print magazines?
When PCVR's (see my site, if you want to know more) publisher (Joeseph Gradecki) decided to stop publishing (for whatever reason), I bought a copy of each of the back issues. As far as I know, Mr. Gradecki is still alive. I want to republish some of the articles (I would love to do the magazine, but I don't have the time or money) on my web site, to make them available for others, but so far, all attempts at contacting him to ask permission have failed (I even got his mail address from his last publisher - alas, the mail came back "Return to Sender/Address unknown"). I can't contact the authors of the pieces in most cases, since many didn't have email addresses or leave snail mail addresses, either.
Short of reading the articles, and writing my own distillation of the article (or building the device, saying how I built it, and referencing the article) - I don't believe I can legally republish the article (though I tend to wonder if doing so would bring Mr. Gradecki out of the woodwork, so to speak)...
Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?
I have a similar collection of articles from BYTE magazine (though not nearly as complete), but the PCVR issues are more at stake, since you can still look at BYTE in hardbound form in library stacks...
We are losing countless numbers of books each year simply because they were printed on acid paper, and I'd argue that loss is far more substantial in the long run than the loss of performace art, but that's simply because text has a much higher thought density. I dragged some books back from my mother-in-law's house last week, and there are a lot of things only 50-60 years old that are rapidly disintegrating.
Yeah, that's my point. 60+year copyrights are a relatively new thing. See When Works Pass Into the Public Domain-- I think it gives you rough dates of when the various legislation was enacted.
Also note that I said vastly exceed. If you're really careful with keeping books, even acidic paper will last you more than 60 years. You can't say the same for CDs -- 50 or 60 years, and you're most likely SOL no matter how careful you were. And the copyrights are now a LOT longer than 50 or 60 years. Try nearly 100, or possibly even more (see earlier link)!
I'm not talking about soley recorded performance art, either. A lot of materia go on CDs now that are more commonly associated with printed matter (encylopedias, novels, even some periodicals). Let's not forget software, either.
Some material is even more ephemeral -- for example, web pages. The reason my web site is licensed as a whole under the Open Publication license is so that if someone actually cares (well, unlikely for mysite, but...), they can (legally!) save material themselves, and preserve it, even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and my account drops with nobody to pay the bills after I'm gone.
It would be nice if the Library of Congress or someplace else would archive everything, but that isn't likely to happen. (I'm not sure how things are *supposed* to get into the LoC - are publishers supposed to submit a copy? Are congressmen responsible? (For this, not in the general case, we know they're not generally responsible!)
It used to be, at least, the responsibility of the culture/civilization as a whole to preserve and pass on such things, not the mandate of particular organizations or individuals. The bigger the civilization, the more impossible a task it is for an individual or organization anyway.
A number of people have tried to justify their theft in this forum by saying "Well what happens if I can no longer buy something out of print."
This is dealt with in both books and music through stores and dealers who cater to used and out of print media.
It's actually quite a big business in so far as people are willing to pay big bucks for certain books or music that are long gone. Hell, they'll even pay big bucks for that original copy that has long entered the public domain.
So I don't see why people don't just do this with software. Instead they stoop to theft and then try to justify it?
I'm a VIC-20 owner and collector and I see games all the time for sale on ebay. This could potentionally be a lucrative business opportunity to buy and sell used software, and there is no reason to think it would be shut down because of the prior existence of those book and music dealers.
Re:There's that word again
by
Luminous
·
· Score: 1
Read the full defination. Piracy is not theft. They are different crimes in the criminal code.
Piracy has evolved into having several different meanings. Copyright violation is one of those meanings. The capture of property in peacetime on the ocean or in the air is another.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which defination applies to copies of software.
-- This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Abandonware accoring to Micro$oft
by
Yanna
·
· Score: 2
I am surprised that Micro$oft didn't think of this: give the masses the source for Win 3.x, let open sourcers modify and improve the code. Once there is a very decent and stable version of Win 3.x available for everyone, with loads of addons and new features not even existing in Win 2000, start selling software for the new and improved Win 3.x Open Source version.
Here, in the good old U. S. S. of A.,* in the great State of Indiana, in Allen County, there is an Allen County Public Library that lends software. Seems libraries are allowed to do this under Federal copyright law. This is also the justification for the "digital libraries" known colloquially as w4r3z sites: their "due date" is 24 hours after the download.)
Books can stay around for a long time. I have hundreds of books that are still readable even though they were published in the 1800s, some before the civil war. On the other hand most of my floppies from just 5-8 years ago are probably bad now.
It seems to me that these companies are more concerned about losing rights to a title.
They know there's no money to be made off a game 10 or 20 years old. If they said "sure, you can use/distribute xyz game." They might lose the right to the xyz title, which they may want for an updated version.
I hope these companies relize tht the pr of realeasing these games, even if under a special liscense agreement, would be a hugh pr coup.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages?
You apparently fail to realize that "nominal damages" is anywhere from $500 to $150,000 plus all equipment used in the infringement. And if certain conditions are met, the damages can be trebled. How would you like paying a $500,000 bill?
As I mentioned, I was talking about the UK position, where nominal damages is £5.00 and usually an order that the party winning them pay the other side's costs as a penalty for wasting the court's time and resources. I wasn't aware that US law (while I know a bit about US law, I'm first and foremost a UK lawyer) had such a swingeing view of what constituted "nominal" in a civil matter - the sums you're talking about sound like criminal fines. Is there some authority for that proposition that I can find on the web?
Thanks for that. One interesting point arising from it is that an alleged infringer can reduce the statutory damages to a more manageable $200 where it can prove it's a non-profit body indulging in fair use.
Whether an abandonware site with no ads restricting itself to truly obsolete unsupported software can avail itself of this is another question, of course, but it'd be worth a try if push came to shove and there was no convenient way of backing out before action.
It's not supposed to be anything by itself. It is just the opposite of the popular "Make money FAST!" I think we should slow down a bit. We have ~80 years to live our lives. Why do we have to do it FAST?
Re:IMO, "Out of print" == "License to pirate"
by
Tony-A
·
· Score: 1
There is a critical difference with "we don't make that anymore", which justifies one-off copying. Any massive copying should compensate the IP owner. The IP owner should retain the right to republish if enough interest and demand occurs. The reason many books are out of print is that republishing them is a rather expensive undertaking and unless the demand is enough, it is a certain loss. But asking the Copyright laws to be reasonable is too much, I guess.
abandonware service should not be illegal
by
Tokyo-Internet-Hell
·
· Score: 2
I think that rather then spending money going after the abandonware pirates, they should look at the situation from a marketing standpoint. Just by the sheer number of sites, and hits these sites are getting, there is obviously consumer interest in abandonware. Realizing this, rather than trying to shut these services down, maybe they should sign some sort of contract with the site operators to provide the software the companies themselves are no longer willing to provide. The way I see it, it ends up like an outsourcing project: the company receives revenue, without any of the overhead cost for it. And I think consumers truly interested in the abandonware titles would be willing to pay a certain small amount to have access to the software.
I think this is perfect example of not only how inflexible companies have become, but how copyright laws can be used for the wrong purpose.
Somehow, it doesn't surpise me that the company quoted in the cnet article is Microsoft. I think they are one of the best examples of a company that doesn't know how to serve the consumer, nor what the consumer wants.
-- If you don't know, you better ask somebody
You seem to be suffering from a misapprehension.
by
tragedy
·
· Score: 1
You seem to be suffering from a misapprehension. And I don't mean the one about capital letters being unneccessary. You seem to be under the impression that a copyright must be protected or it will be lost to the public domain. This is not in fact correct. Patents must be defended against claims of prior art and trademarks must in theory be protected against any likeness that appears anywhere in the world lest the trademark become generic and be lost. Also, trade secrets must be protected from slipping out otherwise you don't own them and it's your own stupid fault for not patenting and if it's not patentable then who are you to think that you have a claim on it anyway? Copyright, however, does not require protection of that kind. The only thing you might have to protect it from is claims of plagiarism. True, it's still the copyright holder's responsibility to regulate the use of the copyrighted material. But no judge is likely to say "hey, they got away with using your stuff and you didn't do anything about it, hence everyone has a right to use it.
Now, the abandonware people probably think that should be the case to some degree. That copyright holders who try to hoard things pointlessly shouldn't be allowed to complain if people aren't buying what they aren't selling.
To be fair, there are a number of angles to look at this issue from. For example, a copyright holder may take a few, or twenty, years off selling a particular copyrighted property. Maybe if, in the meantime, someone has been distributing it for free, when they bring it back they won't get as many sales. This was, in fact, Disneys motivation for objecting to the vcr when it was emerging. Disney's traditional model for release of its movies was to create scarcity through periodic, brief theatrical releases with occaisional, must see, tv releases. The scarcity greatly increased ad revenue. Disney was worried that, if people could copy the movies off tv, their artificial stranglehold would be destroyed. What actually happened was the emergence of the incredibly lucrative home video market which made Disney money in heaps beyond the dreams of avarice. So maybe there aren't that many ways to look at this after all. Maybe artificial scarcity is just a bad model. Still, one of the reasons that people buy videos rather than recording them (aside from the fact that the video comes out long before the tv release) is that the quality is a lot better. With software, the quality doesn't actually change. It's a perfect digital copy. None of that actually changes the fact that most of these companies don't intend to ever release this stuff again. Microsoft would probably be sued if they tried to sell Windows 3.1 again without any support. So, the model they seem to have chosen: distribute old stuff until someone tells you not to, seems to be a fairly good balance.
The important element is "not for profit" on the part of the infringer, I'd guess. As to whether third-party ads count, thinking aloud:
Third-party adds interpolated in your site to pay for your free space? I suppose one could say that the adverts are there because you're attracting visitors, which makes the ads valuable, for which you get something that is worth money, free web space.
At first glance, then, I'd say that those ads do count, since you're being paid for them in server space. The defendant's argument is that all the ads do is cover the cost of the webspace, and non-profit does not mean "loss-making". The notional payment for the ad space is the server space sufficient for the defendant to provide the wares on a cost-neutral basis - he therefore makes no profit.
It wouldn't help a claimant either if several users could be brought forward with tales of breach of contract in the shape of refused replacements of disks. But that's another issue, and one which has been well-rehearsed elsewhere under this article.
It's not just you...
The life span of IP is well byond the life span of it's value.
Companys however will still seek to defend IP out of some burrocratic sence of protecting property.
Occasionally you run accorst someone with a good understanding of what is happening and releases the IP into public domain or some sort of open liccens.
(In one case all the IP rights reverted to the tech who created a video game console.. he liccensed those rights to everyone for personal use... something to that effect anyway)
I understand why they have copyrights last 50 to 70 years after the authors death. In many cases IP is valuable for that piriod of time.
But in software with a 6 month turnnover for technology it dose not make as much sence to maintain copyrights more than 10 years.
Instead of using a set target copyrights should expire about 4 or 5 years after they are idle.
Cybersquating BTW may not seem like being creative but there is an art to creating good busness names and there are accually companys who exist to name products.
But most squated names are really not that creative. The same is true of software. Most of it is pritty bland.
Example... the file copyer I used for the Commodore computer is one I memerised.. I never saved it to disk or anything. I'd just type it up when ever I needed to copy a file.
The single file copyers for the 64 usually looked pritty much like the one I wrote myself. Not a whole lot of creativity there. Just read the file from one point and save it at annother.
Mine lacked an interface of course sence it was one use the file name was simply included in the code. But the interface was the only inovation I could find in other file copyers and even then not very often.
There simply isn't that much creativity to be done in most cases.
But occasionally.
There is one key diffrence... when the software is on the market it is of value. It's when the software leaves the market and really has no hope of returnning that software companys become squaters.
It's irritating to colecters of old computers. The software is gone and (with few exceptions) the companys arn't selling the software anymore. Yet they do not wish to release the rights.
