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

Re:Copyright

[aridhol]

Hey, I didn't say I agree with the way copyrights are currently handled. I just said that, in the eyes of the law, they're "protected" by copyright.

Personally, I think copyright should cease to apply when you no longer use the material in question. This would prevent Disney from "vault"ing movies, or software companies from suing abandonware sites.

The only problem I see with this is handling old versions of software that are still being maintained. For example, Windows is still being maintained, but Windows 3.1 isn't. I'm not sure how to handle that situation.

For most things (books, movies, alot of software), it would be fairly clear-cut. Of course, there's probably something I haven't thought of.

Tape Drive

[gmhowell]

Yes, this is about carts, but it made me think of the ubiquitous tape drive. Those things sucked, didn't they? Anyway, has anyone tried to copy those tapes to a cd, then hooked the cd player up to the tape drive port? That would be cool.

I think I'll do that right after I finish strapping the JATO bottle on my Impala.

Software Eminent Domain . . .

[Dausha]

This actually makes me think of my grandfather's old farm. Don't mark me offtopic yet. Wait for me to tie it back in. Some of my grandfather's farm, as he explains it, was taken and given to a railroad company for a right-of-way. The rules were simple, if that rail line did not handle a certain capacity, then the land reverted to my grandfather's ownership--eminent domain. So, forty or fifty years later, once a quarter the rail company would drive a very small train, very, very slowly over nearly unusable tracks--just to keep it. Unfortunately, the rail company's stall tactics outlived my grandfather.

"Eminent domain is the right of the state to take private property for public use." Eminent Domain Defined

How does this tie in? Perhaps we are vainly trying to use an old system (copyright) to apply to a new medium (software). I agree that generations long copyrights (ala Disney) are invalid, but the rights should be of sufficient duration to prevent the media giants from outlasting an author's rights to his work. I mean, if I write the "Great American Novel," with a short copyright term (7 to 14 years), a corporation would just refuse publication until I lost rights--and then publish without having to grant royalties. After all, David Brin's The Postman was published in 1986 and the movie The Postman based on the book came out in 1997. If the copyrights were only seven years long--the original length, then he would not have had any say in the movie--or been able to profit. So, overly long "Disney" copyrights are bad for the public, and overly short ones are bad for the author. Still, this does not speak to my point on software and copyrights.

We seem to agree that when a company, or an owner of software, ceases to maintain said software (i.e., Abandonware), that this software should be released to the public domain. Thus, Windows 3.1 would be public domain simply because Microsoft has abandoned it--as would all the VIC-20 games in our current discusion. This does not fit into our copyright model--I doubt this fits anywhere in Intellectual Property law. However, as my early rail tie-in (pardon the pun) suggests, there is presidence elsewhere. So, I propose that software adopt a new model of Intellectual Eminent Domain.

This model should establish reasonable guidelines for when software is deemed abandoned by its original author. When the software is deemed suitably abandoned, then it becomes public domain. Perhaps age of software could reasonably be part of the criteria used, or perhaps a certain number of years since the software was abandoned or last publically supported. What should also be considered valid is when the software's author or company publically ceases to support that code--such as Microsoft and Windows 3.1.

I believe the product being made public, as opposed to allowing a different private party claim absolute ownership, is better for the public for prevents large software houses (e.g. Microsoft) from gobbling up all the abandoned software and then 'maintaining' it to prevent another from invoking eminent domain. It also allows abandonware sites to make available the software; and allows individuals and organizations the chance to maintain or improve the software. I suppose the question then would be, "at what point does maintenance/enhancement of abandoned code constitute a new product protected by IP rights?"