Faux pas at The Wargamer?

[Michael Dorosh]

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?

[HistoricalGamer]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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?

[Greybriar]

I found the following at the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

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 for 24 illegal song downloads. Read all about the lengthy legal process here if you so desire or read what Wikipedia 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.

[agathosdaimon]

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.

[Ian C]

edit: deleted.

[Nefaro]

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.

[magnus]

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.

[Shelldrake]

I found the following at the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

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 for 24 illegal song downloads. Read all about the lengthy legal process here if you so desire or read what Wikipedia 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

[LongBlade]

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

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.

[Nefaro]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[agathosdaimon]

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

[Toonces]

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)

[Tuna]

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