So in short.. yeah.. it's totally squating... and it's annoying...
-- I don't actually exist.
Hm, I'd love to see your sources....
by
MacKay
·
· Score: 1
You have quite a radical view of intellectual property. I would be interested to read any source materials, United States Supreme Court cases, peer-reviewed journal articles, or Berne Convention treaty materials that support your opinion that copyright intellectual property rights are not intended to encourage disclosure, but only to encourage creation. Could you point me to some resources online?
I would also be interested in reading any such materials, including statutes, regarding "Copyright Abuse." I find your assertion concerning "It's immoral, and it's NOT legal defendable" interesting, in light of the cases that appear in the standard copyright law casebooks. If you have could point me to some URLs or printed materials explaining "Copyright Abuse," or perhaps a URL with a legal definition, I'd appreciate it.
"Fair use" is an interesting aspect of copyright law. Interesting because what exactly is "fair use" is hotly debated by judges, artists, and scholars. (I find the moral right against destruction even more interesting, but that's neither here nor there.) The concept, however, has nothing to do with whether copyright law is intended purely to encourage creation, as you assert, or in part to encourage creation and in larger part to encourage disclosure, as all of the standard works on intellectual property laws (domestic and international) and theory would argue.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create. If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
The NeXT community survives on abandonware. A fantastic set of productivity apps (the Lighthouse Suite) was bought by Sun and basically given away. There are a whole bunch of other such apps. It's quite refreshing in that it keeps the old platform alive. I suspect people will always use the old platforms while there is software available, and abandonware (mostly legal) is the way to do it.
The question of illegal abandonware is a little more sticky. I suspect that most people are less queasy about trading abandoned apps than they are about currently available programs.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
By now, it should be pretty well-known that any attempt to control digital media in the Internet age will be a complete failure (cf Napster, Gnutella, etc). Who worries about the legal status anyway? If you want to download a copy of Ultima 7, then you're going to do so no matter what the law says.
The only real difference between abandonware and mp3 audio is that abandonware is generally distributed on centralized web sites rather than de-centralized systems like Napster, which means that they can be shut down much more easily. I personally look forward to the day when all of it is available on FreeNet of Gnutella.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
If we as a people are to progress, we must Abandon our Wares. Why are we afraid to be naked? Weren't Adamn and Eve naked?
Let us Abandon our Wares.
thank you
--
I find the article has one particular interesting point. An "excuse" to mount an abandonware site is that many people bought the game but don't have the original disks any more (because they are corrupted).
It is not an unfair excuse. When I got my CDR burner, I have archived my old games on a CD. I haven't been unable to put them all since some disks became unreadable.
I am not a lawyer but I remember if a game (or just a piece of software) has copy protection, the editor must provide a piece of backup if the customer ask it. I don't think this is limited in the time. I don't think if I ask some game editor for 15 years old game's disks, it will send them to me. But finally, some of them won't forget they own copyright on these titles...
However, I don't know any game editor for computer (not for console) that have fought this kind of "piracy". Do someone knows one ?
how can these guys can do this and think of it as a good service?
this is illegal.
to use the oft cited collolary - books - if a books is out-of-print, do you as a public citizen have the right to make copies for people? even if you take no income from it? aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the author's rights?
i fail to see where this 17 yr old is any different than any other pirate copying games and throwing them up on an FTP site.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
--
As an interesting note: here, in Hungary, our copyright law says that copying is illegal if it hurts the copyright owner's interests. While that is quite vague, SW publishers still would have a hard time proving that a freely accessible copy of a SW that they do not sell any more, does hurt their interests.
:) and I see no moral problems with freely distributing abadonware.
Besides, I think that morality prevails over legality (God, Jehva, Allah or your own conscience can be much worse than a jury
And, as a last point: was I the only one who felt that this article was a little biased?
Real life is overrated.
This doesn't stop the publisher from doing the Right Thing, however. It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while, a former publisher of software will do the right thing and make copyrighted works available at no charge after their commercial value is gone.
There are some examples of this actually happening. I started off my small-computer career using the venerable TRS-80 line of computers, which were actually decent machines for the day when outfitted with a third-party operating system. A number of applications (including source and binaries for my OS of choice in those days) have been made available by their copyright holders -- see http://www.research.di gital.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html if you're interested in these specific examples.
I'd love to see terms written into a license agreement that allow unrestricted free distribution of the software either immediately or X years after the software is no longer sold and/or supported. I'm not, however, holding my breath, since the point of most license agreements is to disavow everything said elsewhere on the product's packaging. :)
Phil
You know, I know I'd be willing to shell out a dollar or two for some of those old classics. Hell, a lot of companies are putting their old games out on free CDs for magazine promotions. There may not be a large market for this stuff out there, but it could definately get a bit of money and I'm sure customers would love to see companies do this. And also, as a progammer, if someone was getting joy out of a program I wrote that long ago, great! Chances are I don't have copywrite on it anyway. I'm sure that the companies would be much better served (from an economical viewpoint) by going after people who pirate modern software that can get the company around $50 now rather than some punk haX0r who's tossing around 1 meg of code from 1992. Just a couple of thoughts.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
So these older titles shipped on diskettes, and then the diskettes failed, and in a moment of nostalgia someone wants to play an old game or something. The publishers had a card in the box saying they would replace the diskettes if they failed. So is there any recourse when they don't? I guess one could try something in small claims court, but would that work? Is there really any other way to get these old titles back? I still have several old shareware titles (registered! imagine that!) that I *occasionaly* dig out and play. I now have them moved to CDROM, which makes things easier, but if I hadn't I'd be grateful for such a site.
---
Is there any sort of legal mechanism for abandoning software? I think abandonment would become more popular if they could declare it "use at your own risk" and prevent others from selling it. This would have to place any and all risk of running the unsupported, undistributed software squarely in the hands of the user. I guess there would have to be some anti-modification rules in there too.
These companies are buisnesses- they are in the game to make money, and to protect the money they already have. They have every right to whatever profits should come from the product. We can encourage them to participate them in this "corprate charity" but it shouldn't be mandatory- it should just be something that they have an option to do to better their corprate image, which may lead to new sales of their current products.
The C|Net article implies that people who don't own the software are the ones that are downloading it, but it seems to me that most of the people downloading really old software have bought it in the past. Otherwise, why not pirate something new and shiny?
I grew up playing computer games, so you can imagine my joy at finding out that all of those old C64 and PC games were still around. I could relive Rock N' Bolt, Ghetto Blaster, Zak McKracken, and all the other classics! I owned all of the copyrighted stuff a while ago, isn't it legal for me to get it back?
F0 07 C7 C8
I think this is a great idea.
If only it could be taken a step further. Like some way to have firms actually take seriously a license that GPL's (or BSD's) a piece of software x years after it's no longer supported. (Preferably where x=0.)
It increases the value of the software, by making consumers know that if it is good, someone will always be there to take up development on it.
Maybe they could put the code with some sort of escrow company, who reviews all the software and GPL's it as appropriate.
Anyone working on this?
SteveYou know, when I first read this, I sat wondering about it. We at TOTK.com Sports run a great Web site, The Rodman Archive, which archives online content about Dennis Rodman. Much of the older archives -- about Dennis with some of his older teams -- are no longer available online. As many of you know, this is pretty common practice -- even Deja had to dump its online storage of NNTP for a short period of time.
In some ways, what we do is the same that Abandonware does -- if any publishing entity asks us to take down the content, we do so happily and willingly. Most of our readers consider it a great service -- they can watch the progression (and regression) of Rodzilla's career in the words of the nation's sportswriters.
But what we're publishing is content. What Abandonware pirates publish is code. I've got to wonder where you draw the fuzzy gray line -- between content and code, or to either side, right or wrong?
Why do I say that? I think the pirates are wrong, and that we are right. But that's damned petty.
Comments welcome and encouraged.
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
Let's leave the criminal penalties out of it for a moment.
The civil measure of recovery for breach of copyright is one of:
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages? He's not making any money at all off the abandoned software, so there's no possibility of damages. He can't say he's lost any fraction of zero sales that would sound in damages.
As to an account of profits, only those sites that actually make some form of money gain from offering abandonware are vulnerable, and at that there's a good argument that the profit is only that fraction of profit represented by the illegally distributed title. If there are thousands on the site and it's making peanuts, damages could well be very small indeed.
I would certainly be advising a copyright holder not to waste his money, were any of them to come to me over this sort of thing.
On the other hand, I imagine the criminal penalties for breach of copyright in the US are rather more fierce and fiercely enforced than they are here in the UK. It would be doubtful whether offering abandonware on the web, free at the point of sale would actually be a crime here, absent advertising to make it "in the course of a business". And even then you'd have trouble getting the weights and measures people interested - they're more interested in the pirate recordings and dodgy-chanel-perfume-made-with-air-freshener-and-c at-pee markets.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
I loved that game! Sometimes I really prefer the good old games over the new stuff that comes out...but that could just be me :-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware is done for one reason only: control. Why would a company want to keep users from having access to old versions of software? So the users have to buy the new versions!
As a rule, new versions of software are more feature rich (read: fatter) and may or may not be more useful. But it is certain that the company that produces the new software can get a lot more money from it that they would if they kept selling the sold software.. Rather than sell and support both, they would just as well force you to upgrade.
Of course, that makes it hard to keep using those old Win3.x machines with currently available programs.
Gonzo
Maybe that shoudl change. Books go out of print, music stops being published, and software that is still useful dies because authors and publishers no longer have an economic interest in providing copies. In all cases, cociety is poorer for the loss.
Maybe copyright should be modified to impose an obligation to provide copies to all who are willing to pay for them. If an author wants to be released from their obligation to provide copies, they must release their copyright.
This is too simplistic, but cay you all see the basic idea?
There's a band I really like -- Big Daddy. (Not the current rapper known as Big Daddy, but a 50's style band of the same name who did parody songs in the '80s.) Big Daddy put out 4 albums, only two of which were released as CDs. The other two were vinyl-only...and are totally unavailable. The record company doesn't sell them, used record stores can't find them. Those songs are in serious danger of being lost forever.
And yet, if I were to rip my Big Daddy albums into MP3s, burn them to a CD, and give the CDs to friends so they can experience Big Daddy's music, I'm breaking the law. Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
I have a hard time understanding how preservation of music or software became illegal. If the publisher doesn't supply or support it, and it's unavailable through normal means, why not let the public do with it what they will? There's no more money to be made on these works -- the creators aren't even trying to make money on them anymore. They should be in the public domain, and if the public wants to preserve them they should be allowed to do so.
Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I recently decided to Abandon Warez too, it is a liberating experience, however now I only buy old games with decent manuals. Modern games that come in a jewel case and a litle install pamphlet (insert CD, click install) arent worth a dime. Give me manualsfrom the good old days!
Hemos writes:
They do a good job of covering both ends of the spectrum - the publishers who want to hold on to their old code, and folks who see it as being wasted.
I disagree.
1. The only publisher they listed was Microsoft, who isn't terribly well-represented when you look at what's really available in the abandonware community.
2. The representative to whom they spoke hadn't heard of abandonware before! Her only comment was that Microsoft does go after piracy. They could have at least dug around until they found someone from the publishing community with some knowledge of the situation.
C|Net, you should be ashamed of such shoddy journalism.
"There isn't any difference between abandonware and piracy," says Diana Piquette, antipiracy manager for Microsoft.
Does this mean that Microsoft are going to stop selling any more DOS-based operating systems, due to the fact that the intellectual property was stolen from someone else.
Thats the problem. Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner. They know who the owners are. Why not (scarey thought coming) ask them? The guy profiled in the article has ad revenue coming into his site. He is likely making money off of other people's IP. Why not send a form letter stating the purpose of the site, what titles they would like to feature and offering a profit share based on downloads?
In most services, requiring an "opt out" rather than "opt in" is considered predatory marketing. In a situation where the legal lines are so well drawn, simply offering to remove is not enough. There are ways to do this right, and making money off of doing it wrong is not aulteristic, no matter how you try to spin it.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I notice that the examples given are mass-market software. Large companies have been aware of the risks of enterprise-level software being abandoned, and try to avoid it happening. Some purchasers demand software escrow, where the source code is deposited someplace where it will be available to the customer if the manufacturer goes out of business. However, I have seen a preference for the accounting packages for which source code is available -- even if is not currently needed, executives like having it on the shelf so the company's accounting system can be revised if the software manufacturer is unable to keep up with the newest twists in local, state, or federal laws and taxes. And if the manufacturer abandons the package, the company can maintain the software and is not forced by the next major tax changes to select a new accounting system.
The most recent examples of this coming to my mind are the Dragonlance series from SSI (Champions of Krynn, Death Knight of Krynn and the Dark Queen of Krynn (see the Dragonlance site) which were bundled in the so called "Forgotten realms collection". And there is offcourse the Ultima series which also got bundled (episode 1 - 8 iirc).
If you compare that with an action game like Half Life you'll notice a difference. It was quite recently when I picked up a bundle offering Half life & opposing force. So basicly I think its kinda hard to take a period of 5 years and consider everything older then 5 years obsolete.
Whether we, as Linux users, like it or not. Software that has been copyrighted has a copyright FOR EVER, unless the developer says otherwise. The developers of these software packages have full legal right to stop 17-year-old kids from giving away their software. I use Linux and download TONS of software for my Linux box but 95% of it is open source. If I want to give away this software, fine, it is within the law. I know it is frustrating for people when a company will not support an older product. This is the companies fault, WOULD FORD or CHEVY NOT SELL PARTS TO A CAR BECAUSE IT WAS MADE 10 YEARS AGO!! No. But we have come to expect this from software companies in the age of Sun, Micro$oft, Oracle, Apple, etc., etc. Bottom line is if you complain to the company enough or stop buying their software and use an open source alternative you would not have this problem. Don't go to jail or get fined because of something stupid.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
If you want classic games, pick them up for $5 at the store, on CD-ROM no less. You'll be doing everyone a favour - you will have a great game, and publishers will be encouraged to re-release more classics for cheap prices.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
...and here we are my friends. The open source circle finally meets.
"We are not out to get [software publishers] or to steal from them," says Kenyon. "We are just here to provide the public with software that can't be obtained by any other means."
Everything is free, past it's shelf life, the expiry date.
heh, the highest form of hypocrisy.
I bet the Napster and Nutstella fans will be all over this one.
Copyright, Intellectual Rights, and your right to freely distribute, at no cost, that which is not yours.
In the UK, this would, in common parlance, be called "Fencing". It's where thiefs offload thier goods to middlemen.
Its theft, pure and simple.
The purpose of a copyright, trademark, or patent is to protect the intellectual property of the author or authors, preventing other people from makking money off their creations.
In the case of abandonware and sites devoted to it, there seems little to protect. After all, the software is no longer generating any revenue because it's not sold or produced any longer. Therefore, there is really no reason for software to be still covered by copyright law after about 5 years, when the current technology had advanced far beyond that in the old software.
It would a make a little more sense if old software entered the public domain at the "Internet Speed" the media tells us we live at. Perhaps software could be posted online 5 years after its release (for non-commercial use only) unless the publishing company filed otherwise.
Just my $.02
I have a hard time taking a self-proclaimed "troll" seriously, but....
Just because something *can* be done, doesn't mean it's right
It doesn't mean it's "wrong" (by whose definition? The lawmakers who were paid off by Big Money?), either. Learn some logic before you try arguing.
It'll just encourage companies to crack down on even the semi-legit sites like The Underdogs
There is no such thing as "semi-legit". The Home of the Underdogs is "illegal". Does that make it wrong? I think not. If a game is no longer sold, how are you hurting the company by downloading it? If for example, you downloaded Ultima 7 (my previous example), you might like enough to buy Origin's current offerings: Ultima 9 or Ultima Online. Your argument sounds suspiciously like the RIAA whining about Napster users not buying CDs when the exact opposite is true.
Abandonware helps users and companies! It's not a zero-sum game.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
Yep, and I consider all cars to be ships abandoned at sea, and thus subject to salvage laws. This if fun!
1. In some cases, people _need_ older copies of programs. There are some document formats that, for one reason or another, are no longer supported--even through modern conversion software. If that old document happens to contain password-protected tax data, and no modern software will read it, where does the user turn to but to abandonware?
2. On the other hand, compilations of old games are a relatively popular low-budget option for game publishers. They're almost guaranteed to make money for the company (since they're dirt-cheap to make). I for one jumped at the chance to purchase Interplay's compilation of the SSI Gold Box games. However, if these games are freely available on popular abandonware sites, then it makes it difficult for a publisher to convince anyone to buy it.
3. Here's the real sticking point (which I'm also the most out-of-my-league about): if it can be proved that a copyright holder knowingly allowed someone to infringe on that copyright and did not take action to prevent it, then the rights to that material can be permanently lost. This prevents selective enforcement, but at the same time obligates the companies to go after abandonware sites if they want rights to a future version of the game.
It seems that this whole area is in a kind of legal void, with the two sides of the argument brought up in the article both having valid points. It will be interesting to see if this ever gets brought to court--doubtable, though, since people running abandonware sites will probably never be able to afford a lawyer for a case like that.
~=Keelor
"this is illegal."
Has a court said so? The purpose of copyright protection is to increase the material available to society. If a program is unavailable by any means other than copying without the consent of the author or their agents, then a court might well decide the copying is fair use, as that is the only way to achieve the purpose of the law.
"aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the author's rights?"
I have a right to, say, park my car in a public parking space. But if I choose not to use that right, other people are entitled to use it instead. If an author or publisher chooses not to publish, they have little claim to loss when other people choose to publish instead.
Discovery in such a case might reveal that a publisher, by their own evaluation, would have to expend $100,000 in costs to create and distribute copies of a program that would reap $80,000 in revenue. Thus they would lose money. The defendant who provided copies of this abandonware would have cost the company to lose the opportunity to lose $20,000. Thus there are no damages, and hence should be no court award.
Things may be different in the cases of books, which are sometimes reprinted years or decades after the original printing. We have not seen such a market for software yet, and we are not likely to, except for nostalgia. So software should be ruled and judged by a standard appropriate for it, not for books.
--
So If I'm a etailer that hangs onto old stuff in it's original box or buys other's surplus to sell later for a small profit, when it's a few versions behind, am I stealing IP? The few places I've seen that did this have been consumed and no longer do it.
Assuming that because a product is not currently being marketed and sold, it has no commercial value is ludicrous.
Especially in a country so obsessed with nostalgia, things come in and out of vogue, reunions happen, Williams releases emulators for their arcade software for various platforms....
There's a case in point. I know people who didn't buy any of the arcade reissue discs for the PSX, even though they were avid fans of the included games. And why not? Because anyone can get their hands on MAME... because there is a mentality that "they're not making money on it right now, it's languishing, so it's free for us to release it."
Copyrights are copyrights. Fight them all you want, go ahead and change the laws, but until you do, they're still law.
so...if the scope of the abandonware scene is as large as the article maks it seem, one could live in a time warp of sorts--a fully functioning ~1994 computer.
windows 3.1, older wordperfect, older games, older printer drivers older everything.
and since most corporations are throwing away most old parts like hard drives, 486dx2 mobos etc, you could do this all for free.
just think, if you're willing to be fix years behind the curve (more like five years behind the gentle initial incline of the curve) you could compute for free.
london is drowning and i live by river
Even though I am against software piracy, I am for abandonware. Which puts me in a situation where I want it but cannot morally get it. I have an old 386SX25 laptop with 4MB ram that Win3.1 would work great on (for playing DOS games and solitaire). However in the local places I have looked there is not a single vendor with a legal copy for sale, at least not at a reasonable price and/or w/o a "must buy with a new system" clause to support the OEM contract. Currently it sports Win95 that I have a spare license for.
I think ID software has the right idea with Doom, after it's "dead", GPL it. NES ROM sites have the same situation: they want it but can't get it by other means. Where else can you find Defender for the Atari 2600?
Almost noone tries to make a catalog of old software for historical records. Books have libraries, software has lawyers.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
What about if the original author decides to rerelease on budget/compilation? There have been plenty of "classic" games ported to the PlayStation (eg. Atari VCS, R-Type).
If there is a rerelease of the original, does it then stop being Abandonware? Will he take it off his site?
It seems from the article that no-one has actually bothered approaching the publishers about this. From quotes that I have read from various developers/publishers, most seem to be quite happy to let people release old games into public domain, as long as they are polite enough to ask first.
Many would probably be interested in seeing the response to these being made available, as they could see which old title it is worth rereleasing/porting.
IANAL, but...
...the kind folks from the SPA had a nice talk with me, which prompted me to do some research into the subject. Under the Berne convention, copyright does not need to be policed by the copyright owner. Trademark and patents, yes, copyright, no.
And there's the rub. Duke or Doom are copyrighted titles... but they're also trademarks. Not defending the copyright is the same as not defending the trademark. That's why publishers are so quick to take action when copyright infringement is brought to their attention.
hymie
The article links (through a redirect script) to http://www.abandonwarering.com/ as the main web page for the abandonware thing. It's got links to many warez sites, use at your own risk. Doesn't seem too legal to me, seems like they're making money off other people's work - it's got banner adverts.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
At my school, for example, there are many students whose home computers consist of 486 and slower Pentium based systems, as well as a small cadre of users who are still using older PowerMacs (and a few clones). The vast majority of these users are simply interested in a machine that they can do simple word processing on. A 486-66 running Win95 rev. A ain't gonna be able to hack running Office 2000. These guys don't have the bucks to shell out for a newer machine (or an upgrade) so that they can run MS' latest bloated version of Word. Word 6.0 or WordPerfect 6/7 will suit them nicely, but guess what? They can't buy it anywhere, and if they copy someone else's, then they're suddenly a pirate in Microsoft's eyes . . .
I've tried to set a few guys around campus with Linux and AbiWord, but in most cases they've either gone back to Windows (Linux is too much for them to bother with, AbiWord doesn't do page numbers yet, etc.) or I end up doing 24/7 tech support for 'em. So that option, while it's inexpensive in terms of money, isn't really an option for folks who aren't as technically inclined as most of us.
The problem with AbandonWare (in the case of products like Word and WordPerfect) is that the 486 user that doesn't have the horsepower to run Office 2000, and copies her friend's old Word 6.0 to do simple word processing represents a potential sale to MS. And when there are thousands of potential sales that end up copying old software instead of shelling out whatever the latest version of Office costs ($300? I have no idea really . . .) then suddenly the suits start to worry. Sure, 50,000 users *not* buying a $300 software package that otherwise would buy it only represents a total of $4,500,000 to Microsoft, whose assets are far past that amount, but each chunk of revenue lost equals a hit to the bottom line.
And, in the end, it's the bottom line that counts to pretty much any company (at least the ones that want to stay in business). Microsoft doesn't really give a rip about whether Bob and Sue can afford to upgrade their computers to run Office 2000, or if they can't stretch their budget to buy Office 2000 itself. They care about money. Period. And, even though I use MS as an example throughout, I'm not just picking on them -- most large software companies are going to feel the same way.
On an entirely different note, it sure is fun to run across a copy of a game you played 10 years ago, and play it again though . . .
-------
It's not about whether they want to share - if they released it in the past, they've 'shared' it with the world already. We're talking about old games and programs that the authors can't or won't support anymore. It's like saying you don't want your little sister to glue the eyes back on to the rag doll you threw out 3 years ago.
I for one support abandonware - IF you're not making money off of it. Doing it in the Open Source spirit is perfectly fine, IMO.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Now apply the same thinking to software, if your profit margin is in the first sale, then any activity which results in suppression of repeat sales of the next upgrade is to be severely discouraged. Entities like Microsoft have tacitly acknowledged this by noting that their biggest competitor is actually their old products.
Thus if your business model relies on forcing customers to go through an endless upgrade cycle (cough*Wintel*cough) the Internet is a threat because so long as there is one person with the passion and resources to keep a copy, others will be able to find it and offer some exchange/trade/resale. Think of web-rings, freshmeat and mirrors, all which collectively serve to persist information and minimise bit rot. This may not suit companies accustomised to high information decay rates as it forces them into a service model which is human intensive and because they've bid up the price of programming labor to insane levels in hiring software engineers to churn out the next killer-app, can't compete as service model requires a somewhat different skillset (more diagnostic and less development). Lower margins = less profits = collapsing share prices = pissed off investors.
As AbiWord CEO points out, "Users are tired of the crazy upgrade cycle which has become the norm for so many desktop applications", primarily because it puts the real cost of software in wasted time learning applications which may be deprecated in the next release cycle. From the software developers and distributors point of view, old software is also a disincentive for upgrading and thus their desire to shorten the half life of information or put time-limited licensing terms into their EULA.
OpenSource sorta gets around the problem as their real business is stability and interoperability, despite all too frequent plaintive cries that Unix is not "innovative" or "bleeding-edge". Until the marketing/advocacy people realise this and emphasise low "cost of repair/replacement", they will be perceived as at a disadvantage to "mainstream" software. However, despite similar functionality, it is a distinct business from licensing IP blocks (drag,drop,script) where all the value is retained by the manufacturer. Just like abandonware is not really a software distribution, it is in the nostalgia business. As such, it can probably carve out a small niche for its proponent provided he's smart to avoid copyright lawsuits, given that the majority of software purchasers have short-term memory (when did you ever come across a piece of non-gaming software that you really *enjoyed* using?). LL
But Disney doesn't want to give 'Steamboat Willie' away, so every so often the copyright period gets upped. In related news, some US states are suing the cartel over CD price-fixing. When is the DOJ going to get off it's collective backside and apply the anti-cartel laws as vigorously as it has been applying the anti-trust laws to everyone's favourite monopoly?
I can legally copy a tape of music onto a CD (or visa versa). Is there any relation between the music and software worlds as far as copyright is concerned?
hymie
If I remember correctly, http://www.activision.com/
Of course, with my memory, don't get all excited:P
Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain.
How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps along at all when nobody is willing to cooperate even minimally with others...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Well as far as Zork is concerned you could extract the story file from the game and play it on a PC Z-machine interpreter perfectly legally, but otherwise in the eyes of the law it's illegal :-(
Ultima VII is completely ignored on the support front from Origin. They attempt to sell the game as a "Classics" package and knowing that the software will not likely run on a modern computer system. Rumors have it that the source to the game was lost a long time ago.
Have you guys seen Jeff Freedman & the Gang's "Exult" project?
Exult is a completely original port of Ultima VII to Windows & Linux and is nearly 80%+ complete.
Check it out at
http://exult.sourceforge.net
-Oy Vey
Hmm...Microsoft seemed rather against the whole abandonware concept...yet...when I go to the Abandonware Ring page...what do I see? An MSN ad banner.
I love it when stuff like that happens.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
It's funny, that id has "allmost" doing abandonware for years now. Releasing sources for CW3D, Doom, and Quake.
The conventional wisdom is a juicy story: Microsoft founder Gates buys DOS from Seattle Computer founder Tim Patterson (those names might be off a little, feel free to make a correction) for $ 55,000, MS goes on to make billions, and Patterson's company goes bust.
But if my memory serves, Patterson was hired afterwards by Microsoft. If he got the stock options normally offered at that time, he'd be pretty rich right now, thus giving his story a happy ending.
Anyone know if that's true?
D
----
BSA - aka Bidouilleurs Sans Argent (Means something like Moneyless Hackers) - is a non-profit organization aimed at giving people free software : not only GPL'ed but also FreeWare and even "Official Abandonware".
We created it in France something like 2 years ago after long discussions that even involved Richard Stallman himself (co-author of the BPL - BSA Public License).
We gather all the related software on our Web Site (in French) and we actively harass Abandonware editors to let us publish their "old", though often useful programs.
Of course, this might look we have not gathered that much software but whatever we get we publish it and if you help us convincing editors there'll soon be loads to pick.
FYI, the BSA name comes from the fact that we remarked that the Business Software Alliance didn't have a legal existence in France : So, we just picked the acronym before them...
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I've had a few cases where the software either had a serious bug, or needed modifying to adapt to some other change (such as a revised API). Getting the fix was impossible, yet the product was still being sold.
Any ideas on how to workaround this, other than hand-hacking the binary?
One of the reasons abandonment is not a problem with books is that there is a well-established library system. Almost all books of any significant interest or value are available for free loan. It might be interesting to establish a software library -- a web site where you could "check out" and download software the library had acquired. Then the library would not let anybody else download the software until you returned it, by visiting the web site and going through the return process, which marks the program returned and deletes the downloaded copy. If a patron did not return a program on time, the library would charge a late fee.
Libraries could easily acquire material through donations of old software. In fact, once the library had acquired its first copy of a program, additional contributors do not need to upload new copies; they merely need to tell the library they are donating their rights to the copy they have. "Click here to donate your copy of Zork to the library."
Nothing in this model prevents a person from copying the software while it is in their possession, but nothing in the book library model prevents that either. Lending libraries would not be useful for people looking for software to run regularly on their computers, but it would be useful for playing games and for working with old documents in obscure or no-longer-supported formats.
If "out of print" constitutes abandonment, then slow sales may be a sign of impending public domain. Someone might say that they don't want to go see a movie because they can wait for the rental - or a little longer for the abandonware. ------------- today: What Would Deney Terrio Do? http://www.ridiculopathy.com
It will always be theft -- though a great convenience. if you download "abandonware", find out the original cost of the game, and make the donation to its creator -- sans interest and inflation. it won't be ekpensive, and it will be legal -- you one-day-to-be-screwed-back criminal bastards.
Isn't it amazing how so many of these "It's the Law!" posts seem to have no idea what the law actually is, especially in regard to time limits on copyright and the broad exceptions for fair use?
Please note that there are people who do benefit from the theft of physical objects; the thief has and increase in wealth, and the manufacturer of the object benefits, since they get to sell another copy to replace the one which was stolen. This does not compensate for the direct loss of the victim, and the loss to society as a whole from the decrease in value of the original stolen object.
In the case of intellectual property just the opposite occurs. If I copy an existing disk the wealth of society INCREASES; there are now two copies of the original which can do more work than the previous existing copy could. Who loses? The owner of the disk does not lose, he still has his original copy. I benefit, I can now do something I couldn't do before. The only possible loser is the manufacturer of the software - who was deprived of an additional sale by my act of copying. Notice that I said the MANUFACTURER, not the CREATOR; there is a difference. Under the free market system the person who creates software is very rarely the person who benefits from the sale of that software.
Please note that in the case of physical theft the manufacturer benefits. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A MANUFACTURER COMPLAIN ABOUT BENEFITING FROM PHYSICAL THEFT. Have you? By failing to do so they lose the moral right to complain about the loss in sales caused by duplication of disks.
There is a critical difference between material goods and IP; in the digital world the digital equivalent of the 'Star Trek Replicator' exists, it is a CDROM burner or a floppy disk drive. Given a pattern to work from these can replicate the original. Think how much the economy would change if physical replicators existed. Manufacturing would become obsolete - each person with a replicator would in effect become a manufacturer.
What the software MANUFACTURERS want to do is to benefit from the fact that replication exists in the digital world while preventing everyone else from using their own replicators. Of course they do, if physical replicators existed physical manufacturers would try to keep people from using them while they got to use them to make outrageous profits.
Last year Microsoft had NET profits of 40% of sales. That is NET, not GROSS profits. The net figure comes after their accountants have pulled every trick in the book trying to reduce the number to minimize taxes. Microsoft's huge profit occur because they are using replication technology to build their product, it costs them less than a dollar to create a copy of a program which sells for hundreds of dollars.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
The free market system has worked well for us in the past when it comes to the manufacturing of physical goods. However it breaks down in the face of replication technology. We need to come up with a system which rewards the actual CREATORS of software instead of rewarding people who are using digital replicators to gouge the public for billions of dollars, while trying to deny to individuals the use of that technology.
> Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain.
> How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps along at all when nobody is willing to cooperate even minimally with others...
Looked at the right way, Copyrights (and all other laws) ARE an agreement to cooperate with each other. When you abide by the law because it's what you'd do anyway, it's worthless. When you abide by the law because it's the law, you are making a decision that the public good (being able to rely on certain rules of behavior) is worth sacrificing personal liberties (e.g. by not yelling "fire!" in a crowded room, or by not stealing music just because someone else CAN rip a CD and CAN post it on the web and you CAN download it for "free" (like beer)). Society CAN be tightly restricted by laws, but a basic level of law CAN insure that the majority of people have the elbow-room to live decent lives without someone sticking a gun in their face to get their wallet or selling bootleg copies of the CD their band works on.
Violating copyright is tresspassing on someone's Homestead (see ESR's page) on the Noosphere - people who care about software development should consider whether they think this is akin to tresspassing in their physical home. The answer will vary for each of us - but in some sense Copyright law does (or can) give each of us the right to make that choice (let people in - OSS; keep people out - traditional) just as physical property laws allow me to protect my home (or open it up, whether for a weekend party, or every day).
Now the Y2k problem adds an interesting twist. A company that does not update an older version for Y2k.
A company that went out of business, but did not list all 125 revisions of a package as it's assets. What happens?
All of this will be litigated.
Fight Spammers!
Oh Please...That was the worse discussion on Copyright I've ever seen. What was the purpose of the Chart on Piracy Loses - which in of itself is Bogus. Copyright does not create property - it's a limited license.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I disagree that the article did a good job covering both viewpoints. Although it did mention both sides, it hardly did so in an unbiased way. At times, it said something like, "providing abandonware is illegal and infringes on the intellectual property rights of publishers and authors." Then it said, "The pirates claim that they are providing a service to the community." I hardly call that an unbiased report when one side is presented as fact, the other as a mere allegation.
I work in central London, here in the UK. Just yesterday I was in one of our larger record shops (HMV on Oxford Street) and was rather shocked to see a compilation CD for sale offering "over 3,000 ZX Spectrum games, plus emulators!" (I believe the Spectrum was marketed by Timex in the US?).
I seriously doubt that the manufacturer of this compilation had authorisation of the publishers for this collection. There were pretty much all the old classics on there, from numerous different software houses (some now long gone, some still here).
Naughty music retailer. :)
The purpose of copyright, and intellectual property rights in general (save for trade and service marks), is only part to encourage people to create. In theory, those who have a burning desire to create are going to create whether we encourage them or not, and whether or not society rewards them for doing so.
w .html
The other purpose of copyright, and other intellectual property rights (save for trade and service marks), is to encourage people to share their work so that society may benefit from the creations. By assuring the creator that s/he will be able to exploit the creation, economically or otherwise, for a limited period of time, theoretically the law encourages creators to share with society. Society then theoretically benefits from the disclosure of that information (can build on it, secure permission to create derivative works, be inspired to create something entirely new, etc.), and the creator is rewarded for sharing. If you do any research into the Statute of Anne, which was the first copyright statute, you'll find that getting creators to share their work was actually the dominant concern.
As an aside, even if you abandon your work, I believe (but could be wrong) that you are still entitled to the so-called "moral rights" under the Berne Convention. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overvie
Or better yet, they could do what the company that published Caesar did, and put the program up on their website. (http://www.impressionsgames.com/)
Impressions put it up without any strings, just a "Download the full PC version here!"
