I was pleased to see a retro review of Civil War Generals 2 posted today on The Wargamer. It is nice to see such a classic game being brought to the attention of new wargamers but I was shocked to see that the article included a link that would let you download the game. I thought that posting "abandonware" links is strictly forbidden for legal (and ethical) reasons.
I don't know about ethical arguments. I don't see a problem with downloading true abandonware. Why should games that are 20, 25, 30 years old be lost forever in some corporation's IP catalog where 999 times out of a 1000 they don't know its there and any person would be hard pressed to find out who really owns it. Maybe you can make an argument that makes sense to me, but I personally don't see anything ethically wrong with abandonware. There is a line and I draw that line at games that are still for sale somewhere and I am not talking about E-Bay either.
Also, take into consideration that the reviewer is a newbie to the business of writing reviews, so we can cut him some slack. If there are legal issues, I am sure the link will be removed.
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
Quote from: Shelldrake on January 07, 2014, 03:15:52 PM
I was pleased to see a retro review of Civil War Generals 2 posted today on The Wargamer. It is nice to see such a classic game being brought to the attention of new wargamers but I was shocked to see that the article included a link that would let you download the game. I thought that posting "abandonware" links is strictly forbidden for legal (and ethical) reasons.
There is no management over there who would know of those policies, why they were created, and why it's important to maintain them.
Perhaps they'll read your post and think things over.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 07, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
+1
Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.
There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."
So besides the legal issues of posting links, how does this game play in today's standards and modern computers? Does it actually still work and a good game to play from your experiences? Graphics look pretty rough........
Quote from: Swatter on January 07, 2014, 03:52:26 PM
I don't know about ethical arguments. I don't see a problem with downloading true abandonware. Why should games that are 20, 25, 30 years old be lost forever in some corporation's IP catalog where 999 times out of a 1000 they don't know its there and any person would be hard pressed to find out who really owns it. Maybe you can make an argument that makes sense to me, but I personally don't see anything ethically wrong with abandonware. There is a line and I draw that line at games that are still for sale somewhere and I am not talking about E-Bay either.
Also, take into consideration that the reviewer is a newbie to the business of writing reviews, so we can cut him some slack. If there are legal issues, I am sure the link will be removed.
Why? Because its in their catalog and it belongs to them. What if I owned a classic car from the 1960s, but just kept it in my garage and never drove it? Would you think its ok for someone to come into my home and steal it so that they could drive it? Of course not...but what is the difference between that and stealing someone's IP? Just because the IP may not be a tangible good, doesn't make its theft anymore legal or even ethical.
Just the very fact that there's a debate over this should be a clear indication that there should be no link or even mention of where to get it. That should be an open and shut case.
People are Internet savvy. If they want to go looking down the dark rabbit holes, they will. There's no reason to give them a big neon sign pointing them down there.
BTW, Swatter, cool avatar. Loved that game, as well as Crusade in Europe, Conflict in Vietnam, and goodness help me, even NATO Commander. ;)
I am not making a legal argument. Just because something is illegal doesn't equate with ethical wrong. Obviously, its a black and white issue with some people, but we are entitled to our own opinions. But hey, lawyers need jobs too.
I thought the management was through Slitherine now?
I know they do not care for any talk about abandonware.
It's a very hands off management style. Unless it involves a negative review of one of their games.
Quote from: magnus on January 07, 2014, 06:44:39 PM
I thought the management was through Slitherine now?
I know they do not care for any talk about abandonware.
Is it possible they acquired the rights to it?
Quote from: Swatter on January 07, 2014, 06:10:17 PM
I am not making a legal argument. Just because something is illegal doesn't equate with ethical wrong. Obviously, its a black and white issue with some people, but we are entitled to our own opinions. But hey, lawyers need jobs too.
See, now this is just simply offensive. Sure, you're too short-sighted, or self-entitled to see the benefit of IP laws so what do you do? Insult the lawyers. IP laws encourage innovation, productivity and growth of the market. By setting a strong precedent that people's works will be protected and their marks enforced, everyone benefits. Producers benefit because they are guaranteed the fruits of their labor and consumers benefit because producers will continue to produce. This is really simple logic and I don't see any reason to scoff at it so cavalierly. I also don't see any reason to thumb your nose at people who want to protect their legal property.
Quote from: LongBlade on January 07, 2014, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 07, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
+1
Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.
There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."
I don't see an issue if nobody is selling,distributing, or even acknowledging any intent to do so with such old stuff.
The only other option is placing a ban on acquiring it in any way since it's not sold or distro'd. I suppose that's why such things have been termed "abandonware".
Whomever owns such things don't even bother thinking about them, much less whether a very few people still want to get them. It's an unusual situation where a product already created long ago has an extremely small demand so nobody sells them. What does the consumer do in such cases? Just deny themselves the use of it despite being readily available and the owner not even bothering to worry about it (and probably never will)?
I dunno.. it's a strange situation made more so by modern digital distribution.
Quote from: Nefaro on January 07, 2014, 08:14:39 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 07, 2014, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 07, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
+1
Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.
There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."
I don't see an issue if nobody is selling,distributing, or even acknowledging any intent to do so with such old stuff.
The only other option is placing a ban on acquiring it in any way since it's not sold or distro'd. I suppose that's why such things have been termed "abandonware".
Whomever owns such things don't even bother thinking about them, much less whether a very few people still want to get them. It's an unusual situation where a product already created long ago has an extremely small demand so nobody sells them. What does the consumer do in such cases? Just deny themselves the use of it despite being readily available and the owner not even bothering to worry about it (and probably never will)?
I dunno.. it's a strange situation made more so by modern digital distribution.
I simply do not understand this logic. It makes no sense. You do not own it. It is not yours. It is none of your business what the owner does with it. He can sell it, he can trade it, he can sit on it, he can use it for himself, he can deny your right to use it, or he can choose to give it to you for free. Once again, the fact that it is intangible, or in this case digital, does not change the logic, the law or the inherent right an owner has in his property. The only thing the digital nature of the product does is somehow make you think you have the right to take it, and in some ways makes it easier to do so.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 07, 2014, 08:29:07 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on January 07, 2014, 08:14:39 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 07, 2014, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 07, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
+1
Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.
There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."
I don't see an issue if nobody is selling,distributing, or even acknowledging any intent to do so with such old stuff.
The only other option is placing a ban on acquiring it in any way since it's not sold or distro'd. I suppose that's why such things have been termed "abandonware".
Whomever owns such things don't even bother thinking about them, much less whether a very few people still want to get them. It's an unusual situation where a product already created long ago has an extremely small demand so nobody sells them. What does the consumer do in such cases? Just deny themselves the use of it despite being readily available and the owner not even bothering to worry about it (and probably never will)?
I dunno.. it's a strange situation made more so by modern digital distribution.
I simply do not understand this logic. It makes no sense. You do not own it. It is not yours. It is none of your business what the owner does with it. He can sell it, he can trade it, he can sit on it, he can use it for himself, he can deny your right to use it, or he can choose to give it to you for free.
'He' has done none of the above, in many cases. I'm pretty sure there is plenty abandonware floating about which has been denied use and as many or more cases where they haven't. If they don't care what happens with it, then it's fair game.
I've not messed with abandonware much since those old things are often more nostalgia than substance. But if it's been left by the side of the street without a care as to where it goes like someone's old furniture, not being sold, developed, or anything else then I'm not going to have some guilt trip downloading (or hauling it off) unless they tell us otherwise. If I want it that bad, I'd buy it if they ended up selling it next week or a decade later anyway. If they want our money they can ask for it anytime. In fact, I wish more of them would do so. GOG has obviously had success doing just that.
^There is simply no such thing as abandonware. This is a label that thieves have placed on a class of software in order to legitimize a crime. The law does not recognize abandonware. Now, if an IP owner chooses not defend his IP, that is his decision, but that does not mean that the act of taking that which is not yours is justified, or not criminal.
I understand the temptation to declare some games as "abandoned," but there is no legal or ethically justified way to call it anything other than stealing.
As Banzai Cat said, what you do on your own time on the internet is your business.
However, we will actively remove links posted here to "abandonware" sites. We realize you're bright enough to figure it out on your own. Just don't expect to find it supported here.
What the leadership of other websites does is their business.
You can call me a criminal or a thief if it makes you feel better. You can argue all IP violations are equal, I disagree. You can call me more names if you wish, but insults generally don't change my opinion. I have broken many laws in my life, and so has everyone else reading these words. Are we all thieves and criminals? If some of you were to fall off your high horses, you might suffer significant injuries.
According to quantum theory, a cow can jump from the earth to the moon in one leap. The probability of that happening, though, is so small that the universe would cease to exist before it would be likely to occur.
I see this abandonware debate the same way. In theory, downloading an abandonware game could hurt someone, but the chance is so small that the universe would end before real harm could be done.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on January 07, 2014, 06:07:02 PM
BTW, Swatter, cool avatar. Loved that game, as well as Crusade in Europe, Conflict in Vietnam, and goodness help me, even NATO Commander. ;)
I happen to be coding my own version of Decision in the Desert. Ill send you a PM if I ever need a tester.
The thing with abandonware is in many cases that even though someone may still own the rights of a particular game listed as "abandonware" the someone isn't selling the game anywhere. So the only way to get it is abandonware sites.
I think the definition of 'abandonware' is the issue. According to the law, there is no such thing. Therefore, if you should ever be found in possession of an IP that you got from an 'abandonware' site, you would be guilty of theft.
It is and has always been odd for people to imagine that downloading a game without paying for it, whilst it isn't supposed to be free, is more or less the same thing as going into a store and stealing it. However, as there's no physical action involved, people have difficulties with applying their usual ethical standards. Most people don't steal from stores, many of those people have at some point downloaded a movie or game in a way that's technically illegal.
