This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Abandonware And Copyright Laws
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare
Purpose of Copyright (Score:5)
--
Abandonware == Good thing (Score:2)
The question of illegal abandonware is a little more sticky. I suspect that most people are less queasy about trading abandoned apps than they are about currently available programs.
--
Max V.
A non-issue (Score:2)
By now, it should be pretty well-known that any attempt to control digital media in the Internet age will be a complete failure (cf Napster, Gnutella, etc). Who worries about the legal status anyway? If you want to download a copy of Ultima 7, then you're going to do so no matter what the law says.
The only real difference between abandonware and mp3 audio is that abandonware is generally distributed on centralized web sites rather than de-centralized systems like Napster, which means that they can be shut down much more easily. I personally look forward to the day when all of it is available on FreeNet of Gnutella.
-- Floyd
Respect the authors (Score:5)
--
Editors remember only copyright (Score:2)
It is not an unfair excuse. When I got my CDR burner, I have archived my old games on a CD. I haven't been unable to put them all since some disks became unreadable.
I am not a lawyer but I remember if a game (or just a piece of software) has copy protection, the editor must provide a piece of backup if the customer ask it. I don't think this is limited in the time. I don't think if I ask some game editor for 15 years old game's disks, it will send them to me. But finally, some of them won't forget they own copyright on these titles...
However, I don't know any game editor for computer (not for console) that have fought this kind of "piracy". Do someone knows one ?
i fail to see.... (Score:2)
this is illegal.
to use the oft cited collolary - books - if a books is out-of-print, do you as a public citizen have the right to make copies for people? even if you take no income from it? aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the author's rights?
i fail to see where this 17 yr old is any different than any other pirate copying games and throwing them up on an FTP site.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:3)
An excellent point - and one that's often glossed over by the would-be robber barons of the information age, who hope that by treating intellectual property as an absolute right, rather than a socially convenient legal fiction.
Sadly, the growing profile of Abandonware will probably be its downfall - one need only see Microsoft's attitude displayed in the article.
--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:3)
Open source is a great concept - that still remains to be proven - but those who do not subscribe to its tenets should not be castigated because of their decision. Besides, one thing OSS has proven is that nothing is impossible.
Publishers doing the Right Thing (Score:3)
This doesn't stop the publisher from doing the Right Thing, however. It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while, a former publisher of software will do the right thing and make copyrighted works available at no charge after their commercial value is gone.
There are some examples of this actually happening. I started off my small-computer career using the venerable TRS-80 line of computers, which were actually decent machines for the day when outfitted with a third-party operating system. A number of applications (including source and binaries for my OS of choice in those days) have been made available by their copyright holders -- see http://www.research.di gital.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html [digital.com] if you're interested in these specific examples.
I'd love to see terms written into a license agreement that allow unrestricted free distribution of the software either immediately or X years after the software is no longer sold and/or supported. I'm not, however, holding my breath, since the point of most license agreements is to disavow everything said elsewhere on the product's packaging. :)
Phil
If they won't replace disks... (Score:3)
---
Resurrecting Abandonware (Score:3)
I think this is a great idea.
If only it could be taken a step further. Like some way to have firms actually take seriously a license that GPL's (or BSD's) a piece of software x years after it's no longer supported. (Preferably where x=0.)
It increases the value of the software, by making consumers know that if it is good, someone will always be there to take up development on it.
Maybe they could put the code with some sort of escrow company, who reviews all the software and GPL's it as appropriate.
Anyone working on this?
SteveLegally very interesting indeed. (Score:5)
Let's leave the criminal penalties out of it for a moment.
The civil measure of recovery for breach of copyright is one of:
So how, in a civil action, does the copyright owner establish an entitlement to other than nominal damages? He's not making any money at all off the abandoned software, so there's no possibility of damages. He can't say he's lost any fraction of zero sales that would sound in damages.
As to an account of profits, only those sites that actually make some form of money gain from offering abandonware are vulnerable, and at that there's a good argument that the profit is only that fraction of profit represented by the illegally distributed title. If there are thousands on the site and it's making peanuts, damages could well be very small indeed.
I would certainly be advising a copyright holder not to waste his money, were any of them to come to me over this sort of thing.
On the other hand, I imagine the criminal penalties for breach of copyright in the US are rather more fierce and fiercely enforced than they are here in the UK. It would be doubtful whether offering abandonware on the web, free at the point of sale would actually be a crime here, absent advertising to make it "in the course of a business". And even then you'd have trouble getting the weights and measures people interested - they're more interested in the pirate recordings and dodgy-chanel-perfume-made-with-air-freshener-and-c at-pee markets.
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:3)
Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware (Score:4)
Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware is done for one reason only: control. Why would a company want to keep users from having access to old versions of software? So the users have to buy the new versions!
As a rule, new versions of software are more feature rich (read: fatter) and may or may not be more useful. But it is certain that the company that produces the new software can get a lot more money from it that they would if they kept selling the sold software.. Rather than sell and support both, they would just as well force you to upgrade.
Of course, that makes it hard to keep using those old Win3.x machines with currently available programs.
Gonzo
Copyobligation or Copyright? (Score:4)
Maybe that shoudl change. Books go out of print, music stops being published, and software that is still useful dies because authors and publishers no longer have an economic interest in providing copies. In all cases, cociety is poorer for the loss.
Maybe copyright should be modified to impose an obligation to provide copies to all who are willing to pay for them. If an author wants to be released from their obligation to provide copies, they must release their copyright.
This is too simplistic, but cay you all see the basic idea?
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
For instance, what if you want Microsoft to open up Win 3.1? It's old code, right? Well, Win 3.1 is still capable of being a competitor to Win 9x if it evolves in the right direction.
How many out of print movies and books are there? Hard to find - but they always have a legitimate reason for not "opening it up" - the copyright owner still wants to get something from any distribution of this, and would prefer to keep that right for themselves.
What about abandoned music? (Score:5)
And yet, if I were to rip my Big Daddy albums into MP3s, burn them to a CD, and give the CDs to friends so they can experience Big Daddy's music, I'm breaking the law. Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
I have a hard time understanding how preservation of music or software became illegal. If the publisher doesn't supply or support it, and it's unavailable through normal means, why not let the public do with it what they will? There's no more money to be made on these works -- the creators aren't even trying to make money on them anymore. They should be in the public domain, and if the public wants to preserve them they should be allowed to do so.
Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Out of print books? (Score:5)
Thats the problem. Calling it "abandonware" makes it sound like a little lost puppy that you can't find its owner. They know who the owners are. Why not (scarey thought coming) ask them? The guy profiled in the article has ad revenue coming into his site. He is likely making money off of other people's IP. Why not send a form letter stating the purpose of the site, what titles they would like to feature and offering a profit share based on downloads?
