Slashdot Mirror
IDSA Goes After Abandonware
unicron writes "IDSA is trying to shutdown Home of the Underdogs, the biggest and oldest Abandonware site 'round. I personally run an Abandonware site and I'd like to see how this will end. People, talk to and its members with messages that they should pick on 0-day warez sites, not on Abandonware sites! Long live classic gaming!"
So theoretically if you don't do anything with a piece of code I can take it under the public domain right?
Respond to s
I never heard what happened next, but Rear Window (the original) has been on TV some times since then so I guess they failed.
It does show that some companies would wipe out a piece of history to present their new version as the only one.
Yeah, I think (IANAL) that it's called a suit in the public's interest. Although how providing free copies of games that are no longer available is against the public's interest is beyond me.
/. and take up the defense of the Underdogs. But I don't see that happening either.
Again, this does delve into copyright law, and ownership issues. This could all be solved by various software and game companies releasing stuff into public domain, but I really can't see that happening on a large scale. Maybe you'd get a few games into public domain, but that's it. Of course, I'd love to see a lawyer read this on
Sad, really.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I would suggest everybody do this whether you actually want to buy the game or not. As other people pointed out, publishers hate old games because they're nightmares to support, especially on new systems (remember conventional mem, EMS, XMS, DOS mouse drivers?). Tech support is a big expense, and their call centers are usually poorly staffed as it is. If their phone banks get slashdotted and callers asked to buy some long forgotten game and specifically mention theunderdogs.org and IDSA, there just might be some backlash from the member companies.
Imagine if the car were left in the middle of the Mohave desert - for 20 years. No one has touched it. The tires are all flat. Maybe a bush or something it growing up through the middle of it. Perhaps all the paint is scoured off one side by wind and sand...
Is it abandoned? By any sane reasoning, the answer would be an emphatic YES! But by law - it is a totally different matter.
You are right - only the owner can decide whether it is abandoned or not. Car or software, the owner should be asked. But what do you do if the owner can't be located? What if he is dead? What if his whole family is dead? Who owns it now?
In the case of a car, probably the state (you do know that more than likely you _don't_ own your car outright - that it is a joint ownership between you and the state? - that is, unless you paid in full, in cash, and got the MSO to boot)...
Software, though, is more ephemerous - can disappear like the wind, never to be seen again. Sometimes, even when you can find the owner, he will either blow you off, or never respond...
Case in point: I own a copy of Gates of Delerium (for the Tandy Color Computer), which was created and published by Diecom Software, a company that was based in Canada. Dave Dies, the founder, now works for a company that makes games for handhelds (like the Gameboy) - I have the website address and contact email addresses - but no matter what, I can't get in contact to find out what I can do. What is my problem? I own the disks of the game. I still have them, but they don't work on my CoCo anymore (they used to work fine, now it won't boot - all my other floppies are ok, though). I just want to know if I can make an emulated copy, or try to pull the info from the disks, or if he can give me help of any kind.
Small problem, but I want to play this game again - I liked it, and I would love to see it once more.
The whole issue is a very gray area - software isn't like hard items, and the licensing complicates the issue. Then it goes bizzare when you want support, and the company isn't around, but the founder is, etc...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I want games of old. The company sees no demand but hassles people who demand and there are many who demand.
Is there a demand or isn't there?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The clause IDSA cites in its complaint applies only to sites for which register.com (through its "FreeStepSite" service) provides web hosting services, not to domains for which it only acts as registrar.
It was built to hoist copyright in its own petard. It spits into the wind, to hit copyright in its own face. It is a way to tie the snake in a knot.
I'm sure RMS would actually prefer a world where there were no copyrights or patents of any sort. The comunity is about sharing- not about preserving the copyright fallacy. And a totally uninhibited world would have the same net effect as a totally GPL one.
The GPL exists in spite of copyright law- not because of it. It is a totally consistent position to champion the GPL and to regale Napster, Abandonware sharing, DeCSS, ogg, LiViD, and so forth.
The backers of copyright, invariably those who wish to turn dime on the work of others, cannot seem to understand that to defend the GPL is not the same as defending their copy"right".
No, that's not their reasoning. The fact is that they know that people would often rather play the old games, rather than the latest glossy-graphics mindless first-person shooter. Their economic model doesn't involve creating games that last; it involves creating something that sells for a couple weeks, and then superceding it with something else.
If they wanted continued revenues, they'd continue selling their games. Like you said, compilations are always nice -- but only show up very rarely. It seems that most of the abandonware gamers are fairly responsible people -- I think that most of them would buy a compilation of old games, unlike the standard warez crowd. They 'pirate' the games because there's no alternative way to get them, not because they're too cheap to pay for them.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Why? I mean, one is no different than the other.
Most, if not all, 0-day sites are simply run by the 'warez' culture that gets a boner off of hoarding large collections of software. Big deal. Most of the warez dudes I know don't even RUN the stuff they have.. they just trade software like pokemon. Very little of it actually ends up used by anyone.
I thought it was more...
your free to salvage abandoned ships - unless they have enough value in them that some government might get offended and jumps in.
Afterall...they can change (er I mean re-interpret) such things at will. Whatver suits them at the moment you know.
You think that anything salvaged by the US military from German Uboats is being returned to the current German government?
"Whoever salvages something from an abandoned/sunken ship ownes it...oh unless it was a warship - then its owned by the government that owned it....oh yea unless WE want it...oh yea and if you bring it up on a tuesday then...."
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Also good are the early Sierra games.
Amen and Hallelujah. Actually, not just early. In the early-to-mid 90's, they were still making games with memorable characters and plots, except with high-res VGA they could use beautiful hand-painted backgrounds and facial expressions too.
Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness. There's a huge bug in it when it runs on Pentium chips, which I haven't been able to fix, but I haven't forgotten it from my 486 days. I cried the first time I saw scene of Toby's sacrifice.... I can't say anymore. But play that game. Oh my god. Play that game.
grep -ri 'should work'
I understand and agree with your assessment, however it's worth noting that Underdogs does not make availabe games that they know to be available through retail channels. Since there is literally *no* way for you to get those games, they provide a means. This doesn't make it legal, but it should be enough so that boneheaded corporate types could see that they're doing them a favor, not trying to ream them.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
As a side note... there is an emulator for several of these that will run on a Palm Pilot (zork and hitchhikers at least).
It has been a couple of years since I tried it, but it worked fine then. Should be easy to track down on www.pilotgear.com or similiar site.
Basically, you get the emulator, and just move the data onto the palm is a slightly modified format.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Nobody sold the disks. They were later found, stuck in storage with other odds and ends. Plus, I still had in my possession the box it originally came in, which contained the licence agreement.
.zip file from an abandoned software page.
I guess the question is this: Does one own the game (the media), and therefore we are free to do what we want with it, or the *licence to* the game? Microsoft, in particular, seems to support the second one, as they sell licences and media seperately, and you must have several licences to use their software on multiple computers legally.
It seems like if this is the case- if I can prove that I have the licence to the software- I can download the software legally.
Or must I now erase the 'warezed' copy off my computer and install from the media? Seems very silly- they are the exact same thing, but one would be installed from the Official Media (tm) and one from a
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
While what you say may hold true for abandonware in general, Underdogs is quite scrupulous to make sure that it does not make available any game that is available through retail channels.
Does that make it legal? Of course not.
Should anybody try to stop it? No, because Underdogs is offering to fill a void that is obviously not being addressed by the companies in question. Since they only offer for download games that are not available through any legal means, there is no revenue loss. Further, they allow any rights holders to contact them to request that their games be removed from the archive.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
a) Where: have you looked up the sites mentioned in this article?
b) Hardware: has it ocurred to you that when old software was made they didn't have anything but "old hardware"?
I have to agree here....
Just about every book ever written - or at least every book that some librarians can get their hands on - is archived somewhere.
With the exception of things only available in a few copies - nothign will make a book completely dissapear from the world. At any point in the future - we will be able to find them and have new copies made or just read them.
There is nothing to protect software in such a way. I think its sad to know that so much is being produced, and continues to be produced - which will someday be gone forever.
Whenever something is released to the public - it becomes part of our culture. To loose such a thing forever is to lose forever part of our cultural memory.
I think thats truely sad.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Still, I grabbed a copy of Leather Goddesses of Phobos in about two minutes with Google.
I own Leather Goddesses of Phobos, as well as the original Popluous, and a few other titles on 5.25" floppies. But I don't have a working 5.25" floppy drive installed, at the moment. Every now and then, I have a wish to bring one of these oldies out for a spin, but it's not worth the effort of opening the case, and fussing hardware around. It's especially obnoxious because I'm bay-limited, and some of these old games are A:-only. It's just more trouble than it's worth.
But an abandonware site... That's a neat idea, and I already OWN the games, just on obsolete media.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The GPL is built upon copyright law. Copyright law is the foundation of the GPL (or any other license you care to mention). Take it or leave it.