It can be frustrating not to be able to play old games, I have experienced that many times. Legally, all you can do is hope they'll be "re-released" through something like GoG. Illegally, there's often a good chance that you'll find a website that has the file somewhere. People don't like not getting what they want, and if getting what they want is as simple as downloading a file, it can be easy to do so. Admittedly, many people are also simply not aware that it's illegal, either through ignorance of IP laws or because of terms that give their actions a coating of legitimacy, such as something being "abandonware." Due to that, theft is a lot more common than it was before the computer age, but official statistics tend to include only instances of physical theft.
We've given it more thought here than many of the old titles considered 'abandonware' get from their owners. A sizable amount of those are simply gained in a large lot of old titles that just happened to come along with a couple that they actually wanted.
I'm not going to beat myself up if the IP owner doesn't think some ancient title is worth a second thought or even bothering to put up on the net for sale. Digital distribution has made it simple to do such things, compared to getting stuff into limited shelf space in the brick & mortars of yesterday. Fortunately GOG has been around doing this for awhile so I've not had to bother picking up some antique DOS game second hand in a long time, since many good ones are being sold to satiate my nostalgic urges.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 07, 2014, 05:13:39 PM
What if I owned a classic car from the 1960s, but just kept it in my garage and never drove it? Would you think its ok for someone to come into my home and steal it so that they could drive it? Of course not...but what is the difference between that and stealing someone's IP? Just because the IP may not be a tangible good, doesn't make its theft anymore legal or even ethical.
the example is lacking: the classic car has a considerable value. and putting it in a garage is a way to keep it protected from the weather and other damage. ...a clears sign that the owner has an interest in this item.
(better think of your classic car, with missing wheels , beaten up by the elements for decades, sitting in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave dessert, left to rot on some public land between some local national park and a military proving ground...(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.posterlounge.de%2Fimages%2Fwbig%2Fwitold-skrypczak-autowrack-einer-wueste-92128.jpg&hash=94e7b5e34506d21cb3a48a4fd8d885f923867ff8) ;D )
Now, just imagine -thought experiment- you take the NY subway and has a cellophane bag with unpeeled peanuts to eat from on the ride, then you get up and leave the waggon and the bag stays - as if you don't want it anymore on the seat- (like annoying people leave their garbage) A commuter who had sit next to you takes a peanut from the bag. Suddenly you return!
You had not left the train, you had just walked through the connecting door to the other waggon to say hello to a former coworker and now returned to your place... You see the commuter with your nut, call the police to get him filed for theft. And also get a civil law suit started with the value off a whole peanut farm. You claim, that you had planed to plant that very peanut, which surly grows into a nice strong plant, which generates more peanuts to harvest and to plant and in several years the single peanut would have filled 100 acre of your peanuts farm.... and that is the damage to compensate by the commuter!
what do you thing the jury and judge will do with that 'thoughtexperimental' case.
IMHO the copyright law has to be changed for modern digital wares:
Maybe turns software into public domain after 10 years, if the copyright is not renewed
and the product is
actively marketed and still
get improved (for example: patches to keep it compatible with the latest OS and hardware, like widescreen and HD-resolution or transformation to run on a mobile device is in work).
And if the item get stolen, the theft of the real market value is used in the law suit ....so like 5 cent or less, depending of the item.
Quote from: magnus on January 07, 2014, 06:44:39 PM
I thought the management was through Slitherine now?
I was wondering why most of the regulars had moved over here now. The Wargamer isn't as lively or fun as it used to be. I had no idea it was being run by a games company.
Quote from: Swatter on January 07, 2014, 11:19:04 PM
You can call me a criminal or a thief if it makes you feel better. You can argue all IP violations are equal, I disagree. You can call me more names if you wish, but insults generally don't change my opinion. I have broken many laws in my life, and so has everyone else reading these words. Are we all thieves and criminals? If some of you were to fall off your high horses, you might suffer significant injuries.
According to quantum theory, a cow can jump from the earth to the moon in one leap. The probability of that happening, though, is so small that the universe would cease to exist before it would be likely to occur.
I see this abandonware debate the same way. In theory, downloading an abandonware game could hurt someone, but the chance is so small that the universe would end before real harm could be done.
Supporting and upholding the law, and making a personal decision not to break it is considered being on a "high horse" in your book? Interesting. How have you been called names or personally insulted anywhere in this thread? The only person personally insulted here is me, with your ignorant jab at lawyers.
Taking something that does not belong to you is a crime. Committing this crime makes you a thief. It is not name calling, it is a fact of life. If you have made a personal decision that committing a criminal act is ok, that is your decision and it says a lot about you. But do not criticize others for doing the legally and ethically correct thing, even if doing so, "makes you feel better."
Quote from: MikeGER on January 08, 2014, 05:08:29 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 07, 2014, 05:13:39 PM
What if I owned a classic car from the 1960s, but just kept it in my garage and never drove it? Would you think its ok for someone to come into my home and steal it so that they could drive it? Of course not...but what is the difference between that and stealing someone's IP? Just because the IP may not be a tangible good, doesn't make its theft anymore legal or even ethical.
the example is lacking: the classic car has a considerable value. and putting it in a garage is a way to keep it protected from the weather and other damage. ...a clears sign that the owner has an interest in this item.
(better think of your classic car, with missing wheels , beaten up by the elements for decades, sitting in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave dessert, left to rot on some public land between some local national park and a military proving ground...(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.posterlounge.de%2Fimages%2Fwbig%2Fwitold-skrypczak-autowrack-einer-wueste-92128.jpg&hash=94e7b5e34506d21cb3a48a4fd8d885f923867ff8) ;D )
Now, just imagine -thought experiment- you take the NY subway and has a cellophane bag with unpeeled peanuts to eat from on the ride, then you get up and leave the waggon and the bag stays - as if you don't want it anymore on the seat- (like annoying people leave their garbage) A commuter who had sit next to you takes a peanut from the bag. Suddenly you return!
You had not left the train, you had just walked through the connecting door to the other waggon to say hello to a former coworker and now returned to your place... You see the commuter with your nut, call the police to get him filed for theft. And also get a civil law suit started with the value off a whole peanut farm. You claim, that you had planed to plant that very peanut, which surly grows into a nice strong plant, which generates more peanuts to harvest and to plant and in several years the single peanut would have filled 100 acre of your peanuts farm.... and that is the damage to compensate by the commuter!
what do you thing the jury and judge will do with that 'thoughtexperimental' case.
IMHO the copyright law has to be changed for modern digital wares:
Maybe turns software into public domain after 10 years, if the copyright is not renewed and the product is actively marketed and still get improved (for example: patches to keep it compatible with the latest OS and hardware, like widescreen and HD-resolution or transformation to run on a mobile device is in work).
And if the item get stolen, the theft of the real market value is used in the law suit ....so like 5 cent or less, depending of the item.
Mike, respectfully, my example is not lacking. Rather, your analysis of it is lacking. Your post starts off with a false presumption and then totally goes downhill from there. In your opinion a classic car has "considerable value" to its owner. By implication, you are also stating the opinion that a dormant IP has no value to its owner. This is simply your subjective opinion and is actually not based upon market reality, or the law as related to property rights. Quite simply, your opinion as to the value of someone else's property is completely irrelevant. It is still their property and they are free to exploit it, or not exploit it as they wish, without the fear of you taking it. What's worse, your opinion is based upon the fact that the owner of the car physically protects it by placing it in a garage. I would suggest that an IP owner would do the same thing to protect its right to the IP if such a thing were physically possible. Unfortunately, it is much harder to physically protect something that is digital in nature. For these older games, there simply is no "garage." The problem is only compounded by people who take it upon themselves to illegally distribute and re-distribute the software over and over again.
Your subsequent example is legally incomprehensible and so far off base from any situation approaching reality that I'm not going to even bother distinguishing it from what we are discussing here.
Nice try though.
Perhaps this discussion would be better held in the asbestos-lined forum?
The issue should be 'When should the law protect 'abandoned' software?' v. 'is there any rationale for taking IP away from someone who is not using it and either making it public domain or giving it to another entity who will make it available for public benefit?'. I think it's pretty obvious that we can't have every one running around stealing every one else's ideas and profiting from them. There is, however, the use of Imminent Domain to take something physical from one entity and give to another (or allow them to buy it if the owner objects). Can the same be applied to ideas, either chemicals (such as medications), designs (such as a better insulin pump or water-purification system), or software if the action can be deemed in the public good? I admit that it might be a stretch to say letting people download old games is for the public good but clever folks can probably find better examples of software benefitting the public.
We should not be arguing stealing v. fair use (a personal moral decision and one which folks will not be easily influenced on) but what legal approaches (as in amending existing law) would balance the interest of both IP holders and those who would wish to benefit from said IP.
A start could simply be requiring a company to maintain a list of it's IP items such as games where the public can see it so they know for certain if what they want to download is in public domain or someone else's' 'property'. Such a list could be part of a unified website that is open to all and also challengeable in case the ownership is in question.
http://www.abandonwarering.com/?Page=FAQ#1B
QuoteWhat abandonware is
The definition of abandonware
Abandonware is defined as any PC or console game that is:
- At least four years old
- Not being sold or supported by the company that produced it or by any other company. When a certain piece of Abandonware is later found to be sold or supported by a company, then it ceases to be Abandonware.
What is NOT abandonware
Software that is either:
- Less than four years old
- Still sold and/or supported by a company
QuoteWhy abandonware is technically software piracy
According to U.S. Law and International Treaties, a copyright belongs to the author of a software product for 70 years beyond the life of the author or 95 years after the copyright date if the work is done by a corporation or anonymous source. Before that time expires, nobody (except the author) has the right to copy that piece of software.
(Emphasis mine)
Also: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-abandonware-and-is-it-legal/
QuoteSo why is Abandonia still running? Like most laws, punishment only occurs if you get caught – and the other side is willing and able to make the charge stick. Most of the software listed on abandonware sites no longer have an owner, so no one can sue. In other cases the owner still exists but has decided not to enforce copyright. System Shock is currently owned by Electronic Arts, yet the original System Shock game can be found on many abandonware sites.
Another interesting point: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,7/section,23/
QuoteThe issue of copyright is never in question; they don't stop you from copying for the sake of preventing piracy. (Profit is never an issue since the companies are definitely not making money from old games any more.) It's all about intellectual property -- the legal idea that anything a company or individual invents is owned by them, and that they have exclusive rights to control its use and availability. Software companies are just as worried about losing control of their creations as they are about losing profits.
Here's the key: You can lose your legal rights if you don't enforce them. So the IDSA continues to shut down sites because rampant copying virtually eliminates a company's ability to control the distribution of their intellectual property.
[/list]
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on January 08, 2014, 08:26:13 AM
QuoteSo why is Abandonia still running? Like most laws, punishment only occurs if you get caught – and the other side is willing and able to make the charge stick. Most of the software listed on abandonware sites no longer have an owner, so no one can sue. In other cases the owner still exists but has decided not to enforce copyright. System Shock is currently owned by Electronic Arts, yet the original System Shock game can be found on many abandonware sites.
My emphasis
Cat - this isn't on you, b/c you're just quoting. But this is flat fucking WRONG. Those pieces of software have an owner. The owner might be unaware of it if there was a convoluted series of mergers / sales / acquisitions / liquidations. The owner might not give a crap. The owner might be the government if the previous owner died with no will. The owner might be someone who purchased assets in a corporate liquidation and has no clue what he got. But there's an owner
somewhere.
I sure hope you guys have never picked a penny up off the ground and put it in your pocket. It would make you the moral and ethical equivalent of an "abandonware" thief.
piracy, apart from all the damage it has done, opened up new ways of distribuion. maybe the abandonware thing was an inspiration for the gog marketplace, the mp3 theft sure has accelerated the creation of itunes and other stores.
i still cannot watch any of the us tv shows as there are copyright problems with european distribution. but i do watch it illegally (well in Switzerland streaming movies is legal... but it is still some form of theft) or i could chose to not watch it.
but nowadys they measure the success of games and shows by piracy rates which in return sure opens up some production wallets.
the clear demand for us shows and the constant refusal of european tv stations to air them for whatever reason, will soon make way for legal forms like netflix and i will gladly pay for it. the tv market is still not a liberal one over here.
the same goes with abandonware: after gog i never again used it and gladly pay for it at gog and have some nuisances (dos configs etc) solved by those guys for a few bucks.
Brant, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I only quote those sources to help add to the conversation.
Personally I think it sucks that some classic games you just can't get a hold of. I only have Covert Action because I've had it for years, transferring it from computer to computer until finally I put it on a USB thumb drive. I'm surprised it hasn't corrupted or crapped out but I guess that's the beauty of simpler programs and coding.
Thing is, as you said, the owner might not give a crap. That of course doesn't make downloading it right. However, think back to the 70s when Steve Wozniak gave away free diagrams of his wiring schematics for his computers - he didn't care about profit (until Steve Jobs brought him on board). He owned those diagrams but didn't care about making money. It's a far leap of imagination to compare that with games that are no longer supported actively and I'm not trying to tie the two together.
What I'm trying to see is if you guys think apathy equals permission. I think that's far too nebulous a concept. In the case of copyright law, no it does not. If I write a book (as I am now) and it appears on a torrent site somewhere, I'm going to fight that shit tooth and nail and sue the crap out of anyone I can. In forty years? I don't know. I might be dead then, who knows. I might not remember what day it is and be crapping my adult diapers and therefore not care. But the bottom line is, of course, the law, which says I have a copyright on that book for many years, which I believe falls to the hands of my inheritors after I pass, and they can renew it if they wish.
Someone, as has been said, somewhere, owns the title. MicroProse made Covert Action. They were indy for about a decade, then were bought by Spectrum HoloByte, then Hasbro, and then Infogrames, and then (I think) Firaxis and some other companies I can't think of. In all that acquisitioning and mergering I would say the ownership of Covert Action kept passing hands. Someone owns it. Whether or not they give a crap about Covert Action is totally another thing. If I don't give a crap about my book, that does not make the law go away. Same with games.
If you run a red light and get a ticket, then go to court but the cop isn't there and get off scot free, does that make it right? No, of course not. There's still the fact that you broke the law, had to go to court, pay court fines, etcetera. The cop's apathy (or otherwise engagements elsewhere) doesn't mean you're not guilty of what you did. The law says otherwise and has provisions for this.
I know I'm preaching to half or 2/3 the choir here.
QuoteMIRTH I sure hope you guys have never picked a penny up off the ground and put it in your pocket. It would make you the moral and ethical equivalent of an "abandonware" thief.
Of course not. A penny's not worth the effort. :P
Now, I DO recall picking up a $5 bill in the parking lot of a Kroger's (grocery store hereabouts), which I think was the biggest amount of cash I've found. Nobody was around. Did that make me a thief? We could debate that endlessly. I did not take it out of someone's pocket or wallet, but that doesn't mean they didn't want it or didn't give a crap about it. If I dropped a five dollar bill I'd sure as hell want it back! But unfortunately it's a sign of the times; if I go up to someone and say "hey, is this your $5," if they're quick they'd say "Oh yeah, thanks!" and take it. Turning it in to the customer service booth in the store would have been silly.
But that brings up a great argument for another thread. Where do you draw the line and be honest? If it was a $100, I'd have turned it in to the booth, because I KNOW the odds are good someone will be backtracking looking for that. It could have been someone's grocery money for the week and they're going to be SOL when they get to the counter. Then again there's a chance it could be a drug dealer or millionaire or someone with a wad that wouldn't notice it. Unlikely at a Kroger's, but not out of the realm of possibility. It's all about perception. $100 to a millionaire might not be that big a deal as a penny isn't that big a deal to you and me.
Anyway, sorry for derailing this to a found-money discussion.
GOG, IIRC, used to be an abandonware site, right? I seem to remember being told about it years ago. I'm glad too, as Keunert said, that they're in business and selling classics for a few bucks that can easily be played through DOSBox.
The found money example is relevant in the context of moral, ethical and legal absolutism. Downloading a 20 year old game from an "abandonware" site is a crime. So is pocketing found money of any amount. In both cases, you are stealing someone else's property.
The truth is that most of us here are probably thieves and liars, in absolute terms.
QuoteI sure hope you guys have never picked a penny up off the ground and put it in your pocket. It would make you the moral and ethical equivalent of an "abandonware" thief.
It's these kind of responses that make such a discussion so difficult, and presumably why it has been suggested to move the thread. Picking up an object that someone lost without being able to locate the owner is a more complicated example than stealing, so it's not the same thing as downloading something and it might be treated differently by local law. For example, in the Netherlands I believe you are legally allowed to keep some things you find if no owner claims it within X amount of time or something. Something similar applies to picking things up on the beach as far as I know.
Thus far in the thread, people commenting on what does or what doesn't legally constitute "theft" are immediately considered to be on a "high horse" and rambling about "moral standards".
I understand that people don't want to be called a thief, but what people think is completely irrelevant when it comes to how something is written down in the law. Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
Does downloading a game put you in the same moral position as someone who steals someone's car? Depends on who you ask, but not really I'd say. Are both thing legally considered to be theft? Most certainly. Stealing a pencil from a store is also theft just like stealing a computer from a store is. You're thinking in terms of value, which is why you shrug at stealing a pencil being called theft, but it's still legally theft.
Considering that in many circumstances you're actually violating IP laws if you copy parts of a book or show some footage at a meeting, I find it highly unlikely that any person who has been using computers or hardware like scanners has not violated IP laws at some point. Some of you get the impression that the statements given by Jarhead, or what I write here, judge you, but that's not the intention as far as I'm concerned. Jarhead is just trying to explain the law. Again: whether you like it or not, the law is the law, it does not change after a moral or ethical debate until someone changes the actual law. In countries with a jury system, ethical and moral standards will presumably matter more than in a country where no jury exists, like in the Netherlands.
QuoteThe truth is that most of us here are probably thieves and liars, in absolute terms.
Which is exactly my point, some people just find it very difficult to acknowledge.
Quote from: mirth on January 08, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
I sure hope you guys have never picked a penny up off the ground and put it in your pocket. It would make you the moral and ethical equivalent of an "abandonware" thief.
I'm not trying to convince someone of the legality of their actions, nor of the moral implications.
I am merely correcting the inaccurate statement that a piece of software may not have an owner. Much like that penny on the ground,
someone owns it, even if they are unaware of their ownserhip (fell out of their pocket)
When I worked for United Airlines back before 2001, if someone left something on the plane, they'd keep it for 30 days in the luggage office. When the item arrived they'd catalogue it, tag it, and put it on a shelf. Needless to say there was a lot of crap down there...laptops, clothes, whole suitcases, books, magazines, CD players, headphones, you name it. They'd let us take books if they'd been there for 30 days. There were two of us that would go down and browse and if we found something we liked, we'd put our name on it so the luggage folks would let us know. I got a nice copy of a history of the 29th Infantry Division that way.
While that's allowed by the company I work for, they would not allow giving away other valuable items. Books were the only thing. Anything else would go to public auction, according to the law (which escapes me now, although I was familiar with it at the time). I think the law stated that they were allowed to do so as long as that window of time passed and they made reasonable attempts to contact their owners. Problem with books, they so often don't have names or numbers or anything in them.
Also, here's a funny story about found items in parking lots. I went grocery shopping one day, early in the morning, took the stuff out to my car in the parking lot, loaded up the car, then left. As I was backing out of my space, which was up front as I got there so early, there was a woman 30 feet away from me bending over, looking at my license tag, then turned around and went back into the store. I didn't think anything of it. When I got home, which is about 10 minutes away, I started unloading the car...take stuff in, go back out, repeat. On my second or so trip back out a constable pulled up into my driveway and pointedly asked me if I lived there.
"Yes sir," I said. I was once a CJ major and try to be as respectful as possible to cops.
He went on to say someone saw me picking up a wallet out of the parking lot at Wal-Mart. I told him I did no such thing (and indeed, I did not). He wasn't being accusatory; in fact he was rather amused because he went on to say the witness said the person that grabbed it had long hair and was driving a light car. I had short hair and a black vehicle. I offered him my license to check me out, and he did, then apologized for wasting my time and left. With as many cameras as there are in parking lots now, I can only imagine they looked at them and found out I was not the culprit.
The point is, you find something in the lot and someone complains they lost something, they will find you. That cop had found me in ten freaking minutes just from the license that dumb broad got off my car. I hope they made her feel stupid.
Quote from: ComradeP on January 08, 2014, 10:31:15 AM
QuoteI sure hope you guys have never picked a penny up off the ground and put it in your pocket. It would make you the moral and ethical equivalent of an "abandonware" thief.
It's these kind of responses that make such a discussion so difficult, and presumably why it has been suggested to move the thread. Picking up an object that someone lost without being able to locate the owner is a more complicated example than stealing, so it's not the same thing as downloading something and it might be treated differently by local law. For example, in the Netherlands I believe you are legally allowed to keep some things you find if no owner claims it within X amount of time or something. Something similar applies to picking things up on the beach as far as I know.
Thus far in the thread, people commenting on what does or what doesn't legally constitute "theft" are immediately considered to be on a "high horse" and rambling about "moral standards".
I understand that people don't want to be called a thief, but what people think is completely irrelevant when it comes to how something is written down in the law. Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
Does downloading a game put you in the same moral position as someone who steals someone's car? Depends on who you ask, but not really I'd say. Are both thing legally considered to be theft? Most certainly. Stealing a pencil from a store is also theft just like stealing a computer from a store is. You're thinking in terms of value, which is why you shrug at stealing a pencil being called theft, but it's still legally theft.
Considering that in many circumstances you're actually violating IP laws if you copy parts of a book or show some footage at a meeting, I find it highly unlikely that any person who has been using computers or hardware like scanners have not violated IP laws at some point. Some of you get the impression that the statements given by Jarhead, or what I write here, judge you, but that's not the intention as far as I'm concerned. Jarhead is just trying to explain the law. Again: whether you like it or not, the law is the law, it does not change after a moral or ethical debate until someone changes the actual law. In countries with a jury system, ethical and moral standards will presumably matter more than in a country where no jury exists, like in the Netherlands.
QuoteThe truth is that most of us here are probably thieves and liars, in absolute terms.
Which is exactly my point, some people just find it very difficult to acknowledge.
+1 on all points.
Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
if a law is ignored by large portions of society it has to be discussed and maybe it will be changed.
the law has to adopt with society and what today is a crime may be completely legal tomorrow.
i used to smoke pot while it was illegal, today it is legal. did i feel guilty for commiting a crime? no never.
homosexual acts were illegal not too long ago, but ehm well theft will be theft as long as i live ;)
Quote from: Keunert on January 08, 2014, 10:54:14 AM
Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
if a law is ignored by large portions of society it has to be discussed and maybe it will be changed.
the law has to adopt with society and what today is a crime may be completely legal tomorrow.
i used to smoke pot while it was illegal, today it is legal. did i feel guilty for commiting a crime? no never.
homosexual acts were illegal not too long ago, but ehm well theft will be theft as long as i live ;)
Is this you coming out of the closet?
In the US the general rule for lost stuff is, as Banzai pointed out, that you have to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner.
If you're unsuccessful you may keep whatever you found.
In the case of software, someone owned a copy of said software and made an illegal copy, placed it on a website with the intent to distribute it. It is in no way the equivalent of walking down the street and finding a CD with Steel Panthers on it.
Quoteif a law is ignored by large portions of society it has to be discussed and maybe it will be changed.
the law has to adopt with society and what today is a crime may be completely legal tomorrow.
Whilst I agree in theory, such as with the example you give of homosexuality now being legal, it is still a slippery slope because if you base changing the law purely on how people behave and forcing the law to change based on that, instead of some sort of discussion where both the people establishing what is legal and what isn't and the society as a whole come to an agreement, something like ignoring red traffic lights or, indeed, theft, might very well become legal at some point.
QuoteIn the US the general rule for lost stuff is, as Banzai pointed out, that you have to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner.
Yeah, what I wrote about how I believe it works in the Netherlands already assumed the owner could not be found. If you find something on the street, it's often unlikely the owner is still around or even aware he/she is missing something.
I think one of the complicating factors here is the fact that for tangible goods, there is a zero-sum quality to the goods in question. In JH's example of the car that's not being driven, if you take the car, I no longer have it. People tend to see that as more "wrong" than making a copy of a game that does not take away the copy I already have.
I'm not saying it *is* more (or less) wrong, just that perceptions change when it's intangibles that don't subtract from 'inventory'
Quote from: Keunert on January 08, 2014, 10:54:14 AM
if a law is ignored by large portions of society it has to be discussed and maybe it will be changed.
the law has to adopt with society and what today is a crime may be completely legal tomorrow.
no disagreement, but ideally you change the law to allow the action, rather than just ignoring it
QuoteI think one of the complicating factors here is the fact that for tangible goods, there is a zero-sum quality to the goods in question. In JH's example of the car that's not being driven, if you take the car, I no longer have it. People tend to see that as more "wrong" than making a copy of a game that does not take away the copy I already have.
Personally, I believe that something not being physically "there" can really cloud your moral and ethical senses in such a way that you'd do things you normally won't. I'm no psychologist, but I'd bet that for the average human brain, if someone's money is just a number on a screen, theft or fraud becomes a lot easier. To me, this feeling explains a lot of the banking crisis. People deal with things that are not physical objects which may or may not be beyond their understanding, and are juggling numbers around without any direct relation to something in the real world. I experience part of the same sensation when playing wargames, where I care less if an on-screen message says I have lost "1000 men" than if I see some pixelated guy get shot down due to my actions in a tactical (war)game.
Similarly, people find it more difficult to apply their usual moral and ethical standards to electronic theft than to physical theft.
In the case of "abandonware", ethical standards are likely further clouded by the facts that the product is usually at least a decade old, is no longer being sold at retail and the copyright holder is not defending the copyright. So you have the combination of "it's an old game and not really worth anything, I can't get it anywhere else and it's unlikely I will ever get caught and punished".
it all boils down to the question:
what kind of personal morale failure (crime) i am willing to commit and still be able to have a good sleep at night and can stand seeing my face in the mirror while shaving.
i think most people are inhibited by the fact if another single living individual is made to suffer by their unmoral action(s) ...so the treasurehold on a copy of 'abandonware' might be quite low.
no JH, it was only an excellent example to further proof my case, not the closet.
Quote from: Keunert on January 08, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
no JH, it was only an excellent example to further proof my case, not the closet.
Its ok, bro. With the repeal of DADT, you have my full support.
thanks man. now with you backing me, i will think about it again
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 08, 2014, 06:54:38 AM
Quote from: Swatter on January 07, 2014, 11:19:04 PM
You can call me a criminal or a thief if it makes you feel better. You can argue all IP violations are equal, I disagree. You can call me more names if you wish, but insults generally don't change my opinion. I have broken many laws in my life, and so has everyone else reading these words. Are we all thieves and criminals? If some of you were to fall off your high horses, you might suffer significant injuries.
According to quantum theory, a cow can jump from the earth to the moon in one leap. The probability of that happening, though, is so small that the universe would cease to exist before it would be likely to occur.
I see this abandonware debate the same way. In theory, downloading an abandonware game could hurt someone, but the chance is so small that the universe would end before real harm could be done.
Supporting and upholding the law, and making a personal decision not to break it is considered being on a "high horse" in your book? Interesting. How have you been called names or personally insulted anywhere in this thread? The only person personally insulted here is me, with your ignorant jab at lawyers.
Taking something that does not belong to you is a crime. Committing this crime makes you a thief. It is not name calling, it is a fact of life. If you have made a personal decision that committing a criminal act is ok, that is your decision and it says a lot about you. But do not criticize others for doing the legally and ethically correct thing, even if doing so, "makes you feel better."
So you never make personal decisions to break any law? If you thought my "lawyers need jobs too" was an insult, you have exceptionally thin skin. You are also exceptionally hostile with people you disagree with. You strip any joy of discussing an issue.
Not only do you and all of us intentionally break laws, we also break laws unintentionally. You are on your high horse by pretending that you are somehow a more lawful citizen than I. You say that committing criminal acts says something about me, as if the crimes you have committed don't, according to your standard, say something about you. You are no better person than I.
Any act I choose to commit, I am willing to accept the consequences. I would not knowingly harm a person or even a business entity. I don't think many business entities would do me the same courtesy. I simply don't see the real harm. Maybe that is a fault in me. I personally think the ability to see beyond black and white distinctions is a strength, but you are free to disagree.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=7851641c0a469523ba2a4774c92bb0dd9e28f5ce)
arguing with a lawyer is like boxing with a boxer.
^ you guys can quote this, but remember the ip of this is mine.
OK, I'm beginning to see some merit in moving the thread to R&P if it can't be discussed without people feeling someone's ruffling their feathers, even though it would be a pity to move it.
First flame war of 2014. Took longer than I thought.
Any thread with The Wargamer in the title should probably be sent to the dungeon to begin with.
Yeah, I had expected some punches aimed at the Wargamer in the first few posts, but the discussion managed to stay on topic.
Why punch a ineffectual ghost.
I have said what I have to say on the issue and all of the points that have been made so far. Swatter wants to make this about me because his argument, quite simply, sucks. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I provide a lot of legal information around here. If some people want to ignore the free education and accuse me of being hostile instead, so be it.
However, deep down in Swatter's heart, I know he truly appreciates me. When he is able to pick up some chick in a bar one night by impressing her with his knowledge of IP law, it will be imaginary high-fives all around.
Sarinee Achavanuntakul once had an abandonware site called the Home of the Underdogs. In its day it was probably the largest abandonware site on the internet. Yet she knew abandonware was illegal and stated in the Home of the Underdogs FAQ under the heading of
But isn't abandonware illegal?:
Quote from: Sarinee AchavanuntakulUnfortunately, yes. Despite the fact that publishers no longer derive revenues from these games since they have stopped selling them (and any revenues from retailers that still sell them were gained a long time ago, at the time of sales), it is illegal to distribute them so long as copyright holders have not released them into the public domain, and 95 years after the games' release have not elapsed. For more in-depth information on this issue, We recommend the following articles and websites:
Abandonware in a Nutshell: Why Nobody Ever Wins (http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,7/)
Flashbacks for Free: The Skinny on Abandonware (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/abandonware/) [I couldn't get this link to work.]
Warez, Abandonware, and the SIIA (http://www.brasslantern.org/community/companies/warez.html)
Anti-Piracy Information at the IDSA (http://www.idsa.com/piracy.html) [I couldn't get this link to work.]
The World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.org/) [I couldn't get this link to work.]
Despite the illegal status of abandonware, we believe that we are offering a valuable service to the gaming community: classic game collectors have a chance to retrieve games that have otherwise been lost or rendered defective with the passage of time. As our Disclaimer printed on every page makes clear, we will gladly remove download links to any game that is either 1) still being sold by the publisher, or 2) at the request of the publishers themselves. Encouraging publishers to continue publishing great classics of yore has always been this site's foremost goals, and we will gladly link to the publisher's order or download site without hesitation should they make their products available again, whether commercially or as freeware.
That said, we are continually seeking permission from copyright holders to distribute their games on this site. If you are a copyright holder and would like to grant us permission (or request that your games be taken off-line, as the case may be), please contact us. If you want to voice support for abandonware, check out the following petition sites:
The AbandonWare Petition (http://abandonware.mivox.com/) [Link does not lead to the proper location.]
the International Campaign of Abandonware Supporters (ICAS) (http://www.bhlegend.com/icas) [Link does not work.]
If anyone is interested in knowing what the non-working links once led to, they might try using the Wayback Machine (http://archive.org/web/web.php).
Like it or not, abandonware
IS illegal.
^That last name sure is a mouthful.
Quote from: Keunert on January 08, 2014, 02:49:18 PM
arguing with a lawyer is like boxing with a boxer.
^ you guys can quote this, but remember the ip of this is mine.
Looks like Abandonquip to me.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 08, 2014, 03:15:33 PM
I have said what I have to say on the issue and all of the points that have been made so far. Swatter wants to make this about me because his argument, quite simply, sucks. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I provide a lot of legal information around here. If some people want to ignore the free education and accuse me of being hostile instead, so be it.
However, deep down in Swatter's heart, I know he truly appreciates me. When he is able to pick up some chick in a bar one night by impressing her with his knowledge of IP law, it will be imaginary high-fives all around.
Fair enough 8)
Abandonware was also around long before GOG showed up.
So for older games there was only Ebay etc. to spend $150.00 for a game that was last seen in the bargain bin for $2.99.
Now that GOG is here and you can buy them for normal prices and the fact that they thrown in the ability for the games to work on your computer without jumping through hoops. Really takes the rug out from underneath abandonware.
This just popped up on Reddit. Made me chuckle.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNF0xZMf.png&hash=3116d355adaa702e32caff92268cb4d6320c3fa3)
Mirth's post brought to mind the video "Don't copy that floppy"
and its sequel:
I understand Jarhead's argument, and I know that it is valid.
Having said that, I suppose I fall into the side of, "I know this is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway."
If I wanted to play Civil War Generals 2, I wouldn't have any moral problem with downloading it from the provided weblink. Just being honest.
I'd only note that the justification most often used by publishers/developers for increasing levels of DRM is contained within this thread.
I don't equate downloading an "abandonware" game with pirating a game that's widely available for sale, if that's what you're implying.
Quote from: Toonces on January 08, 2014, 09:27:05 PM
I understand Jarhead's argument, and I know that it is valid.
Having said that, I suppose I fall into the side of, "I know this is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway."
If I wanted to play Civil War Generals 2, I wouldn't have any moral problem with downloading it from the provided weblink. Just being honest.
That is totally fair. Its the refusal of some to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong, or prejudicial to the rights of others, that irks me. That combined with the attitude that those of us who place our faith in the actual law, and think it serves a valid purpose are somehow chumps or suckers.
It's about the intellectual property rights in addition to the money. I'm not implying anything. I think that is the direct logic and reasoning for why DRM is necessary for developers/publishers. Mix shades of gray and you still have gray.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not going to get too involved. I do have a thought on the subject, however. Most people that want to acquire older games aren't likely doing it because they think that older games are somehow better. I'd wager that nostalgia has a lot to do with it. People are most likely to be nostalgic for games that they once owned.
Extending from that, I think an argument could be made that people can't be blamed TOO hard for doing whatever they have to when they want to revisit a game that they'd once paid good money for. If a person happened to keep an old 386SX in tip top shape, and hoarded cases of old 3.5" floppies, and kept religiously making backup copies of their favorite game that they bought in 1993 (as old copies were wearing out), wouldn't they have the right to keep playing that game from 1993?
Unfortunately, technology moves on and most people who had PC's in 1993 no longer have access to older tech and their original purchased game floppies. If they had the right to keep playing their original purchases as long as they wanted, should they be blamed for seeking out their old games in alternative fashion?
Anyway, it's nothing to me personally. There's no game from more than 10 years ago for which I have such nostalgia that 3 minutes of watching gameplay videos on YouTube wouldn't cure me of.
Quote from: Ubercat on January 08, 2014, 10:13:47 PM
Extending from that, I think an argument could be made that people can't be blamed TOO hard for doing whatever they have to when they want to revisit a game that they'd once paid good money for. If a person happened to keep an old 386SX in tip top shape, and hoarded cases of old 3.5" floppies, and kept religiously making backup copies of their favorite game that they bought in 1993 (as old copies were wearing out), wouldn't they have the right to keep playing that game from 1993?
This is an interesting point and one argument that may be somewhat persuasive. I'll have to take some time though to try to play it through and see all the pros, cons and potential pitfalls. Most notably, however, how does one differentiate from those who actually purchased the software in 1993, as opposed to those who never did?
Quote from: Bison on January 08, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
It's about the intellectual property rights in addition to the money. I'm not implying anything. I think that is the direct logic and reasoning for why DRM is necessary for developers/publishers. Mix shades of gray and you still have gray.
I want to debate you on this point, but I'm too tired right now.
Quote from: Toonces on January 08, 2014, 09:27:05 PM
Having said that, I suppose I fall into the side of, "I know this is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway."
Nobody is judging anyone, nor are we looking down our noses at people.
What you do on your own time is your business.
Someone asked what had changed at WG, and that required an explanation of our policy here.
Beyond that, I'm not particularly interested in where folks stand on the issue. I can't stop you and I really don't want to. No one would have known about our policy if they hadn't asked. They asked. We explained.
I'm happy to drop the subject.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 08, 2014, 10:18:40 PM
Most notably, however, how does one differentiate from those who actually purchased the software in 1993, as opposed to those who never did?
From a legal standpoint, I don't suppose you could unless someone could produce the receipt. My point has to do more with a persons ability to look himself in the mirror. He'll know if he's a crook or not.
Quote from: ComradeP on January 08, 2014, 10:31:15 AM
{snip}
Thus far in the thread, people commenting on what does or what doesn't legally constitute "theft" are immediately considered to be on a "high horse" and rambling about "moral standards".
I understand that people don't want to be called a thief, but what people think is completely irrelevant when it comes to how something is written down in the law. Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
Does downloading a game put you in the same moral position as someone who steals someone's car? Depends on who you ask, but not really I'd say. Are both thing legally considered to be theft? Most certainly. Stealing a pencil from a store is also theft just like stealing a computer from a store is. You're thinking in terms of value, which is why you shrug at stealing a pencil being called theft, but it's still legally theft.{snip}
To be fair. Downloading of abandonware is not theft, nor is it a crime (at least in the US).
Copyright infringement (on the level of downloading abandonware) is a civil offense.
Also, Ubercat's point is a good one. Downloading a game you own in an unusable format (say on 3.5" disks) to be able to continue to play it is (I would argue) a pretty clear example of fair use, negating any claim of infringement.
Copyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime. And it's certainly not "theft" under any legal definition.
--Philistine
Quote from: Bison on January 08, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Mix shades of gray and you still have gray.
theres warm grey, cool grey, french grey, battleship grey, haze grey, grey primer, light grey, dark grey, steel grey, blue grey, slate grey, panzer grey (which oddly is green) and concrete grey. there are in fact way more then the 50 shades of grey known to Mirth (who is going grey). one does not simply mix white and black to get Gandalf Grey.
and never bring up variations of grey with an artist who has a pantone book.
Quote from: Bison on January 08, 2014, 09:57:04 PM
I'd only note that the justification most often used by publishers/developers for increasing levels of DRM is contained within this thread.
The primary use of the more draconian DRM is preventing the resale of their games. Piracy is a convenient excuse. If the console publishers could get away with it, they would enforce the same in order to squash the secondary market that so cuts into their profits. Some of them openly admit how sore they are about it and how much they want to prevent it.