In most services, requiring an "opt out" rather than "opt in" is considered predatory marketing. In a situation where the legal lines are so well drawn, simply offering to remove is not enough. There are ways to do this right, and making money off of doing it wrong is not aulteristic, no matter how you try to spin it.
Kahuna Burger
Fair enough (Score:2)
The most recent examples of this coming to my mind are the Dragonlance series from SSI [ssionline.com] (Champions of Krynn, Death Knight of Krynn and the Dark Queen of Krynn (see the Dragonlance site [dragonlance.com]) which were bundled in the so called "Forgotten realms collection". And there is offcourse the Ultima series which also got bundled (episode 1 - 8 iirc).
If you compare that with an action game like Half Life you'll notice a difference. It was quite recently when I picked up a bundle offering Half life & opposing force. So basicly I think its kinda hard to take a period of 5 years and consider everything older then 5 years obsolete.
Not All "Abandonware" is Abandoned (Score:2)
If you want classic games, pick them up for $5 at the store, on CD-ROM no less. You'll be doing everyone a favour - you will have a great game, and publishers will be encouraged to re-release more classics for cheap prices.
Re:Editors remember only copyright (Score:3)
How would I prove to the publisher that I bought their computer game "Nuclear War" 12 years ago and I want another copy because I lost the original one during one of my many moves back then? Sure, if the only way to get a replacement copy is to buy it, then that's the price of stupidity and I'd buy it, but if I can download it off the internet then what's wrong with that? Oh they don't like that because then people who didn't pay for it could download it and they'd be losing money
Why don't you software companies stop letting the bean-counters run your companies and do what some software companies *have* done and post the old software on your site as an unsupported free download? Then, if you find it is popular, you can re-release it and make money off of it
Anybody know where I can download (or even buy) copies of those ancient InfoCom games we used to have so much fun with?
Re:A legal mechanism to abandon? (Score:2)
Easy enough. A public announcement that they intend never to pursue remedies in respect of the copyright, and that people are free to use the thing so released (maybe adding that henceforth it's on the GPL, if they're feeling that way out) amounts to a license granted to the world at large and off we go. While it isn't supported by consideration to make it completely enforceable, it's still thereafter impossible for anyone to sue on the copyright.
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:4)
Yes, but it is not immoral. Sometimes laws have to change. And more often than not it is necessary to break them in order to change them.
--
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:2)
If a book is out of print, it increases the liklihood that your use can be found a "fair use" since the infringing act does not have an effect on the market for the book -- there is none. If it's done non-commercially instead of for-profit; if it's done for educational purposes; these things just come down on the side of "fair use".
Re:What about abandoned music? (Score:2)
One of the rights of ownership is the right to destroy.
If you want to preserve something that is not yours -- tough luck. The owner gets to decide what happens to it.
I am not saying that letting old software die is a good thing, or even a reasonable thing to do. However, the copyright holders are perfectly within their rights.
Kaa
Incredibly tricky (Score:2)
1. In some cases, people _need_ older copies of programs. There are some document formats that, for one reason or another, are no longer supported--even through modern conversion software. If that old document happens to contain password-protected tax data, and no modern software will read it, where does the user turn to but to abandonware?
2. On the other hand, compilations of old games are a relatively popular low-budget option for game publishers. They're almost guaranteed to make money for the company (since they're dirt-cheap to make). I for one jumped at the chance to purchase Interplay's compilation of the SSI Gold Box games. However, if these games are freely available on popular abandonware sites, then it makes it difficult for a publisher to convince anyone to buy it.
3. Here's the real sticking point (which I'm also the most out-of-my-league about): if it can be proved that a copyright holder knowingly allowed someone to infringe on that copyright and did not take action to prevent it, then the rights to that material can be permanently lost. This prevents selective enforcement, but at the same time obligates the companies to go after abandonware sites if they want rights to a future version of the game.
It seems that this whole area is in a kind of legal void, with the two sides of the argument brought up in the article both having valid points. It will be interesting to see if this ever gets brought to court--doubtable, though, since people running abandonware sites will probably never be able to afford a lawyer for a case like that.
~=Keelor
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:4)
> want to share it that's their perogative, no?
Authorship is not equal to Ownership.
They Own Copyright on the code. They own hard drives and other storage media that conain the code. However, the code is intangible and cannot be owned.
The question is NOT whether they should be allowed to "Not Share". Of course they should be allowed to not share. The question is whether they shoul dbe allowed to stop others from shareing it.
Copyright says that they can. However, I would submit that this is a mistake. Copyright was invented to encourage publication by ensuring that authors have a way to make sure that they get paid for their work by publishers.
The reason that copyright holders are given this "right" is to give them temporary monopoly. However, if they are no longer using it, and they use copyright to stop further distribution, they are perverting and in fact working against the entire reason that copyright exists.
They are taking something that was given to them for one reason (making it safe for them to publish) and they are using it to stop the distribution of things that they have no intention of publishing again.
This is clear and simple abuse of the copyright system, and a shining example of why it needs heavy updating.
> Open source is a great concept - that still
> remains to be proven
I dunno.... I can go, find a free software program, I can download it. I can read the source, I can modify and redistribute it. I can compile and use it. Have done each at least once and some many times. Whats left to be proven?
That is of course unless you plan to judge Free Software by the standard marketspeak of "its more effcient" "it makes more stable code" and "bugs get fixed faster". Those may be yet to be proven absolutely...but they are all side effects of the system anyway.... more bonuses than central points.
Maybe it is legal (Score:2)
"this is illegal."
Has a court said so? The purpose of copyright protection is to increase the material available to society. If a program is unavailable by any means other than copying without the consent of the author or their agents, then a court might well decide the copying is fair use, as that is the only way to achieve the purpose of the law.
"aren't you violating the publisher's rights? the author's rights?"
I have a right to, say, park my car in a public parking space. But if I choose not to use that right, other people are entitled to use it instead. If an author or publisher chooses not to publish, they have little claim to loss when other people choose to publish instead.
Discovery in such a case might reveal that a publisher, by their own evaluation, would have to expend $100,000 in costs to create and distribute copies of a program that would reap $80,000 in revenue. Thus they would lose money. The defendant who provided copies of this abandonware would have cost the company to lose the opportunity to lose $20,000. Thus there are no damages, and hence should be no court award.
Things may be different in the cases of books, which are sometimes reprinted years or decades after the original printing. We have not seen such a market for software yet, and we are not likely to, except for nostalgia. So software should be ruled and judged by a standard appropriate for it, not for books.
Re:Respect the authors (Score:2)
That's an excellent point. I know that if I were to write a program for any platform, I would want to milk the most money out of it as I could (this is the USA, after all, build upon principles of greed and hoarding)
My problem is with your definition of how abandonware should be handled. You say that you put programs up on your website until the authors ask you to take them down. What if they don't know about it, and hundreds of people nab it before the e-mail hits you and you take it down? Then you've become nothing more than a w4r3z site.