Thank you! Awesome. Time to renew some old ties, I guess.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Theoretically yes, realistically probably not. The various DVD cases running through the courts right now are exploring some of this ground, but the lower courts have (despite a VERY consistant AFAIK Supreme Court stance otherwise) a bad history of considering copyrights to be natural rights.
And the DMCA is part of current copyright law. While I'd like to see a return to the more sensible laws of old (pre 1976 at least) I'm not holding my breath.
-- 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.
I was under the assumption that the enforcement of copyright law is okay. If you didn't buy the game, then you have no rights to play that game. We live in a capitalist society, not some sort of utopic, world-property community.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea of shortening copyrights on computer software. I would even suggest 5 to 10 year limits, but I don't think that people should complain when the current law is being enforced. You should instead try to change the offending legislation. You should draft a bill and send it to your Congressman. You should contact your representatives and tell them how you feel.
If enough people care, maybe Slashdot could be used as a forum for drafting pro-freedom legislation. Think of it as community-developed (cleverly avoiding the typical buzzword) government.
Capitalism in action -- Wondertwin powers Activate! Form of -- an attorney shark! Form of -- a marketing weasel!
What next, sue record stores for selling used CDs, so all we can buy are new ($18+) CDs? Yeah, sure, that'll work. That'll not drive us to the internet and underground Game and MP3 sites.
Stupid clueless twits.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Make no mistake: I war3z as much as anyone out there, and love to see the new CD rips on the shiny FTPs. I however, make no mistake that what I'm doing is immoral, and unethical. I simply DON'T CARE.
/might/ have otherwise purchased it, but now don't have to. It's not right, and if you happen to care, you'd be on the side of the publishers as well.
On the other hand, it's rediculous to say that war3z doesn't hurt authors and publishers -- you can argue that the 15 year old would have never bought Maya 3 Unlimited anyhow, and while that's true, he's actively helping distribute said software to people who
Who submitted this story?
You call it 'abandonware', but that doesn't mean that the author or publisher has relinguished rights. 'nuff said.
Just like WOS, The Underdogs already DO remove abandonware from their site when requested by the original author or puublishing company.
Not all the links on the Underdogs lead to downloads. Sometimes they just provide info on the game and where you can still buy it(if possible). if publishing permission was refused
The problem for sites like theirs is when you get classics like Elite, where one author agrees to the program being uploaded and the other still wants to enforce their copyright and refuses.
I'm all for abandonware sites, don't get me wrong. I also agree that they are in fact violating some rights of the original authors. I don't think anyone can dispute that. So with that in mind, why not a proposal that abandonware sites, instead of blatently putting up software for download, contact the original companies/copyright holders/authors for permission. Herein lies the rock and a hard place problem. In some cases, (perhaps most) the original authors are gone off the face of the planet. Many software companies from the 80s that had one hit wonders are gone, never to be seen again in the gaming industry. So what about their products? Who owns them. Also, there is the fact (coming from experience) that some companies ignore any requests for copies of the software, permission to put the software up for downloads or even releasing the software to the public domain. They simply don't bother answering some of us and in some cases even deny they created the software in the first place. I think there's problems on both fronts. The abdonware sites would do well to try to contact the original authors and make a proposal to make the software available to the public, even linking to the new site if possible. The software companies would do well to start releasing games into the public domain or releasing the source under a GPL (or similar) license so people could build new versions and the life-cycle continues on. Instead these kind of things happen, sites get shut down and nobody benefits. Why can't we all get along? It seems so simple. liB
I can't speak for anybody else, but for me it's the nostalgia factor.
I'd love to find a version of Archon (old EA for C64 game) that could run under Linux. Hell, I'd even settle for a version that runs on 'bloze if I had to.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Light him on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life
Woah, there are a few differences between "Abandonware" and your examples here: 1. If I break into your house to take your Dreamcast or anything else, I am breaking the law: this is regardless of whether I take anything or not. 2. If I steal your car because you haven't driven it, I am breaking the law (even if your car has been in an accident and is now damaged beyond recognition). BUT here, the software is no longer available in any useful way AND my acquisition of it doesn't prevent others from having it. This may be analagous to the concept that my catching a glimpse of the Mona Lisa does not affect your glimpse-catching activity. Yet, if I was to steal your car from a parking lot, or steal your dreamcast, you would no longer be able to acquire benefit from its ownership...
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
Abandonware rules. I feel that morally, it's not software piracy and I support it.
That said, can someone recommend some software to slow down my CPU (Athlon 500) so that I can play Wing Commander? I downloaded WC from an abandonware site, but it's impossible to play. Any suggestions would be appreciated! Thanx!
Rangers Lead the Way!
That's it, I'm off down the computer game exchange...
The poor cook he caught the fits
The poor cook he caught the fits
And threw away all of my grits
In most countries for academic purposes you are limited to photocopying one chapter or a tenth of a printed work, unless the work is out of print in which case you can copy the whole thing.
This is a pragmatic acceptance of the fact that there are benefits to society in keeping IP available and distributed after the point at which the costs of printing, storage & distribution have exceeded the return to the original publisher/author.
Given the vastly reduced costs associated with keeping software titles 'in print' (a download-for-$1 server counts as 'in print'), if as company is too lazy to keep their titles available then IMHO those works have been abandoned. Fair game, at least until said company gets around to 'reprinting' the title.
Current copyright laws make no allowances to preserve works that will be lost due to the original authors abandonment of them, either due to them going out of business or just dropping the product line. A considerable chunk of our history is legally bound to be lost because the only people who care to preserve it get cease and desist letters from corporate lawyers. This despite the fact that the corporate viewpoint seems to be that if it's not current, it's not valuable.
This doesn't just hold true of digital works. Movies, books, music and video footage from previous days all stand to be lost because no one cares to maintain them.
Have you seen that Qwest commercial where the girl goes into the bookstore and asks for Homer's Illiad and the guy says they have all books ever published in every language? That's ideally where the net is going. The truth of the matter though is that you won't be able to get to any content without going thorugh some Internet toll booth and while you might be able to find Homer's Illiad, you'll never find a current work due to copyright issues. And even if you can, you'll have to pay each time you want to read it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Software's a bit different than games. Adobe's stance may be that for every 15-year old who gets a cracked copy of PS, there's a future professional who will eventually be running a licensed copy. That same strategy doesn't work for games.
Oldskool has a utility that lets you play booters from disc images. I can't get through to the site right now, but they have a utilities section. So, if you can pop the drive in long enough to make a few images, you're golden.
As a side note, this game, Sam & Max Hit the Road and Full Throttle are quite amusing games if you are interested.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
I was around when they hit davesclassics, and other classicgaming sites, but at least they were pretending to represent a legitimate client then.
this doesn't make sense.
________
People, talk to and bombard [IDSA] members with messages that they should pick on 0-day warez sites, not on Abandonware sites!
-----
Are you sure you want to play the game, rather than just follow the storyline? Plot is utterly, utterly irrelevant when it comes to gaming, and yes, most classic games have little or no plot. But what they do have is buckets and buckets of playability. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters (IMHO, of course). I just wish modern games would concentrate more on gameplay. As it is, I can always use an emulator to go back and play Battle Squardon or Paradroid or even Manic Miner.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
No, actually copyright law was designed to establish property rights for people's creative output.
Nope; you're both wrong. It was established to enrich the public domain by encouraging artists and writers to produce more works. It did so by establishing a system like property ownership for things that can't, under ordinary circumstances, be owned (how do you own sound, or thought, or words?)
The bargain is struck thus: you have exclusive rights to your works for a limited time (enough time to make money off of the work, and then some in the case of individuals, for whom the copyright expires long after the author hasdied). But, after that time is up, you must release it into the public domain.
If I want to write a story, record a song, etc. and then stick it in a vault, and LOSE MONEY by paying a storage fee, because I don't wish for it to be distributed, that is my right as the creator.
This is very true. It is also very stupid. This is exactly why copyrights were established, so you wouldn't have to do this.
Consider the case of Stradivarius, generally considered the greatest violin-maker of all time. There was no such thing as a patent system in his time, so he kept his methods secret (as this was the only other method available for keeping his methods private). However, because of this, after he died no one knew how to continue his craft. That is why today, with all our technology, we still can't make a better violin. Had there been such a system in place, he could have disclosed his invention, secure in the knowledge that only he could make money off of it, and that after he was gone his art could be continued.
Further, the owner of the copyrighted work has every right to force upgrading, if they so wish.
No, they don't. It's generally against the law for companies to coerce customers into upgrading their products.
Are you going to claim that sculptors should be forced to sell duplicates of their sculputres, and if they don't sell at least one copy every 3-5 years then anybody should be able to sell copies?
And are you going to claim that sculptors should be able to sell duplicates of their sculptures, and can force everyone who has ever bought one of their works to keep buying the same sculpture again and again, regardless of the relative quality of the works over time? It's what you seem to be saying should be allowed.
A copyright for an individual is one thing. Certainly such copyrights should extend at least for the life of the creator (and perhaps somewhat longer, perhaps 25 years, to provide for the creator's family). The reason is simple: people need some source of income for their entire lives.
But for corporations, which exist solely to make money and don't have the same sort of lifespan as human beings do, these copyrights should certainly exist for no longer than the life of the corporation (which has no family to provide for), and more ideally should only exist for as long as a corporation can provide a demonstrable need for it.
----------
When I want to play a game I like a nice long plot/story and I usually can't find that in most "classic" games. Are there any good examples of these games with a novelistic plot?
Respond to s
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but technically the law is on their side. I think it sucks that they're going to the trouble and expense of enforcing a copyright which no longer serves to profit the company, but it is their legal right.
inigima
I must agree...I've been meaning to take my ton of 3.5" and 5.25" disks and put them all on one CD. The trouble is that I don't have a way of reading those 5.25". This will definatly make that task easier.
My other problem is how to deal with games like Amnesia which required you to boot of the disk. Hmmm...can DOSEMU handle that if I point it to a disk image to boot off?
Then again, I'm a bit odd as I just spent an hour playing CIA Adventure on my palm, just because I loved that game.
I think one of the things that the game companies are trying to do is along the lines of the motion picture companies -- create a catalog whose "value" gives an apparent weight to the company. Think about any media company -- other than the "current" songs/films/etc, what value does the company have? Film companies may own a set and some props, but that gives the overall business very little capital value -- there's no "there" there.
But the rights to a movie catalog makes a film company suddenly much more valuable in terms of their capital holdings. Even though some random 1960s movie may only generate a few 10s of thousands of dollars in revenue through licensing of visuals and clips or video rentals. Some even less money than that.
Game companies may see themselves as doing the same thing -- build up a catalog of past hits that you own and you kind of build up a capital base.
While the idea of a game catalog may sound perverse, the gaming community has really closely paralleled the film community -- many of them see themselves as a new-economy interactive film studios.
If the companies aren't even going to support the software, then why go after people who are sharing the old, unsupported games and utilities?
Well, today they don't have an interest. But what is to say that tomorrow Activision may release a CD that has 20 of their classic games on it? Infocom and Sierra have done this.
Long after a product has ceased to be viable to them...
Long after a failed product has any hope of ever giving them a return on their investments...
Long after all those interested in the money side of the software have forgotten about it....
Even long after the company has died....
You still find bonehead managers thinking they have something to lose by releasing the software to the community... idiots! pathetic loons! incomprehensibly devoid of imagination and vision!
This is the reason the gaming industry sucks now! It's being managed by stagnant blobs who are devoid of even a micro-hint of good-will.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
You make a good argument, but it doesn't take into account reality. In reality, companies still make money off these old games. Many times in the past companies have rereleased old games, often on newer systems, usually in complilation format.
It is not hard to make an argument that they might lose sales in this situation when many of the classic game fans that might buy these titles can already easily download the games and play them via emulation.
...Now as the slashdot effect takes hold we do the work for them!!! Do'h.
Lynk
"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George Bush
How about warning sites that they are going to get slashdotted. That way they can take the necessary measures for the boost in traffic.
Especially if they are running Linux.
And don't forget to add the ISDA to the list of Evil Greedy Copyright-Abusing B*st*rds. Just for those keeping score, the list should also have the RIAA and the MPAA on it.
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
Photoshop 6.0 was being warezed all over the place just one day after its release, and Adobe is taking no action. Yet the IDSA goes after Abandonware sites! Gee, what's wrong with this picture?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Lazarus are dead, and will stay dead. There are better Amiga sites out there now, like Warlock's ADF vault and Amiga back2roots.
Does my bum look big in this?
g_mcbay writes "Why is it on Slashdot that many of the same people who think its okay to break copyright laws in cases of emulation, 'free' music and abadonware are the same people who would scream the loudest if a company were to run afoul of the GPL?"
Let me state this in another way: "Why is it on Slashdot that many people who want abandonware to be free to use would scream if someone ran afoul of the GPL and locked up the source so it wasn't free to use?"
Now doesn't that make a bit more sense? The people who support the idea of abandonware also support the idea of the GPL. Copywrite law used to support the GPL is a Good Thing(tm) since the copywrite law is used to benefit ourselves and others, but the way copywrite law is used to attack abandonware is a Bad Thing(tm) since it lets the "art" (old games) fade away, never to be enjoyed again.
-Linknoid
Yes, and enjoy.
The thing about Abandonware is it is (generally) software that is no longer available on the market.. So there is no financial stress on gaming companies nor gain by the Abandonware sites... so what is the point of wasting money attacking these sites?
I still go back and play all of my old Sierra games, and I hold my ground that while Graphics and programs have gotten so much more sophisticated in teh last years, it seems to me as if concentration on gameplay and storyline has decreased. I haven't gotten immersed in a game since Betrayal at Krondor. I still go back and play these games; they represent a simple and fun way to waste my time. IMHO, it seems very pointless and anti-progressive for the IDSA to attack the Underdogs Site.
~ The Irony is, The only reason I'm not at Berkeley right now is because I was on acid during my SAT's..
Every time the day draws near when copyrights will begin to expire, Congress pulls something like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and gives copyright holders 20 more years.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yeah I remember those early DirectX translations, and like today, they sucked. The way I see it, if I wanted to play those age old games, I'd either get an emulator or go to some pawn shop and buy the old console for a few measly bucks.. but certainly I won't pay 30$ for a new "remake" that turns my high-end tweaked PC into a 10 year old console with added GPF functionality. That's just absurd.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Zarniwoop wrote:
I'm not sure that is the best analogy. It is more like downloading an mp3 of a song that you used to own years ago.
I think a book (the classic example of an intellectual property package) is a better analogy. When I buy a book, how much am I buying the physical object and how much am I buying the content within it? In most cases it is recognized that it is the content that I want. However people pay more for the same content in a better looking package (for example, trade paperback vs. mass market). And most people would agree that if I lose a copy of a book, I have to pay to replace it. I can't just go to the library and photocopy an entire book, just because I once owned it.
Software could fit that model. When you buy the software, you generally buy a physical package as well as the intellectual property. If you lose the physical package and you still want the intellectual proprty are you obligated to buy it again?
Of course, in the case of abandonware, it's not possible. There is a book equivalent to this. It's called Out Of Print. What we are talking about here is the equivalent of photocopying and distributing our favourite out of print books. Unfortunately, copyright law makes no exemptions on the basis of material being out of print (unavailable from the rights holder). It is still illegal to reproduce it.
Of course, illegal does not equal immoral or unethical. My personal library does contain photocopies of out of print or unavailable books in areas of interest to me (e.g., mediaeval culinary history). As far as I'm concerned, so long as I'm willing to purchase a legal copy should one come along, I've done nothing wrong. But I don't fool myself into thinking that I haven't violated copyright. And as far as software goes, ...., well, let's not go there.
Respectfully, David Tallan
If the creator wants to hide his work in a vault and never publish it, he is of course entitled to do so.
However, if it is published the creator benefits from the limited time monopoly that copyright law grants him/her. Then the author also has to abide by the other parts of the law, including the limited time clause and "fair use".
I don't see you claiming that abandonware sites should break into old software houses and steal unpublished games, so where is your point?
Further, the owner of the copyrighted work has every right to force upgrading, if they so wish.
Which part of the copyright law says so?
Also, statues and paintings are usually only made in one copy, which is vastly different from widely published old games.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Many books have been very successful and have been reprinted with many years between editions. How recent are your copies of Smith's "Lensman" series?
Also see the newsgroup alt.fan.elite.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
IDSA seems to have a monopoly on educating the government about "strong intellectual property rights." Why can't the Free Software movement participate in such training, and FSF lawyers ver the training materials? If we don't educate people, the other side will!
From IDSA's site:
IDSA anti-piracy efforts include: direct investigation and enforcement actions around the world and on-line, working closely with government agencies such as United States Trade Representative, the United States Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and foreign government officials, training and educating customs agents and law enforcement officers in the United States and around the world.
The IDSA piracy program has three main components: policy work, education and enforcement. Our policy work focuses on domestic and foreign legal and regulatory issues affecting member's intellectual property rights and the market access barriers that member companies face when trying to enter a foreign market. In the education area, we have developed training materials for U.S. Custom and law enforcement personnel and do several training sessions around the country every month. In addition, IDSA staff educates foreign visitors on our industry and the importance of strong Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection around the world. This effort includes training foreign custom agents to identify pirate entertainment software, working with foreign prosecutors on running raids and prepare cases, and training judges on IPR. Finally, the association runs an anti-piracy enforcement program in selected foreign markets, as well as domestic piracy in the U.S., through the Internet, computer shows, etc. This program is completely funded by membership dues and is open to all IDSA member companies.
*blush* OK, thanks for informing. This could be useful for people not in the know. As for Elite, it should be a case of if anyone has a problem, pull it, imho. Ruairi
Where can you obtain one that runs well on old hardware?
Respond to s
Well.. I think that, as others have mentioned, as nice as it would be for them to continue supporting it.. it just costs too much. They probably get like 5 requests for wolfenstein a year.. and that probably just isn't worth their trouble.. and the shelf lives on disks isn't that long.. in some cases any old distribution media they have around may no longer work!! That is another mandate of abandonware I suppose.. to preserve the older games by keeping it on new media..
Isn't it OK to copy games that are no longer distributed in the stores or commercially exploited?
No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant to its copyright status. Unlike trademarks, copyrights are not considered abandoned if they are no longer enforced. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and copying or distributing those games is a copyright infringement. (From http://www.idsa.com/piracy.html)
What exactly are the IDSA doing wrong here? People should write to the member companies and ask them to change their corporate policies, not flame the ISDA. The companies signed up because they didn't want their IP put on the web for download.. you're allowed to complain to them but you can't just ignore them because you don't like what they have to say. The ISDA are doing what they're paid to do. They hit high profile sites because it is easy, low risk (they clearly have legal right whatever the moral viewpoint) and sends a message. If they let these high profile sites go it whould imply acceptace of copyright devalument after, say, 6 years or so. The members don't want that.
I know people here get very worked up about GPL violations, well these guys appear to be engaged in wholesale licence violation. Its not as if these companies aren't trading anymore or that these games have no value. Companies like Namco still make good money from 20yr old games being sold today. Maybe EA want to put Gunship in thier next flight sim as a secret sub-game in the air traffic control system computer (Day of the tenticle anyone?). These guys were giving Gunship away, which devalues such a promotion.
Am I missing something or is this whole "Abandonware" tag being abused. Who says these games are Abandoned? Doesn't that happen when the Publisher/whoever formally Abandons it, or changes the licence or the copyright expires? Maybe if they go bankrupt (although such rights usually find a buyer even then). There are examples of companies releasing old IP because they don't need it, think its good PR, had a fit of humanity etc.. but this site doesn't look like a repository of that to me.
I don't see the IDSA overstepping any marks here. This one of the roles they exist to carry out. Complaining to the members makes sense. If you alert them to a market for old games them may make them a $1 dload...
0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
is Continuum, by data east. Best Game Ever. My life would be complete if someone found a god-mode for this game so I could finally see it all. Or, if there was a way to force dos programs to run slower.
anyway.
--
I wonder how that game would have been if they had CD-ROMs in 1991.
So what I am saying is that only "free" code would survive w/ot copyright.
Disclosure of source code does not defeat copyright law. A program has no more or less legal protection if it is released as source code or as object code only.
Thats not what I said. I said that defeat of copyright law obviates required disclosure of source code (as well as making it unenforceable).
If I write a computer program and distribute it as object-code-only, my customers are forced to come to me for upgrades and bug fixes.
Heh- who are your customers in a copyrightless world? they would probably demand the source code since the only way they would hire you to make something for them would be a one-time commision- after that they have right to do what ever they want including giving it away etc. If you put copyprotection in it, they could let the warez crowd fix that for them. It would be pointless to even try to run the scam your speak of. That only works in the world of copyright.
If you have an email or other site we could continue this argument, I would appreciate. Hotmail killed my inactive account.
Actually, it goes even further than this. Copyright law was established in the Constution for the benefit of the public.
The Congress Shall have the power to...
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;
Article 1, section 8
In other words, the idea behind copyright was to encourage people to contribute their work to the whole world - copyright was just an incentive for this. It definitely wasn't intended to allow corporations to deny total access to old content. Franklin refused patents on his inventions, believing that IP was for those was only for the very selfish - ideally people would develop things for the common good, not for personal benefit.
I'm hunting high and low for an old game called "Epic" by Ocean, made by Digital Image Design in 1991. Because of its generic name, a search such as "epic space game" will turn with 1000s of useless links.
Anyway, I found download links for the Amiga version of that game, but noone (not even Ocean) was able to point me to the PC game. Yes, I asked Ocean for the possibility to buy it...
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
We talk a lot about striking down the DMCA based on similar arguments, but this is way deeper. Come to think of it, this is the kind of stunt Ralph Nader would love to pull. *rubs hands in glee*
I've been trying to find this oldie but goodie - A "Life" demonstration that ran under EGA resolution, it used definable parameters of Sharks and Minnows to extrapolate a particular set's life until extinction... Help!!!
Nope; you're both wrong. It was established to enrich the public domain by encouraging artists and writers to produce more works. It did so by establishing a system like property ownership for things that can't, under ordinary circumstances, be owned (how do you own sound, or thought, or words?)
Copyright's purpose is not to encourage artists and writers to produce works. It's purpose is to encourage artists and writers to publish their works.
These are very different purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the copyright law that encourages the creation of works. The entire purpose of the law is to encourage the publication of works.
The problem with modern copyright law is that the publishers have convinced Congress and the public that they, not authors, are the intended beneficiaries of copyright.
The only type of authors who are actually able to keep their copyrights anymore are certain print authors. Stephen King's books are still, "Copyright 2000 Stephen King." If you want to make your living as a songwriter/performer, however, you will quickly discover that the price of admission -- your "recording contract" -- is that you have to sign over all of your copyrights. All your songs will be, for instance, "Copyright 2000 Warner Communications." If you want to become a filmmaker, the price is the same. "Copyright 2000 United Artists." If you want to write textbooks or make maps, your work is "work for hire", and the copyrights on your works are automatically assigned to your employer. "Copyright 2000 Prentice Hall."
Copyright wasn't always for the benefit of authors. Originally, copyright was conceived as a means of censorship. The British Crown wanted to control book printers, so, in exchange for accepting censorship over what they published, the Crown granted monopolies to individual publishers over works -- even works that they had nothing to do with creating.
One of the great innovations in the Constitution was the change in copyright. A new form of copyright was created -- one that incited publication and was intended to benefit authors. It was a noble experiment -- The founding fathers took something that was absolutely evil and against the public interest -- the Stationer's Copyright -- and recast it into something that was in the public interest -- modern Copyright.
It's taken about 225 years of gradual change in the laws, but copyright has finally reverted to its original purpose.
Wasn't it Gen. Hooker, who arranged for professionals ("Hooker's girls ") to follow his troops, keeping down rape and general unhappiness (and perhaps General unhappiness as well)?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
No no they did not and yes they do have a right to force them into oblivion. Should they have a right to do so? NO. Do they have a right to do so? Yes under the current law they do. The only bargain they made with the public was to provide a whatever they said was in the box when they sold the box to someone. Is there some kind of social contract going on here. Not at all. Should they act as though there were. Yes I think so. My whole point was and is that they have their heads up their asses and that they do treat software as though it needs to bo controlled and limited. As for me I will not give such people my money. Of course since Id seems to pretty much be on the cluetrain I don't have alot to worry about.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
You're actually the first one to ask about that. :)
Poor Old Lu is a (now defunct) Christian band. They played alternative before that became a watered-down term for pop. See here for the full lyrics for the song. It's meaning is more like 'why can I relate to someone who betrayed Christ better than I can to the one I claim to follow?'.
Also, they have a mp3 page. I really dig their stuff, especially when I'm in a more melancholy mood. If you decide to download one, try 'Chance For The Chancers (Remix)'. Quite good. Or at least I think so.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
Slashdotted! I get this when I go to www.theunderdogs.org:
Whoa, there are too many people requesting our pages at the moment. Please wait a few minutes, then reload the page. Thanks, and we hope to see you soon!0
I tried and tried reloading, but couldn't load the page...oh well, guess I'll have to wait..
If the GPL was just a way to keep all derivative works freely distributable, it wouldn't say anything about the source.
It's really about documentation. Not only must you allow people to copy the software, you must give them all your notes on how you constructed it so they can see everything you did, and make any changes they wish.
That's what source code is: documentation. It's a formal explanation of what the software is intended to do. Actual construction of software from good plans is so trivial that we tend to dismiss it and treat the design as construction, but that is not accurate. Note that the GPL forbids stripping comments, mechanically obfuscating source, and distributing unedited translator output. That has nothing to do with being able to recompile at will, it's purely a requirement to leave your notes in.
Without copyright, it would be entirely possible to build elaborate copy protection schemes, user-spyware, advertising, and restrictions to using it only with "approved" services and hardware into proprietary software based on free software. Removing such things would then be a difficult problem of reverse engineering. More importantly, hardware interfaces could be obfuscated to the point where it would take longer to reverse engineer than to come out with next year's model.
GPL protection extends far beyond what free software would have without copyright. The GPL is not made necessary by copyright (it is not necessary at all), it is made relevant by copyright. Closed source software would continue to thrive in the absence of copyright.
