Slashdot Mirror
World of Spectrum gets a Visit from the IDSA
Dasaan writes "the
World of Spectrum
, a site that legally archives old Sinclair Spectrum games, has been accused of distributing copyrighted material by the
IDSA
.
The list of games supposedly being offered on the site include titles such as Soldier Of Fortune and Barbarian. And a quick search of the site shows that these titles are indeed being offered, however they are the original versions that were released many years ago and have now been officially made legal to supply by the current copyright owners." Their correspondence is also available.
Searches like this are probably sub-contracted out to the lowest bidder, which will come down to a couple of interns typing "soldier of fortune download" into Google...
Bit of a pain for WoS to have to respond to this kind of rubbish, but it's obviously sent out to intimidate (since when did the Berne Convention have anything to say about "Immediate Take Down").
I'm a big user of emulation - some MAME, a fair amount of C64 and also Amiga stuff. However, I do feel that if the original copyright owners complain, then the fair thing to do is to take the downloads down. In this case, IDSA is being too vague and needs to give a specific list of titles. Once given though, I feel it is only correct to comply.
Cheers,
Ian
This would of course take time and effort and a general scare letter may work in the majority of cases.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
I'm not familiar with their former actions, but this doesn't seem to be a good sign. Looking at their members, any questionable conduct could have very widespread effects. Don't wait until it's too late, let them know what you think now!
One huge problem with old software is that no one supports or sells it anymore, but many users still want to use it. Redistribution is still illegal, since it's copyrighted.
I think a law should be made to make it possible to declare something abandonware and enable non-profit redistribution, if the original firm holding the copyrights aren't selling/supporting it anymore.
There is probably lot's of problems with this approach, but I suspect there are more problems with going after people wanting to relive their memories, or wanting to let other people do so...
.: Max Romantschuk
"Posting pirated software on the Internet so that it can be run on an emulator is commonplace nowadays -- and also costly. The Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA) alleges that the $6.3 billion interactive entertainment industry loses $3.2 billion a year to software piracy, including this kind of Internet software piracy. Moreover, the IDSA alleges that this kind of piracy would not exist were it not for emulators."
ALthough they don't actually say it the implication is that emulators are costing the industry a lot of money. In whose world? its not like any of this stuff is making anyone any money. I can understand copyright owener wanting to protect franchises etc. but even then they surely would be hard pushed to show how they where losing money from it.
Notice the titles that they claim to be braking the law...
007 (007 Nightfire is released)
Barbarian (That new barbarian game is released)
Donkey Kong ( Donkey Kong's nintendo latest games)
Frogger ( Wasn't there a gba version?)
Mario ( New mario games for gba and gc are released)
Pac Man (Pac man world 2 is released)
Soldier of fortune (that 3d game that is released)
It seems to me that IDSA thinks that spectrum is a game console or a very high standard pc codename(if so, 48k should be enough for anyone).
What's next? They are going to stop anyone who makes pong distributable to other platforms?
Dear non-copyright-holder.
Thank you for the concern you express about somebody else's intellectual property. If you forward to me a hardcopy of the document signed by the copyright holder giving you the authority to request my not offering ___ for dowload, or if the original copyright holder makes such a request, I will promptly comply.
Yours, blah-blah-blah.
Given that the ISDA is a self-proclaimed authority that, in fact, very few copyright holders (and almost none outside the US) are members of, and given than the copyright holders of most of these programs have long gone the way of the dodo...
-- MG
(1) where my definition of "abandonware" is the most common one: software published by a company which is defunct, and which can no longer be purchased.
...as "dilution of copyright". You either have copyright on a work, or you do not. It's like saying "reduction of pregnancy".
That said, you were probably thinking of trademarks. If Atari had Pacman trademarked (which is likely), then a clone or near-clone of it would indeed dilute the trademark.
The other possibility is that the graphics of the clones were so close to the original as to be seen as a copy, in which case they would have been in breach of copyright.
The problem is that for a small organization or a single person running a site, telling these companies to "fuck off" will end up putting them out of business. They'll drag your ass to court and you'll have to spend money on lawyer fees and court costs whether you are guilty or not. That's why a lot of times the mere threat of these is enough to get someone to roll over and shut down. Would you really want to deal with contacting a lawyer, shelling out money to retain them, preparing a legal defense, etc.? Most people don't since we're not comprised of professional lawyers, but the BSA and IDSA is. They have nothing better to do than make your life a living hell. Yet another reason why we should eliminate all lawyers.