A better method would be to contact each author/corporation before posting it. While being inconvenient, it's really the best way to ensure you aren't violating anybody's rights.
------
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:2)
I'm certain the copyright holder could use such an argument to the court - and claim about $10 million in damages. And they would get away with it, because they have expensive lawyers.
Disclaimer: Do not construe my comment as defending or attacking Mitnick.
Fair use? (Score:4)
--
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright? (Score:2)
In many cases the copyright holder has stated in the license that I am entitled to replacement copies if the media breaks, becomes corrupt or something. Thus, by not providing replacements, they are infringing on rights they explicitly gave me.
//rdj
Again, the "we want things for free" mentality. (Score:2)
Especially in a country so obsessed with nostalgia, things come in and out of vogue, reunions happen, Williams releases emulators for their arcade software for various platforms....
There's a case in point. I know people who didn't buy any of the arcade reissue discs for the PSX, even though they were avid fans of the included games. And why not? Because anyone can get their hands on MAME... because there is a mentality that "they're not making money on it right now, it's languishing, so it's free for us to release it."
Copyrights are copyrights. Fight them all you want, go ahead and change the laws, but until you do, they're still law.
Re:Full Circle (Score:2)
most of these pieces of software should have had their copyright run out. However, the (Sonny) Bono/Disney amendment to copyright law made copyrights expire 100 years after the author's death. THis practically made coporate-owned copyrights immortal.
Since this is a bad law, we as moral people, have an obligation to not only disagree with it, but also to not follow it. Civil Disobedience, if you will.
The video games from 20 years ago should be in the public domain by now. The only theft, is by the corporations who are robbing the public out of public-domained knowledge/works of art.
The immortal copyrights need to be amended to something reasonable, like 17-20 years. If not less, considerring the speed of internet development.
Oh - and yes, I probably just fed a troll...
tagline
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:4)
...a myth.
Just because a certain issue of a magazine is no longer on the shelves, does that give you the right to go out and copy it?
My actions are not bounded by artificial "rights" granted by others. I am, as a human, fully capable of exercising Reason in such issues. If you need something, why should anyone put up artificial barriers against it? It does nothing but hold back the progress of humanity, thus furthering the claims of those who benefit from the status quo.
For instance, what if you want Microsoft to open up Win 3.1?
Strawman. The Abandonware Movement is about free "beer" not free "speech".
How many out of print movies and books are there?
Too many. Movie companies usually destroy films when the copyright expires rather than allow them to enter the public domain. Is this "right"? Not even the most morally corrupt person could claim so much.
-- Floyd
loss of trademark (Score:3)
IANAL, but...
...the kind folks from the SPA had a nice talk with me, which prompted me to do some research into the subject. Under the Berne convention, copyright does not need to be policed by the copyright owner. Trademark and patents, yes, copyright, no.
And there's the rub. Duke or Doom are copyrighted titles... but they're also trademarks. Not defending the copyright is the same as not defending the trademark. That's why publishers are so quick to take action when copyright infringement is brought to their attention.
hymie
Re:Copyobligation or Copyright? (Score:2)
--
Abandonware Link (Score:2)
Give it up . . . (Score:2)
At my school, for example, there are many students whose home computers consist of 486 and slower Pentium based systems, as well as a small cadre of users who are still using older PowerMacs (and a few clones). The vast majority of these users are simply interested in a machine that they can do simple word processing on. A 486-66 running Win95 rev. A ain't gonna be able to hack running Office 2000. These guys don't have the bucks to shell out for a newer machine (or an upgrade) so that they can run MS' latest bloated version of Word. Word 6.0 or WordPerfect 6/7 will suit them nicely, but guess what? They can't buy it anywhere, and if they copy someone else's, then they're suddenly a pirate in Microsoft's eyes . . .
I've tried to set a few guys around campus with Linux and AbiWord, but in most cases they've either gone back to Windows (Linux is too much for them to bother with, AbiWord doesn't do page numbers yet, etc.) or I end up doing 24/7 tech support for 'em. So that option, while it's inexpensive in terms of money, isn't really an option for folks who aren't as technically inclined as most of us.
The problem with AbandonWare (in the case of products like Word and WordPerfect) is that the 486 user that doesn't have the horsepower to run Office 2000, and copies her friend's old Word 6.0 to do simple word processing represents a potential sale to MS. And when there are thousands of potential sales that end up copying old software instead of shelling out whatever the latest version of Office costs ($300? I have no idea really . . .) then suddenly the suits start to worry. Sure, 50,000 users *not* buying a $300 software package that otherwise would buy it only represents a total of $4,500,000 to Microsoft, whose assets are far past that amount, but each chunk of revenue lost equals a hit to the bottom line.
And, in the end, it's the bottom line that counts to pretty much any company (at least the ones that want to stay in business). Microsoft doesn't really give a rip about whether Bob and Sue can afford to upgrade their computers to run Office 2000, or if they can't stretch their budget to buy Office 2000 itself. They care about money. Period. And, even though I use MS as an example throughout, I'm not just picking on them -- most large software companies are going to feel the same way.
On an entirely different note, it sure is fun to run across a copy of a game you played 10 years ago, and play it again though . . .
-------
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:3)
I don't understand your sig. Money doesn't have a speed value associated with it. Usually I can say "My car is slow" or "My pet turtle is slow", but "My money is slow" doesn't have any meaning without some context. For instance, when talking about distribution of money, and it's discovered that it takes a year for a dollar bill to move from one side of the country to the other, you could say "Money is slow". However, in absence of context, money has no speed value.
That said, I think it's time you got yourself a new sig.
Zero information decay and its impact ... (Score:2)
Now apply the same thinking to software, if your profit margin is in the first sale, then any activity which results in suppression of repeat sales of the next upgrade is to be severely discouraged. Entities like Microsoft have tacitly acknowledged this by noting that their biggest competitor is actually their old products.
Thus if your business model relies on forcing customers to go through an endless upgrade cycle (cough*Wintel*cough) the Internet is a threat because so long as there is one person with the passion and resources to keep a copy, others will be able to find it and offer some exchange/trade/resale. Think of web-rings, freshmeat and mirrors, all which collectively serve to persist information and minimise bit rot. This may not suit companies accustomised to high information decay rates as it forces them into a service model which is human intensive and because they've bid up the price of programming labor to insane levels in hiring software engineers to churn out the next killer-app, can't compete as service model requires a somewhat different skillset (more diagnostic and less development). Lower margins = less profits = collapsing share prices = pissed off investors.
As AbiWord CEO points out [abisource.com], "Users are tired of the crazy upgrade cycle which has become the norm for so many desktop applications", primarily because it puts the real cost of software in wasted time learning applications which may be deprecated in the next release cycle. From the software developers and distributors point of view, old software is also a disincentive for upgrading and thus their desire to shorten the half life of information or put time-limited licensing terms into their EULA.
OpenSource sorta gets around the problem as their real business is stability and interoperability, despite all too frequent plaintive cries that Unix is not "innovative" or "bleeding-edge". Until the marketing/advocacy people realise this and emphasise low "cost of repair/replacement", they will be perceived as at a disadvantage to "mainstream" software. However, despite similar functionality, it is a distinct business from licensing IP blocks (drag,drop,script) where all the value is retained by the manufacturer. Just like abandonware is not really a software distribution, it is in the nostalgia business. As such, it can probably carve out a small niche for its proponent provided he's smart to avoid copyright lawsuits, given that the majority of software purchasers have short-term memory (when did you ever come across a piece of non-gaming software that you really *enjoyed* using?). LL
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:5)
The more I think about it, the more I like this idea: have software for checkout in the library. The purpose of libraries is to provide free temporary access to copyrighted works. Why shouldn't they have software? Software publishers could produce special versions that require the CD to run (so people can't keep using the program when they return the CD). This would be really cool. Imagine going down to the library to check out the latest Redhat CD. Or checking out Diablo for the weekend. There's the danger of people abusing the system and copying the programs, but there is that danger with audio CD's as well and libraries still carry those.
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:3)
If the company is not producing or supporting a product and does not pursue illegal reproduction of said product then it might as well be legal. He is different than a regular pirate because his act of piracy does not cost the company that he is pirating the software from any money. He is providing a service that people want and the legitimate companies don't wish to do.
Cross Platform Compatibility? (Score:2)
I can legally copy a tape of music onto a CD (or visa versa). Is there any relation between the music and software worlds as far as copyright is concerned?
hymie
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
I don't have to imagine. I installed Linux first from a set of CD's for checkout from the library. You just need a better library.
Re:Abandonware == Good thing (Score:2)
What does the NeXT community think of MacOS X? Is it going to make NeXT programming once again a valuable skill?
D
----
Re:Enforcing Copyrights on Abandonware (Score:2)
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:2)
The traditional argument against piracy is that the owner is being denied the payment for their property. In this situation, where the owner is refusing offers of payment, this is clearly not happening.
I can't say I'm really against abandonware, but there are some thing from the corporate side people seem to be forgetting. With all the different media out there right now (DVD, video, computers, video consoles, etc) most companies are competing for overall entertainment time, as well as directly against competitors. If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
Also, don't forget that some game companies release collection of old games every so often. Abandonware hurts these collections more than anything else. I could go and buy a collection of all the old King's Quest games, or I could get them for free...which is more likely to happen? Yes, this is a minority of the games, but it is still something that needs to be considered. While abandonware can be good, I can completely understand why many companies are against it, usually with at least some good reasons.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
It's their right. They made them. They can decided what to do with them, just as I can write a book and then throw it into a burning trashcan if I so desire.
Beautiful... (Score:3)
I love it when stuff like that happens.
Re:Again, the "we want things for free" mentality. (Score:2)
How about backing up that assertion? No-longer being actively sold means exactly no commercial value to me.
Yes, folks will want stuff for free - the alternative, always having your wallet dripping out of your pocket for every little thing is downright offensive - and if a company could give it away for no loss to themselves, they should be encouraged to do so.
Of course that means the copyright laws and IP laws are a crock of crap - holding on to something beyond usefulness. If you want to support that corrupt legalistic system, feel free, of course.
~Tim
--
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:4)
If in getting a free copy of Word 2.0 I decide that I do not need to buy Word 2000, then they have lost a sale, and could claim the lost revenue from that sale. It's tenuous, but that's what expensive lawyers are for.
DOS creator not that badly off? (Score:2)
But if my memory serves, Patterson was hired afterwards by Microsoft. If he got the stock options normally offered at that time, he'd be pretty rich right now, thus giving his story a happy ending.
Anyone know if that's true?
D
----
Re:i fail to see.... (Score:2)
Yup. It's called public domain. After a certain (currently inordinately long) time, the public does have the right to do these things, whether or not other people are making profit from it. It becomes even more suspicious if *nobody* is currently making profit or attempting to make profit, or even supporting in any manner the items. Even *more* so with software because the lifetime of a piece of software is *years* not decades or centuries, like books, etc.
In any case pirates don't copy games. They roam the seas steal loot, bury it, and kill people. Pirate is a loaded word that doesn't make sense in digital copying. Digital copying does not "deprive" the originator of the work, and is not stealing per se. That is not to say it is good or legal, but that it means something different with respect to digital, conceptual, and other non-tangible things. See the FSF and Jefferson's opinion on this.
Re:Abandonware == Good thing (Score:2)
Some of the old NEXTSTEP programmers (the Omni Group, Stone design) are preparing large-scale ports of their OpenStep apps to MacOS X.
Alas, it looks like Sun has killed further development of the Lighthouse apps, so they won't show up on X. It's too bad--I'd rather use OpenWrite than MS Word on my Mac any day.
The community is somewhat divided over MacOS X. Some people are just glad to have the wonder OpenStep development environment back in any form. Others are upset about the lack of elegant integration that NEXTSTEP provided (Services, universal color managment, copy-paste of fonts, etc.)
--
Max V.
BSA and Abandonware (Score:3)
We created it in France something like 2 years ago after long discussions that even involved Richard Stallman himself (co-author of the BPL - BSA Public License).
We gather all the related software on our Web Site [www.bsa.lu] (in French) and we actively harass Abandonware editors to let us publish their "old", though often useful programs.
Of course, this might look we have not gathered that much software but whatever we get we publish it and if you help us convincing editors there'll soon be loads to pick.
FYI, the BSA name comes from the fact that we remarked that the Business Software Alliance didn't have a legal existence in France : So, we just picked the acronym before them...
--
Re:Incredibly tricky (Score:2)
Also, I'm not sure that it's a valid excuse to break the law--I just think that it's not immediately obvious that retrieving data through abandonware should be illegal.
~=Keelor
Re:Its the Law (Score:2)
I think car companies are required to sell spare parts for a specific amount of time after they stop production, and I think that period is quite long. However, a car is very different from hardware or software. Would you still drive a 10 year old car if the new ones cost 1/10th what old ones did, and the new ones were 20 times as fast and efficient? There wouldn't be many old cars actively used if this was the case.
D
----
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:2)
There are times when the laws, especially the laws that affect corperate earnings, aren't in touch with reality. I think a lot of Slashdot posters are forgetting this, and merely posting a lot of "stealing is wrong, if you steal you are worse than hitler, abandonware is stealing" posts.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Well, this is not exactly true. What if the contents of the book, or the quality of the book compromises my future earnings or ability to get a job. Lets say, the book was so bad, and so offensive that if anybody saw it, I wouldn't be able every publish another book again my reputation would be destroyed. By releasing that book, you could do financial harm to me. Don't I have the right to privacy? Don't I have the right for you NOT to expose me?