Personally, I believe in public domain software. For one thing, I suspect that in today's legal/political climate, with MS being split up for, of all things, giving away a free piece of software, that GPL may well be ruled to be public domain. But questions of enforceability are only one issue. The big one for me is license incompatibility, though the overhead of trying to sort out what is and isn't allowed is another significant issue.
Sure, with public domain, people can take what you've written and hide rotten things in it. All the more reason for users to avoid proprietary software. I feel no particular need to try to directly force other programmers to change what they do with their work. The advantages of public domain, open source software speak for themselves. If someone is willing to write it, it only makes sense that people will eventually catch on and start using it.
--------
when you said:
If the new games are good enough, but most of them are, IMNSHO, CRAP. The companies know this, you know this, but they still want to suck the money out of your wallet, and so they do these and other asinine things.
Long Live Abandonware!
This is my
This is my
--An Oldie, but a Goodie!
I'm not going to say I like it but the argument does have some merit.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Sorry, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that the industery has not lost a single dime. They probably saw that enuff people downloaded these out dated applications/games/whatever and decided to hit it while they could. I am willing to bet, if there was no popularity for these abondoned appz ... then they would not so much as say anything to anyone.
The biggest security hole sits between the keyboard and chair.
-Andrew McAllister
Just because someone feels the GPL, or certain licences are logical and valid, does not mean they need to accept en mass all of copyright law. That's like saying because you agree with the right to freedom of speach, you must agree with later constitutional amendments with no regard to their content or effect since they are all part of the same 'law'.
/. bitching about GPL violations are NOT the same folks championing Napster, emulation, etc. Please keep that in mind.
As a side note, quite often the folks on
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
--
Search the net for them. Or write your own they are basically just nop operations in a continuous loop to keep the processor busy for a while thereby decreasing the ammount of processor attention being paid to the app and reducing it's execution speed.
Respond to s
And btw, what's to stop prankster from randomly picking sites registered at register.com and sending fake IDSA letters? No problem for the site (cheap registrars are a dime a dozen...), but might become problematic for Register.com if it happens on a large enough scale...
However, I think their business model is wrong. Keeping my old games will not stop me from buying new ones, if the new games are good enough.
Perhaps they are afraid of comparisons. When a company starts, they usually have an outstanding product, or they will not survive. Then it's just a matter of creating so-and-so follow-ups, coasting on the fame of their oldest hits. That's why sequels are "never" as good as the original.
It is not hard to make an argument that they might lose sales in this situation when many of the classic game fans that might buy these titles can already easily download the games and play them via emulation.
The only problem I have with that argument, is it seems to be based on games which were not capitalizing on the prevalent social belief. For example, a game like Civilization - great game, but comparitively week now a days. However, it can (and has been) released in the sort of 'classic' form. However, a game like 'Little Mermaid Fun Studio' or 'CHiPS: Living on the edge' (or for an even better argument in the feminaziest modern day and age, a title like 'Barbie's Paint and Play') [note: I do not know if these games actually exist. They are mentioned for use as example], there is really no marketability.
So I suppose it's subjective to the game. There are certain genres (ie: simulation, adventure, fantasy) that would no doubt suceed with a little touch up work and repackaging. I mean, heck, I've seen old Atari games repackaged by Activision and sold for $40 for the bundle of 12 - but those were all games without significant social connections.
Personally, I think it would be better if games stopped trying to capitalize on the social trends, and instead focus on quality, not cross-marketeering. So many great games existed on the Nintendo because movie/media companies weren't willing to spend money to platformize a movie/show, although, when they did, they often did so so sparingly w/ the money that it resulted in really CRAPPY games.
But thanks for bringing up that good point that some games still have a market, but just remember that some games are doomed to be abandoned - hence the 'need' for sites that host Abandonware.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
Billco -
Actually, something even worse to think is that when DirectX was released (waay back in the day), Sega released Sonic the Hedgehog on PC, along w/ Comix Zone and Ecco the Dolphin. Sounds like all they did was copy all 8 games they initially released w/ the DirectX launch, and copy to CD. Now, it may be just me, but does Sega really think there is a market for DirectX remakes of 1980's era games?
Information is the catalyst for revolution
I noticed a few days ago (through The Underdogs site no less) that LucasArts is still selling many of their classic games here. Stuff like Maniac Mansion, Monkey's Island, Battle Hawks 1942. Most of them are in collections. Of course a lot of them are only offered on 3.5" floppys, so if you really want an 'archive' you still have burn it to CD.
On the topic, I believe that this is just a case of lawyers doing their job. They were told to look for copyright infringement on the web, and they found it, and are pressing charges just as much as they would if it were a game released yesterday and posted on a web site today. We just have to see which game company takes the high road first and sets a policy for allowing abandonware.
[Reply to This|Parent]
Well then, maybe they should be more specific about the more grievious software violations. All I can say is that there are better things to pursue than this dry well. I give you what I sent them: "To whom it may concern, You know, instead of suing the pants off of abandonware sites (where is the money in this anyway?), why not just use www.google.com and get busy? I'll give you a few hints. Do a search for 0-day, warez, cracks, etc. I'm certain you could find something FAR more relavent than suing a site that has 15-year old games for crying out loud..."
It appears this abandonware site has fallen victem to the "Slashdot Effect"... too bad, was gonna see if I could find any of my old favorites this afternoon too...
And I didn't suspect it was there. Is it?
Respond to s
For example, several Spanish galleons chockful of gold were recently found off the Florida coast by a treasure hunter. The US Government stepped in and said they can't salvage the ship. Governments and their heirs retain rights to warships unless they expressly give up those rights.
I have had this sig for months. None of these things will enter the public domain.
So should the law be changed to prohibit the trading of copyrights? So instead of selling the copyright to a publisher or distributer, the artist would "sell" them a licence to copy/distribute while still retaining the copyright.
The US gov't has the right to take away anything that you own, as long as they have a reason ("National Security") and they justly compensate you.
There are some titles whose copyright has become lost. For instance, a company goes out of business and its assets get sold off, but nobody buys some of the copyrights or they aren't put up for sale due to not being listed as assets.
The copyright continues to exist, since there's no legal mechanism for it to become invalid. The work is therefore under copyright, but either there is nobody who actually has the rights, or the entity with the rights doesn't know they have them.
In these cases, distribution can still be illegal, but there's nobody with the actual right to bring charges, at least as far as I can tell. Presumably, even the IDSA couldn't do anything about it, since they only can act because the copyright holder is a member.
There is actually some software in this category; a lot of computer companies showed up in the 80s and 90s and then disappeared without a trace. For example, as far as I can tell, nobody holds the copyright on Below the Root. At least at one point, the only company which could have the rights to Robot Odyssey were reportedly denying it, although there have been reports that they admit they have the rights now.
I think there ought to be extreme abandonware sites, which would only distribute software they could not find anyone to prohibit them from distributing; ironically, while I had no trouble finding several programs with extant copyright holders, I couldn't find Below the Root.
OK, but music is surrounded with RIAA restrictions, software might (I don't know) be completely different.
Is there anyone out there who knows whether it would be legal or not.
If it would be then the exercise, for those so inclined, simply remains to work out how to abuse this protocol, and carelessly implement it in order to get back to where we are now.
However, it would be nice for at least everyone to start with a legal sanction.
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Half-baked analogy follows...
Okay, so VW abandoned the Beetle some time in the 70's. It was no longer manufactured or available through retail channels (in the North American market anyway). In the Beetle's absense, at some point (maybe early 90s?), the intellectual/emotional (ie, non-physical, non-theivable) image of the Beetle started to become desirable again. Why? Partially because of the romantic feelings toward a product that was pretty good in its day but hasn't been available for so long. Now, had some other company stolen the Beetle name and image in, say, the late 80s and kept it alive, could VW have pulled off the revival? To a lesser degree, probably. But why should the owner not be allowed to control distribution of their product and the related images, feelings, etc?
My point here is that abandoning a product for a while can be part of a greater plan that isn't clear until finally played out. At some point, VW started to plot the Beetle's revival. They didn't tell us that right away, and it's a good thing for VW that nobody started reviving the Beetle sooner. Bringing something back to market because it's abandoned may come with the best intentions, but the owner should be consulted, don't you think?
So are you saying that if copying old, out-of-print games was legal, a whole bunch of people would avoid buying the game for years and years until you longer buy it even if you wanted too? Please... Waiting a few months for the price to drop is one thing; waiting for the game companies to stop selling it is another. The former is understandable; the latter, laughable.
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
Posted by polar_bear:
...this would be it. C'mon - attacking someone for posting software that is no longer available from a company - or worse, from a company that's out of business. To what end? Who is being hurt by posting "abandonware?" It's easier to make a case for those who are being harmed by the inability to get copies of abandoned versions of software - there are many legitimate reasons to need to retrieve a copy of older software - particularly any software distributed on floppies...
If companies want to prove that they are concerned about their customers they should at least include a clause in their license regarding unsupported versions and contingency if they should go out of business.