They can't assume that someone who pirates a game will ever purchase the thing. However, someone who's willing to pay for a used copy may well pay more for a new one if they are prevented buying the lower cost used copy from a 3rd party reseller. Or just plain having it given to them by a friend who's done playing it. There will always be a large amount of pirates who will never buy the things, no matter what. A large proportion of them are located in China, Eastern Europe, etc and they will never go away. They'll never buy the titles anyway, so it's stupid for developers to throw good money after bad and spend more resources on adding DRM in the hopes to force these people to buy their product. Such DRM is there to prevent people from giving their games away and reselling them, thus losing money to 3rd party retailers and such.
This discussion probably shouldn't turn to yet another one about DRM but I just don't buy the whole "It's all about preventing piracy" schtick. It's about forcing people to buy new copies at full price from the publisher. Of course, such DRM circumvents old consumer resale rights established long ago, too, so technically what
they're doing is illegal. But nobody has spent the time and money to challenge it through the court system yet, and some of the larger companies are spending a large amount of effort to further circumvent such consumer rights via the US gov't on a regular basis. Fortunately some other companies stand up to them and get the word out to the public when they're trying to sneak this stuff through, such as the last big episode a couple years ago. They attempt it on a regular basis, though.
^ That's close enough to what I was likely going to say that I'll just go with that. I doubt I'd have been as eloquent, though.
Frankly I don't care if someone goes to a site and downloads something whatever that something is. I personally prefer a Wild West internet to a government controlled/regulated one. So it follows that if people want to download material that is "abandoned" or "free", what you do with your bandwidth is your responsibility in all forms personal, moral, legal regardless of what I think to be right, wrong, or am indifferent too. Let's face it the overwhelming majority of all the music, books, movies that are loaded up to torrent sites are for sale somewhere by the actual owner of the IP. Games may or may not have the same level of available retail means, but it honestly doesn't really matter to the greater point. I will say that many people who download "abandoned" software also have a torrent download for something else going. I'd also say that it's not the minority that do so. I happen to believe in the slippery slope theory and the theory that locks only keep honest people honest. I also know my personal boundaries for such things and what will or will not weigh on my conscience.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 08, 2014, 10:12:16 PM
Quote from: Toonces on January 08, 2014, 09:27:05 PM
I understand Jarhead's argument, and I know that it is valid.
Having said that, I suppose I fall into the side of, "I know this is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway."
If I wanted to play Civil War Generals 2, I wouldn't have any moral problem with downloading it from the provided weblink. Just being honest.
That is totally fair. Its the refusal of some to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong, or prejudicial to the rights of others, that irks me. That combined with the attitude that those of us who place our faith in the actual law, and think it serves a valid purpose are somehow chumps or suckers.
I'm going to assume that is partially aimed at me. I concede it is illegal. I see the need for IP laws and agree with them for the most part. I would even say it is wrong. My point is that the wrong, in this narrow case, is an insignificant wrong. There is no real harm, especially if the IP owners don't care or even aware they own the IP. Lets not go overboard and call each other names for a wrong as insignificant as going 56 in a 55.
Ill admit my argument is weak, its simply based on personal belief. I never pretended otherwise. I simply wanted to field a few arguments that might challenge my view on the ethics of downloading abandonware. I suppose I didn't even understand the popular definition of abandonware, since someone earlier in the thread defined at as games 4 years or older, not sold and are unsupported. I think that definition, if sites claimed games based on that criteria could cause more than a theoretical harm. I think that could be problematic.
I guess that makes me guilty of not being a black and white thinker (in addition to being a criminal and a thief). I guess if you ever see me in public, you can point your finger at me and comment to your friends "That guy, he's a fuzzy thinker" and let the ridicule begin.
Piracy is also free advertising. Those pirates will turn into fans if the game is good. They may potentially buy the sequel and support the developer.
I heard that there is this band (Megadeth? ) who made a list of countries where they were pirated the most and toured there. Of course, leading to sellout concerts.
I fall into the category of owning a couple of games on 3.5 floppies, still have them in my systems disks box with a few prehistoric CPU's (P133 etc). The funny thing is that one of the game is Pirates! ;D I did buy them from a computer store, think it was either 15 or 25 pounds each, in a box (how I miss the boxes games used to come in, like opening a treasure chest with maps, keyboard overlays, new smelly manuals etc).
So would I be able to obtain it as abandonware? I have never looked for it, but could get it to work I imagine with DOSbox. I used to put into most of my machines once the OS was on the system then floppy drives disappeared.
A question that has not been asked but I should imagine amounts to the same is what about manuals? I can only presume that they must have the same problem as the games for being in a grey area?
Darkspire
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 08, 2014, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: Bison on January 08, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Mix shades of gray and you still have gray.
theres warm grey, cool grey, french grey, battleship grey, haze grey, grey primer, light grey, dark grey, steel grey, blue grey, slate grey, panzer grey (which oddly is green) and concrete grey. there are in fact way more then the 50 shades of grey known to Mirth (who is going grey). one does not simply mix white and black to get Gandalf Grey.
and never bring up variations of grey with an artist who has a pantone book.
a 'weiße Weste' (a clean slate) is boooring ;D
...when, i look in my shaving mirror today i probably see Flecktarn 8) not shades of grey ;)
(well, most of the dots where collected in the early decades of my computer enhanced life)(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2Fkeb6tf.jpg&hash=1d51b5aa87968b921e7404fddfcab47d7d3fb810)
;)
Quote from: LongBlade on January 08, 2014, 06:07:33 PM
Quote from: Keunert on January 08, 2014, 02:49:18 PM
arguing with a lawyer is like boxing with a boxer.
^ you guys can quote this, but remember the ip of this is mine.
Looks like Abandonquip to me.
Nearly choked on a muffin when I saw this.
I guess if we go to the original post about CW2 being reviewed over at Wargamer, I think that brings up bigger questions for me. Why was a "retro" review even created and posted about a game that is technically no longer available for anyone, besides the methods discussed in this thread which is questionable to some? What were they hoping to accomplish? Only people that currently have the game could really benefit from it, unless they are encouraging people who don't have it to find questionable means to obtain it? And if people already have it, why do they care about the review since they already own it? This "review" seems to be encouraging intentionally or unintentionally people to get interested in the game to find a means to get it whether questionable or not. Just can't see any value or good coming out of it.
Now if they would have had an article that was more about "let's go back in time and just talk about one of our favorite games of the past", than that is something different. Labeling it a "review" makes it feel different to me. And whether it is legal, moral, or questionable to download this game, I do think it was wrong for an organization/writer/editor to post the links with the article itself, simply encourages people to do it and most people probably aren't aware of the issue. They aren't helping to protect their own customers or clearly stating what the risks may be before downloading it. If people want to search it out on their own time, that is their option since it probably takes a 1 second google search to find it.
Just my two cents....
Quote from: Swatter on January 09, 2014, 12:18:36 AM
I'm going to assume that is partially aimed at me. I concede it is illegal. I see the need for IP laws and agree with them for the most part. I would even say it is wrong. My point is that the wrong, in this narrow case, is an insignificant wrong. There is no real harm, especially if the IP owners don't care or even aware they own the IP. Lets not go overboard and call each other names for a wrong as insignificant as going 56 in a 55.
...and all I'm saying is the wrong is not as insignificant as you may think. Your single act of downloading a file is not necessarily a tremendous wrong. However, multiply that download by 100, by 1,000, by 10,000 and you see how it becomes more problematic. You are only seeing the tree in front of you. Try seeing the forest around you, instead. Its the bigger picture that matters here...potentially.
Quote from: Swatter on January 09, 2014, 12:18:36 AM
Ill admit my argument is weak, its simply based on personal belief. I never pretended otherwise. I simply wanted to field a few arguments that might challenge my view on the ethics of downloading abandonware. I suppose I didn't even understand the popular definition of abandonware, since someone earlier in the thread defined at as games 4 years or older, not sold and are unsupported. I think that definition, if sites claimed games based on that criteria could cause more than a theoretical harm. I think that could be problematic.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Swatter on January 09, 2014, 12:18:36 AM
I guess that makes me guilty of not being a black and white thinker (in addition to being a criminal and a thief). I guess if you ever see me in public, you can point your finger at me and comment to your friends "That guy, he's a fuzzy thinker" and let the ridicule begin.
Oh stop it. Now you're just being a silly goose. I do not equate the act of downloading "abandonware" to the act of say, murder or rape. I promise I will not publicly subject you to ridicule.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on January 09, 2014, 06:33:56 AM
I guess if we go to the original post about CW2 being reviewed over at Wargamer, I think that brings up bigger questions for me. Why was a "retro" review even created and posted about a game that is technically no longer available for anyone, besides the methods discussed in this thread which is questionable to some?
You can still buy it from Amazon sellers used for about $25. Didn't check eBay but it's probably there as well. Not to mention that some people designing games could benefit from reading a retro review or two.
Quote from: Philistine on January 08, 2014, 10:48:48 PM
Quote from: ComradeP on January 08, 2014, 10:31:15 AM
{snip}
Thus far in the thread, people commenting on what does or what doesn't legally constitute "theft" are immediately considered to be on a "high horse" and rambling about "moral standards".
I understand that people don't want to be called a thief, but what people think is completely irrelevant when it comes to how something is written down in the law. Moral relativism is the mortal enemy of any legal system.
Does downloading a game put you in the same moral position as someone who steals someone's car? Depends on who you ask, but not really I'd say. Are both thing legally considered to be theft? Most certainly. Stealing a pencil from a store is also theft just like stealing a computer from a store is. You're thinking in terms of value, which is why you shrug at stealing a pencil being called theft, but it's still legally theft.{snip}
To be fair. Downloading of abandonware is not theft, nor is it a crime (at least in the US).
Copyright infringement (on the level of downloading abandonware) is a civil offense.
Also, Ubercat's point is a good one. Downloading a game you own in an unusable format (say on 3.5" disks) to be able to continue to play it is (I would argue) a pretty clear example of fair use, negating any claim of infringement.
Copyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime. And it's certainly not "theft" under any legal definition.
--Philistine
Nice first post, but its almost completely erroneous. Will downloading a single file for personal use land you in jail? Of course not, nobody has suggested that. However, that being said, the DCMA and sections of the USC have extremely stiff criminal penalties for violating copy right laws, including where digital media is concerned, particularly where willful intent to distribute or make personal financial gain can be established. Here, a violator can be subject to years of jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions in penalties and fines.
By the way, Ubercat's example, if anything, is not an example of fair use. Rather, it is an example of an exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DCMA.
Quote from: Philistine on January 08, 2014, 10:48:48 PMCopyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime.
I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 09, 2014, 07:19:38 AM
Quote from: Philistine on January 08, 2014, 10:48:48 PMCopyright infringement is still "against the law", but it's not a crime.
I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime
I think he is trying, unsuccessfully, to draw a distinction between civil liability and criminal prosecution.
Looks like I missed a lively debate last night. 8)
I'll admit, I've done this before, albeit not directly. Back in the 90s I worked at a computer company and one of the marketing guys had all the 'connections.' I never solicited him, but we had a conversation one day about the new X-Wing game (new at the time, of course) and I remember telling him it would be a cold day in hell before I played it as I never had the cash for that kind of thing. A few days later he visited my office and brought me a stack of 3.5" floppies. I happily accepted! Does that make it wrong? Of course it does. I accepted something I didn't pay for. And he did this a few other times over the years I worked there...he brought me Warcraft, other X-Wing titles, and so on. Not all the time, just once in a blue moon. And I accepted each one. For a 20-something in his first real office job but still making bupkis and struggling to start a family, the benefits at the time far, far outweighed the possible consequences.
Later that decade I remember I'd find copies of the games in bargain bins. I would buy them. Did this make up for what I did? No, of course not. It was still breaking the law. And the store that sold them when they first come out didn't get the $50 or $60 or however much it was from me (not that they would have as I didn't have that kind of scratch). I felt a little better about it, at any rate. I wasn't beating myself up or anything - don't get me wrong - and I could sleep fine at night. It was, however, something that nagged at my edges for some time.
I know plenty of people who have used Demonoid and Pirate Bay and the like, and I'll admit I've looked through those sites, and it's AMAZING what is out there. Basically, if it's in electronic format - music, books, games, TV shows, movies, you name it - you can find it out there. But I've never partaken in a download of them. And why not? For many reasons. Viruses, for one; I've heard that's a ripe environment for them. For another, it seems that a lot of these guys go through a lot of hoops to get these games to work. I mean, patches, cracks, manipulations of files, moving things around - it's so much bloody work that it's just not worth it in my mind.
Being older and somewhat wiser now, I'd much rather wait, save my money, then buy the damn thing and at least have a legitimate copy with legitimate support and simple use instead of pulling through a dozen chicanes to hope that maybe possibly a game will work. I don't understand why people do that, as it seems it's more work to get it for free than to just pay for the blasted thing.
On the point involving buying a game in 1993...that's an interesting one. I've thought about that. I'm glad I had the foresight to keep some of my MicroProse classics (Covert Action, Sword of the Samurai), as I had a feeling as technology increased the old games would disappear. But if I bought Sword of the Samurai back in the day (back before I was married and had my own money, LOL), and lost it, does that give me the right to go download it?
Same argument with CDs - if I have a CD but I can't find it, but I KNOW I bought it and have it somewhere, does that mean I can go download it somewhere?
I'd say no on both counts. It's still illegal. I know there's gotta be people out there who think it's okay to do that as they've already shelled money out for them, but to be honest, if you lose it and you're too lazy to look for it or too sloppy to properly organize your life so that you lose stuff, then that's on you, not on the publishers or producers. If you buy something then break it and it's your fault, you have to buy another one.
Actually the whole argument about downloading in specific Civil Wars Generals 2, because it isn't available is actually not true. You can get it from Amazon and Ebay. Actual copies of the game, but I suspect the price isn't what many want to pay so it's easier to just take something. I don't care if it hurts someone's feelings or not. Big boys making big boy decisions and then trying to talk themselves and others into believing their actions are closer the white side of the black and white line of the law.
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Generals-Grant-Sherman-Pc/dp/B001ALI794/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1389276759&sr=8-2&keywords=civil+war+generals+2
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Civil-War-2-Generals-Grant-Lee-Sherman-Sierra-PC-Game-/400637547549?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item5d47dbd41d
It's like trying to claim being only a little bit pregnant.
If you can't buy it, you can't steal it, used copies on Ebay or copies sold by third parties don't count! That's my view of software that's no longer sold or supported! Copy rights are some what like patents, use it or lose it, if the owner can't or doesn't enforce it, they can lose the right to do so.
Quote from: SgtRock on January 09, 2014, 10:54:47 AM
If you can't buy it, you can't steal it...
Wrong.
You can't be serious.
I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?
Quote from: solops on January 09, 2014, 11:07:11 AM
I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?
Possibly. As noted earlier in this thread, recent amendments to the DCMA may permit this activity under an exception to the circumvention rules.
Quote from: solops on January 09, 2014, 11:07:11 AM
I bought the game years ago. I still have the manual and original disks. Is it wrong for me to download it?
I did it too and do not feel guilty...i couldn't run the original game on cd. Did the same with
birth of the federation (i have bought at least 5 legit copies back then). Two of my all time favorite games...was very sad when i couldn't run them anymore and would be extremely upset if i couldn't run them again.
Now, i don't think the link should have been posted in the review. Jean is a huge fan of the game and probably suggested the review...for those who remember, he even launched a kickstarter campaign for a civil war generals II without success.
I am strongly against piracy but see this as an exception. If GOG or else would sell these games, i'd buy legit editions again.
If we wanted to pay those who created the game, we should give some money to Tilted Mill and Firefly as they used to be Impressions Games.
I think the simply answer would be to say that IP laws need to be updated. If a piece of software is so old that the hardware needed to run it doesn't reasonably exist, the IP ownership is uncertain, and no perceptible harm could result- allow the IP to migrate to a less restrictive category that allows personal use (no financial gain). This status could be revoked by request of IP owner.
I think the IP laws that govern more durable intellectual goods don't apply as well to software. When does a piece of software become public domain? With the convoluted ownership chain, is it even possible to know in many cases? And by the time the software flows into the public domain, it is so obsolete as to be completely useless. I would say software IP should be more connected to commercial usefulness.
Speed limits could be updated in a lot of places.
That doesn't mean that speeding isn't still illegal where it hasn't been yet.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 09, 2014, 07:01:42 AM
Nice first post, but its almost completely erroneous. Will downloading a single file for personal use land you in jail? Of course not, nobody has suggested that. However, that being said, the DCMA and sections of the USC have extremely stiff criminal penalties for violating copy right laws, including where digital media is concerned, particularly where willful intent to distribute or make personal financial gain can be established.
????
AIUI, under both general copyright in the USC (
i.e. 17 USC. Sec. 506(a)(1)), and the DMCA (
i.e. 17 USC Sec. 1204), it's not that criminal penalties apply "particularly" where there is willful intent to distribut or make personal financial gain--but
only where the infringement is for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
I don't think a non-frivolous argument can be made that a singe person's downloading of abandonware games for personal use could constitute being done for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
As I, said, that doesn't mean it's not a violation of copyright. but it's not a crime.
Quote
By the way, Ubercat's example, if anything, is not an example of fair use. Rather, it is an example of an exception to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DCMA.
FWIU, format shifting in the case of ripping mp3's from cds to be used in portable players has been held to be fair use. That's what I liken this to, though I'd be surprised if it's ever actually come up.
--Philistine
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 09, 2014, 07:19:38 AM
I'm not sure how something can be against the law and not be a crime
The law requires a lot of things. But it is fairly small subset of the things that the law requires result in criminal penalties for violations.
For instance, generally, a state law requires official stop signs to be a certain size and shape and design. A stop sign that is too small, that is put up will not result in criminal liability to the person who set it up, or the city/town/government that set it up. OTOH, it could result in civil liability to the extent the non-conformance with law could be shown to have caused an injury (e.g. someone got in an accident because they didn't see it).
--Philistine
Quote from: LongBlade on January 07, 2014, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 07, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
unless the game is over 75 years old, someone owns the copyright
even then, it could've been renewed
+1
Just because someone wants the game and can no longer purchase it doesn't give them the right to steal it.
There is no legal status called "abandonware." It's called "theft."
Unless the original copyright owner says "here you go." This actually happened with, for example, Combat Mission: Campaigns. I suppose "open source" may be a better term?
Otherwise, I agree with those who assert that intellectual property rights reside with the original creator (or the publisher, etc.) by default.
Quote from: SgtRock on January 09, 2014, 10:54:47 AM
If you can't buy it, you can't steal it, used copies on Ebay or copies sold by third parties don't count! That's my view of software that's no longer sold or supported! Copy rights are some what like patents, use it or lose it, if the owner can't or doesn't enforce it, they can lose the right to do so.
I wasn't aware that copyright had to be asserted to exist. If I publish a book and decide not to reprint it after the 1st edition sells out, that does not give you the right to do so. My copyright remains in effect during the term of the applicable laws - depending on jurisdiction, my natural life at the very least. You may have the right under fair use to make copies for research purposes, private study, etc. but you can't sell photocopies of my book or reprint it for commercial sale. Regardless of whether or not I decide to print or reprint it.
Is it any different for software?
Actually its the same for either written work or digital. You have to defend your copyright or you can be considered to have vacated your right to the IP. Now that doesn't mean you have to know of every case of piracy to keep your copyright I believe the way it works is if you KNOWINGLY ignore violations of your copyright and do not enforce it can you can be considered to lose it, however if it happens and your unaware of it than you still maintain the right. There is a lot of grey area around this though as its hard to prove you knowingly vacated your right to your copyright.