Of course, this argument isn't exactly relavant to abandonware, because the IP we're talking about IS published.
Are you proposing doing away with copyright entirely, or just returning it to a "founding-fathers" level?
Re:Again, the "we want things for free" mentality. (Score:2)
I did back up my assertion. Did you read the post? Williams was the example I used. They lost revenue due to piracy in the name of abandonware. A number of other companies do as well. See? That's not your "no loss" situation.
If you visit some of the abandonware sites, you'll see lists of games that have been deemed no longer abandonware, due to their being put back on the market again. There are at least 30 games in some of these lists, and they don't always overlap.
I think it'd be a good thing to create a climate in which companies can, if they choose, release their software or source when *they* choose to, as is happening more often lately.
Software library (Score:2)
One of the reasons abandonment is not a problem with books is that there is a well-established library system. Almost all books of any significant interest or value are available for free loan. It might be interesting to establish a software library -- a web site where you could "check out" and download software the library had acquired. Then the library would not let anybody else download the software until you returned it, by visiting the web site and going through the return process, which marks the program returned and deletes the downloaded copy. If a patron did not return a program on time, the library would charge a late fee.
Libraries could easily acquire material through donations of old software. In fact, once the library had acquired its first copy of a program, additional contributors do not need to upload new copies; they merely need to tell the library they are donating their rights to the copy they have. "Click here to donate your copy of Zork to the library."
Nothing in this model prevents a person from copying the software while it is in their possession, but nothing in the book library model prevents that either. Lending libraries would not be useful for people looking for software to run regularly on their computers, but it would be useful for playing games and for working with old documents in obscure or no-longer-supported formats.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Respect the authors (Score:4)
Well, at least that would make it legal. But how effective would it be? Individual authors who want to see their works preserved for posterity would probably be happy to cooperate, but corporations wouldn't consider granting such permission without the approval of their lawyers and executives. Lawyers are usually loathe to forfeit any rights, on general principle. Executives are similarly loathe to forfeit any possible source of revenue, however small or theoretical. (Even if they don't choose to exploit it, they will rarely relinquish the right to do so.) Executives could potentially even be held liable by stockholders if someone concludes that they passed up a moneymaking opportunity. These things make it difficult and risky for corporations to be good citizens; the path of least resistance is to refuse permission, even if they don't actually care about the code anymore. The corporation might be willing to turn a blind eye (probably protesting ignorance of the flagrant copyright violation, and doing some symbolic sabre rattling when pressed), but asking them to grant express permission is asking a lot more of some (usually) conservative people.
Another possible problem is identifying the proper legal owner of the code; many old software companies have gone out of business, and finding out who inherited the intellectual "property" may be quite difficult. (Unfortunately, even if the actual author is sympathetic, some company or another usually owns the copyright and won't be as sympathetic, unless they still value that author.)
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission." This seems to be the operating principle of these abandonware sites. Is it legal? Obviously not. Is it right? That's a moral question, and laws alone cannot answer moral questions. If they're not in it for a profit, and they're not harming the business of the copyright owners, and they're willing to remove anything by request of the proper owner, then at least it can be argued that their motives are pure. Legally, they're still at risk, and could take a fall. Or they could get away with it indefinitely. (Minors who run such sites may have some legal protection, unless tried as adults!)
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Actually it does. In economics, there's a concept called the "velocity of money". It's a measure of how much money changes hand in a given time period. The more money that "moves around" (i.e. the more buying and selling that occurs), the stronger the economy, or so I've been told. The more people save money, the less it moves around, and the velocity of money goes down.
--
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:4)
Theft and IP (Score:4)
Please note that there are people who do benefit from the theft of physical objects; the thief has and increase in wealth, and the manufacturer of the object benefits, since they get to sell another copy to replace the one which was stolen. This does not compensate for the direct loss of the victim, and the loss to society as a whole from the decrease in value of the original stolen object.
In the case of intellectual property just the opposite occurs. If I copy an existing disk the wealth of society INCREASES; there are now two copies of the original which can do more work than the previous existing copy could. Who loses? The owner of the disk does not lose, he still has his original copy. I benefit, I can now do something I couldn't do before. The only possible loser is the manufacturer of the software - who was deprived of an additional sale by my act of copying. Notice that I said the MANUFACTURER, not the CREATOR; there is a difference. Under the free market system the person who creates software is very rarely the person who benefits from the sale of that software.
Please note that in the case of physical theft the manufacturer benefits. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A MANUFACTURER COMPLAIN ABOUT BENEFITING FROM PHYSICAL THEFT. Have you? By failing to do so they lose the moral right to complain about the loss in sales caused by duplication of disks.
There is a critical difference between material goods and IP; in the digital world the digital equivalent of the 'Star Trek Replicator' exists, it is a CDROM burner or a floppy disk drive. Given a pattern to work from these can replicate the original. Think how much the economy would change if physical replicators existed. Manufacturing would become obsolete - each person with a replicator would in effect become a manufacturer.
What the software MANUFACTURERS want to do is to benefit from the fact that replication exists in the digital world while preventing everyone else from using their own replicators. Of course they do, if physical replicators existed physical manufacturers would try to keep people from using them while they got to use them to make outrageous profits.
Last year Microsoft had NET profits of 40% of sales. That is NET, not GROSS profits. The net figure comes after their accountants have pulled every trick in the book trying to reduce the number to minimize taxes. Microsoft's huge profit occur because they are using replication technology to build their product, it costs them less than a dollar to create a copy of a program which sells for hundreds of dollars.
Please note that the actual creators of the software are paid chicken feed to create the digital patterns which Microsoft turns into billions of dollars worth of profits by using their replicators, and forbidding us to use ours.
The free market system has worked well for us in the past when it comes to the manufacturing of physical goods. However it breaks down in the face of replication technology. We need to come up with a system which rewards the actual CREATORS of software instead of rewarding people who are using digital replicators to gouge the public for billions of dollars, while trying to deny to individuals the use of that technology.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
I always thought information wanted to be tied up and spanked. Wait, thats.... em.... nevermind :-)
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
respecting copyright IS cooperation (Score:2)
> How spiteful! It's a wonder how society limps along at all when nobody is willing to cooperate even minimally with others...
Looked at the right way, Copyrights (and all other laws) ARE an agreement to cooperate with each other. When you abide by the law because it's what you'd do anyway, it's worthless. When you abide by the law because it's the law, you are making a decision that the public good (being able to rely on certain rules of behavior) is worth sacrificing personal liberties (e.g. by not yelling "fire!" in a crowded room, or by not stealing music just because someone else CAN rip a CD and CAN post it on the web and you CAN download it for "free" (like beer)). Society CAN be tightly restricted by laws, but a basic level of law CAN insure that the majority of people have the elbow-room to live decent lives without someone sticking a gun in their face to get their wallet or selling bootleg copies of the CD their band works on.
Violating copyright is tresspassing on someone's Homestead (see ESR's page [tuxedo.org]) on the Noosphere - people who care about software development should consider whether they think this is akin to tresspassing in their physical home. The answer will vary for each of us - but in some sense Copyright law does (or can) give each of us the right to make that choice (let people in - OSS; keep people out - traditional) just as physical property laws allow me to protect my home (or open it up, whether for a weekend party, or every day).
When does making money end? Y2k? (Score:2)
Now the Y2k problem adds an interesting twist. A company that does not update an older version for Y2k.
A company that went out of business, but did not list all 125 revisions of a package as it's assets. What happens?
All of this will be litigated.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
"Both ends" of the spectrum (Score:2)
Pirated "Abandonware" for sale in British Shops (Score:2)
I work in central London, here in the UK. Just yesterday I was in one of our larger record shops (HMV on Oxford Street) and was rather shocked to see a compilation CD for sale offering "over 3,000 ZX Spectrum games, plus emulators!" (I believe the Spectrum was marketed by Timex in the US?).
I seriously doubt that the manufacturer of this compilation had authorisation of the publishers for this collection. There were pretty much all the old classics on there, from numerous different software houses (some now long gone, some still here).
Naughty music retailer. :)
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Actually, in some instances that is a valid defense. The law is quite clear about how one can attest rights to abandoned physical property (IE maritime salvage, squatter's rights, etc). [Just what the law is, I don't know, because IANAL]
Since corporations persist in making the argument that intellectual property rights are equivilent to physical property rights, they have to take the good with the bad: the same standards should be applied to abandoned intellectual property as apply to abandoned physical property.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:Theft and IP (Score:2)
In paragraph two I meant to say:
"the thief has an increase in wealth"
Stupid Graph (Score:2)
Microsoft (Score:2)
I called Microsoft. They told me that I couldn't have 6.0, as they didn't sell it any more. However, if I copied 6.0 from my customer and bought VC++ 2.0 at full retail, they would turn a blind eye. Not that I could get that in writing, of course, but I had the personal assurance of the guy who answers the phones.
This actually sounds quite reasonable, until you realise how much more VC++ 2 cost than C6. IIRC it was about 4 times the price.
--
As a rabid anti-pirate (Score:2)
I still consider it pirating, but it's the only reason I've ever accepted as legitimate.
To sum up some of the other posts that think this is still morally wrong, we have to look at exactly what this is: published material that is relatively old and NOT SUPPORTED by the company that published it, and not sold by, or in anyway available from, the company that published it or anyone else.
Personally, I have a copy of Falcon 3.0 that I tried to install recently and one of the 3.5" disks (possibly more, since I didn't get past it) was corrupted. By RIAA standards, it's illegal for me to download somebody elses copy, even though for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
So there's a difference between intent of the laws and actual wording (and morality is a completely different issue).
Someone gave the counter argument that you don't legally have a right to not stop at a stop sign, even though you know no cross traffic is coming. That's true, that's the letter of the law, but the intent is to protect lives and allow traffic to proceed in a fair manner - and by not stopping (or coming to a complete stop), you are not violating the intent of the law. You are also saving gasoline and causing less pollution. Of course, a cop'll still give you ticket, because they are typically instructed to follow the letter of the law - it's not their place to determine what's right or wrong.
But who are we to judge when it's ok to violate the letter of the law? When it's so blatently obvious no one is coming (you can see for a good distance in all directions before getting to the intersection), and when the original copyright holders have no purpose in protecting something they no longer sell/support, I just don't see the problem. No counter examples really capture what's going on, here.
I agree with these "abandonware" people, and I WILL download Falcon 3.0 if I see it.
----------
Don't Require the CD to run... (Score:2)
I can copy the cd to get Diablo II installed, but unless I break the cd-lock system, I can't actually play the game.
Copy-locking has never been a good idea. It just insures that people who want to buy your product can't, and that when your product is pirated (because you know somebody is going to see it as a challenge) EVERYONE will want a pirated copy. Even the legal folks, just in case they ever purchase the product and actually want to use it...
30 years? um, no... (Score:2)
If the works were published in 1964, say, the earliest they would go out of copyright would be 2059. That's more than 30 years.
For works published more recently, it's generally is the lifetime of the author + 70 years. Works of corporate authorship are under copyright for the shorter of 120 years from creation, or 96 years from publication[1].
A work published today will most likely not enter the public domain until sometime in the mid-22nd century...
...that is, assuming copyright terms are not retroactively extended again as they have been consistently over the past few decades (c.f. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act).
Audio CDs have a lifetime of about 50 years. If people don't start making their own copies of things after they go out of distribution, very large chunks of our culture will begin dissapearing.
Excessively long copyright terms are producing the cultural equivalent of slash-and-burn agriculture[2].
---[1] Gasaway, Lolly. When Works pass into the Public Domain. [unc.edu] University of North Carolina. 1999.
[2] I am seriously considering voluntarily releasing my own works into the public domain after 14 years (the original term for copyrights) to combat this.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:2)
This is why I limited the initial post to the UK.
In the UK a claim like that is susceptible to being thrown out at an early stage as having no reasonable prospect of success at trial under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or as an abuse of process under Part 3. The winning party gets to claim the loser's costs from the winner as well.
Re:Legally very interesting indeed. (Score:2)
I think you overestimate the ability of expensive lawyers. I am one, and know whereof I speak: the difficulty with running specious arguments like that in court is that the judge, who used to be an expensive lawyer himself, tends to ask inconvenient questions about how breach of copyright puts the Claimant out of pocket by the whole development cost in any way that hadn't happened by reason of the software's obsolescence.
Remember always that the aim of damages is to place the claimant in the position he would have been in, so far as money can do it, had the harmful act not occurred. Punitive damages can sometimes be levied over and above that measure for an assortment of reasons, but none of those reasons that I know of in various jurisdictions cover not-for-profit actions that cause zero or nominal loss to the aggrieved party.
Appealing to logic would be better (Score:2)
So, you never exceed the speed limit because that would be illegal, right? Yeah, right. In reality, questionable laws don't get respected and don't get obeyed by anyone except sheep who are unable to distinguish right from wrong.
Any argument based on a statement of "this is illegal" is basically not a logical argument at all, but an appeal to authority. And "violating the publisher's/author's rights" is no better -- it presuposes that the case for rights is a priori granted or obvious, which may not be the case.
Here in particular such reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, because the very concept of intellectual prioperty is being re-examined in the light of the new realities of unlimited distribution and sharing on the net. What the law established in pre-Internet days is not necessarily right in today's world, any more than Victorian laws regarding horse-powered transport are right on today's highways. The law either adapts rapidly or it gets ignored.
two other errors... (Score:2)
(emphasis mine)
This is just wrong on so many levels. Once a work is in the public domain, it's public domain. You shouldn't normally be able to copyright anything but your own derivatives of said public domain work.
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting holding onto the sole copy, and then leveraging copyright to extract licensing on copies of that, I think that's just morally reprehensible...
Usually that means that the music has been licensed from the original publisher, not that the copyright has expired.
... you know, I just realized you're in Norway. [Sorry, American arrogance strikes again :/] I may be completely off base, then, but I sincerely hope Norwegian copyright law isn't as twisted as you make it sound to me (although I daresay 30 year terms aren't bad)...
In any case, as regards copyright terms, international law is slowly serving to synchronize copyright terms in various countries (which was one of the contributing factors to the US extension). I'm not sure you will be able to rely on 30-year terms for long.
Re:What about abandoned music? (Score:2)
Copyright was created to promote the creation of works. You are simply given distribution/copying rights (hence - copy*right*). The copyright laws were designed to promote the arts for the betterment of *society* by giving artists an incentive to create.
If you no longer distribute or support your art (such as games) and you use the copyright laws to prevent others from preserving the art, then you are harming society as a whole. I must emphasize that copyright is ultimately for the benefit of society, which will last much longer than any shortsighted individual or corporation.
I agree with one of the above posters that if copyright holders do not want their old progs. being distributed by others, then they should at least provide the progs. themselves.
In the end, I do not believe we should voluntarily burn another library of Alexandria for the temporary monetary gain of just a few individuals.
Re:Resurrecting Abandonware [and Demos!] (Score:2)
If only they still had the source code or the developement environment to run/compile the software!
Actually we have the same problem in the demo scene, old demos are very hard to watch as most emulators fail to cope with the kind of tricks a demo needs. And we still don't have any decent 8086 emulator which would emulate the Gravis Ultrasound, a necessary step to be able to watch the old pc demos!
Of course if we had the sources for those demos we may be able to port them, but this demos are the kind of productions where the binary is really the end product..
It would be really sad if this part of the modern culture disappeared in such way..
Copyright on "Abadonware" still useful (Score:2)
If a company made a non-expirable contract with a buyer to replace software media, they ought to live with it (especially if us consumers gotta live with their EULA's). If this is not fulfilled, the "legal" recourse would be to sue. Since suing over $1 in media is not tenable (it's downright stupid), the more reasonable recourse is to just download the software. Not legal, really, but I think it is ethical.
But that only applies to previous purchasers. What about those who download it, never having paid for it, claiming that it's abandoned, making no money, and thus should be freely dessiminated?
The financial argument doesn't hold, since "abandonware" can become "commercialware" quite easily. Since someone had the copyrights to PacMan, Centipede, Frogger, etc, Microsoft (I think) was able to acquire them and release their "retro" gaming packs a couple of years ago, selling "abandonware" games for profit. Likewise, Hasbro was able to purchase them, make new versions, and sell them. Further, copyrights can be used (or sold) so that a sequel can be made, e.g. Syndicate. If the copyrights were thrown out after some short period of non-use, then everyone and their brother could resell, remake, or sequel-ize the games, which I don't think is a good thing.
Whether it is a good, bad, or ugly thing that copyrights can be held, sold, utilized, and employed to sequels, is perhaps the real issue, since this is relevant to movies, books, and other things, as others have pointed out.
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
Generally speaking, and this is already taken care of by other areas of civil and criminal law. You don't need copyright for this.
Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were in fact completely opposed to the notion of copyrights and IP in general (the most notable of these being Thomas Jefferson, a prolific writer and inventor).
I'd personally just be happy to see it go back to the original ~14 year term, with limitations only on publication, rather than use.
Re:Out of print books? (Score:2)
On the other hand, getting permission requires legal effort and decisions on the company's part. And companies are populated by folks who don't want to make decisions...
Not to be simplisticly moralistic, but doing the right thing is often harder. And don't underestimate the difficulties one could have hunting down permission for a book. Small presses go out of business, authors use pseudonymes, move to different cities, etc.
An honest site trying to "provide a service" would check to see if a piece of software was truely abandoned (is it avalible in a compilation or re-release, if so post a link to the provider) and ask permission of those that were. When the owners were not providing the software and said no to the abandonware site, the site could keep track of requests and periodicly report the consumer demand and ask again. It would be more work. But providing a service is usually work.
-Kahuna Burger
Easier solution... (Score:2)
Thrill Kill: A strange case (Score:2)
Virgin Interactive was working on a Playstation 4-player fighting game called "Thrill Kill." Like the name suggests, it's gorier than Mortal Kombat even (yep, it gets pretty silly...)
Electronic Arts (I think,) bought Virgin Interactive, decided they didn't want a game like that being released under their name, and canned it... a week before launch.
I have downloaded this game (don't ask how, you can find anything on the net,) and I found that it only has a couple of minor bugs, and obviously a lot of work was put into it.
Now, do you think it was wrong to download, because the original programmers aren't getting royalties for every copy sold, and the company doesn't want the game out?
...or do you think it was acceptable because the game was never released anyway, so there's no loss to the company? Also that the programmers are probably proud of their work, and wouldn't want it wasted?
I'm not looking for justification to download it, I've already made my choice... but what does the
Re:Editors remember only copyright (Score:2)
I recently got an itch to play Star Control 2 again (that was such an awesome game) and couldn't find my original floppies. So I bought it for $10 online at some vintage game store. They offered it for download, along with the manual in pdf and a pic of the map, both for reference and copy protection.
There definitely needs to be some sort of archive. The Library of Congress for games. If the manufacturers want to, they can license their stuff to the archive and have it sold for a reasonable price. If a copyright expires, set it to free download. I would love this.
Intellectual Property Conservancy (Score:3)
Many posters comment that Abandonware sites are technically illegal. So here's a plan. Provide an incentive for copyright and patent owners to donate their works to the public, in return for a tax deduction. Don't steal the works, pay for them.
Set up an Intellectual Property Conservancy that is a non-profit, educational, publishing corporation. Donations of intellectual property could be tax-deductible (Congress could even make the tax deduction higher than normal for a superincentive, or provide a monetary incentive in lieu of tax deduction). Accept donations of copyright, online publication rights, source code, patents, trademarks, books, software, development environments, the whole lot.
When a company finds the income from an old work no longer makes maintenance worthwhile, then they can donate it to the public domain and the rest of us will distribute it and support it for free (or even for money). They will have an incentive to consider this, and if the company goes under the creditors will probably force it, since otherwise they would not get money back.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution wisely set up a balance between the rights of authors and inventors, and the public domain, by limiting copyright term and recognizing fair use rights. However, copyright term in recent years has been extended far too long. While it started at 14 years, now it is 95 years for a work made for hire (in other Berne Convention nations, it is 70 or 50 years after the author's death).
