Slashdot Mirror
The Abandonware Question
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Gamespot.com has an interesting article on abandonware games. They go so far as to seek out opinions of "game makers" with some interesting results. Some of them actually are flattered that their games have gone to that big abandonware site in the sky. Then there's Al Lowe (Leisure Suit Larry creator) who jokingly replies to the question of why gamers seek out free games, "Because they're cheap bastards, that's why! Always looking for something for free! Sucking the lifeblood out of us poor humble programmers! Now leave me alone so I can download more free pirated music!"" The first couple of pages are boring, with predictable opinions from big publishers. But it gets more interesting as you go on.
*Lowers Head* poor guys.
Fortunately, it is physically impossible to enforce copyrights on everything in the same jackbooted manner that IDSA, BSA, et all do on current software--they just don't have the resources. So, while they succeed in shuttering abandonware sites from time to time, thus winning battles, with p2p, Freenet, individual trading of CDRs, the war is lost.
By fighting those hosting abandonware, they have, in fact, made many more people aware of it than would have been had they left it alone. This is the same thing that has happened with music and movie trading: just a few people were doing it, until corporations cracked down, causing publicity that made the awareness that it could be done trickle down.
I'm not totally sure about the legal question, but I *LOVE* these sites. I get nostalgic for games I played in my youth (some of which I even bought! ;-) download them and am in heaven for a few minutes.
The funny this is, except for VERY rare great gameplay games, the novelty wears off pretty fast and I just delete it again for a few years. I really appreciate having them available though...
That was the first game I jerked off to ... those EGA graphics were so erotic
I was under the impression that copyright violation don't fall under criminal law. Am I wrong?
I'm sure that in 2055 or so, when the copyright on these classic games runs out(*), the game publishers will be glad to release them into the public domain, having received a fair return on their initial investment.
While I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
(*) 2055 expiration date subject to change, depending on campaign donations.
I missed out on a lot of the years of gaming. I didn't have a Nintendo when I grew up, I didn't have a Genesis or all of the other games.
I use Abandonware to play the games that everybody else talks about. (It's been a near joke playing Final Fantasy I, and marveling that this launched a multi-billion dollar gaming franchise.)
What amazes me is how stupid most publishers are. How hard would it be to take Ultima Underworld I and II, Shadowcaster, update the code to a Win32/OSX/Linux base, then sell the CD for $20 and say "Hey, folks - the great games you loved? Come pay us $20 for it!" 90% of the development work is done, they just have to get an engine in.
Square gets it - look how they're rereleasing Final Fantasy games on the Wonderswan color - and making a mint. How much work did they really have to do? A little engine work, check it out, and *poof* - profit.
I abandonware because I can't find these games any other way, because the publishers won't do it. Heck, if they just sold the porting rights to another company (the way that Macplay ports Win32 games to OS X), they could leave the success/failure to somebody else, and probably still make a good profit.
But until publishers get half a brain that the past can still be profitable, I guess I'll have to keep going around them and downloading it for free elsewhere.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Personally, I've been addicted to Mame's emulation of 10 Yard Fight (ummmmmm... that is I WOULD be if I had the rom of course ;) ). I'd much rather play a football simulation that is actually fun and can be played in 10 minutes or so, then go get one of those ubersimulation games that require 2 weeks or so just to learn how to play it. I don't want to devote my life to a game, I just want something fun to do every now and then. If there were more games like that being sold, I would own more playstation games.
And I had Spiderman #1 to #30, sold them for big bucks. Still have tons of the Marvel stuff, like Rogers/Captain America, Fantastic Four, et al.
Never throw old junk away, you 13 year old script kiddies. When you're in your forties, somebody will give you enough money to finance a career change.
Is it legally wrong for me to download the titles? I don't know, but I believe it is morally right for me to obtain a "backup" of titles I purchased. As far as titles that are truly abandoned, but I didn't purchase, this seems a gray area.
The greed of the publishers is definately repugnant. Instead of opening their mind and allowing others to get some sort of satisfaction from an older title, they'd rather see no one have it and the game fade into obscurity. Perhaps if they realized that the goodwill they'd get for releasing these officially on a website would actually generate extra renevue from loyal customers.
Is ID software likely to lose business because they released the source code to their older engines? No. However, AFAIK they haven't released the graphics, levels, and sounds for them. I suppose this allows them to reuse some of the stuff for Doom3 for instance. Maybe someday people will realize that unlike the real world, I can give you something of mine that is digital and not only will I still have it, you will too.
And maybe after that, we'll have peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.
The more you know, the less you understand.
www.utgib.tk
:) Run fully by PHP
www.utgib.tk
www.utgib.tk
Clan site for the [GiB] clan
Loads of downloads (100 mb worth)
most companies love it if they can get their customers on a treadmill, constantly paying in new money. And honestly the cost of tech support for the older games may actually be a money losing proposition.
But They still hate the idea of not making money. and count potential loses are real losses.
Right now I think that that rights to software to revert to something more relaxed a few years after they stop providing tech support. They people who know how to use the older stuff will always be a small percentage anyhow.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
if discontinued, hard to find software is called "abandonware", then products by microsoft ought to be called "smotheringmother-in-lawware"... that shit never leaves you alone :O
mp3s by me
I believe, in keeping with the spirit of copyright, if a publisher no longer makes a copyrighted work available, then so long as this is the case, there should be no legal recourse against those taking the software for free.
However, I must question the motives of Abandonware supporters. If indeed these companies were to make software from 10 years ago available today (via a website or mailorder) and a small price according to the cost of doing so, would Abandonware supporters be willing to pay?
The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
It's hard for me to say anything on this topic. First of all, I love Abandonware. There are so many old programs that I've lost over the years and would kill to play again. Sites like The Underdogs have helped me get a hold of these games and yes, a few others that I never got a chance to play (probably because my hardware couldn't handle it back then). Until I bought my new laptop these were the only games I could really play on it happily and I probably would have bought them if they were available somewhere.
Then again, I'm a hypocrite. I do think that companies have the right to not want their software distributed (this is a big reason I only download from Underdogs - they're big enough that they can't keep up games that they're asked to take down and hope not to have their whole site shut down), but I don't really understand it. Even though a few other people and myself might buy these older games for nostalgia the vast majority of people won't. So not only are they not losing money, they're not even potentially losing money. Unless a company released every single "abandoned" game on a single CD the odds are they won't ever be able to make money from reviving these old, dead games. So what's holding them back? Spite?
If you need to interpret my post, then you don't get it.
Very good article. It focuses only on PC games though. MAME and its console-based ilk are another kettle of worms altogether.
I see these emulators as a valuable service, preserving what I call our "pop culture heritage"...sure, "Time Pilot" may have been popular enough to make it in some emulator packs, but what about "Time Pilot '84"? A much cooler scifi game in my book, but one whose limited release (during the crash) means that it's not likely to see a repackage rerelease.
I admit it is a bit complicated, because MAME does directly compete with the emulation game packs for modern consoles. But overall I'd rather err on the side of caution and not let these things fall into obscurity.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Here's the other problem with newer games. They're all about the great graphics. In addition to the usual complaint about graphics intensive games (They sacrifice game play for the thrill of "oooooooh, that blood looks real.), I find at least that almost real graphics look worse that the most cartoonish ones.
Take Fifa 2000 for the playstation. The players look almost real... almost being the key word. Whenever I see their blocky heads, I think about how bad the graphics are. By coming close to realism, you're forced to see how far away they still are.
On the other hand, a more cartoonish game doesn't invite that comparism at all. Take Super Mario brothers for example. No one thinks that the graphics on that game suck, even though Mario doesn't look like a real person. They get sucked into the game world because they don't even think about how much better he would look with a few tweaks.
Moral of this story? Don't worry about the graphics people, just make fun games.
...of course this is a moral from someone who doesn't really play games much, so take it with a grain or 10,000 of salt.
Retro games? Nobody's going to pay for a lot of this stuff. Who could afford it, anyway? Impose charges across the board and watch this medium die. The pity is that the rights owners don't care, because they believe (and in the short run they are right) that there is little if any profit for them in the new media. Better just to kill it.
- VisiCalc
- Borland Turbo Pascal/C
- classic outliners e.g. Symantec MORE, ThinkTank
there are plenty more examples if you have a look around. Sure, having old games available is good for nostalgia, but things like this can actually be useful, especially if you're looking for stuff to run on older hardware or if you're after a feature that new software Just Doesn't Have (or the new software is not available on your platform etc.) - I know I've found this in various circumstances.If you had a car wreck, refused to settle because you wanted more, then went to court for a lousy 10% more, the judge would laugh at you. He'd say "you were offered what you asked for, get out of here."
Same with abandonware. Lots of people are perfectly willing to pay for this stuff, but the publisher refuses payment, even full retail. This happens lots of times in the business software arena. Try sending in the license fee for Wordstar, ParadoxDOS, your money will be returned.
It's an equity issue, and equity no longer applies under copyright law.
My personal feelings on abandonware are that there's really nothing wrong with it. I think it's healthy for the market and wonderful for players.
When I was about 9 years old, my father bought me Starflight... a game we saw on the shelves of Radio Shack and thought looked cool. We enjoyed it but never got very far because the game has a high probability of corrupting itself (otherwise it's a terrific game... a true classic). Years later I realized that surely someone must have preserved a copy of the game that I could download... and thanks to abandonware, I was right. I tracked down a copy for download and fiddled around with my system until I could get it to work... and it was just great... it was a minor obsession of mine for several weeks and I finally beat it, getting my father's money's worth out of the purchase. Lot's of nostalgia, lot's of fun. Who gets hurt here?
I dismiss most of the arguments of the game publishers, and especially the stance of the IDSA. The bulk of their argument is that legality equals morality, which any freethinking individual probably realizes isn't true... or else laws would never be repealed or changed.
I also don't understand how Abandonware sites hurt their intellectual property rights as many of them seem to claim. They still own the copyrights, they still own the trademarks. Nobody is going to tell Nintendo that they don't own the rights to produce Mario games because they fail to rabidly attack an abandonware site with a Mario Bros romdump from a 20 year old arcade board. Nobody is arguing that Mario Bros is "public domain" from a legal perspective. The one fellow put it succintly "It's piracy, but so what?" The pirates aren't challenging the rights of the publisher's... they only hurt the publishers by denying them revenue, and in the case of the vast majority of abandonware, they're not even doing that.
Another argument a few of them made was "Well, we might want to release a classics pack one day." This is a semi-legitimate argument, but in reality we know that the only "classics packs" that are truly successful commericially are those that package together a few familiar arcade classics... not more obscure PC titles. Most people only buy "arcade classics collections" because they are familiar with playing those games in arcades.
What is the market for a classics pack of old PC games, on the other hand? There aren't going to be very many people who are going to plunk down $20 for a bunch of old games with EGA graphics that they're not familiar with. If people ARE familiar with the games, on the other hand... it's probably because they legitimately owned the games at one point in time.
And the truth that we all know is that very few people are actually trying to sell 10+ year old games... at least not without heavily retooling the game (like Frogger 3D).
So Abandonware really is quite harmless. I'd like to think that there are a few current and future game designers out there getting exposure to these "Golden Oldies" like Starflight for inspiration on how to do more with less and that thanks to Abandonware, we will (and have been) enjoying better games. I really think the IDSA is doing the gaming community and the companies they represent a disservice by going after abandonware sites so diligently, but I guess they have to take a hardline stance on all forms of piracy to convince their members that they're doing their job.
Didn't they sell more copies of the Leisure Suit Larry hint books than actual copies of the program?
Look, piracy is a known thing. It's just gonna happen. So, what the publishers really should do if they are so concerned about their IP - make a downloadable version of it that requires a key to unlock. Sell the key for $10 and be done with it.
Then, they
I really like what Maxis did with Sim City Classic - they ported it to Shockwave and you can play it right on their website! (and you stare at a few ads, oh well)
As far as "won't work with Windows XX" - port it to freedos! (could this be one area where Linux actually outshines Windows in -gasp- support for DOS !!@!?!??)
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I prefer to abide by the intent of the original framers of the constitution. Copyright should last only fourteen years.
IMHO, any game made before 1988 should be up for grabs.
"So, are you out of luck if you want to take Ultima IV for another spin?"
for any of you ultima fans, U4 is availible for download without violating copyrights from the Ultima dragons.
Also check out www.moongates.com/u4"for the midi upgrade and the 256 color upgrade.
Finally anyone who's interested in updating other Ultima games should go to www.fansforultima.com
It even links to a few remakes in progress.
Veramocor
Bonus points: whats the signifigance of my name in relation to ultima. No search engines!
Veramocor
I remember at least a year ago I was looking through my collection of CD's and came across my old Civ2 CD (checking copyright on CD ... from 1996). So I thought - great, I would love to play this again. The install went fine, and I was up and playing quite quickly (enjoying the questions about whether I want to enable the tiny tiny videos/heralds as they need 16MB of memory !!?!?!)
Then I fairly quickly realised that the first releases of Civ2 were quite buggy / unfriendly, but that these had been fixed in a series of patches (I think 14 of them in the end). When I first bought the game it was no problem to download the patches from the microprose site, but there was no chance of downloading it from infogrames (or whoever happened to own it then). So I searched around and found the patch on some download site.
Now, The patch is also protected by copyright, just as much as any abandonware game is protected. So, do those companies who oppose abandonware so vigorously also oppose this distribution of this patch? I think that to claim that distribution of a patch for an old game is just as bad as distributing the latest release on some warez site is just stupid. Hopefully these companies would say the same thing, but im not so sure...
(Having just checked the infogrames site, I can see that they now have the patch available for download! Full marks to infogrames for still supporting the game!)
I think that its too bad that so many great titles,games and otherwise, fall into obscurity.
The first computer game I ever played was Marble Madness, by E.A. It was the most fun, my dad, brother and I had on weekend mornings.
To this day I have not found this game elsewhere,
I still have the original 5.25 disk, but trying to find a suitable 5.25 drive is equally frustrating.
I hope that publishers start realizing that if they allow abandonware (or god forbid help it) most likely people will become more loyal to their brand, simply based on the quality of past titles (those games made by that guy Sid anyone?).
And if anyone knows where I could find Marble Madness, please let me know. Watching that little marble flirt with certain *marble catastrophe*, so exciting!
And generally I think it would be interesting to see what slashdotters think are best games ever made.
My self I would select these ( in no particular order):
Pac Man - the classic
Defender - if only they could get a great 3d version (Descent[yet again] perhaps...)
Civ - obviously
Marble Madness - cause I loved playing it
King's Quest - the one that started it all
Wolfenstein - ditto
TestDrive - you know the one where you could play with 4 colours(CGA if I remember right)... totally sweet, great sounds, awesome cars doesn't get any better really...
This is the part of many of the game companies' arguments that I can never understand: How exactly do they profit from sales of their older products in the secondary market like eBay, Funcoland, flea markets and yard sales? Answer: they don't see a dime from these transactions (sounds like the RIAA all over again)! They will say that the secondary market will drum up interest in the older games and/or developer's line of products which might translate into sales of the newer products.
So, in effect, this is like advertising. Hello?! Who cares how these potential customers get the older games, just as long as they are playing them (sounds like the shareware marketing model, doesn't it?)!!!
I'm not advocating piracy by any means, but if these companies that own the rights to older games can't come up with a method of selling them to the public (how hard would it be to sell them for a pittance from their own website?!?) then they should be delighted that gamers are at least being exposed to their product line, regardless how it happens (just like if you see advertisements in a magazine you bought or on a billboard you drive by! Regardless of how the message was delivered, it reached its intended target!)
Unfortunately the common way the game companies make money off of their old products is by releasing (mostly) substandard retro-updates of these "classics". How shortsighted!!!
You could also make the argument that the average gamer has a set limit of money they wish to spend on his/her gaming budget in a given year (yea yea, this is highly subjective but whether or not you realize it you do have some type of a budget of your expenses in place). For the sake of argument let's say it's $100/year. Would these companies rather (a) have you spend most (if not all) of your gaming budget on used games on eBay or (b) having cheap (if not free) access to your older games and maybe you buying 1 or 2 of the newest games instead?
Harassing your potential customers by aggressively pursuing copyright infringement of older games they don't actively market seems counterproductive to me.
Chris
Pretty much what they are worried about is if you download and play the old games, your taking time and money away from a new game that you would have to go out and buy, thus costing them money.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
It makes sense for most of the old games to be donated to the public domain or at least re-licensed as freeware. All the arguments that the publishers have against abondonware are weak:
We'll lose sales on new games. Well that's just s stupid argument. If I aquire an old copy of Duke Nuke Em and play it out do you think I'll be less likely or more likely to shell out $50 for the new one? I think more, much more. How many times are demo versons of games made?
They want to release a cheap game collection... well yeah those are the games that I buy.. Knowing they're not all that likely to even run on my new Athlon without some pain. But if that particular game that I've been missing for all these years was included I might buy their gamepack and work at getting it to run. So they get a half point for ths argument, but it is going to cost them some bucks to update the game engines to make them work on new hardware.
They want to start a comic book based on a game character. So start one... they might not have that copyright as locked up as before, but they certainly have at least as good a right as I do to use that character.
The bottom line is: they have the right to be stupid. They have the right to lock up that old code and keep us from playing their games. They don't have the right to break any warranties. We have the right not to buy their new games if we don't like how they treat us with their old games. We don't have the right to steal their old code. We don't have the right to act like we're heros for stealing their code. If you're going to steal then at the very least admit you're stealing.
Now I've got to get back to Morpheus to liberate some more music.
At present, software is considered like a literary work in terms of copyright, that is, it enjoys 50 years of protection before they become public domain (WIPO copyright treaty).
I think this is a case where, "the need to maintain a balance between the rights of the authors and the larger public interest", should be enough to shorten the period for this kind of software.
I say, give 7 years, or something around that. Really, after this time, the commercial value is zero, why not give it for free then?
It's not uncommon for publishers to release sequels of old games long after the fact - a personal favorite of mine was the orginal System Shock; I was fortunate enough to buy the enhanced version when it first came out, and it's still in my top 5 list of games. SS has a devoted fan following online, who occassionally provide .zip files of the hard-to-find CD version to any one who asks - simply out of love for the game.
.
Eventually, the publisher answered years of petitions for a sequel, and released SS2 - another incredible game, which came out against Half-Life and other insanely popular games, hurting its sales a good bit. Not to mention less than stellar advertising. HOWEVER. .
The longtime fans of SS1 started telling everyone they knew to buy the sequel. They distributed copies of the original to everyone who would take it, and sales of SS2 began to pick up. Unfortunately, the publisher had already gone out of business due to some other problems, so the benefits of the abandonware upswell were rather lost.
Companies should be glad people are picking up their old games that aren't making them money any more. Worst case scenario, it's retroactively establishing their reputation for good, solid games; at best, it's giving them an increased fan base for possible sequels.
So no, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong for leeching Gauntlet II or Blackthorne, since I can't purchase them directly from their publishers. I'm showing my support for them, and their sequels should they be ever be released. If you can't support them with money via direct purchases, abadonware is your only choice.
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.
Strange example to use: I seem to recall that Origin put it up for free download around the release of Ultima IX. (Same goes for Betrayal in Krondor when Return to Krondor was released.)
Let's look at this through a paralell: movies. Both are a copywritten media that undergoes complete turnover (care to guess what percent of the movies filmed in the '70s are available for purchase today?). Both have (IMHO) a far-too-long copyright. With movies, the result of too-much copyright is clear. Despite what is said in the article, there are tales of rotting reels of film left by studios (who know that they don't appeal to today's audience).
I enjoy watching B&W moives- in the same way I enjoy reading the classic novels available from Project Gutenburg. These allow me to envision the past in a way no history book ever has. (Not to mention which, sometimes they're just flat-out better that what comes out today. "Heavens, you mean this comedy has a plot?!?!?")
My attitude on this whole issue is: if the producers know these films won't turn a profit anymore, and they don't have the time / money to keep them, release copyright on them! Firstly, if they don't appeal today, what odds they are appealing tomorrow? Secondly, this turns the expense of preserving the movie over to the pubic- and you cn be sure that the'll be DivX'd faster than you can say "digital".
Back to the topic on hand! As you might guess, I'm all for abandonware- both games and applications. (We're preserving computing history here, after all.) The turnover rate for software is, at a wild guess, 50% every year. As for these silly claims about losing copyright on a character: isn't that better covered by tradmarking? Then you could redistribute (as an example) the original Monkey Island games and LucasArts still holds exclusive rights to the future of the series.
Do you like Japanese imports?
There is a black and white issue here. Distributing copies of a copyrighted work without the permission of the "author" is illegal. However, in my opinion, it is far from being in the publisher's best interest to take action against the distribution of abandonware titles.
:)
The questions they should be asking themselves are:
1) Does this harm us?
2) Can we capitalize on this?
The first question pretty much comes down to two key issues - is there loss of revenue, and does it dilute intellectual property.
Unless there are ongoing efforts to sell a particular title, it is not generating a revenue stream. This is pretty straight forward.
There may be a question as to whether it could be used to generate a future revenue stream; e.g. via the release of "classic" packs. This, however, is not feasible in a games current form unless it runs on a currently available platform.
So, in terms of revenue, the publisher is out of luck unless it runs on Windows or Macintosh. They may do an port of older games, but that depends on a value add in order to make it a sellable asset.
The second issue - protection of intellectual property - is pretty much a red herring. These are not trademarks; no matter how many times someone illegally copies them, it will not prevent them from successfully enforcing copyright on them in the future.
So onto the second question - can this be capitalized on? The answer here is a resounding YES.
The biggest benefit of abandonware, illegal or not, is that it helps maintain a franchise. If there is any question of the value of having a well known, wide spread franchise, one only need look at Ninetendo.
There is also a lot of good will to be culled from releasing old games (in their current form, not applicable to future releases) under a free beer license.
What my suggestion to publishers would be is to release these games under a license allowing free play, but not free redistribution, and then license redistributions rights to abandonware sites, not for money, but for advertising space.
When applicable this would make an ideal launching pad for advertising updates of old classics, or new games in a series, as it targets the people who loved the originals enough to go searching for them.
Of course, this is only my opinion, and doesn't count for jack in the real world
Matt
Quite valuable! That's a laugh. When they're not even selling them? Exactly how are these games valuable, except as pawns in the IP battles?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Instead of copyrights for 50,75, or number of years since Mickey Mouse + 10, we change copyrights back to 25 years, renewable. On software, we make the copyright 10 years renewable. But, make a new version (currently a derivitive work) legally it's own work so that the entire package, not what changed from the earlier version starts the clock anew.
Or another way is until the company stops supporting that product and providing free bugfixes. IBM has end of service dates announced for their software, so that once that data passes, you are on your own. That plus 1 year might be a good copyright expirition date. Or at least so that you can make copies to give away (for cost of media), not to allow one to start selling Windows 95 as a profit making enterprise.
How many people out there are running Windows 3.1 or DOS 3.3?
Fight Spammers!
"The problem is that its free availability taints your ability to make an unbiased decision."
How can we know? The fact is that the non-availability makes your point void and null. You are reaching for an untested and (until some old game copyright owner decide to re-issue it) untestable hypothesis.
So, I think we should really drop this line of reasoning for now. There is no use in accusing abandonware supporters of being copyright thieves until we can at least test the idea.
Obviously these games aren't worth a lot to these companies (except as potential pawns in an IP battle). But the owners won't even sell them for peanuts. You can't get them "legally". So an alternative market pops up to meet the demand (and the price of these games there is 0). Why can't these folks set up a "classic games" page on their sites, and sell these games for peanuts? Just cause it sold for $2, does that mean they lose their IP?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Fight Spammers!
We had a big debate about this on a IRC channel. I think the conslusion we came up with would be that copyright holders in software should have copyright for 10 years, and then the software should be under the GPL. I think it would be best for all? Currently with the copyright extension act, copyrights owned by groups or corperations last 75 years, and copyrights owned by a individual lasts 70 years after his/her death. Which is a extension of the previous 40 years for corperations, and copyright expiring right at the owner's death. What do you think?
One of the main tests (arguably the most important) for fair use of a work is the 'affect on the market' test. That is, does the use of the work in this manner alter the market for it significantly enough to cause monetary damages?
Since a-ware games are not found on store shelves anymore, are technically obsolete (most of these won't even work on a modern computer without a DOS emulator) and are no longer generating revenue for publishers and authors alike, the effect on the market is negligible, because there really isnt even a market for them.
Personally I think that if these games have been truly abandoned, and you're not trying to turn a profit off making them available (unless you've got permission, of course), it could very well fall under the fair use guidelines.
Alas, it will take a court battle to decide that though.
-
When a book is out of print, it is quite usual for a library/person to contact the publishers and ask if they can copy the book themselves. Most of the time, the book can be copied for free. If the book has lots of requests the book is republished (by the publishers). Perhaps the publishers of such games could use this "abandonware" situation to their advantage, by asking for a tally on the number of downloads on games, and if a game gets downloaded enough they could market it. The big stick approach would do a lot more damage, while an out of print approach could only help the publishers make money, and at the sametime spread some goodwill.
Maybe the companies could make their old games available as unsupported shareware on their websites, or maybe even freeware. Since Freeware is not that the same as public domain, this could be a way for the companies to appear genereous while protecting the copyright of the software and even the distribution.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
So far in my life, and I believe in the history of the world there has only been one software company that acted like adults and good world citizens.. that would be ID. they release everything that they are done marketing. (some of the older Id games are being released for the gameboy advance.. so they arent done with them yet.. but I would KILL for version that ran natively under linux instead of dosemu.)
All the rest? are a bunch of spoile rotten childish bullies... screaming "MINE MINE MINE" for even the worthless, useless things.
remember, if the software company doesn't released their abandonware they are ran by people with 6 year old mental abilities. If they not only release the game but the source code? They are THE example to follow as a software company.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hines offers an analogy: Disney releases many of its classic animated films on VHS or DVD for a limited time and then doesn't sell any at retail for a considerable period. "Because it's not available at retail, does that mean Disney gives up the rights to Snow White and that it should be distributed for free over the Internet? Of course not. Disney paid to create the work, and it can determine how and when it will be offered for sale."
This is what we call a filthy lie. It was the consumer that paid for this work, not the producers. The prducer just made the initial investment, and sold it again and again. They charged us for it, and then kept it for themselves! Why should they have the right to withhold it from us after we've granted them a monopoly? If they want this monopoly, then they can bloody well supply it to us at a reasonable price.
Most software developers (games and apps) should freely distribute abandoned software. I mean it isn't a full out request to open source their games and applications, but rather just a plea that once you can't sell in a retail channel and say a year has passed, that you let people use it for free (without support). It always makes you look good and in the case of a sequel or a line of products, it gets the potential customer used to using a product. I mean is it even possible to purchase Adobe Photoshop 3.0 ? If they freely distributed it (and if bandwidth was an issue, I'm sure some other sites wouldn't mind being a distrib) there would be more people familiar with photoshop line of applications (and those people with old photoshop 3 books could have something to do). I mean it was amazing when Sierra gave away "Betrayal at Krondor" off their site to publicize the release of "Return to Antara" and they took it off their site but it still got distributed (it's not so easy to find but it's there). If you are some third world country and you just got some donated machines (386, 486), I'm sure it would be really nice if you could run Microsoft Windows 3.1 and MS Works on it without paying.
Software companies need to show heart, and this is definitely one way they can!
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Good stuff:
NGO's that suck:
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
"If you need to own a copy of a classic game, go find it on eBay or a site that allows people to trade or buy used games."
Hang on, the publisher doesn't get any kickback from that sale, correct? So surely it's the same difference to distribute the game online and not get paid for it?
PC gamer did a top 10 games retail CD years ago.
It contained some of the games mentioned in the article.
How do you manage to get $40+ worth of games on a $6 mag?
The biggest factor, IMHO, wasn't that the issues weren't well understood, or that we were sloppy. Everyone knew how things "ought to be done" even back in the dark ages. Heck, we even had indoor plumbing. The main reason early games were so often hardware dependent is that abstraction layers cost clock cycles. Remember that the processors for early video games were about three orders of magnitude slower than what we have now.
People used all sorts of tricks to squeeze performance out of the systems they had, and some of them were pretty darned ugly. Rather than calling a subroutine (the cost being stack operations--this was long before cache worries), move it inline. Rather than paying loop overhead, unroll the inner loop. Now you're tight on space, so do something clever (read: "kludgy") with code that isn't as time critical to save space. Lather, rinse, repeat. We knew some of the tricks were ugly at the time, but they got the job done where something clean wouldn't.
Remember: for any given clean, structured program, there will be a hack that does the same thing and is faster, smaller (or both) and much harder to understand.
-- MarkusQ
That is incorrect. Copyright never expires due to lack of enforcement, and this argument is complete bullcrap... though to be fair, I bet Will Wright doesn't know that.
It would be interesting to know if he came up with this misunderstanding on his own, or if somebody fed him this line.
Now, he may be legitimately concerned about the trademark, which does need to be defended, but as long as nobody is doing anything with the charecters other then downloading the game they came from, I can't imagine that trademark infringements are taking place. That would happen if you started printing posters of the char, or putting it in your own movies, or other similarly infringing activities, none of which have anything to do with downloading a game.
Downloading games does not strip publishers of any rights. In fact, if massive downloads of a game did strip publishers of the copyright, then this would be a null issue, as abandonware would be perfectly legal! Once the copyright is stripped, we could all download these things with impunity. (Extensive warezing could become legal, too, by the same argument.) Lawyers aren't stupid, so they didn't leave this gaping loophole open.
It's difficult to move debate on these issues forward when there's so much ignorance of the issues. (How many of you noticed this before I pointed it out? And IANAL, either.)
Looks rather similar to the problem with the music industry doesn't it?
On one hand you have the publishers who could care less about the fans and simply view the games as a way to seperate the public from their money and hang onto their property as long as they possibly can on the off-chance they might be able to squeeze another dime out of it...
And you have the artists and programmers of the classics who are flattered and delighted that people are still playing some of the games that they wrote 15 or 20 years ago.
N.
Lets compare programs with ....say real estate:
... etc
You have a cottage somewhere, but you never actually live in it, never rent it to anybody
Now, how would you like it if somebody broke into that cottage, made fake keys, and rented it to somebody else?
Don't like that to happen?
Well, this is the sort of thing that happens to prorammers that own "abadonware" software.
Just because they no longer maintain the sales (or whatever) of the software, doesn't mean they still do not have the rights to it.
Japan has compulsory licensing for nonprofit activities involving out of print material. This needs to be looked into for Japanese games. You may have to pay a statutory royalty to the Agency of Cultural Affairs of the Ministry of Education.
Here's the bit I love:
Hines offers an analogy: Disney releases many of its classic animated films on VHS or DVD for a limited time and then doesn't sell any at retail for a considerable period. "Because it's not available at retail, does that mean Disney gives up the rights to Snow White and that it should be distributed for free over the Internet? Of course not. Disney paid to create the work, and it can determine how and when it will be offered for sale.
Of course he fails to mention that the Sonny Bono thing which has kept this out of the public domain is now up for review by the Supreme Court.
I was astonished at how little the game companies seemed to know about copyright and intellectual property in general---this is part and parcel of that I suppose.
One of the issues that this article avoided is the issue of lost copyrights. This occures when a copyright is held by... No one. The copyright exists but the legal fiction called a corporation no longer exists to enforce it.
One of the best examples I have read of this is Wasteland. An Awesome RPG from the 80's. I wasted weeks on it using my apple IIC. I alwasy wondered what happened to it, why their was no sequel to it as it was much loved.
Then Fallout came out. A game that, not only played and felt a lot like Wasteland, but contained direct references to it. This was clearly stated to not be a sequal to Wasteleand, which confussed me as they were so close.
Getting Curious I followed up on this and read up on Fallout. enlightment came in an interview with the developer and producer of the game. Seems that they wanted to make a wasteland sequal and had gone looking to buy the rights to do so. They followed the trail from the original developer, who had gone out of bussiness to an IP holding company that had bought all of the developers IP when it went under. This company in turn had crashed and all their IP had been picked up by another company who had then immediatly gone bankrupt also. The IP was never moved from their, so this resource sat and died on the spot.
Great you would think, grab that IP for a song and get going. The problem is that, while the the IP is an asset of the bankrupt company and therefore saleable, their is no one to buy it from! With no corporate officers left and no truste of the bankruptcy who do you buy it from? No one is the answer so Fallout could not be released as an official followup.
This is the idea that I think the IDSA would really not like to have get around. Groups like this and the BSA bully people by making them think that they represent ALL copyright holders, which is not the case at all. A lot of software is in limbo, just like wasteland is.
Lucky underdog recognized this. They got their notice from IDSA and said, tell us which ones they are. The IDSA never replied, why? because the amount of games they actually reprsent in the abandonware genre are next to none.
The other factor in this enforcement is that groups like the BSA and IDSA charge for membership, which is were they make their money. For every title protected they charge X dollar amount. A company that has stopped selling a game is not going to continue to incur costs by maintaining a watchdog over it that drains money every year. So they remove that coverage, removing IDSA's right to enforce the copywrite, becuase IDSA does not hold any of the actual copywrites and can only act as an agent when given permission.
This is the lie of both the BSA and IDSA, they are paper tigers when it comes to abandonware, they have no enforcement rights in 99% of the cases. If they did most of the abondonware scene would have been stomped out years ago.
Papa Legba come and open the gate
as stated here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
There's been at least one AC troll laughing at the "moral" question raised here. But let's not forget civil disobedience.
I too feel there are many moral problems with copyright. If enough people share these beliefs, and we act on them (like downloading abandonware) then it's not as cut and dry as the publishers think. It's not "piracy" any more. It's enough people disagreeing with the law... implying that maybe, just maybe, the law is wrong.
Remember, laws are pieces of paper. Many of them have nothing to do with right or wrong anymore. They have much to do about money and greed and control.
Bill
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
I can see the fiscal reasons for not archiving software, but perhaps its time for the library to address these issues. If a case were made for the benefit of Congressmen and Congresswomen, then I think it would be hard for big business to lobby against it.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
The publishers talked very plainly and without elaboration on how making a copy is a violation of their copyright and they will persue it.
The actual writters of the games elaborated in ways that showed a definite lack of understanding of copyright law.
As Will Wright said:
While this may be true with a trade mark, it is certainly not true under copyright (which is what covers these issues being discussed). He was not the first one in the artcile to express a view like that.
I find it fascinating that publishers know all they need to about copyright law, and the game makers are, by and large, ignorant of the real law and its issues. I have to wonder if this is true in other forms of publishing (like books) where the authors hold copyright more often and license their works to the publishers.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I for one fail to see why giving a game out for free can make copyright enforcement harder. Just so I don't get moderated back into my fat32 partition, let me illustrate. I have a copy of Borland C++ 4.51 licensed for personal use which I got off a PC Plus coverdisc. It is fully functional and nominally free, if you forget about the magazine they stuck on it. This act has not diminished Borland's ability to enforce their copyright. I think Mr. Will Wright of Maxis has a somewhat limited understanding of licensing options.
I reluctantly must admit I see how abandonware might very well infringe on the developers' rights. When you retain copyright for a game that was last sold 8 years ago, you technically reserve for yourself the option of re-introducing it. Distribution under abandonware terms means losing this option.
And I disagree respectfully with those who consider this issue related to the length of copyright enforcement; there is no link. If a certain medium can only be copyright-enforced for 6 months, there will still be illegal duplication of that medium within those 6 months. The issue here is not whether 10 years is enough or not; the issue is the legal status of abandonware. And as far as that's concerned, I think the law is most unfortunately clear.
The question now is how to reconcile the legitimate claims of abandonware maintainers/users with the legal rights of copyright holders?
Developers and publishers, IMHO, must begin to consider the promotional potential of that abandoned software. LSL 1, released for free with a few ads in it for LSL42, will never cannibalise the sales of LSL42. We are beginning to see a lot of this happening with magazine cover disks. It's called promotional material, Mr. Publisher.
Looking forward to Lemmings XP.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Now leave me alone so I can download more free pirated music!
Ok, this will be a little off topic, but whatever happened to the good ol' days when you would grab a piece of software with "Pirated by L33t Hax0r" stamped someplace on the title screen? Whenever I read "pirated music" that is all I can think of...
Posted from the wireless couch.
P.S. the game was Intrepid by Nova Games. Looks cheesy, but consider the hardware: 4 MHz Z80, 20k of ROM, heh.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Copyright is explicitly required to advance the arts and sciences. The old games fall under arts I would say.
In order to advance those arts, publishers and creators are granted legal protection for their works to ensure their ability to profit. However, that profit is NOT the goal of copyright, the availability of the work is the goal. It's just that in a capitolist system, profit is a good incentive.
Reasonably, in exchange for the granting of legal protection, the copyright holder SHOULD be accepting a social responsability to ensure the continued availability of the work. Hoarding the work, or simply allowing it to rot and using copyright to prevent others from preserving the work is preceicely in opposition to the purpose and justification of IP law.
A fair and constitutional copyright law would require that preservation as a condition of being granted a copyright. This was not considered in the 18th century when the constitution and the first copyright law were enacted since at the time, copyright only lasted 14 years and thus there was little danger that a work would be lost by the time it's copyright expired. In addition, the works (books) were not subject to bit rot. Unlike a 5.25" C64 floppy, it's not at all hard to read a well cared for 22 year old book.
By extending copyright many times over, Congress has introduced the very real possability that by the time a copyright expires, there may be no salvagable copy of the work in existance. Changes in the nature of a 'work' introduce the probability that by the time copyright expires, there may be no hardware that can even read, much less execute the software. In some cases, the hardware might be so obscure that nobody remembers exactly how to reproduce it. Quick, what was the record density of track 17 on a C64 floppy? Anyone remember the encoding scheme. Now, in another 50 or so years (when the copyright on Mind Mirror FINALLY expires), how many people will remember. What are the odds that the original floppy you bought in the early 80's will still be readable even if someone does remember how?
Can someone please tell me how losing that work forever will advance the arts or sciences?
I loved a lot of the old sierra adventure games of the late 80's early 90's and wanted to buy copies of the ones I didn't have. When I discovered I couldn't but them anywhere, I e-mailed seirra, asking for premission to download there stuff for free. The guy said he was amazed that I was still playing the games they made before I was even born, and I may download them with his blessing. He only warned me that they couldn't offer tech support. On the flip side, Lucusarts still sells their old games for 20 bucks a pop. I wonder if they make much money off them, they wouldn't tell me!
"Ultima Collection".
Of course it would be nice if the code was written to be timed better on modern hardware (instead of using a slow-down program) but nintendo and sega for example are rereleasing their best old games on the gameboy advance.
I don't live in the USA.
I can easily pay some US $5/month for software, I'd spend $30 in 3 months for a (really) good desktop environment. I'd pay $100 along 5 months for a very good essential program. Even more if it was one that I could make a living out of it. Those monthly subscription fees (Mandrake Club?) are really a neat idea, if they fit in this range.
Other ideas come to my mind, like usage or downloading of programs being controlled so as to channel part of this monthly fee to program authors.
What I don't understand is this: They claim that even though the company may not be making any money on a product (like Elder Scrolls: Arena), they need to enforce "piracy" in order to protect their right to make a sequel with the same brand. But OSS is copyrighted AND distributed freely... That doesn't invalidate the copyright... right? It's not like someone else is making Joe's Own Elder Scrolls, which would likely be a Trademark violation.
In any case, even if they are correct under present law, I think these game companies (most of which are now owned by EA) have a social and moral obligation to make these old games available in some form or another. And if they refuse to, I would think they are obligated to not prevent others to fulfull that role.
I play a lot of these abandonware games, as an aspiring game programmer/writer/designer, they provide a lot of inspiration as well as nostalgia. I pay for the classic games/collections when I can find them (Ultima 1-8, Wizardry 1-8, etc...). But I'm sure as hell going to download them for free if that's the only way I can get them. That's what I would want people to do if I had written them (which is basically what we heard from the game developer side in the article).
I went to Al Lowe's web site and he said to order the LSL collection: To order it, go to Amazon.com. It's shipping now! Purchase Leisure Suit Larry's Ultimate Pleasure Pack. Guess what? Availability: This item is out of stock.
What would be really great is if some of these companies released their hardened grip and opened some of the source code for these games. I'd love to hack around on that stuff...
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
I have gotten to the point where I hardly ever buy computer games any more because they have pretty much NO resale value. Like right now, I have about 25 of my old DOS and Windows games on Ebay, and the combined total of the bids is less than 20 bucks. Thats less than 1 dollar per game, when I paid at least 15-20 bucks per game just a couple of years ago.
That's why I have been getting into console gaming, because I know I can resell the titles when I'm finished.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
I think it was rather irresponsible of them to include screen shots of Wolfenstein 3-D and Duke Nukem 3D in an article about abandonware. Those titles (and in fact nearly all of Apogee's games going back to about 1990) are STILL FOR SALE *AND* SUPPORTED AT 3DREALMS.COM!!! They go out of their way to do offer this. You can download a copy of one of their older games for only $10. Yet I routinely see Apogee titles available as abandonware. If you're going to run an abandonware site, RESEARCH the titles you put up, and if you don't, call it a warez site, because that's what it is.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
I posted this way too late so nobody will ever see it or reply to it. However, I just want to point out this is another issue of supply and demand, just like mp3s. There is a demand for digital music. The RIAA does not supply digital music, so people take it for free.
There is a demand for old video games. Game publishers do not make old video games readily available, so people take them for free.
Businesses just don't get it. When people want something, give it to them, or you'll lose money. The only logic they could be using is that they make more money off of copyright infringement lawsuits than they would by selling the old video games. Somehow, I don't think that's the case.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
ZeroWing? Is it available?
Come on, all together now... "All your base..."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Many of the games were developed by subcontractors, ie game development shops. They shipped the binary to the company whose name is on the box and put the source in a vault. The company that got the binary could allow it to be distributed freely now, but they can't update it. Company that sold the binary agreed not to retail it and still can't.
You're missing part of the point. If people are content to play older games, the revenue stream for software makers will dry up. I love 3D shooters too, but how many more games do we need based on the Q3 or UT engines? The only games I've ever truly been addicted to are Angband and Escape Velocity, both of which ran fine on my 68040 Macintosh. As much as I respect the work that ID and others are doing, I just can't see myself paying for it when I can play classic games for free.
The software developers won't re-release these classic games because it would be detrimental to their main products. By abandoning titles after a few years, they essentially force you to upgrade. I'm not saying this is the primary motivating factor, but it's certainly an important part. Some people will always buy the latest and greatest, for a variety of reasons; the rest of us only do so when pushed.
This is the way the software industry works. How many Word users need more functionality than Word 5.1 provided? Furthermore, if you can keep people on an insane upgrade cycle, you force them to buy new hardware as well. If each new version of Windows was capable of running faster on older hardware thanks to tighter, more optimized programming rather than feature bloat, the PC makers would revolt. There were stories this summer about charities not being able to get ahold of Windows 3.1 or 95 for the old crappy (but functional) PCs they distribute except at exorbitant prices. It's the exact same problem.
-Nat
Here is what I consider to be the crux of the matter. Copyright grants a limited monopoly before the work in question passes on to the public domain. If it is lost forever, it will never pass into the public domain. The copyright owner has essentially killed the work in question.
An attempt to actually kill a work in this way is such an obvious breach of the intent of Copyright so as to justify the entire abandonware concept entirely and without hesitation.
Perhaps Copyright law should be modified so as to require "abandoned" works to be explicitly placed in the public domain, and if this is not done, and the work is "lost forever", then at the expiration of the copyright, the owners of that copyright should be fined the estimated worth of the work in question, plus some punitive minimum amount.
A Copyright holder has a duty to be able to provide the work so protected to the public at the expiration of the term of Copyright. If and when they cannot do so, some sort of punitive and protective measure needs to be taken. (Perhaps all their other copyright worked are immediately placed into the public domain, as they have demonstrated an inability to even retain a copy of the work they claim copyright on.) A deposit of the work, in archival format, with the Library of Congress would suffice, or donating the work to the abandonware sites upon the corporate decision to abandon the software would work as well.
The issues of lapsed warranties were also touched on in the article. Personally, if a company cannot or will not honor a warranty, then they have effectively given that product's IP into the public domain. (Patents *and* Copyrights!) I have old games that I would still like to play, but they are copy-protected *and* on failing media, and the creating companies are "out of business". Naturally, I think this sucks. But I'm breaking the law if I acquire another copy of the software from an abandonware site.
..did the right thing to combat the piracy of their 1994 game, OMF: 2097; They made it freely available from their official website.
In addition to being officially legal-free, it is also a great game, and I suggest you try it! (Oh how their server will not like this)
You could also stick around and look at info on their upcoming game, OMF: Battlegrounds.
Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
Why don't they give the source, before these people die and their wifes throw the disks to the garbage?
The only possible value a game with a 50kB binary to run on a 8-bit computer can have, is inside the imagination of a businessman "We have it and nobody else. Maybe we make monay. oog"
- Do you realize that these are not games that will run on Linux?
- Do you realize that the site is mostly targetted towards Windows users?
- Do you realize that the site makes an effort to link to where you can BUY the games?
- Do you realize that many of these games cannot be bought because they failed in the marketing/distribution wars?
Either I've fallen for a troll, or else you are not thinking very clearly> If indeed these companies were to make software from 10 years ago
> available today (via a website or mailorder) and a small price according
> to the cost of doing so, would Abandonware supporters be willing to pay?
Yes. And I have the games to prove it. Some companies have in the past
have sold bundles of old games - notably Sierra. And Lucasarts still sells
damn near all of their old PC games via their websites. Origin used to sell
a collection of all the Ultima games pre-Ultima 9. And when I actually
found these games in a computer shop, I snapped them up immediately.
Piracy killed off the ST. Well, that and Atari's ...interesting... business
decisions. By the end of the lifetime of the ST, there was no profit in ST
software. As soon as you released a product, it would be up on a pirate
BBS.
But, now that the ST has died, we still have copies of damn near every game
that was released. It's in a far better position than the Amiga scene,
which still has people chasing after the copyrights.
In particular, look at the games collection at www.atari.st.
Mod Down To -1425 !!!
Same here, I was too poor to afford these games when I was younger. I used to love playing games like Street Fighter II, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario All-stars on my friends SNES.
:P
I also missed out a lot on computer games because I could never really afford a CD-ROM drive.
But now I can afford more and guess what? I'm trying to catch up on all these great games I missed out on. Especially Adventure games like Day of the Tentacle, Sam & Max: Hit the Road, Monkey Island series, etc. I also love the SimCity series. Where can I get these? And the owner of the Home of the Underdogs makes a good point about Abandonware, many computers cannot play DOS games anymore, nobody has a 5.25" drive, and floppy disks do die after a while (acquire bad sectors.)
It seems like the publishers and developers are divided. Publishers generally do not like Abandonware and developers generally like it somewhat. The article makes a good point, a lot of these developers are no longer with the publishing companies so they no longer make money from them. I can honestly give a shit if the publishing company is not making money from the old game, but I rather support the developer. Perhaps, for games that I always play (i.e. Transport Tycoon Deluxe) I could give a small donation to the creator through paypal. I don't want to give more money to a guy in a suit (the publisher) who already has enough as it is, while the codemonkey (developer) is trying to make a decent income.
Games nowadays hardly interest me, most offer some new buzzword feature in the games, but it just comes down to flashy graphics and no substance (kind of like an airheaded blonde.) Sure there is new(er) games I still like, but they are rare and they stand out (i.e. Tribes 1.)
I'm still going to play Abandonware games, and I'm still going to use emulators.
Perhaps these developers should open their source code?
Years there have been efforts by the community to get their hands on the Ultima7 sourcecode, due to the fact that it had serious problems with memory management and should be fixed to preserve that game. Well even EA was contacted and didn't react for a long time. Shortly before the release of U9 finally somebody could be found who looked into the matter, oh well nothing was heard thereafter, although there were rumours that the code was found! To make it short the community took their fate in their own hands and
a) wrote windows drivers for U7 to make them work more or less
b) simply reverse engineered the whole U7 engine and wrote their own engine which brought the game up to modern standards (exult... which can be found a exult.sourceforge.net)
c) started several projects to remake the old Ultimas with modern standards
Only to find themselves being attacked by an EA suit openly in a wired article (I have to say EA before they wired article didn't even care to answer the mails from the remake authors sent to them).
This clearly explains the shortsightness of those corps. Instead of supporting the community, by giving them source code, or information and maybe benefitting in the long run (aka they could bring out a fan Ultima collection with all emulators, and remakes), they cry mine mine mine, and dont touch my intellectual property! They should really learn from the Linux community where an entire business has arisen out of it!
Digital Citizen
Well, kinda. The programming class uses Borland Turbo Pascal 6.0 - but Borland is giving away 5.5 for free, which is perfectly compatable with 6.0 so far as the dinky student progs went.
I'm the stranger...posting to
There's software out there that's over 75 years old?!? (or however long it is after the death of the creator that software copyrights expire)
1) If the copywrite owners stated, in writing, they would replace defective media.
2) If the game was "licenced" and not purchased (as per most EULAs) then the owner of the software is REQUIRED to replace defective media, because I don't own the game, I only lease it. The lease owner has to keep up the maintence.
I have too many games around here that I did spend the money to purchase that have suffered bit rot, or physical damage to the media. Most of them fit in one of the above catagories.
It probably IS a troll.. but I'll also bite:
Even if the games were originally meant for windows, they were meant for pre win98 windows and probably work great in wine or other x86 emulators for linux with little effort.
There are many games/ applications that failed the marketing/distribution wars when there was no Internet for the masses. There are many applications and even OSes today that would not have flourished without the internet. Bringing back those "old binaries" in a form that can be downloaded may bring many an enjoyment that they would have missed forever.
--
Time is on my side
They benefit from old games being non-free, as then they are less "competition" for new games. If you get old game for free and new game costs something, then getting the old ones and not buying new ones is more tempting than if both cost something...
And I don't really know about the marketing value of abandonware as it is... Maybe if they distributed it themselves, so people would have to go to their sites to get it... But if people get it from "illegal" sites, then there's not much value for them.
I'm sitting here on my Windows XP box with an Athlon XP processor with a copy of IBM's Alley Cat [1983, I believe] running perfectly well in the background... I think that counts as it 'working' does it not?
All companies have to pay for development, risks and market research. Whether they get to copyright their work or not. Everything does - Waffle irons, breakfast cereal, computer peripherals, furniture. None of these are ever copyrighted. We just let them take the risks. The difference is that when I buy one of these products, I own it. I've paid for it, so all rights transfer to me. With IP, once I've paid for it, the person I've bought it from still owns it.
Do they do market research purely in the interests of the sutomer? No, of course not. They do it to increase their sales, and to avoid spening money on something that won't be wanted. It actually reduces their risk. Nobody insisted that they have to develop their products. They can choose not to if they want. They just don't get any sales if they don't develop. All selling has risks associated.
The sellers should have to pay for their own marketing. The whole poit is to increase sales. It does the consumer no good at all. Since when has it become the consumers responsibility to pay for other people to sell them products?
The consumer did do something - They paid for the work. This is all a publisher has done when they are granted exclusive rights. Where do you think they get all their money from that they risk when producing a work?
I granted the monopoly indirectly by voting for the government that produced a copyright bill.
The fact that the movie industry, games industry, music industry and the rest are profitible provers that consumers spend more on this that the studios. The consumer is eventually funding everything. The consumer has no choice in the prices he pays apart from pay the full price or go without. Considering the rights that the original producer has, I feel that certain responsibilities should go with it - especially the responsibility to make sure that customers can actually buy this product.
The classic game is one word :
Elite
And the author has released the source etc...
Haven't been able to play a structured game ever since
Burma?
Lucusarts, makers of games like sam and max , STILL sell almost ALL of their old games. They are all 20 bucks a pop
This is a situation that didn't get the analysis it needs. Sure, EA and co may have some interest in their old titles - intention to re-release or protection of a brand - but what about games released by a publisher that no longer exists? Who does the copyright belong to?
I worked on a game about seven years ago that was developed for three platforms, but only released on two. The company the game was written for has since closed down. An abandonware type group has approached me regarding getting hold of a copy of the version that was unreleased. I'm currently trying to find out who "owns" the game and whether they'd have any complaints about it being distributed like this.
(Hey Derek!),
and me being 28 with 3 kids - (8,5, and 3)?
"Who was Nixon's VicePresident?"
Now THAT was copy protection!
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
What I love is that all those old games I have on old 5 1/4 inch floppies are now playable again. All those floppies that died, all those cd's that were scrached, all of them are now available to me again.
That's actually one of the classic myths of activism. What you refer to as 'civil disobedience' is really only the final stage of civil disobedience. It becomes viable when the opposing cause has been weakened enough that people marching in the streets carrying posters marked "Free sconeu!" will be enough to tilt the balance of public opinion against the oppressive behavior. Even then the volunteer has to be carefully selected, to maximize popular sympathy and minimize the opponent's ability to demonize him/her. Preferably it should be the basis for a test case.
The vast majority of civil disobedience takes place quietly prior to that point, and is arguably much more important in effecting change.
To get to that final stage, a critical mass of people must partake in the illegal activity *without* being punished, so that conventional wisdom becomes that everyone does it and it's a reasonable thing to expect to be able to do. i.e., the common use of Napster hurt the credibility of copyright's proponents much more than Adobe having Skylarov arrested, despite the publicity. The cannabis decriminalization and gay equality movements have been going that way for 30 years and have not gotten to that stage yet despite their progress (do you think anyone WANTED to go to jail for smoking a joint or being in a gay bar?) There are striking parallels between those movements and the movement on the net to restore the public ownership of culture.
Finally, the one way in which the anti-imaginary-property movement differs from other social movements is that the 'oppressor' isn't so much the government, but rich corporations and their trusts -- er, industry associations. They tend to do things without mug shots and handcuffs. Until the NET Act and DMCA came along there was zero chance that the IDSA was going to send someone to jail for distributing King's Quest III, and "Free sconeu!" looks a lot better on a placard than "Pay sconeu's Legal Bills!"
Lets compare programs with ....say real estate:
... etc
You have a cottage somewhere, but you never actually live in it, never rent it to anybody
OK, with you so far.
Now, how would you like it if somebody broke into that cottage, made fake keys, and rented it to somebody else?
Well, I wouldn't like that, but that's not what we're talking about.
If you ask "how would you like it if someone found blueprints and started selling copies of your cottage?" then we'd have an analogy.
And the answer to that would be "I wouldn't care at all."
I have seen firsthand that old games, when well-done, can still rake in money today. I work at a local electronics chain (turn on the fun), and we put Super Mario World for the Game Boy Advance on sale for 22 bucks. We didn't get the shipment in, but we have (literally) 40 or 50 rainchecks for the game. Our store is one of 450 or so of our chain in the US. Multiply that out and you can see that Nintendo is making gobs of money on a somewhat old (yet admittedly very good) game. The companies can kill two birds with one stone here: let the people that owned the game in the first place (like me) wax nostalgic about it, and ALSO expose a whole new group of people (in this case, 8 to 13 year olds) to a great product, which creates brand recognition. The important thing (in the mind of the companies) is that it MAKES LOTS OF MONEY! I'm sure porting Super Mario World to the Game Boy Advance took very little in the way of money to do, and I'm sure it will pay off for them big time. While this is perhaps a best-case scenario, it isn't hard to see other classics being re-released this way for a profit.