Pretty cool thing to do, if you ask me.. Definately earned them points on my scale.
Overall it was a well done article, providing insight into both views. However, my only gripe is the bit of propoganda in the form of the bar graph depicting the billions of dollars lost due to software piracy. First of all, that bit of information has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand, and second, those numbers are greatly exaggerated. For example, I would bet that the majority of people who posess a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop would be unwilling to fork out the money to actually purchase the program. They would find a much cheaper software solution that would meet their needs. The numbers presented by the graph are grossly bloated. (Like many of programs and prices that the manufacturers offer consumers.)
A long while ago (but not that long ago) I acquired a customer who had a requirement that their C programs be compiled with Microsoft C 6.0. They had a DB library that wouldn't support any other compiler. At the time, MS had just started selling Visual C++ 2.0, which had a 16-bit compiler, but it wasn't compatible with 6.0.
I called Microsoft. They told me that I couldn't have 6.0, as they didn't sell it any more. However, if I copied 6.0 from my customer and bought VC++ 2.0 at full retail, they would turn a blind eye. Not that I could get that in writing, of course, but I had the personal assurance of the guy who answers the phones.
This actually sounds quite reasonable, until you realise how much more VC++ 2 cost than C6. IIRC it was about 4 times the price.
--
--
E_NOSIG
I still consider it pirating, but it's the only reason I've ever accepted as legitimate.
To sum up some of the other posts that think this is still morally wrong, we have to look at exactly what this is: published material that is relatively old and NOT SUPPORTED by the company that published it, and not sold by, or in anyway available from, the company that published it or anyone else.
Personally, I have a copy of Falcon 3.0 that I tried to install recently and one of the 3.5" disks (possibly more, since I didn't get past it) was corrupted. By RIAA standards, it's illegal for me to download somebody elses copy, even though for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
So there's a difference between intent of the laws and actual wording (and morality is a completely different issue).
Someone gave the counter argument that you don't legally have a right to not stop at a stop sign, even though you know no cross traffic is coming. That's true, that's the letter of the law, but the intent is to protect lives and allow traffic to proceed in a fair manner - and by not stopping (or coming to a complete stop), you are not violating the intent of the law. You are also saving gasoline and causing less pollution. Of course, a cop'll still give you ticket, because they are typically instructed to follow the letter of the law - it's not their place to determine what's right or wrong.
But who are we to judge when it's ok to violate the letter of the law? When it's so blatently obvious no one is coming (you can see for a good distance in all directions before getting to the intersection), and when the original copyright holders have no purpose in protecting something they no longer sell/support, I just don't see the problem. No counter examples really capture what's going on, here.
I agree with these "abandonware" people, and I WILL download Falcon 3.0 if I see it.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I've returned Diablo II 3 times already, because they decided to copy-lock their CD with a system that's incompatible with many of the newer CDROM drives, including my own.
I can copy the cd to get Diablo II installed, but unless I break the cd-lock system, I can't actually play the game.
Copy-locking has never been a good idea. It just insures that people who want to buy your product can't, and that when your product is pirated (because you know somebody is going to see it as a challenge) EVERYONE will want a pirated copy. Even the legal folks, just in case they ever purchase the product and actually want to use it...
If the works were published in 1964, say, the earliest they would go out of copyright would be 2059. That's more than 30 years.
For works published more recently, it's generally is the lifetime of the author + 70 years. Works of corporate authorship are under copyright for the shorter of 120 years from creation, or 96 years from publication[1].
A work published today will most likely not enter the public domain until sometime in the mid-22nd century...
...that is, assuming copyright terms are not retroactively extended again as they have been consistently over the past few decades (c.f. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act).
Audio CDs have a lifetime of about 50 years. If people don't start making their own copies of things after they go out of distribution, very large chunks of our culture will begin dissapearing.
Excessively long copyright terms are producing the cultural equivalent of slash-and-burn agriculture[2].
---[1] Gasaway, Lolly. When Works pass into the Public Domain. University of North Carolina. 1999.
[2] I am seriously considering voluntarily releasing my own works into the public domain after 14 years (the original term for copyrights) to combat this.
DNA just wants to be free...
If you create something and then intentionally remove it from the market to bring out something else, which will be forced on users, this is the very definition of Copyright Abuse!! It's immoral, and it's NOT legally defendable.
It's exactly want the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in regards to making sure Copyright was NOT an unlimited property right. And this is the most important point...obtaining a Copyright on a work of art does not create property!! See Fair Use for a further education.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
did i say evil?
my original missive is simply me playing devil's advocate.
as for morality - i long ago gave that up. i think amoral would be the correct word.
yes, Laws are not perfect, but they are laws. maybe trying to change them before violating them would be nice. this argument is all ways thrown out when people feel that the status quo needs to change - ie change only happens because the brave have the guts to stand up to laws which are antiquated and out-of-step with the real world. ah - so we destroy a property right with legal context b/c they are somewhat out-of-date? we have courts, rules of law, and social norms which dictate that one should operate within the bounds of a legal society. if any yahoo could decide what he thought was right and then act upon it, we'd have a anarchy.
and to be frank, i trust few people. it should be harder for people to act in any way other than one that effects only them. so if this young man wants to pirate this software, fine. but to throw it up for public consumption? little to far for me.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
You write: this is illegal.
So, you never exceed the speed limit because that would be illegal, right? Yeah, right. In reality, questionable laws don't get respected and don't get obeyed by anyone except sheep who are unable to distinguish right from wrong.
Any argument based on a statement of "this is illegal" is basically not a logical argument at all, but an appeal to authority. And "violating the publisher's/author's rights" is no better -- it presuposes that the case for rights is a priori granted or obvious, which may not be the case.
Here in particular such reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, because the very concept of intellectual prioperty is being re-examined in the light of the new realities of unlimited distribution and sharing on the net. What the law established in pre-Internet days is not necessarily right in today's world, any more than Victorian laws regarding horse-powered transport are right on today's highways. The law either adapts rapidly or it gets ignored.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
(emphasis mine)
This is just wrong on so many levels. Once a work is in the public domain, it's public domain. You shouldn't normally be able to copyright anything but your own derivatives of said public domain work.
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting holding onto the sole copy, and then leveraging copyright to extract licensing on copies of that, I think that's just morally reprehensible...
Usually that means that the music has been licensed from the original publisher, not that the copyright has expired.
... you know, I just realized you're in Norway. [Sorry, American arrogance strikes again :/] I may be completely off base, then, but I sincerely hope Norwegian copyright law isn't as twisted as you make it sound to me (although I daresay 30 year terms aren't bad)...
In any case, as regards copyright terms, international law is slowly serving to synchronize copyright terms in various countries (which was one of the contributing factors to the US extension). I'm not sure you will be able to rely on 30-year terms for long.
DNA just wants to be free...
If only they still had the source code or the developement environment to run/compile the software!
Actually we have the same problem in the demo scene, old demos are very hard to watch as most emulators fail to cope with the kind of tricks a demo needs. And we still don't have any decent 8086 emulator which would emulate the Gravis Ultrasound, a necessary step to be able to watch the old pc demos!
Of course if we had the sources for those demos we may be able to port them, but this demos are the kind of productions where the binary is really the end product..
It would be really sad if this part of the modern culture disappeared in such way..
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
--
This is an interesting issue. Like every other high school student with a computer, I pirated games (for my Atari 800XL :) I gave that up in college, suspiciously close to the time that I began working summers as a paid developer. So now I am reflective as I consider the non-legal distribution of software from my childhood.
If a company made a non-expirable contract with a buyer to replace software media, they ought to live with it (especially if us consumers gotta live with their EULA's). If this is not fulfilled, the "legal" recourse would be to sue. Since suing over $1 in media is not tenable (it's downright stupid), the more reasonable recourse is to just download the software. Not legal, really, but I think it is ethical.
But that only applies to previous purchasers. What about those who download it, never having paid for it, claiming that it's abandoned, making no money, and thus should be freely dessiminated?
The financial argument doesn't hold, since "abandonware" can become "commercialware" quite easily. Since someone had the copyrights to PacMan, Centipede, Frogger, etc, Microsoft (I think) was able to acquire them and release their "retro" gaming packs a couple of years ago, selling "abandonware" games for profit. Likewise, Hasbro was able to purchase them, make new versions, and sell them. Further, copyrights can be used (or sold) so that a sequel can be made, e.g. Syndicate. If the copyrights were thrown out after some short period of non-use, then everyone and their brother could resell, remake, or sequel-ize the games, which I don't think is a good thing.
Whether it is a good, bad, or ugly thing that copyrights can be held, sold, utilized, and employed to sequels, is perhaps the real issue, since this is relevant to movies, books, and other things, as others have pointed out.
ShoutingMan.com
The traditional argument is that the rights didn't vanish -- they probably fell to the author's estate, the one that is trying to keep three cute little kids and a puppy out of the poorhouse and pay for the operation for the dread disease. Unauthorized copies floating around possibly dilute the market for future versions, should something turn up. Maybe Kubrick rises from the dead and adapts it as his next film, and their are suddenly publishers wanting to put out a new edition with a 7 figure advance.
Yes, it's true that the work might get lost if the rights holder doesn't do a proper job exploiting the opportunities. Or, perhaps, is embarrased by the work and wants it surpressed. That's done, you know, and it's within the copyright holders' rights.
Returning to programs, the opportunities to commercially exploit older programs seem to be thinner than old books. Of the genres most likely to be exploitable, entertainment software seems highest. By analogy, it's entertainment books that are most likely to be exploitable after several lifetimes, not non-fiction (functional) works. See also movies and sound recordings, which have turned out to be more valuble than rights holders imagined (esp. old movies).
My feeling on abanonware is that it is right to seek some kind of approval from the rights holders. There -always- is a rights holder, though possibly difficult to locate.
I'd agree that in general copyright is too long. On the other hand, every now and then you get a story about some descendant of the author of an ancient work getting a pile of royalties long ago filched by some slimy intermediary. This might have been all the money long due someone who got screwed 80 years ago. The case of bluesman Robert Johnson is an case in point. A now old-man who is probably Johnson's only son has just gotten slice of the rights to the songs written a very long time ago.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Reduce copyrights back to the original 14 years. It'd have more or less the same effect.
DNA just wants to be free...
Here is an anecdote for you to think about:
/. community at large think of this?
Virgin Interactive was working on a Playstation 4-player fighting game called "Thrill Kill." Like the name suggests, it's gorier than Mortal Kombat even (yep, it gets pretty silly...)
Electronic Arts (I think,) bought Virgin Interactive, decided they didn't want a game like that being released under their name, and canned it... a week before launch.
I have downloaded this game (don't ask how, you can find anything on the net,) and I found that it only has a couple of minor bugs, and obviously a lot of work was put into it.
Now, do you think it was wrong to download, because the original programmers aren't getting royalties for every copy sold, and the company doesn't want the game out?
...or do you think it was acceptable because the game was never released anyway, so there's no loss to the company? Also that the programmers are probably proud of their work, and wouldn't want it wasted?
I'm not looking for justification to download it, I've already made my choice... but what does the
Actually, its really a good idea. Consider the fact that as software ages, it slowly becomes bloatware. Especially apps such as word processors, spreadsheets, stuff along those lines. Noone wants to run a piece of bloated software, especially if the older version did everthing that you needed it too. Who needs Star Office when we have vi? Of course, games should be as bloated as possible to provide the maximum sensory intake overload!
Many posters comment that Abandonware sites are technically illegal. So here's a plan. Provide an incentive for copyright and patent owners to donate their works to the public, in return for a tax deduction. Don't steal the works, pay for them.
Set up an Intellectual Property Conservancy that is a non-profit, educational, publishing corporation. Donations of intellectual property could be tax-deductible (Congress could even make the tax deduction higher than normal for a superincentive, or provide a monetary incentive in lieu of tax deduction). Accept donations of copyright, online publication rights, source code, patents, trademarks, books, software, development environments, the whole lot.
When a company finds the income from an old work no longer makes maintenance worthwhile, then they can donate it to the public domain and the rest of us will distribute it and support it for free (or even for money). They will have an incentive to consider this, and if the company goes under the creditors will probably force it, since otherwise they would not get money back.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution wisely set up a balance between the rights of authors and inventors, and the public domain, by limiting copyright term and recognizing fair use rights. However, copyright term in recent years has been extended far too long. While it started at 14 years, now it is 95 years for a work made for hire (in other Berne Convention nations, it is 70 or 50 years after the author's death).
The copyright holders (mostly big publishers) howled that they needed protection for more years, because works had value that long. This is doubtful, but if it is true, then surely the copyright holders will get behind this plan, and find a way to realize more profits.
Since the public is the one to benefit, the public should pay. A difficulty with previous ideas is that the government does a bad job of setting prices for public goods. Okay, I say let the normal process of the market or fair appraisals, as is done today with tax deductions, be used instead.
Richard Stallman has pointed out that it might be immoral to reward those who take out software patents, for example. It might be considered like paying money to redeem a child from slavery. So there is room for a lot of debate and discussion on the issue. What do you think? Can you help get the services of a tax lawyer to vet this plan?
There is a open source remake of Paradroid for Linux. It is called Nighthawk. As usual, debian package listing got helpful. Alex
OK. If an individual owns a copyright, the copyright will remain in effect 70 years after their death (for now--I'm sure they will increase this again). Now, if a corporation (an artificial entity that is given certain rights as if it were a person) goes out of business, isn't this the same thing as death? The only difference is that a person, after dying, has an estate that can continue to claim profits; a corporation does not have an estate--it simply ceases to exist. Therefore, if the corporation goes out of business, and they have no estate, the copyright ceases to exist as well. Can someone (possibly even a lawyer) comment on this? What is the legal viewpoint of a corporation that ceases to exist? Do they have an "estate"?
While the right to make archival recordings is well-established, this is largely a digital phenomenon: No one would say that I have the right to make duplicates of out-of-print vinyl albums simply because they're not available any more.
Now that copying is trivial, we all of a sudden see it as our right and duty? Please.
Personally, I think anything that has been out of print for an extended period of time should be fair game, but that's not likely to happen.
See the spirited discussion that's taken place on thejudys.com (a great 80's band that barely had a presence in the record stores to start with, and so very hard to find) for more on the issue of whether it's OK to copy even things that are flat impossible to get hold of.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Anything that solves some kind of scarcity (be it food, music, software, books, clothes, whatever) is bound to piss off some big corporation. If people can eat/read/play all they need/want for free, why buy? Doesn't matter if the game is old or new, if the food is burger or veggies. There's only so much space in your stomach / time for playing / body surface to wear.
What does all that mean? The bottom line is, corporations wish our ill-being, period. That doesn't make them "evil" in the Biblical sense, that's just the way they are. Just like a hungry shark can't help but eat you if you're floating around.
The natural solution, therefore, is to fight back. Either with the Law or with other means (boycotts, political activism etc.)
I side with the abandonware pirates. Here's why:
1. Not being able to get an old piece of software is like not being allowed to fab a part for a classic car. My prefered model for software has always been "software as product" where we simply treat it as a physical, destructable product, even though it isn't. Now, since the company that oroginally made the product is no longer manufacturing it, and refuses to do so, I believe it's fair game to allow others to "fab parts" as best they can.
This, by the way, is the same reason I hate Microsoft's EULA. Not being allowed to move Windows to another box is like not being allowed to pull a Chevy V8 and put it in another car.
2. If the authors aren't selling, they aren't losing money. In this case, the only argument they can make that they are losing money is that it interferes with their planned obsolecence plans. That's a poor excuse.
Another reason I side with abandonware is that I'm sure there have been many companies that have been bought for some reason, and then the purchaser decided they didn't want to develop the product.
If we want to extend the whole "piracy on the high seas" analogy, there is a precedent in maritime law. IANAL, but aren't people allowed to "salvage" ships abandoned at sea? I think this is very similar.
Now, how could we legislate to make abandonware legit?
Well, the five year rule is one good guideline. I would also say that the distributors of abandonware should not be allowed to sell it for any more than the cost of distribution. If the original manufacturer decides to start selling it again, they should be allowed to re-start sales at no more than the original retail price of the package, and the abandonware distributor should cease and desist.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
*sobbing* I thought there were no sane people left on Slashdot, they were all here 2 years ago, but then I looked around and they were gone...thank god you finally showed up. Save me!
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Piquette says Microsoft does not differentiate between abandonware and traditional software piracy and will pursue both with equal vigor.
- OK, I want a copy of Windows 3.11. No, I don't want Windows 98. No, I don't want Windows 2000. I want Windows 3.11. Here's US$ 100,00 (waving Ben Franklin). What should I do?
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create. If they've abandoned their work, there's no need for copyright -- they've already gotten all the benefit they're going to get from it.
Let's say that's true, and it's violating the spirit of the law to enforce copyright in these cases. Unfortunately, the law needs to be enforced according to how it's written, not on a case by case basis where every instance is sent to a judge to decide where the benefit to society lies. It's simply not possible to run a legal system that way.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).
It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I bought Privateer way back when it was a new game. A lot can happen over the years, and I got two new computers and managed to loose the disks. I still have the box, the manual, but no disk.
I found a copy of it on an 'abandonware' page. I feel entirely justified downloading it, since I bought the software originally. Can I not download a copy of a game I already own? Or perhaps Origin is going to get me new binaries. Yeah, right. I even looked around on their site for a place to order it as a classic game. Didn't find it- even though they have a page advertising it here, they don't seem to sell it anymore, and I only found that after doing a google search.
Am I wrong?
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
The question comes up as to why it is being re-released? Where did the demand for the product come from? Most likely it is because people have been using the abandonware but want to 'own' it again.
If I had a nickle for every game I've purchased for my TI-99/4a and my C-64, I'd have a hellava lot of nickles, my friends. I've purchased these games once, if I can find them for my Windows machine, then I'm getting them. If the programmer does the work for me and does a compilation of the games, I'm all over it.
I feel the ball is in the producer's court. If a demand is there, fill it. If the demand isn't enough to make a profit, then let it grow through the abandonware and then capitalize upon the free marketing the game has been getting.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
At the end of this year, Microsoft will drop all support for Windows 95. You will no longer be able to get upgrades or patches. Calls to their support line on Windows 95 related issues will no longer be answered. In my humble opinion, that is abandonment. My company has 8,000 users of Windows 95. We cannot possibly upgrade them all in five months. Even if we could, it's going to be very expensive. $80-some times 8,000 . . .
If they're going to do it, this action ought to null and void the copyright. After all, we the consumers paid something for this shit. We are entitled to value for what we bought, and forcing us onto the upgrade treadmill ought to put them in court as surely as if they were running a price-fixing scheme. But as the clueless posts of "it's the law" continue to mount, it becomes clear to me that the consumer in this country is no longer entitled to a pot to piss in a pay toilet. Only the corporation is entitled to a profit.
Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.
The U.S. Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a 14-year duration (a quite reasonable timeframe and a good balance of author incentive vs. public good), with another 14-year optional extension (in the 14th year), for a maximum of 28 years, which is plenty of time to capitalize on a creative work. (Especially when you consider that businesses usually make their plans based on expected returns within 5 years or so!) Works had to be registered with the Copyright office to receive protection; many works entered the public domain directly because the author didn't bother to register the copyright.
Copyright has been extended many times since then for the further enrichment of the rich, with no consideration given to the balance inherent in the "bargain" between the author and the public that copyright is supposed to represent. It's been twisted into an entitlement in many people's minds, a tool to enrich a few at great cost to the public. Copyright extensions (especially the last one) are enacted to preserve corporate profits (and the GNP), public be damned. It's a gross perversion of a system that was originally designed to benefit the public, not to enrich authors and "IP" owners.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
The only problem I had with the article was the it went on to talk about how much money is lost due to piracy. Granted, a whole lot is lost, BUT, if say a game, or work processor hasn't been available for purchase in the last 10 years, have they lost any money when it's copied? I don't think so. I believe that if a company wishes to maintain their copyright on some software, then publish archive CDs of all your all apps every now and then so we can get a hold of them. (Personally, I think the source code for all of the really old programmes should be made available too! The program is not being used commercially anymore, let's use it for some educational purposes to look at techniques on how things were done)
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Far better than just posting the binaries, it would be _fantastic_ if some of these abandonware sites could contact original authors and get _source code_ released.
Why emulate, when you can port?
Is there any example of such a thing ever happening, outside of ID's sourcing of Quake/Quake2/Doom?
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Movie companies usually destroy films when
the copyright expires rather than allow them
to enter the public domain.
How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps
along at all when nobody is willing to
cooperate even minimally with others...
Looked at the right way, Copyrights (and all other laws) ARE an agreement to cooperate with each other.
It is the movie studios that are not abiding by the copyright law, by destroying movies as they enter the public domain rather than adhere to the other side of copyright law (the other side of the "contract" if you prefer), namely that eventually such material over which they enjoyed such exclusive priveleges would enter the public domain and enrich us all. Instead, they are deliberately destroying stuff which has entered the public domain. In a sane society, this kind of behavior would be punishable as an act of vandalism against all of us.
Compared to the movie industries systematic misuse and abuse of the copyright system, even the damage done by those consumers who do violate copyright is minimal. Destroying old, valuable footage rather than giving it over to the public domain as is there obligation is merely the most flagrant and appalling example of an ethical and moral bankrupcy which infects that industry at virtually every level.
The diminishment of our culture by such greed is an outrage of dimensions seldom achieved, comparable in both scope and breadth to the nazi sponsored destruction of so much art and culture prior to the second World War.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
It's more that for the first time copyright terms now vasty exceed the lifetime of the media the works are recorded on (e.g. audio CDs). Ease of third-party copying is incidental, if convenient.
This stuff will dissapear if second and third-generation copies aren't made, and if something's out of publication, the publisher is obviously not willing to do that.
Personally, I think copyright terms should be reduced to something more reasonable (less than the median lifetime of the media would be nice), so this would be a nonissue.
I don't actually have plans to be doing any copying of "abandoned media" myself at the moment, but I am seriously thinking about dropping my own work into the public domain after maybe 14 years (the original copyright term).
Here's an intersting (if only tangentially related) thought, actually: does the Library of Congress have copies of The Judys' albums? (they appear not to, from a cursory look at their catalog) If not, shouldn't they? Why wouldn't they?
DNA just wants to be free...
Yep this is relativly common.
:), three of them have a collection of software CDROMS. And also Audio CD's.
Out of the four local libraries at home that I go to regularly (hey, I read a lot
You mean that for once, the UK is actually ahead in something?
*falls over in shock*
This has me curious.
There's some anti-intellecutal property stuff posted here, and I'm wondering what the reasons are:
for intellectual property
against intellectual property
As for abandonware, I like what iD does with the software, personally.
Dan
The article says: According to copyright law, the creators of intellectual property such as software, books, and music have full ownership of the property. This is wrong (at least as to U.S. law). The creators of a work have a large number of substantial rights, the most absolute of which is when or whether to publish the work. As an incentive to publish ("make public") the work, the government agrees to provide certain limited monopoly rights on the work for a limited time, and back those rights with the power of the state. However, those rights are limited in a number of ways.
- Copyright expires - the U.S. Constitution explicitly mandates that copyright last for a "limited time", which Congress has chosen to currently set very, very long.
- Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit "fair use" by anyone else without permisiion of the creator.
- Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit certain types of copying by libraries and public archives. This limitation is very relevant to the discussion of abandonware. More below.
- The "first sale" doctrine and section 109 of the law prevent creators from restricting re-selling of a work, or (for most works, with some important restrictions) the lending or renting of the work. (Programs and sound recordings can't be rented commercially.)
- Creators may not restrict or prohibit certain non-profit/educational performances or displays (e.g. a girlscout camp can sing copyrighted songs without paying a royalty).
- There are some incredibly arcane rules that I don't begin to understand allow some re-transmissions of (lawfully) transmitted works.
- Composers MUST license their published songs and other music (excluding operas and other "dramatic" musical works) under terms of a compulsory license for making "phonorecords" (sound recordings - tapes, records, CDs, etc.). The rate of payment is fixed by an arbitrator.
- Publishers of "phonorecords" must license them for use in commercial jukeboxes, but have the option of trying to negotiate a deal that suits them better than the deal set by the arbitrator.
- Owners of a copy of a computer program may make whatever copies of a program are essential to its use, or may make (an unspecified number of) backup copies. Section 117
- The copyright on a building or other architectural work doesn't prohibit pictures or other images of the work (as long as it's constructed and in public view).
- Copyright owners can't prohibit taping for the blind, under certain circumstances.
- If the rights or a right to a work have been transfered (sold, licensed, or otherwise) an author or his statutory heirs may terminate (undo) the transfer unilaterally without compensation, within a window of 35 to 40 years after after the transfer. An author may waive this right by contract but cannot do so on behalf of his statutory heirs.
In other words, copyright ain't property like personal property...But back to "abandonware". Section 108 of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:
(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!
Except for some works explicitly released into the public domain, nothing since about World War I, in fact...
From a cultural perspective, what happens when the most recent body of public domain work is more than 100 years old, and anything else over 30 years old starts dissapearing as publishers lose interest in publishing it?
DNA just wants to be free...
What is with that chart of "loss due to piracy"? Note the source: Business Software Alliance. These numbers come from multiplying an estimate of the number of pirated copies of software by the price of that software. Of course, if all those people could not pirate software, only a fraction of them would actually buy it. Not only is this chart a lie, but it adds nothing to the article. Does the fact that someone estimates that software piracy was low in 1996 have anything to do with abandonware? No. The whole chart, with its kitschy hardware-store font, is just there to give your brain a rest from reading. The c|net reporter wants a technical-looking visual, and the BSA is right there in his rolodex, ready to provide. It is essentially free advertising for the idea that software piracy is bad for the economy. I happen to agree that software piracy is immoral. But I hate it that the BSA gets to be the Respectable Source that, by inclusion in every story remotely regarding piracy, sets the terms of the debate. So here are a few platitudes on the other side: - morality and economy are not the same thing (unless you decide they are, in which case I pity you). - a certain amount of software piracy is good for the economy and even good for the software industry. Whether we have more or less than that amount is debatable.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Copyright laws as they exist should not apply to software. Originally copyright laws were written for books and musical recordings. These things do not change or get better or become obsolete. Software does. There needs to be an ammendment to copyright laws regarding software, which takes into account the average turn around period on a piece of software. I would figure, on average, software become totally obsolete in about 10 years..maybe as few as five years. Books don't..but software does. Music doesn't...but software does. Software is basically a disposable commodity...it is practically guaranteed that you can not get vendor support for a game or other program created 10 years ago, so why is the copyright relevent for 70+ years? I really don't think there will be much of a calling for windows 3.11 in 2050...there really isn't a calling for it now, most machines won't even run it now (properly that is)...this leads all the way to emulating gaming systems that don't exist anymore...theoretically..you cannot download PONG and run it...its still in copyright....or any atari 2600 game....why? Nobody would have a good answer, so make software copyright only last 10 years after production has ceased. If a company wants to keep producing the game/program/etc etc forever to maintain copyright, then let em...otherwise it should be dropped to public domain.
- drink, fight, and fuck..thats all that really matters
this link, sadly, is one of those tiresome trolls that appears every once in a while.
... but not quite.
I was almost tricked
D
----
They call it a copy/right/, but in the U.S. at least provisions for copyright (and patent) protection are granted to congress by the constitution in order "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," which pretty much means you have an obligation to continue using your exclusive right to progress or you should lose it. Just like if you fail to enforce your copyright or especially your trademark you could lose the right to enforce it.
/are/ some out there) as I am to use Word 2.0 or WP 3.0 anyways--except that I already own multiple legits of WP 3 so that copying isn't an issue--so how can they argue that losing copyright on their abandonware will undercut sales of their advancing stuff?
Now sure, they say that not being able to copy Word 2.0 forces us to buy word2k but there are plenty of other alternatives. Like WordPerfect, does MS get a copyright on them all of a sudden because they might keep their software from advancing? I'm as likely to use a free word processor (and if you doubt me, there
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
The Zork Trilogy is available on Activision's web site.
You can play Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Douglas Adams' official page.
None of the other Infocom classics are currently free, that I know of.
It's certainly a pleasure to take advantage of those publishers that have decided to relinquish their right to not distribute.
Thank you Activision and Douglas Adams.
-- Neil Cerutti
I don't see how you folks can say that, for example, a freely available King's Quest I is going to give Baldur's Gate II a hard time at the cash register. Gee, id better not release Castle Wolfenstein to PD, or else Quake I/II/III sales might decline.
Would you really truly play Ultima Underworld I to the exclusion of ?? Or would you kick up a session for nostalgia's sake but soon realise that the graphics are woefully out of date, and then head back to the new stuff?
Just recently PCGamer made a CD with over 10 'classic' games, the full versions. So we know it can be done: old games can be 'given away' without it affecting sales of new games.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Stagnation. Fortunately, We have a habit of getting away with theft if it's fun (see Q. Tarantino's career), so that recycles some things, but it could be a problem in another 20 years, if the trend towards ever more restricive copyright law continues.
On the other hand, simply ignoring stupid little laws is part of our society. I can think of only one 4th of July when the fireworks we used were legal (NH, late 80s), every other year, we set off enough explosives to level a small town, all without a permit. So I say pirating outdated software falls under the "I smoked a joint in college" exception.
-jpowers
-jpowers
You're confusing two different acts: transferring a copyrighted audio work to a different medium, and distributing copies to your friends. The former is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, and the latter is not. Of course, at any time you could also fully transfer (as a loan, or permanently) your only copy of the copyrighted work to one of your friends, and that's legal, too.
So if you can hold onto your copy, make other copies for personal use (for backup or for use with a different playback device), and lend your copy to your friends, I don't think you can fairly say that the music is in danger of disappearing. You can't even fairly say that your friends cannot appreciate the music.
I agree with you on principle that no-longer-available works can be copied without harm to the copyright holder, but copyright law overrides principle if you get caught.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
To PROMOTE the PROGRESS of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (EMPHASIS ADDED)
The intent of the Framers was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", NOT to make inventors and authors rich. If they do become rich, that's great, but the intent of copyright and patent law (originally) was to improve society.
I think it would be more than fair to add a clause to the UCITA, DMCA, etc. which, in exchange for the other goodies the corporations get, adds the RESPONSIBILITY to support and maintain their software. If the holder of the IP chooses not to do so, the software reverts to the public domain 3 years after the last copy of the software was manufactured. This would fit nicely with the original syntax of the Constitution and return more of the value of IP to society, the way the Framers, and early Congresses, intended.
With the "Mickey Mouse" extension of copyright to something like 10^18 years after the death of the author, we've drifted away from the original (and I think, good) balance between creators and the public. Part of the problem businesses are having now is that they've grabbed too much, and large minorties of the public feel no qualms about enforcing the "limited time" clause on their own.
"It may seem like a bravado thing to do," says Piquette, who prior to being interviewed for this article had never heard of abandonware. "But they'll be caught and charged."
"We go after everything," says Piquette. "We have a full-time group that does checks on the Net."
I guess all I can say is...what a fucking dork.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
The reason that the music, movie, and software industries are such hard-asses when it comes to old work is because they're pack-rats... they never know when their intellectual property is going to be useful/popular/profitable again. Think of it this way... there's a classic 50's song that Warner Brothers has the rights to. This song hasn't appeared on an album in 30 years, it's not on the radio, and it's not producing a dime. In fact, it probably exists at a loss to Warner Brothers because they are paying to keep it in archival all these years. BUT, a movie comes out that happens to use this song and it suddenly resurges in popularity. All the sudden, there's a huge demand for this song that hasn't generated a profit in 30 years. Warner Brothers re-releases the song on both the soundtrack and a "best of" album. Suddenly this song is generating real revenue. If Warner Brothers had released this song into the public domain (or was forced to), they'd lose out on this revenue stream. They hold the rights just in case something like this happens. If you have a million songs and just 1/2% of them produce $250,000 a piece, that's a big chunk of money. Now, I'm sure the percentage is much lower than that, but the music, movie, and software companies aren't relying on that for their sole source of revenue.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
I used to think as you did, that piracy involved some sort of monetary element (i.e. stealing cargo) but according to the defination of piracy, it is any infraction against a copyright.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
You have a point, but I'm not sure it's true that this is the first time length of copyright has exceeded the life of the media.
We are losing countless numbers of books each year simply because they were printed on acid paper, and I'd argue that loss is far more substantial in the long run than the loss of performace art, but that's simply because text has a much higher thought density. I dragged some books back from my mother-in-law's house last week, and there are a lot of things only 50-60 years old that are rapidly disintegrating.
It would be nice if the Library of Congress or someplace else would archive everything, but that isn't likely to happen. (I'm not sure how things are *supposed* to get into the LoC - are publishers supposed to submit a copy? Are congressmen responsible? (For this, not in the general case, we know they're not generally responsible!)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
-rpl
Suppose I download an old copy of, say Castle of the Winds, and (its actually not a bad game, although its graphics are bad) play this for a month.
Well, since I was playing Castle of the Winds, I didn't buy Diablo II. Software companies are simply afraid people will choose older, free software over newer, better (one hopes) software that costs $50+.
Part of the problem here (at least in the gaming industry) is that graphics are not nearly as important as many people think. I know a lot of games that are a blast to play even though they don't have super-up-to-date-graphics. Many older games have better gameplay than current ones.
The bottom line is, companies are worried about you getting the old software for free, because then you won't buy the new software.
-Coz
Authorship IS equal to ownership. If I create something, you damn well better believe it belongs to me. But once I sell or give away a copy to a person, things change. I now own the ORIGINAL.
The core problem with software is that it can be copied. So once it has been distributed, whether by sale or for free, it is "out there". There's not much that can stop people from copying it. Copyright is designed to classify the author differently from recipients.
As you pointed out, the only issue here, is whether or not the author should be able to prevent other people from sharing. He certainly SHOULD be able to, otherwise he couldn't sell his creation. The main problem I have with the copyright system is the length of time these things stay in effect (thanks Disney!)
But the sentiment I'm seeing here on Slashdot is more like: "you're not using it anymore, so you should just give out the binary and source code to anyone who wants it".
Well, guess what - the author wrote it, and he is under no obligation to do anything else. I get so sick of the crowd that thinks they are entitled to everything. Go create something of your own.
SEAL
Yes. If you write a song, you have the absolute right to release the first recording of the song. After that, any other band has the right to "cover" your song on their album if they choose, or perform your song live, and they pay a royalty to you that is defined by law. You don't have the right to say "no."
:), most amateur and semi-professional musical performances would be illegal. Your band could be sued for performing, for instance, "Satisfaction", without the express written consent of the Rolling Stones.
This law was created to break up the player piano roll monopoly. It's an old law.
Why is this law still important today?
Without that law, each band that wanted to perform or record someone else's song would have to obtain permission from the original songwriter.
