Re:I know I'll be modded down, but bear with me he
on
Warez and Abandonware
·
· Score: 1
Your argument ignores a VERY important fact: games were _commercial products_ made at one point to be SOLD to the public.
Distributing abandonware is NOT like I'm breaking into your house and steal a game you designed only for yourself to play (and NEVER ever wanted to sell or let anyone else play it). Rather, it's like my breaking into your house to steal a game that you USED to sell, and that you REFUSE to sell to me even after I BEG you to sell to me again.
How many classic painters/authors do you suppose would turn in their graves if they knew that we're still selling/exhibiting their works, even though they _didn't_ (explicitly or not) want their works to stay alive anymore? Abandonware is a much less morally repugnant case than displaying, for instance, a Van Gogh painting (one that he himself _wanted_ to destroy) in a museum for all to see. In 99% of the cases, the game _designers_ themeselves don't MIND (and in fact are glad) that people still want access to play their games. The problem of course is that the copyrights are held by some corporate suit/lawyers who know nothing about gaming.
Ownership rights exist, true, but they must be taken _in context_. And in this case, the context is NOT individual ownership-- it's about games that were, I repeat, once COMMERCIALLY available.
It's ironic-- copyright laws were created in the first place to _encourage_ authors to *spread* their work-- so they can rest assured that their rights are protected. The laws, sadly, are now _preventing_ old games to be enjoyed and spread when companies have long abandoned them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument ignores a VERY important fact: games were _commercial products_ made at one point to be SOLD to the public. Distributing abandonware is NOT like I'm breaking into your house and steal a game you designed only for yourself to play (and NEVER ever wanted to sell or let anyone else play it). Rather, it's like my breaking into your house to steal a game that you USED to sell, and that you REFUSE to sell to me even after I BEG you to sell to me again. How many classic painters/authors do you suppose would turn in their graves if they knew that we're still selling/exhibiting their works, even though they _didn't_ (explicitly or not) want their works to stay alive anymore? Abandonware is a much less morally repugnant case than displaying, for instance, a Van Gogh painting (one that he himself _wanted_ to destroy) in a museum for all to see. In 99% of the cases, the game _designers_ themeselves don't MIND (and in fact are glad) that people still want access to play their games. The problem of course is that the copyrights are held by some corporate suit/lawyers who know nothing about gaming. Ownership rights exist, true, but they must be taken _in context_. And in this case, the context is NOT individual ownership-- it's about games that were, I repeat, once COMMERCIALLY available. It's ironic-- copyright laws were created in the first place to _encourage_ authors to *spread* their work-- so they can rest assured that their rights are protected. The laws, sadly, are now _preventing_ old games to be enjoyed and spread when companies have long abandoned them.