How can anyone make a business case - forget the political issues for a moment - for buying software that you will rely on but have no control over? Getting support from a software company is nearly impossible, and the old saw about "having someone to sue" is ridiculous. I've never heard of a case where someone successfully sued a software company for damages - I'd love to see the case if one does exist...
Open Source - it's not just the Right Thing to do, it's practical too.
There is a social contract insofar as copyright (in the US) is only legal when it meets certain criteria in the Constitution. Personally, I don't think that destroying a work before it enters the public domain as a spoilsport tactic qualifies; film preservationists have had similar problems with movie studios forcing the destruction of films that are now forever lost b/c it's good for business.
-- 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.
Sounds really swell how do I get a copy?
Respond to s
But "Day of the Tentacle" contains the origional "Maniac Mansion" game embedded within it (find an old computer in the game, and use it) so that collection does include the origional Maniac Mansion :-)
--
IANAL, but I think you're examining that section of the US code out of context. Overall, copyright law in the United States prohibits unauthorized redistribution of a copyrighted work. The passage that IDSA quotes is a clarification that the law does not prohibit copying a piece of software that you own for purposes of running it or for archival purposes.
IDSA is pointing out that this exception does not cover posting games for downloads, and therefore, posting games for download is illegal under the law as a whole.
--
The most valuable commodity I know of is information. - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
If that reasoning would fly, couldn't you ask for a refund of the royalties for throwing your legacy games in the thrash, because that would lead to "less copies of a game than the market initially had"...
Whoever posts direct links to an article must also setup a couple mirrors if the hosting site isn't a mainstream site like Times, USA Today, etc. I wouldn't mind discussing the article if I could actually read the article.
Slashdotted already.
So while I was waiting for the page to load, I was thinking "what does it take to slashdot slashdot?". But I'm sure somebody already pondered on that one.
and hey thanks for the little link I found that entertaining
Respond to s
Ironically, Origin and Capcom are two of the few companies (Activision's Infocom being another) that are still selling their old titles... generally, every game on a single CD-ROM. Origin is selling the entire Ultima line (including the white on black vector "Mystery Mansion" style Aklabeth, titled Ultima 0) on a CD. In Capcom's case, they are even selling arcade ROM images along with an emulator and real arcade style joystick.
It's nice to see that most of the Abandonware sites seem to be aware of this, and don't carry those games that are sold. Still, I grabbed a copy of Leather Goddesses of Phobos in about two minutes with Google.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Yeah, they're still selling games in boxes that say Lucas Arts all over the outside and only after you buy it and open it do you find the piece of paper that says that they no longer support it. At least the McMillan versions of Red Hat actually had "McMillan" in small print somewhere on the outside of the box.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I would refuse to provide them with the source code. So would all my competitors. Now what do they do? Answer: They buy my object code, or my competitor's object code, or go without.
Mrrrp! Wrong- they take it for free. Since you have to give away copies of your binaries for them to work, you sell one copy- then the whole world takes it for free (legally). How can you sell copies?
You try to sell subscriptions? Well one person buys a subscription then forwards copies of all binaries to anyone he knows.
Perhaps you have gotten the idea that people like to pay for things needlessly. If so I'd have a business where I resold air in invisible containers for high prices.
Pure ASP? Well GPLv2 has nothing on that either- but you cannot solve all problems via Remote Execution (Net goes down & MSWord crashes?). Besides- any single employee or security breach reveals your binaries and/or source- then the whole world gets it all for free anyway.
Summation: Without legal copy"right" protection there is no viable method of charging for copies, technological or contractual (shrinkwrapped NDA's? Nah, equates to © ).
Now as for laws providing incentives to create- Bah! way wrong. Sure everybody wants to be able to make a living- but to say that greed begets creativity is to utter a contradiction in terms. The people who are motivated primarily by laws guaranteeing them revenue are not creators- they are practical businessmen.
If a manufacturer stops selling a title, why don't they partner with sites like this who are already making the title available, and come up with a licensing agreement? You can't buy Electronic Art's "Balance of Power" anymore. They're not making money. Why are they spending money to send out cease-and-desist letters? Where's the revenue stream? What's the business model?
Does this make sense to anyone?!?
Or is this just a FORM LETTER that someone at the IDSA sends out everytime they see software on the Internet?
You decide...
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Don't forget what the author of the GPL says about copyright: that free software would be much easier to produce and use without it. The GPL does indeed utilize copyright, but the GPL is made necessary by copyright in the first place. Without copyright, the GPL could not exist -- but it would not need to exist. So, personally, I'm with RMS: LEAVE IT.
The GPL is not made necessary by copyright. The GPL is made necessary by the failure of copyright.
Compare computer software to, for instance, a printed novel. There is no such thing as a "closed-source" paperback novel. When you purchase a Stephen King book from the bookstore, you acquire a copy of the work in its most complete, useful form. Granted, >99% of the people who buy the book will put it to no other use then to obtain personal pleasure by reading the book. However, the remaining 1% are extremely important. To a budding author, a novel is a real-life lesson in how to write fiction. To a social critic, a novel is a source of ideas; of quotes; something to criticize and analyze. To a historian, a novel is a snapshot of current events, mores; a source of history. These are the people who advance the progress -- by building new works on the foundation of previous works. That fraction of 1% of a novel's readers will become the writers of the future, and copyright is properly functioning by protecting their right to learn.
However, when you buy a software package, you acquire a copy in a obfuscated, concealed form -- precompiled. You don't know what has been compiled into the program. All you know is that the program is represented to be, say a word processor for instance.
This state of affairs is perfectly acceptable to 99% of the population. Most people will buy, for instance, a copy of Microsoft Word, because they want to use it, not study it.
However, that leaves a critical 1% of the population who are completely unrepresented and abandoned by software copyright law. It is generally against the "license" of a piece of software -- and with the DMCA it is now a felony in certain cases -- for that 1% to attempt to read the program (also known as reverse engineering); to attempt to discover the details of what the program really does and how it actually works. To learn from it.
To a budding programmer, a copy of Windows 98 is useless. It will not teach her how to program a computer. To a computer scientist or researcher, it is worthless. A copy of Windows 98 is not a suitable subject for study. Studying Windows 98 does not teach one about operating system concepts. You can not experiment with Windows 98 by, for instance, replacing or modifying the scheduling algorithm.
The effect of this is obvious. With few exceptions, we are a world of computer users, not computer programmers. Copyright law on software has led to a world of technological illiterates. A person may have the world's most state of the art software sitting in front of them, yet they are forbidden by both the license and by federal law from reading that software to understand how it works. Imagine if writers of fiction were forbidden to read other people's works. If they had to re-invent the ideas of story development, character development, plot twists, all from scratch. That's roughly the situation that budding computer programmers find themselves in. Unless they abandon useless proprietary software packages and base their self-education -- and their own original software -- on the study of GPL'ed programs instead.
How could copyright law on computer software be fixed so as not to promote illiteracy?
The solution is not to eliminate copyright on computer software.
Closed-source software would be just as useless without copyright. A compiled binary is a compiled binary. Removing the copyright restrictions on Windows 98 would not make Windows 98 useful to programmers in the sense that reading a good novel is useful to a young author. Even if copyright were to be removed from software, the only way that a closed-source application could be made useful would be the long, laborious process of reverse engineering -- the reconstruction of the source code. Even then, it would only be an approximation of the original work. Besides, the elimination of copyright on software would only encourage the proliferation of "copy protection" schemes, which benefit no one.
So why not change copyright law structurally?
There is absolutely no constitutional reason not to make source code disclosure a prerequisite for copyright on computer software. The only reasons are political -- software companies want the benefits of copyright, and at the same time the benefits of trade secrets.
The discussion shouldn't be "GPL vs Copyright", or "Copyright -- love it or leave it." Here's the question. There are a small percentage -- less than 1% of the population -- working outside of the "corporate software writing" establishment -- who are able and willing to advance the progress of computer science by reading and understanding source code, and creating new works. Are they better served by the traditional copyright framework, or by the GPL-modified copyright framework? From this vantage point, they seem to be choosing the GPL.
Ever left it parked for three days in the same spot? If so it looks abandoned to me so lkets elt someone take it.
Have you used your Dreacmcast in the past 2 weeks? If not, it looka to me like you've abandoned it, mind if I break in to your hosue and take it? After all, you obviosuly aren't using it so who am I hurting?
Giving the theaft of intellectual proerty a fancy new name doesn't change the fact that its theaft. Only the owner can decide if something is abandoned.
A REAL "abandonware" site would approach the copyright holders of each piece of sofwtare they wished to post and get permission to do so.
Otherwise its just another Warez site with classic warez and a fancy justification.
The IDSA announces they are putting the kibosh on a particular gamez site. Slashdot links to gamez site. Gamez site goes down in a blaze of glory as thousands of geeks try to download "Strip Poker '87" at the same time. IDSA wins.
