Faux pas at The Wargamer?

[Jarhead0331]

^That last name sure is a mouthful.

[LongBlade]

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.

[Swatter]

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)

[BanzaiCat]

[magnus]

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.

[mirth]

This just popped up on Reddit. Made me chuckle.

[Greybriar]

Mirth's post brought to mind the video "Don't copy that floppy"

and its sequel:

[Toonces]

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.

[Bison]

I'd only note that the justification most often used by publishers/developers for increasing levels of DRM is contained within this thread.

[Toonces]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[Bison]

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.

[Ubercat]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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?

[Toonces]

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.