This is actually something that has come up recently due to YouTube tightening monetization options for game footage on YouTube. Various game companies have publicly said they want people to be able to use footage from their games and monetize them and various legal experts have pointed out that if company's simply allow people to do this WITHOUT updating their terms of use and therefore ignoring enforcing their copyright it would potentially invalidate their copyright as they would no longer be defending said copyright and would be knowingly encouraging the violation of that copyright.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on January 09, 2014, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on January 09, 2014, 10:54:47 AM
If you can't buy it, you can't steal it, used copies on Ebay or copies sold by third parties don't count! That's my view of software that's no longer sold or supported! Copy rights are some what like patents, use it or lose it, if the owner can't or doesn't enforce it, they can lose the right to do so.
I wasn't aware that copyright had to be asserted to exist. If I publish a book and decide not to reprint it after the 1st edition sells out, that does not give you the right to do so. My copyright remains in effect during the term of the applicable laws - depending on jurisdiction, my natural life at the very least. You may have the right under fair use to make copies for research purposes, private study, etc. but you can't sell photocopies of my book or reprint it for commercial sale. Regardless of whether or not I decide to print or reprint it.
Is it any different for software?
where do you stand on using footage from a game to assist in advertising someone elses magazines/journal?
I found the following at the U.S. Copyright Office's website (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p):
Quote from: United States Copyright Office
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
In 2007 Jammie Thomas-Rasset was fined $222,000 (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/13/minnesota-woman-fined-222000-for-24-illegal-song-downloads/) for 24 illegal song downloads. Read all about the lengthy legal process here (http://www.iplb.org/articles/case-survey-capitol-records-inc-v-thomas-rasset) if you so desire or read what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas) has to say about it.
While I don't believe the feds would come looking for anyone who downloads a single "abandonware" game, in this day and age I wouldn't bet that they don't know about it.
i noticed that about the reference to downloading the games - and i was surprised that when i just was asking if anyone had a physical copy Austerlitz NGV from Breakaway/Strategy First/Shrapnel - whoever it was, someone has linked to a download of the game. I dont want a download of Austerlitz NGV - i want the actual game
CWG2 shouldnt really be classed as abandonware - you can still buy it easily on ebay and pretty cheap too as i have done and it runs in win 7 i can say - i think if some people cant get it to work there was a fix someone created for it.
edit: deleted.
Quote from: agathosdaimon on January 10, 2014, 06:36:33 AM
CWG2 shouldnt really be classed as abandonware - you can still buy it easily on ebay and pretty cheap too as i have done and it runs in win 7 i can say - i think if some people cant get it to work there was a fix someone created for it.
So... is it currently being sold by the publisher or owner? Or is it just being resold by third parties?
That should be the big question in this case.
If the larger publishers had their way, this would be illegal too.
She wasn't actually " fined".
If you read the article the writer confused the issue. She was sued by the record companies. That has happened to a good # of people.
No one that I have seen has been prosecuted for actual downloading/uploading, except site owners.
Quote from: Greybriar on January 10, 2014, 06:15:24 AM
I found the following at the U.S. Copyright Office's website (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p):
Quote from: United States Copyright Office
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
In 2007 Jammie Thomas-Rasset was fined $222,000 (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/13/minnesota-woman-fined-222000-for-24-illegal-song-downloads/) for 24 illegal song downloads. Read all about the lengthy legal process here (http://www.iplb.org/articles/case-survey-capitol-records-inc-v-thomas-rasset) if you so desire or read what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas) has to say about it.
While I don't believe the feds would come looking for anyone who downloads a single "abandonware" game, in this day and age I wouldn't bet that they don't know about it.
Apparently the Montreal-based antipiracy firm Canipre has gathered in a few months over one million evidence files on Canadians who have downloaded pirated content. Not surprising since according to this article there are over 370,000 Bit Torrent transactions each month in Canada. I am sure the figures are proportionately bigger in the US.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal-firm-monitoring-illegal-downloading-for-court-cases-1.1370247 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal-firm-monitoring-illegal-downloading-for-court-cases-1.1370247)
Quote from: Shelldrake on January 10, 2014, 12:42:40 PM
Apparently the Montreal-based antipiracy firm Canipre has gathered in a few months over one million evidence files on Canadians who have downloaded pirated content. Not surprising since according to this article there are over 370,000 Bit Torrent transactions each month in Canada. I am sure the figures are proportionately bigger in the US.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal-firm-monitoring-illegal-downloading-for-court-cases-1.1370247 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal-firm-monitoring-illegal-downloading-for-court-cases-1.1370247)
Punishment is so infrequent and so random that I have difficulty seeing it as any kind of deterrent. In the scheme of things how big of a priority is it to enforce the IP on an illegal download of Pong?
Not much.
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
But are they profiting from the accusational info they "gather"? Including simple employment.
Sounds like a problem in the making, if so.
Quote from: Nefaro on January 10, 2014, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
But are they profiting from the accusational info they "gather"? Including simple employment.
Sounds like a problem in the making, if so.
Why is that a problem? Someone is breaking the law and someone else is charging a fee to gather evidence of it. This happens all the time with other areas of the law.
Re abandonware for cwg2, i guess i just dont know then. I wish such games lost like this could get some proper definition. Games arent really the same as music.
You can listen to enjoy old music online or on the radio on sites like youtube or other internet radio without any real problems and most music even the oldest stuff can prob be bought on itunes - old games just seemed to get barred from any such possibility as though they must be permanently consigned to just memory or history
Quote from: Greybriar on January 10, 2014, 06:15:24 AM
While I don't believe the feds would come looking for anyone who downloads a single "abandonware" game, in this day and age I wouldn't bet that they don't know about it.
In my earlier post, what I meant to say is that I would never, ever, under any circumstances download an abandonware game or other software of questionable source. 8)
I've always thought, that if Record Companies can sue parents if kids are downloading songs on technology, that a lot of times the parents don't even understand. Well, then they should make it illegal for Minors to own music! ;D
Quote from: HistoricalGamer on January 10, 2014, 02:23:51 AM
Actually its the same for either written work or digital. You have to defend your copyright or you can be considered to have vacated your right to the IP. Now that doesn't mean you have to know of every case of piracy to keep your copyright I believe the way it works is if you KNOWINGLY ignore violations of your copyright and do not enforce it can you can be considered to lose it, however if it happens and your unaware of it than you still maintain the right. There is a lot of grey area around this though as its hard to prove you knowingly vacated your right to your copyright.
This is actually something that has come up recently due to YouTube tightening monetization options for game footage on YouTube. Various game companies have publicly said they want people to be able to use footage from their games and monetize them and various legal experts have pointed out that if company's simply allow people to do this WITHOUT updating their terms of use and therefore ignoring enforcing their copyright it would potentially invalidate their copyright as they would no longer be defending said copyright and would be knowingly encouraging the violation of that copyright.
This sounds like gibberish to me. What does using footage of gamplay in a video have to do with someone owning the rights to the game code?
It sounds like you're conflating a few different issues.
If I put images from a game you've published online in a YouTube video, and you don't "assert your copyright", that doesn't mean I somehow have the right to sell pirated copies of your game. I'm not seeing how the two relate.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 10, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on January 10, 2014, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
But are they profiting from the accusational info they "gather"? Including simple employment.
Sounds like a problem in the making, if so.
Why is that a problem? Someone is breaking the law and someone else is charging a fee to gather evidence of it. This happens all the time with other areas of the law.
Ahhh yes. Just like the traffic camera companies who make a certain percentage of the ticket profits from the tickets issued via the traffic cams they build.
Aside from the social & ethical questions regarding such practices, the slope doesn't get much more slippery. This is also where a, "wolf guarding the sheep" metaphor, about readily available abuse for self-interest and the resultant wasteful proliferation of oversight countermeasures would be in order.
Quote from: Nefaro on January 13, 2014, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 10, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on January 10, 2014, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
But are they profiting from the accusational info they "gather"? Including simple employment.
Sounds like a problem in the making, if so.
Why is that a problem? Someone is breaking the law and someone else is charging a fee to gather evidence of it. This happens all the time with other areas of the law.
Ahhh yes. Just like the traffic camera companies who make a certain percentage of the ticket profits from the tickets issued via the traffic cams they build.
Aside from the social & ethical questions regarding such practices, the slope doesn't get much more slippery. This is also where a, "wolf guarding the sheep" metaphor, about readily available abuse for self-interest and the resultant wasteful proliferation of oversight countermeasures would be in order.
Should Police officers forego salary and overtime pay, too?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 13, 2014, 03:07:24 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on January 13, 2014, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 10, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on January 10, 2014, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
It is interesting to note that someone is at least attempting to track the issue.
But are they profiting from the accusational info they "gather"? Including simple employment.
Sounds like a problem in the making, if so.
Why is that a problem? Someone is breaking the law and someone else is charging a fee to gather evidence of it. This happens all the time with other areas of the law.
Ahhh yes. Just like the traffic camera companies who make a certain percentage of the ticket profits from the tickets issued via the traffic cams they build.
Aside from the social & ethical questions regarding such practices, the slope doesn't get much more slippery. This is also where a, "wolf guarding the sheep" metaphor, about readily available abuse for self-interest and the resultant wasteful proliferation of oversight countermeasures would be in order.
Should Police officers forego salary and overtime pay, too?
No.
But they shouldn't be given bonuses for making more arrests and issuing more tickets. It leaves far too much room to be abused in the hands of those given such responsibility. If anything has been consistently proven about human nature throughout history, it's that a fair number will use extra powers given them for their own advancement at the expense of others. We shouldn't lightly give the easy opportunities to do so.
I have a Libertarian streak so this is as much a political viewpoint as anything else.