See, people are stupid. It doesn't matter if the game was released in 1980, people will still call the manufactuer and complain about how it doesn't work on their system, runs too fast, doesn't have good graphics, and ask for hints. If they can't find the original publisher, they'll find one with a similar name.
:-) Even so, a small percentage of "abandonware" games aren't, and a large site is sure to have a few.
/. masses be concerned? Not really. The abandonware site had indeed done something wrong (violating providers TOS if nothing else). If this develops into a general jihad against abandonware, *THEN* it's time to to start panicking. Until then...naaa. However I *DO* think the IDSA would have been better giving a list of titles they wanted removed. OTOH, there's enough abandonwarez sites out there one more or less won't really matter.
That's why you very rarely see companies doing this. It's just a major headache. They want these games to VANISH. They're old, they're not supported, the people working there now probably never even played them, and MOST importantly, they will likely have problems on new hardware.
Remember the Warcraft advendure game? Blizzard didn't think it was *QUITE* up to their standards, and never released it (despite the fact that hardcore Blizzard fans would have given up their first born child for a copy). Similarly, many software companies may look back at old CGA titles, and recoil in horror. They do *NOT* want people associating that with *THEM*. Don't forget, people are stupid. You and *I* know that Kings Quest 1 - 4 and The Colonels Bequest were some of the finest non-text adventure games ever made (right up there with LucasArts offerings, IMHO), but Joe Sixpack wants something with sex, blood, and/or explosions, and screw the gameplay.
So you'll find that many companies ACTUALLY don't mind abandonwarez sites. They can have nothing to do with them, but so long as they keep a low profile and don't distribute anything too recent, it's not a problem. If the companies could, they'd likally distribute their old games themselves--but for the reasons above, they can't. It has to be a 3rd party.
Now, as to the IDSA, I'm thinking that they just have a bored legal staff that needs something to do. It's possible, however, some member complained. Games often are rereleased (happened to Transport Tycoon just recently), which removes any moral justification for the software being on an abandonwarez site. Frequently, it doesn't remove the software, which the IDSA may be trying to fix.
The short of it is, *ALL* abandonwarez sites are breaking copyright law, and a close look shows that nearly all are breaking any impartial moral standards. If you can buy it in the local software store, it's not valid abandonware, and abandonwarez sites often don't look too closely. Of course, I know of one software shop thats still selling Betrayal at Krondor, despite Sierras decision (a rare exception to the general rule) to release it as freeware.
Should the
Maybe I am wrong... but I thought the whole idea behind abandonware was that it all cases you couldn't purchase the old software from the original copyright holder even if you wanted to.
I took a look at underdogs and they have removed the download links on all IDSA companies's games and replaced it with something along the lines of:"please contact the original publisher to buy this title".
I am willing to bet that Sierra isn't supporting Manhunter 1..
Copyrights expire.
Their theory is that if you want games you *have* to buy the current games and that you should be forced to either upgrade or buy a new device to play said game. It's all meant for them to get more and more money out of you. Suppose you have every game ever produced since games were first produced for "computers" and you could play them anytime you wanted. There wouldn't be much desire to buy the new titles.
Respond to s
Remember, dear brethren, the legacy these games left before it is too late.
Seriously though, other than a few classic games (For me, 'classic' refers to the Mega Man series, but for some it may be the Zelda series, the Ultima series, and who knows what else), will these games be missed? From my understanding, it's not like there is money being taken, because the only money that the companies would make is from royalties, and you can't make royalties off games that aren't sold anymore (used games shop don't pay royalties). So how is theft occuring?
Or are they saying you are 'introducing' more 'copies' of a game then the market initially had, and thus the amount of money being lost is equal to the price of the game at market introduction? Sounds like that would be a pretty weak (and greedy) excuse.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
If IDSA were responsible for books then they would force all libraries to burn all books that are no longer in print.
What if you do something like this. Ok I personally never got a chance to register Wolfenstein but would really like to get a chance to play all the levels. Now is there a way to get the game? Can you call up ID and get a copy on floppies or such? Can you pay for it? Is there a site you can get it? I would think that software companies at least have copies off of backups that somone could get ahold of for these types of events.
Respond to s
Please don't feed the trolls. Anybody that posts at -1 without moderation is down there for a reason.
DB
Please back up your statement that it's the same people who say two totally different things. I for one am NOT an advocate of "free" music, but I AM an advocate of abandonware.
And, never underestimate the power of the vocal minority to sound like the majority.
-----
I found it a bit funny, especially considering the ramifications of the Slashdot Effect these days. As I am reading this article (11:21 AM US Central Time) both sites are totally /.'ed. The only thing the poster succeeded in doing was knocking both Underdogs AND his site off the net for the next 12-24 hours.
/., 'cause I know what'd happen to them... in a flash of electrons, *POOF*, they'd be gone, thanks to the overload of people looking to get something for nothing...
I've got a whole slew of abandonware sites bookmarked, but I'll be darned if I'd just jump right up and post them on
Frank, Professional Devil's Advocate. Contact me for rates...
"You did WHAT to WHO for BEER MONEY?!? Jeez, man - you don't even like beer..."
From the: It-gets-more-dented-the-older-it-gets dept.
I think perhaps one of the largest problems in the computer industry and others is the incorrect idea that many people have about the depreciation rate of software and hardware.
Everyone knows if you buy a new car, the moment you drive that thing off the dealer's lot, you can almost watch the value fall out the back of the car. It's called "depreciation", a feature which also occurs as a car/house/anything ages.
What I've found as a vintage computer collector is that people don't see computer hardware/software depreciating fast enough. Heck, if the thing was new 2 years ago, it should be at least 75% of its new value! WRONG.
This is a similar aspect with abandonware. These companies can't see that their major sales will come from the new games, that people will always buy new games, and so to keep their claws tight on their old titles is a silly waste of time and energy. This software really does depreciate in value, and the only value it retains after a long enough time is nostalgic. (Like Frogger. Man, what a game.)
It's really sad that these great technologies can't be released to the appreciative public (collectors, etc.) to be enjoyed on the older hardware.
Blog,Twitter
The page says "If you can prove that you have the originals of the game but they no longer work, or you have lost the originals but have the package, or the receipt, them please request a backup from our library (which we legally own) from x@y.com".
Then the user e-mails proof to x, who promptly provides the backup?
Would that be legal?
Phil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
because of the precedent set under feline law "everything here is mine".
So you can see, by applying this well-known axiom, everything belongs to me, obviously, that includes this (and any other) alledged government. So the rest of you are out of luck. This is my government, not you-all's.
Just because I choose to selectivly enforce my rights does not invalidate them. So please be properly appreciative of the air you breath and the Earth under your feet. But for my benificence, you'd be fux0red.
The legitimate abandonware sites have one goal in mind: Make software which is not available retail or through the copyright holder available through another venue.
:-)
The problem is that the holders of the copyright feel legitimate ownership of these software titles, and have legal ane moral grounds for demanding that such software be removed.
Granted this is a shortsighted attitude, but such is their right.
As has been pointed out here, the GPL is based on copyright law. We scream loudly when violations to the GPL occur, and should allow others to have the same feelings toward their software.
My solution would extend the copyright of software owners indefinatly, however there are some requirments to keep copyright.
Those wishing to obtain a copy of said software title must have that title made available to them at a reasonable cost (Cost of media, plus shipping, plus some reasonable profit, not more than realistically obtainable via a retail outlet).
This would allow those who want to to get a copy of whatever software titles they desired, and would allow the company to hold on to the copyright.
If the company chooses not to make the software available, it and all related materials (code wheels, documentation...) reverts to public domain in five years. There would have to also be provisions to stop companies from holding on to a copyright without really providing access (providing only one day per 5 years or somesuch).
If a company really has reason to hold on to the copyright of a title, they should have no problem providing it. On the other hand if the goal is control of what you see and do with your computer (as is I suspect often the case), the copyright needs to be lost.
This should reasonably make everyone happy. If I want to I can get a game simply by writing the company. If they don't want to provide it, they loose the copyright, and I can LEGALLY get a copy from anyone who has it.
Companies may argue that this will hurt their revenue, as they will have to expend money on software that they do not wish to support, but that argument does not hold water, as it costs virtually nothing to reproduce software, and such software could be listed as unsupported.
There would be some cost to running the reproduction service, but that could be turned into something making a small profit simply through being able to charge a reasonable fee for such software.
Of course I doubt such a thing will ever happen, but who knows, if some companies were to think about it rationally, they may even find it worth doing.
Another idea would be for someone to start a company which would buy up the rights to old titles, upgrade them a little (move to linux, run under win 95, or at least not have to worry so much about the old DOS problems. Those could then be sold, and money made.
Well, so much for my idea. You may now discuss amongst yourselves
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
Most of us aren't picking on the copyright system in general. What we complain about is the abuse of this system. Examples:
1) Constant lobbying for unreasonable lengths of time on corporate copyrights, such that a corporation can screw people long after their products have ceased to make them any money whatsoever.
