IDSA Requests VIC 20 Cartridge Roms Takedown

An anonymous reader writes "The VIC20 cartridge dump archive has been taken down by FUNET following a request by the IDSA (Interactive Digital Software Association). More info from comp.sys.cbm." Of course, VIC 20 users are now going to have to buy their cartridges in stores, and by "stores", I mean garage sales, flea markets, and swap meets.

Comments

Copyright

[aridhol]

Remember, they are still covered under copyright. For the next century at least, unless Disney extends the mouse again. There's no such thing as abandonware. Which is why Disney can put their movies into "the vault" for long periods of time, only to open it again for the next generation.

Re:Dumb.

[Jerf]

I used to buy this argument, but I don't anymore.

(Note on the last one, I purchased that once for $2 just for Beamrider, which remains a truly awesome game.)

Of course it need not be a "threat to civilization", it need only harm a bottom line, and the argument can be made that it indeed may. (Note a lot of old stuff is coming out for the Gameboy Advance, for instance; I purchased the Phantasy Star Collection recently, and I am pleased. What I'd really like is the Bard's Tale on the GBA, though. If it weren't for the infernal need to make money that would be a cool development project to undertake.

I've always wondered

[Deagol]

Since most of these types of notices are form-letter-style, can't one request a paper trail from the organization to prove that 1) They do, in fact, represent the particular copyright holder; and 2) That the particular copyright holder does, in fact, own the copyright/trademark on the software being made available?

I recall some ROM site (TI99/4A site perhaps?) where the owner got explicit permission from the copyright holders to post their ROMS, but he still got a letter from these goons.

Short of the discovery process of a lawsuit, is there any way to force the hand of these organizations to prove they are in the right for each specific case?

Re:Dumb.

[aster_ken]

I'm one of the lucky few who still owns a perfectly working Atari 2600. Although I've had to make some repairs on it over the years...

To me, these 10-in-1 games are a really great idea for getting the games that I played growing up out to the "unwashed masses" who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to play them. Believe it or not, most computer users AND computer games, I would dare say, do not know about emulators.

Go down to your local RPG or war game store. Most of those people probably play video games. Ask them, "Did you know you can play old NES and Atari games on your computer using an emulator?" Most of them will give you blank stares!

But I digress - the on-topic part of this post is simply this. Retail outlets for these games no longer exist. When you buy them at a garage sale or at a flea market, the publisher and/or copyright holder do *not* receive any portion of that sale.

So how can the IDSA argue that it's hurting the copyright holder since these games are no longer available for retail sale (or, for that matter, for purchase directly from the probably-out-of-business-by-now developer)?

All of this copyright and patent stuff that's going on right now WILL have serious consequences for the future. I, for one, do not want to live in a world where I merely lease content for a certain period of time where I only can use it in one of three "pre-approved" ways or some such.

The IDSA be damned. Someone with some money needs to put up a big site full of these games for free download. Wait for the IDSA. When they come, BAM!, take them to court. Yes, you'll lose the initial battle, but take it up. Keep appealing. Once it reaches a court high enough, you'll begin looking at the laws themselves, and maybe people will start to see how corrupt the copyright and patent system has become. It'll be a long and expensive fight, but it MUST happen before things will get any better.