This would seriously harm up-and-coming musicians. Most bands don't start out writing a suite of completely original material. A bunch of guys get together, and they pick a bunch of songs that they all know and like, and that they think will play well to an audience. They learn those songs, learn the craft, and play the local bar. The bar pays the compulsory licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP. Then, hopefully, the band gets good and starts writing their own songs, becomes famous, and other new bands start performing their songs, and paying BMI and ASCAP in return. It's an important part of the cycle of how musicians are developed.
The Beatles started out as a bar band playing covers -- other people's work. So did the Grateful Dead, Phish, and probably nearly every musician in the world. How many musicians can you find that have never performed a cover song?
Without compulsory licensing (not "Compulsive licensing" -- an interesting concept
In short, Congress recognized that when the recording industry had the absolute power to pick and choose who was allowed to perform and record works, a destructive monopoly was created. This law has nothing to with Socialism and everything to do with preventing a destructive monopoly.
It has been debated on this article over the legitimacy of distributing "abandonware", and out-of-print books. But what of out-of-print magazines?
When PCVR's (see my site, if you want to know more) publisher (Joeseph Gradecki) decided to stop publishing (for whatever reason), I bought a copy of each of the back issues. As far as I know, Mr. Gradecki is still alive. I want to republish some of the articles (I would love to do the magazine, but I don't have the time or money) on my web site, to make them available for others, but so far, all attempts at contacting him to ask permission have failed (I even got his mail address from his last publisher - alas, the mail came back "Return to Sender/Address unknown"). I can't contact the authors of the pieces in most cases, since many didn't have email addresses or leave snail mail addresses, either.
Short of reading the articles, and writing my own distillation of the article (or building the device, saying how I built it, and referencing the article) - I don't believe I can legally republish the article (though I tend to wonder if doing so would bring Mr. Gradecki out of the woodwork, so to speak)...
Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?
I have a similar collection of articles from BYTE magazine (though not nearly as complete), but the PCVR issues are more at stake, since you can still look at BYTE in hardbound form in library stacks...
Please advise...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Yeah, that's my point. 60+year copyrights are a relatively new thing. See When Works Pass Into the Public Domain-- I think it gives you rough dates of when the various legislation was enacted.
Also note that I said vastly exceed. If you're really careful with keeping books, even acidic paper will last you more than 60 years. You can't say the same for CDs -- 50 or 60 years, and you're most likely SOL no matter how careful you were. And the copyrights are now a LOT longer than 50 or 60 years. Try nearly 100, or possibly even more (see earlier link)!
I'm not talking about soley recorded performance art, either. A lot of materia go on CDs now that are more commonly associated with printed matter (encylopedias, novels, even some periodicals). Let's not forget software, either.
Some material is even more ephemeral -- for example, web pages. The reason my web site is licensed as a whole under the Open Publication license is so that if someone actually cares (well, unlikely for mysite, but...), they can (legally!) save material themselves, and preserve it, even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and my account drops with nobody to pay the bills after I'm gone.
It used to be, at least, the responsibility of the culture/civilization as a whole to preserve and pass on such things, not the mandate of particular organizations or individuals. The bigger the civilization, the more impossible a task it is for an individual or organization anyway.
DNA just wants to be free...
So what if they no longer sell the thing? Chevrolett no longer sells 1957 Chevys, yet try walking up to one and just taking it.
Well, obviously you couldn't just go and take someone elses car. But how about making a copy of it? That is what we're talking about here, right?
Yeah, I know it was a troll, but I'm really bored.
A number of people have tried to justify their theft in this forum by saying "Well what happens if I can no longer buy something out of print."
This is dealt with in both books and music through stores and dealers who cater to used and out of print media.
It's actually quite a big business in so far as people are willing to pay big bucks for certain books or music that are long gone. Hell, they'll even pay big bucks for that original copy that has long entered the public domain.
So I don't see why people don't just do this with software. Instead they stoop to theft and then try to justify it?
I'm a VIC-20 owner and collector and I see games all the time for sale on ebay. This could potentionally be a lucrative business opportunity to buy and sell used software, and there is no reason to think it would be shut down because of the prior existence of those book and music dealers.
Piracy has evolved into having several different meanings. Copyright violation is one of those meanings. The capture of property in peacetime on the ocean or in the air is another.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which defination applies to copies of software.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I am surprised that Micro$oft didn't think of this: give the masses the source for Win 3.x, let open sourcers modify and improve the code. Once there is a very decent and stable version of Win 3.x available for everyone, with loads of addons and new features not even existing in Win 2000, start selling software for the new and improved Win 3.x Open Source version.
Here, in the good old U. S. S. of A.,* in the great State of Indiana, in Allen County, there is an Allen County Public Library that lends software. Seems libraries are allowed to do this under Federal copyright law. This is also the justification for the "digital libraries" known colloquially as w4r3z sites: their "due date" is 24 hours after the download.)
*USSA = United Socialist States of America<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Books can stay around for a long time. I have hundreds of books that are still readable even though they were published in the 1800s, some before the civil war. On the other hand most of my floppies from just 5-8 years ago are probably bad now.
It seems to me that these companies are more concerned about losing rights to a title.
They know there's no money to be made off a game 10 or 20 years old. If they said "sure, you can use/distribute xyz game." They might lose the right to the xyz title, which they may want for an updated version.
I hope these companies relize tht the pr of realeasing these games, even if under a special liscense agreement, would be a hugh pr coup.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages?
You apparently fail to realize that "nominal damages" is anywhere from $500 to $150,000 plus all equipment used in the infringement. And if certain conditions are met, the damages can be trebled. How would you like paying a $500,000 bill?
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's not supposed to be anything by itself. It is just the opposite of the popular "Make money FAST!"
I think we should slow down a bit. We have ~80 years to live our lives. Why do we have to do it FAST?
There is a critical difference with "we don't make that anymore", which justifies one-off copying. Any massive copying should compensate the IP owner. The IP owner should retain the right to republish if enough interest and demand occurs. The reason many books are out of print is that republishing them is a rather expensive undertaking and unless the demand is enough, it is a certain loss. But asking the Copyright laws to be reasonable is too much, I guess.
I think that rather then spending money going after the abandonware pirates, they should look at the situation from a marketing standpoint. Just by the sheer number of sites, and hits these sites are getting, there is obviously consumer interest in abandonware. Realizing this, rather than trying to shut these services down, maybe they should sign some sort of contract with the site operators to provide the software the companies themselves are no longer willing to provide. The way I see it, it ends up like an outsourcing project: the company receives revenue, without any of the overhead cost for it. And I think consumers truly interested in the abandonware titles would be willing to pay a certain small amount to have access to the software. I think this is perfect example of not only how inflexible companies have become, but how copyright laws can be used for the wrong purpose. Somehow, it doesn't surpise me that the company quoted in the cnet article is Microsoft. I think they are one of the best examples of a company that doesn't know how to serve the consumer, nor what the consumer wants.
If you don't know, you better ask somebody
You seem to be suffering from a misapprehension. And I don't mean the one about capital letters being unneccessary. You seem to be under the impression that a copyright must be protected or it will be lost to the public domain. This is not in fact correct. Patents must be defended against claims of prior art and trademarks must in theory be protected against any likeness that appears anywhere in the world lest the trademark become generic and be lost. Also, trade secrets must be protected from slipping out otherwise you don't own them and it's your own stupid fault for not patenting and if it's not patentable then who are you to think that you have a claim on it anyway? Copyright, however, does not require protection of that kind. The only thing you might have to protect it from is claims of plagiarism. True, it's still the copyright holder's responsibility to regulate the use of the copyrighted material. But no judge is likely to say "hey, they got away with using your stuff and you didn't do anything about it, hence everyone has a right to use it.
Now, the abandonware people probably think that should be the case to some degree. That copyright holders who try to hoard things pointlessly shouldn't be allowed to complain if people aren't buying what they aren't selling.
To be fair, there are a number of angles to look at this issue from. For example, a copyright holder may take a few, or twenty, years off selling a particular copyrighted property. Maybe if, in the meantime, someone has been distributing it for free, when they bring it back they won't get as many sales. This was, in fact, Disneys motivation for objecting to the vcr when it was emerging. Disney's traditional model for release of its movies was to create scarcity through periodic, brief theatrical releases with occaisional, must see, tv releases. The scarcity greatly increased ad revenue. Disney was worried that, if people could copy the movies off tv, their artificial stranglehold would be destroyed. What actually happened was the emergence of the incredibly lucrative home video market which made Disney money in heaps beyond the dreams of avarice. So maybe there aren't that many ways to look at this after all. Maybe artificial scarcity is just a bad model. Still, one of the reasons that people buy videos rather than recording them (aside from the fact that the video comes out long before the tv release) is that the quality is a lot better. With software, the quality doesn't actually change. It's a perfect digital copy. None of that actually changes the fact that most of these companies don't intend to ever release this stuff again. Microsoft would probably be sued if they tried to sell Windows 3.1 again without any support. So, the model they seem to have chosen: distribute old stuff until someone tells you not to, seems to be a fairly good balance.
Do freeservers.com banners and tripod.com popups count as ads for these purposes?
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's not just you...
The life span of IP is well byond the life span of it's value.
Companys however will still seek to defend IP out of some burrocratic sence of protecting property.
Occasionally you run accorst someone with a good understanding of what is happening and releases the IP into public domain or some sort of open liccens.
(In one case all the IP rights reverted to the tech who created a video game console.. he liccensed those rights to everyone for personal use... something to that effect anyway)
I understand why they have copyrights last 50 to 70 years after the authors death. In many cases IP is valuable for that piriod of time.
But in software with a 6 month turnnover for technology it dose not make as much sence to maintain copyrights more than 10 years.
Instead of using a set target copyrights should expire about 4 or 5 years after they are idle.
Cybersquating BTW may not seem like being creative but there is an art to creating good busness names and there are accually companys who exist to name products.
But most squated names are really not that creative. The same is true of software. Most of it is pritty bland.
Example... the file copyer I used for the Commodore computer is one I memerised.. I never saved it to disk or anything. I'd just type it up when ever I needed to copy a file.
The single file copyers for the 64 usually looked pritty much like the one I wrote myself. Not a whole lot of creativity there. Just read the file from one point and save it at annother.
Mine lacked an interface of course sence it was one use the file name was simply included in the code. But the interface was the only inovation I could find in other file copyers and even then not very often.
There simply isn't that much creativity to be done in most cases.
But occasionally.
There is one key diffrence... when the software is on the market it is of value. It's when the software leaves the market and really has no hope of returnning that software companys become squaters.
It's irritating to colecters of old computers. The software is gone and (with few exceptions) the companys arn't selling the software anymore. Yet they do not wish to release the rights.
So in short.. yeah.. it's totally squating... and it's annoying...
I don't actually exist.
You have quite a radical view of intellectual property. I would be interested to read any source materials, United States Supreme Court cases, peer-reviewed journal articles, or Berne Convention treaty materials that support your opinion that copyright intellectual property rights are not intended to encourage disclosure, but only to encourage creation. Could you point me to some resources online?
I would also be interested in reading any such materials, including statutes, regarding "Copyright Abuse." I find your assertion concerning "It's immoral, and it's NOT legal defendable" interesting, in light of the cases that appear in the standard copyright law casebooks. If you have could point me to some URLs or printed materials explaining "Copyright Abuse," or perhaps a URL with a legal definition, I'd appreciate it.
"Fair use" is an interesting aspect of copyright law. Interesting because what exactly is "fair use" is hotly debated by judges, artists, and scholars. (I find the moral right against destruction even more interesting, but that's neither here nor there.) The concept, however, has nothing to do with whether copyright law is intended purely to encourage creation, as you assert, or in part to encourage creation and in larger part to encourage disclosure, as all of the standard works on intellectual property laws (domestic and international) and theory would argue.