The copyright holders (mostly big publishers) howled that they needed protection for more years, because works had value that long. This is doubtful, but if it is true, then surely the copyright holders will get behind this plan, and find a way to realize more profits.
Since the public is the one to benefit, the public should pay. A difficulty with previous ideas is that the government does a bad job of setting prices for public goods. Okay, I say let the normal process of the market or fair appraisals, as is done today with tax deductions, be used instead.
Richard Stallman has pointed out that it might be immoral to reward those who take out software patents, for example. It might be considered like paying money to redeem a child from slavery. So there is room for a lot of debate and discussion on the issue. What do you think? Can you help get the services of a tax lawyer to vet this plan?
Re:Purpose of Copyright (Score:2)
If he wants to seal it in a safe and not EVER allow anybody to distribute it, then he cannot have ever had it published, or be willing to buy up every copy that was published.
It is true that copyright has been extended for a LONG time, but it is not indefinite.
Look at the purpose of copyright law. It was to allow someone to profit from their works for a LIMITED time, by preventing someone from copying a book he/she had just printed and selling the copy. There was NO intention of granting property rights to ideas, or expressions of ideas, in perpetuity. It was intended that works pass into the public domain after a short time in order to increase the common store of knowledge.
P.S. That is very sad about the negatives...I always consider it a collective loss whenever knowledge(in the general sense, eg. art, records, even bad movies) is lost.
The current length of copyright is not fulfilling the intention of the law, in that it is not only encouraging people to live off the rewards of PAST work, it is preventing the spread of knowledge.
Re:30 years? um, no... (Score:2)
Now that copying is trivial, we all of a sudden see it as our right and duty? Please.
Personally, I think anything that has been out of print for an extended period of time should be fair game, but that's not likely to happen.
See the spirited discussion that's taken place on thejudys.com (a great 80's band that barely had a presence in the record stores to start with, and so very hard to find) for more on the issue of whether it's OK to copy even things that are flat impossible to get hold of.
Here's A Shocker. (Score:3)
I side with the abandonware pirates. Here's why:
1. Not being able to get an old piece of software is like not being allowed to fab a part for a classic car. My prefered model for software has always been "software as product" where we simply treat it as a physical, destructable product, even though it isn't. Now, since the company that oroginally made the product is no longer manufacturing it, and refuses to do so, I believe it's fair game to allow others to "fab parts" as best they can.
This, by the way, is the same reason I hate Microsoft's EULA. Not being allowed to move Windows to another box is like not being allowed to pull a Chevy V8 and put it in another car.
2. If the authors aren't selling, they aren't losing money. In this case, the only argument they can make that they are losing money is that it interferes with their planned obsolecence plans. That's a poor excuse.
Another reason I side with abandonware is that I'm sure there have been many companies that have been bought for some reason, and then the purchaser decided they didn't want to develop the product.
If we want to extend the whole "piracy on the high seas" analogy, there is a precedent in maritime law. IANAL, but aren't people allowed to "salvage" ships abandoned at sea? I think this is very similar.
Now, how could we legislate to make abandonware legit?
Well, the five year rule is one good guideline. I would also say that the distributors of abandonware should not be allowed to sell it for any more than the cost of distribution. If the original manufacturer decides to start selling it again, they should be allowed to re-start sales at no more than the original retail price of the package, and the abandonware distributor should cease and desist.
Original Length of Copyright (Score:4)
The U.S. Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a 14-year duration (a quite reasonable timeframe and a good balance of author incentive vs. public good), with another 14-year optional extension (in the 14th year), for a maximum of 28 years, which is plenty of time to capitalize on a creative work. (Especially when you consider that businesses usually make their plans based on expected returns within 5 years or so!) Works had to be registered with the Copyright office to receive protection; many works entered the public domain directly because the author didn't bother to register the copyright.
Copyright has been extended many times [asu.edu] since then for the further enrichment of the rich, with no consideration given to the balance inherent in the "bargain" between the author and the public that copyright is supposed to represent. It's been twisted into an entitlement in many people's minds, a tool to enrich a few at great cost to the public. Copyright extensions (especially the last one) are enacted to preserve corporate profits (and the GNP), public be damned. It's a gross perversion of a system that was originally designed to benefit the public, not to enrich authors and "IP" owners.
The law and the article (Score:5)
The article says: According to copyright law, the creators of intellectual property such as software, books, and music have full ownership of the property. This is wrong (at least as to U.S. law). The creators of a work have a large number of substantial rights, the most absolute of which is when or whether to publish the work. As an incentive to publish ("make public") the work, the government agrees to provide certain limited monopoly rights on the work for a limited time, and back those rights with the power of the state. However, those rights are limited in a number of ways.
- Copyright expires - the U.S. Constitution explicitly mandates that copyright last for a "limited time", which Congress has chosen to currently set very, very long.
- Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit "fair use" [loc.gov] by anyone else without permisiion of the creator.
- Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit certain types of copying by libraries and public archives [loc.gov]. This limitation is very relevant to the discussion of abandonware. More below.
- The "first sale" doctrine and section 109 of the law [loc.gov] prevent creators from restricting re-selling of a work, or (for most works, with some important restrictions) the lending or renting of the work. (Programs and sound recordings can't be rented commercially.)
- Creators may not restrict or prohibit certain non-profit/educational performances or displays [loc.gov] (e.g. a girlscout camp can sing copyrighted songs without paying a royalty).
- There are some incredibly arcane rules [loc.gov] that I don't begin to understand allow some re-transmissions of (lawfully) transmitted works.
- Composers MUST license their published songs and other music (excluding operas and other "dramatic" musical works) under terms of a compulsory license [loc.gov] for making "phonorecords" (sound recordings - tapes, records, CDs, etc.). The rate of payment is fixed by an arbitrator.
- Publishers of "phonorecords" must license [loc.gov] them for use in commercial jukeboxes, but have the option of trying to negotiate a deal that suits them better than the deal set by the arbitrator.
- Owners of a copy of a computer program may make whatever copies of a program are essential to its use, or may make (an unspecified number of) backup copies. Section 117 [loc.gov]
- The copyright on a building or other architectural work doesn't prohibit [loc.gov] pictures or other images of the work (as long as it's constructed and in public view).
- Copyright owners can't prohibit taping for the blind, under certain circumstances [loc.gov].
- If the rights or a right to a work have been transfered (sold, licensed, or otherwise) an author or his statutory heirs may terminate (undo) the transfer [loc.gov] unilaterally without compensation, within a window of 35 to 40 years after after the transfer. An author may waive this right by contract but cannot do so on behalf of his statutory heirs.
In other words, copyright ain't property like personal property...But back to "abandonware". Section 108 [loc.gov] of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 [loc.gov] (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:
(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!
Here's why... (Score:3)
--