2) "Copy-protection" measures which effectively extend a copyright indefinitely by enforcing a copyright after it has expired (when the maker no longer has any right to do so).
3) Licensing terms which abridge fair-use rights on what is, effectively, a written work. Such practices would get a person drummed out of the book publishing industry; why should it be different for software (or music, or movies, or other copyrightable works)?
Copyrights are, by and large, a Good Thing. It's the current U.S. implementation of copyright that we complain about, because it's far too open to abuse in its current form.
----------
Software companies are deathly afraid that someone is going to download Balance of Power or Karateka or some other such game, then expect the original publisher to support that game, even though it's been abandoned for years, and even though site operators write 'this is completely unsupported and you are on your own if there's a problem' in big, bold, capital letters all over the web site.
Yes, lawyers do some greedy, nasty things to defend the extremely wealthy (yes, that's you RIAA), but they also spend a lot of their time defending their clients against really stupid people.
If a manufacturer stops selling a title, why don't they partner with sites like this who are already making the title available, and come up with a licensing agreement? You can't buy Electronic Art's "Balance of Power" anymore. They're not making money. Why are they spending money to send out cease-and-desist letters? Where's the revenue stream? What's the business model?
My guess is that this is partly an "on principle" thing, but also largely an action to protect their character trademarks.
"Balance of Power" may not be selling copies, but if they cease to enforce trademarks on their characters/designs, the designs may become public domain. This would prevent them from releasing "Balance of Power VII" down the road - and worse, it would let someone *else* release it!
So, I can see where they're coming from (though I agree that it's a pain).
One thing to concider is how 'abandoned' is Abandonware? A good recent example is the classic game Reach for the Stars; the original was out in the early 90s, DOS text mode based. It was probably the first commercial turn-based 4X game out there (predated by similar games on BBSes). Of course, the game disappeared up till recently; a company has now basically put a nice DirX GUI on top of the underlying gameplay and released it. From the demo, it plays nearly the same as I remember from the original game. Now, in 1998 , it would have been called Abandonware, but now it's a real product. Would the text-mode version still be considered Abandonware?
IMO, what the companies should do is create secure sites where you can pay a small fee ($10/yr?) to gain access to the sites and can download games under the company's controlled environment; the company would not be responsible for any tech support or any documentation (save for cases where you had manual based copy protection). If a company decides to revamp a title, it can remove it from the server under their control. End result, more profits, abet small, for the company, and the games would not disappear forever, keeping classic gamers happy.
But of course, this is logical, and we all know how most companies operate...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The only reason I can see is force upgrading, which is a bizzarre thing to happen in gaming. Perhaps a law stating that you loose your copyright after 3-5 years of not selling your work would be in order.
This is one of the reasons I find the most important thing when considering a registrar is what gives them the right to take it away. So far, Gandi still seems to be on top with that. (We give the domain, you do what you want)
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
One thing I found which would be an interesting solution would be to offer software vendors the facility to remove abandonware from these sites. I've seen this done to great effect on the "World of Spectrum" site, which archives a massive amount of ZX Spectrum games (probably Timex in the US, 8-bit computer). The Underdogs have always been a great supporter of staying on the right side of abandonware ethics and I think that this could be a viable solution rather than ripping the whole site down. One other thing to note about abandonware is this; with operating systems like Windows ME and 2000, it is becoming continually hard to get quite a lot of these titles working completely (with sound -- try doing some legacy games with Win2k and an SBLive), so the chances are the potential viewership of these sites are more experienced users... thus making reselling of these games economically unviable. My downloading habits with abandonware only seem to be one or two older games for nostalgic purposes (purchased of course ;P), but I wouldnt go about collecting entire archives.
Ruairi
---
http://www.musicfrequency.com/
Just my blurb, flame me if you want, I have no ego.
are you sure that's the correct spelling of aaaaaarrrrrrghgg? I always thought it was aaaarrrggh!
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
It's just a bad dream. Make it stop.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not just making this stuff up but what the hell does all that mean?
What is a facia level one consultant? What is a production-strata level product? What is the Galelio Zanith method?
I think most of us who care about this just like playing old games our pcs and aren't facia level one consultants like you (whatever that means).
This is a bowel disruptor, and you are just full of shit. - Spider Jerusalem
Thing is companies are always out to get as much money as they can from the copyright. Including suing people for passing out their games. Just like the Video Game Console people suing over emulators and ROMs being passed around.
If these products were hardware based, like someone made audio cards and then dropped support for them, would they sue people making Windows 2000 and Linux drivers for them and hosting the old DOS/Win3.1/Win95 drivers?
I myself have some Abandonware Links at my web site. I hope that they don't get shut down. Too often old copies of games suffer from bit-rot and stop working. It is good to be able to download a backup in a ZIP file just in case.
Seems like one of the most ancient edicts of naval law allows the commandeering of any abandoned vessel and recognizes the commandering party as the rightful owner.
Seems logical enough. Why not apply this to software?
I mean hell, if a program is no longer being marketed nor developed by it's respective corp/programmer, then by all means it should be deligated to public domain.
But, of course... that line of thinking would require an ounce of common sense... Something on very short supply in the electronic media industry.
All I get is tonnes of links, that open other links sites and when you try to close them they pop up lots of porn sites, which also pop up other sites when you close them (what moron figured out that when you click on close you want to open windows).
With sites like EasyWarez.com who needs IDSA?
IIRC, while id Software has this habit of releasing source code, they generally do NOT open up the copyrights on the *level data* -- that is, you can freely distribute the Doom source code IIRC, but duplicating and redistributing the various commercial .WADs, such as that for the full registered version of Doom, is still a no-no.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
As I wrote in August in the last abandonware thread:
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/archive 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:
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!
Well, FWIW, the IDSA site is slashdotted too, so I can't even find out from their site what companies they are representing.
Speaking as a game developer myself, I am still amazed at the attitude that the IDSA takes over this matter of sites offering older titles. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I consider games as much a form of art as products for sale, and the 'art' value has potential well beyond a game's ability to earn money. If someone were to take any of -my- games and archive them for posterity once they were past the peak of their income-earning ability, I personally would be honored, not yelling for my lawyer.
Is there -any- point to this other than the fact that they can? Perhaps the notion that access to older games will make people have less interest in buying newer ones has a tiny bit of merit, but that's pretty damn petty.
Most forms of art simply cannot survive forever in their original medium. Books rot, film deteriorates, paintings get damaged, and so on. Games are no exception to this, and are even more prone to problems of this nature. The march of technology leaves many once-cherished games behind and since most companies often just do not care, the ONLY way that many of these can be preserved is through the actions of Abandonware groups.
Christopher 'ClassicGamer' Corkum
Pixel Rush Studios
I game, therefore I am...
This could only result in positive Public Relations and company image amoungst the old school (well I'm generalising here) community and would surely have a trickle down effect into other cultures and so forth.
I'm really surprised that this has not occured (to my knowledge... are there any places that do this?). How difficult could it be?
Developers: We can use your help.
"Hey, I just read that IDSA is suing a certain abandonware website. Here's a link to my abandonware website." -- unicron, poster of this article
That's kind of like a drug dealer hearing about another neighborhood drug dealer getting busted, and then sending a news flash article into the local newspaper as himself.
______________________________
Eric Krout
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I think abandonware is a godsend to people like me, who want to find old copies of games they used to own but either due to bad media or circumstances over the ages, can no longer get. I mean, I can see me asking GameArts for a copy of Silpheed just because I 'had the disks and they went bad a long time ago'.
Where's the submit button??
Books have libraries, software has nothing. Until the library of congress starts archiving software, we will continue to have software lost, forgotten, and even when an attempted ressurection is attempted a lawyer comes in. Only a third party with a large amount of resources or the actual software companies can do something about it.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Come on! I've used those sites in what I consider to be a legitement manner, even within the current copywright law (or at least grey area).
Many years ago, I got my first PC. A 386/SX 16, with one meg of ram and forty megs on the hard drive. Not so long after, I picked up "Privateer", a Wing Commander spin-off. It was one of the best and most enjoyable games I've ever played, and I spent *many* hours on it while other people were shooting up Castle Wolfenstein. Eventually, we got rid of the computer, and in the years following, I managed to loose the disks.
About two years ago, I decided I wanted to play it again. It's just a damn cool game.
I couldn't find the disks. Nowhere in the house, it wasn't installed on any old computers that I could find, etc etc etc... so I went on a hunt for it at stores (I had seen in in the "Classic titles" boxes that were around a while ago). Couldn't find it. Not suprising for that old of a game.
So I went on the Internet. Tried to find a copy, so I could still play the game that *I still own*. I finally found a copy, and enjoy playing it just as much as when it was new. It's kinda like downloading an mp3 of a song that you already have on CD.
If the companies aren't even going to support the software, then why go after people who are sharing the old, unsupported games and utilities?
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.