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!"
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
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.
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.
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?
People, talk to and bombard [IDSA] members with messages that they should pick on 0-day warez sites, not on Abandonware sites!
-----
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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
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.
>who are they representing in these cases?
I don't think the IDSA needs a publisher's consent to move into action. This is what they DO, it's their prime function. Does the RIAA need an excuse to be a pain in the ass?
As a gamer I think this sucks, but I can sure see their point of view. Abandonware, despite the catchy name, is still piracy. It's people distributing commercial video games that aren't in the public domain.
As sad as it is, the publishers would rather let these games vanish, rather than letting us play them for free. After all, they may put out a compilation of classics someday, so they want to protect their rights. At least I assume that is their reasoning.
Time to start downloading.
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
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.
----------
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.
It sounds like you've never played an Infocom game. No graphics, all text, but some of the better stories out there. Certainly beats the weak storylines of Diablo, Baldur's Gate, and any recent Ultima game. Hitchhiker's Guide, Planetfall, any of the text Zork games, and Deadline (which I'm still trying to finish after 14 years.)
Also good are the early Sierra games. They didn't have the graphics, so they had to balance with an awesome story and gameplay.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
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.
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!
Underdogs is actually an abandonware site with morals. If they can find somebody selling the game, they don't provide a download link (rather, they provide a link to whoever *is* selling it). For a game to be on underdogs, it must be truly unavailable through other means. This probably does not hold true for many (most?) abandonware sites, but it is true for underdogs.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
They have a big fanfiction following, and the Elite Club will soon be offering the source code for FE:2 and FFE. See Frontier Developments website for more info on these games, or see alioth.net for a website set in the fictional Frontier Elite Universe.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows