|
| T O P I C | |
|
'Free' games from GameSpy: Abandonware or piracy?
January 2nd 2001, 03:56 CET by Andy The new year brings a new twist to the contentious issue of 'abandonware', as GameSpy distributes an old game against the copyright holder's wishes. GameSpy has often been criticised for its ClassicGaming.com site, which features a huge archive of old 8-bit, console and arcade games. But the company has so far stayed away from so-called 'abandonware' PC titles. This changed in a recent article, written by Rogue Entertainment developer Rich Carlson. The History of Computer Games: Worlds In Boxes took a look back to the birth of gaming, giving a nostalgic tip o' the hat to many classics, right through to the present day. The article included links to several full copies of old games, such as Zork, M.U.L.E., Wasteland and Empire. Abandonware sites commonly argue that by not speaking out against the free distribution of old games, copyright holders effectively give their blessing. But this argument doesn't wash in the case of one game now being distributed by GameSpy, and linked from Rich Carlson's article -- Gateway by Legend Entertainment. Legend have made it clear in the past that they don't consider their old games to be 'abandonware', and don't allow them to be freely distributed. Legend's Glen Dahlgren posted his thoughts on the issue in a recent PlanetCrap thread: Let me be absolutely clear: "Abandonware" is piracy, plain and simple. It just has a different moral wrapper around it. There's no right to it. If the author/copyright holder has not come forward and stated his wishes, it's illegal, and it shouldn't happen. Glen also discussed the common belief that old games are no longer of any value to the copyright holders, coincidentally explaining how Gateway has been used for promotional purposes: Apart from the wishes of the designer, old games have real value to the copyright holder/publisher. In the case of Gateway, we gave it away free to people who visited the Legend Entertainment site at one point. We've also sold games to be included in magazine disks, especially overseas. We've sold games to be included in compilations. Do you seriously think that the (real or perceived) value of these games isn't diminished if they are freely available on the net? Many of the games linked from the GameSpy article are on external sites, such as fan sites and abandonware archives. Gateway is stored on GameSpy's own servers, in a questionably-named directory, "freegames". In all likelihood, neither Rich Carlson nor anyone at GameSpy deliberately went against Legend's wishes. They probably just didn't realise that Gateway was strictly off-limits. But the fact remains that by assuming the copyright holder wouldn't mind, the self-proclaimed "gaming's homepage" has stepped into the murky world of piracy. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: 'Free' games from GameSpy: Abandonware or piracy?
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Well I paid 5 dollars for UT over the holiday from a store...do I feel like I ripped EB off, hell no, that was the store price, and I bet they did lose money for selling it that much... So how much is a game worth? If stores dont sell it anymore does that mean its worth nothing hence free? If a game comes out at 59.99 and the price drops 6 months later for 5 bucks am I stealing? Then whats the BFD if a 10 year old game is downloaded for free. Hell I cant find Doom anymore in retail stores... |
|
Post #68 has the point. No-one is advocating a "statute of limitations" for games to become abandonware. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way that I understand retail is that the developer sells it to the reseller, who then sells it to retail. Once the developer sells to the reseller, he's made his money. If the game sells well in the stores, the resellers buy more from the developer, giving them more money for more copies of said game. The point with abandonware, is that the developer is not SELLING the game anymore, therefore there is no way for them to make any more money on it. No-one is arguing whether a book is copyable after a set time, that would be ridiculous. What we are saying is that "If the developer is not capable of making money from the game, then copy it." Now that's a distilled form of the argument and granted, you can find exceptions to the statement, but that's the spirit of abandonware. If you're not hurting the developer, and you're helping others have the great experience you had, then no harm, no foul. |
|
Where's that Underdogs guy from the other thread who ran an abandonware site? Be interested in his thoughts... |
|
Copyrights are Copyrights, and Ownerships are Ownerships. The meaning of "is" isn't important. Unless an agreement is reached between the parties involved, no one can unlawfully, that is to say against the will, use someone else's property for any reason. If that is not such, is it to say I can go steal another's car just because I feel it is too old for his or her to drive? Certainly not. I have not researched this topic, nor intend to, so I am crossing my fingers that gamespy is working on the up and up and this is just another "Andy conspiracy." - Paul |
|
<b>#74</b> "paul" wrote... <quote> If that is not such, is it to say I can go steal another's car just because I feel it is too old for his or her to drive? Certainly not. </quote> That argument does not hold water in the case of software. If you steal my car you are <b>depriving me of a car.</b> If you copy my software, you are depriving me of <b>nothing</b>, save what you would normally owe me for purchase. And if it is no longer available for purchase? The legal quagmire of software being an etherial concept and not a tangible object is why software issues are constantly being batted around in court and why there has never been a <b>strict</b> ruling against piracy. Needless to say, it is not a strict black and white issue like stealing a car is. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
ahem. case #1: gunstar heroes. sega genesis (with sega cd attachment thanku very much) long since stopped functioning. legal to download an emulator and rom and play them? i say yes. case #2: two boxes sit in the corner of my room. ultimate doom and doom 2. cd's for said boxes have long since vanished. if it were not for abandonware i would have been forced to hunt down another copy of each (ebay chaching $$) legal? i say yes, i own the right to play that game when i bought it a few years ago. abandonware: 1 - critics: 0 case #3: wolfenistein 3d. never played the classic, so i download it free of charge regardless of the fact iD software sells the little montage of all their old games. legal? probably not. abandonware: 1 - critics: 1 case #4: stunts looks cool. i've never bought it, but of course i've never heard of it either. no way possible to buy this game in any retail channels... legal to download? i say abandonware wins, but just barely... |
|
Kayin: I feel your pain I would cry if I couldnt play my gunstar heroes anymore... |
|
"If you can get people to pay for a copy of your game, then you're ultimately winning the game!" - (tm)(r)(c)(sm)(bj) Jan 2nd, 2001 - Robert E. Waring Edmonton Telephones Corporation |
|
Zdim (#62): PS: Hey Warren! :) Hiya. :) asspennies (#68): I suppose the question is, when does their ability to make money off a product end? When a product is being produced and sold in stores, a lot of money is put into packaging, making manuals, shipping - all that is then, of course, offset by the sales.(hopefully) The problem is: it doesn't matter. The ability of the product to make money isn't in question. mcorleone (#72): The point with abandonware, is that the developer is not SELLING the game anymore, therefore there is no way for them to make any more money on it. No-one is arguing whether a book is copyable after a set time, that would be ridiculous. What we are saying is that "If the developer is not capable of making money from the game, then copy it." Now that's a distilled form of the argument and granted, you can find exceptions to the statement, but that's the spirit of abandonware. If you're not hurting the developer, and you're helping others have the great experience you had, then no harm, no foul. But you ARE violating the developers rights. --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#79</b> "WarrenMarshall" wrote... <quote>The problem is: it doesn't matter. The ability of the product to make money isn't in question. </quote> No one is arguing that the use of game concepts or characters be infringed. Neither is money the question. So what is the issue? <quote>But you ARE violating the developers rights.</quote> I'm sure you have a good reason for pointing this out, so my question is, what is it? If the developer's right to make money for his product isn't infringed because there's no way for the developer to make money on it anyway, and the right of the developer to keep his/her characters/gameplay ideas isn't infringed, what rights of the developer are being violated?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
asspennies (#80): I'm sure you have a good reason for pointing this out, so my question is, what is it? If the developer's right to make money for his product isn't infringed because there's no way for the developer to make money on it anyway, and the right of the developer to keep his/her characters/gameplay ideas isn't infringed, what rights of the developer are being violated? There's no way? Let's cook up an example ... Let's say GameX is getting old, and the 'net decides that it's abandonware against the developers wishes. Then the developer decides to release a sequel of GameX called GameY, and they think that throwing GameX in the box for free might be good incentive for people to buy GameY. You've just infringed on their ability to make money by taking away that buying incentive. But like I said, the money isn't really the issue. Unless the developer says that the product is abandonware, it isn't. Period. --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
mcorleone said: The point with abandonware, is that the developer is not SELLING the game anymore, therefore there is no way for them to make any more money on it. No-one is arguing whether a book is copyable after a set time, that would be ridiculous. What we are saying is that "If the developer is not capable of making money from the game, then copy it." It doesn't matter if the company could not possibly make a single cent off the game; downloading a copy for free is theft. You act as if you're entitled to the game. If there aren't any copies in retail stores then, if you really want to play it, you're going to have to hunt it down. You can't say, "Well, I tried to buy it, but since I couldn't find it then stealing it is ok." Theft is theft. Thats not to say I don't have abandonware on my computer at home; I do. I, however, realize that what I'm doing is theft. I know its not right and I know its not justified but the reality is that abandonware sites are the only avenue of acquiring old games that can't be bought in stores. |
|
<b>#81</b> "WarrenMarshall" wrote... <quote>There's no way? Let's cook up an example ... Let's say GameX is getting old, and the 'net decides that it's abandonware against the developers wishes. Then the developer decides to release a sequel of GameX called GameY, and they think that throwing GameX in the box for free might be good incentive for people to buy GameY. You've just infringed on their ability to make money by taking away that buying incentive.</quote> Not as such. First of all, I'm sure you'll recognize that the abandonware community is very, very small - far smaller than the amount of people who would be influenced by such an offer. Nevertheless, I'll bite. Let's say that this very occurance happened. Now, in most cases, the individual developers of GameX would be long gone. Even if they aren't, are they making any money on the sale of GameX? My inkling is, if the developer is not involved with GameY, they aren't making a penny. Likewise, how much realistic incentive other than "Hey this is neat" would packing a 5-year old game offer to anyone buying a system today? 99% of the people buying the game would likely not even touch it - and as I said before, I'd wager that the 1% that would touch it is larger than the abandonware scene that would. <quote>But like I said, the money isn't really the issue. Unless the developer says that the product is abandonware, it isn't. Period.</quote> I'd like to believe this and support this, but it doesn't allow those of us who'd like to play these older games (many of us who indeed did buy the games in the past) to actually get access to most of them. Why would a developer (or team of developers) want to jealously guard such games from <b>at most</b> around a thousand people who would like to play them? The GameX GameY scenario? If it benefits anyone, it benefits the publisher of GameY, certainly not the developers of GameX. Now, I'd support some method whereby I would send, let's say, $5 to Developer X to download GameX. Would you support something like this?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
There's no such thing as abandonware people. It's a lable made up by would be pirates and classic gamers justifying theft. If you want to make yourselves feel better about stealing by saying "It's old - they don't sell it anymore", then fine. Just admist you are stealing and we're all ok with that. Companies own the trademarks and copyrights on these things. If they want to sit on them and let them die, then they have the right to. Have I downloaded ROMs. Yes. Was I stealing? Yes. Just face facts people and stop with the justification of "abandonware". I love all these tree hugging hippie old timer gamers that spout the virtues of "classic" gaming and abandonware. It's just a new spin on piracy. The real problem comes from uneducated gamers (young ones) that "assume" because a game is old (say 5 years to them) that they can steal it. We're not talking about 20 year old, unbuyable games like MULE. We're talking about Doom, Wolfenstein etc (which I've seen on abandonware sites - despite the fact we still sell enough Wolf to cover a couple employees salaries a year). There is a really bad stigma that goes with the label "abandonware" that assumes that if it's old, you can just get the game. This is piracy, plain and simple. Yet it's being used as and excuse to steal daily. Is it ok to steal if nobody cares, or you have a nifty label? I guess so, huh? |
|
I'm sure you have a good reason for pointing this out, so my question is, what is it? If the developer's right to make money for his product isn't infringed because there's no way for the developer to make money on it anyway, and the right of the developer to keep his/her characters/gameplay ideas isn't infringed, what rights of the developer are being violated? As soon as I create something, I get to dictate the terms of how it's used. If I say you can freely download it, you can. If I don't give you that permission, you can't. Simple as that, end of discussion. |
|
<b>#84</b> "GeorgeBroussard" wrote... <quote>There's no such thing as abandonware people. It's a lable made up by would be pirates and classic gamers justifying theft. </quote> It's not theft - both in a legal and linguistic sense. To quote our favorite resource, dictionary.com: <quote> theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.</quote> Pay attention to that very carefully. <b>...every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.</b> Clearly this is <b>not</b> happening in the case of abandonware - or even software piracy (which I would never support). You know as well as I that software piracy has never been fully tried before the courts - because of this very issue. You're never actually depriving the original owner of anything. You're making a copy. Now, it <b>IS</b> piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material. That's unquestionably the case. But does piracy = theft? Unfortuantely for developers and indeed fans of the continuing publishing of games, it isn't that simple.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
But piracy is still illegal, regardless of whether or not it's considered theft. And whether or not it's theft is simply a semantic argument and has no bearing on the moral or ethical aspects of piracy. |
|
<b>#87</b> "fyrewolf" wrote... <quote>But piracy is still illegal, regardless of whether or not it's considered theft. And whether or not it's theft is simply a semantic argument and has no bearing on the moral or ethical aspects of piracy.</quote> I disagree. Semantics notwithstanding, the moral and ethical waters are far muddier in the realm of software piracy and especially abandonware. I'm not saying that software piracy isn't morally and ethically wrong. I'm simply saying that considering it the equal in terms of moral or ethical aspects to grand theft auto or burglary is a fallacy. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#86</b> "asspennies" wrote... <quote><B>#84</B> "GeorgeBroussard" wrote... <quote>There's no such thing as abandonware people. It's a lable made up by would be pirates and classic gamers justifying theft. </quote> It's not theft - both in a legal and linguistic sense. To quote our favorite resource, dictionary.com: <quote> theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.</quote> Pay attention to that very carefully. <B>...every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.</B> Clearly this is <B>not</B> happening in the case of abandonware - or even software piracy (which I would never support). You know as well as I that software piracy has never been fully tried before the courts - because of this very issue. You're never actually depriving the original owner of anything. You're making a copy. Now, it <B>IS</B> piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material. That's unquestionably the case. But does piracy = theft? Unfortuantely for developers and indeed fans of the continuing publishing of games, it isn't that simple.</quote> OK, now go get the ditionary definition of copyright, and post that here as well just to be fair. Seriously, I challenge you to do it.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#89</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>OK, now go get the ditionary definition of copyright, and post that here as well just to be fair. Seriously, I challenge you to do it.</quote> Can't ignore a challange ;) <quote>cop·y·right (kp-rt) n. Abbr. c., C., cop. The legal right granted to an author, a composer, a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.</quote> Certainly looks awfully incriminating. But, look down a page. <quote>Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only the program's underlying instructions were protected under copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended protections to the appearance of programs. Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are trying to abolish intellectual property myths. </quote> I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but it's on the dictionary.com page. So take from it what you will. The question is whether copyrights of software hold up to legal scrutiny - and I put forth that in many cases, (and this is unfortuante, as I said, both for developers and publishers, as well as fans of computer games) they will <b>not</b> hold up to such scrutiny. So, there you go. It's never an easy question - but I suppose that's why we talk about it.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Clearly downloading old games without permission is theft, but in certain circumstances it is also a big favor. That'll sound like I'm trying to justify theft, but really I'd just like the copyright holders to consider releasing older games for free without restrictions as being beneficial to their current interests. If I had never downloaded any of the Final Fantasy games, then I'd never have gotten a Playstation ("for my girlfriend", cough), so I could play Square's stuff on it. They've made money from me that they'd never have made otherwise. Granted that doesn't help Nintendo any, and I realize it's not a perfect argument, but in the case of PC games it becomes stronger. For instance, releasing Betrayal at Krondor was the only way for Sierra to drum up interest in it's play-alike game, Betrayal at Antara. Go here for the full game of BaK from Sierra, choose it from the pull down menu. It's still a really good game. I recently bought the complete bunch of Myth strategy games by Bungie for twenty dollars. I expect they bundled the first one in as an incentive. Releasing the first game for free on the net would not have lessened the appeal of getting the whole thing for cheap, and I imagine that the more people play it, the more value the franchise has. That's where the money is anyway, they keep telling us, in the franchise. I understand that handhelds are a place for old games to land and still make money. There's a company (slips my mind which) that actually wants to sell people text games, to play on their Palms. Games that people intended to be played for free on their PCs, I'm talking the recent independent text games that are in a bit of a renaissance now, due quite a bit to being free of charge. (Go to the Interactive Fiction page at About for information on those, btw, great page.) That said though, restricting something that is promotional, at no cost of production to the copyright holder, seems counter-intuitive to me. Until games are played on as stable a platform as movies, there isn't going to be much commercial value in the older ones. Hitchcock's stuff still makes money, but I can't see Alone in the Dark 1 selling a dime, unless it's used to sell Alone in the Dark 4. And no price beats free. |
|
Interesting. Thanks for stepping up to the plate. An act of good faith. Now, onto the content. The first two parts did not surprise me, I expected it to say as much. I did not look before I made the request, so I was going out on a limb a bit. But that third paragraph, you got that out of a dictionary? That's pretty amazing. It would appear to be a bit loaded, and goes a bit beond what I would have expected you to find. Nonethless, it's a valid opinion of many. I wonder if other controversial subjects are loaded with a detecable slant like that. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
That last part of the definition of copyright is from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing. |
|
Sorry, wrong url. It's http://www.foldoc.org |
|
Read the U.S. Code if you want to understand how copyright works (at least in the U.S.). It's all on Findlaw. |
|
Here's the actual section: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html |
|
<b>#93</b> "fyrewolf" wrote... <quote>That last part of the definition of copyright is from the <A href="http://www.foldoc.com">Free On-line Dictionary of Computing</A>.</quote> AHHH! OK then, that makes perfect sence then. I goto that site, and I find a nice big "NO SOFTWARE PATENTS" link. That information then would need to be balanced just like the origional theft definition was. Now, where can we request a reasonable alternate opinion on copywite again, just 'to be fair'. Your being naughty asspennies. :)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#97</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Your being naughty asspennies. :)</quote> Hey, it was on dictionary.com, I just posted it. Now, if you look at FOLDOC's definition for <a href="http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=software+piracy">software piracy</a>, you get something completely different: <quote>The unauthorised duplication and/or use of computer software. This usually means unauthorised copying, either by individuals for use by themselves or their friends or, less commonly, by companies who then sell the illegal copies to users. Many kinds of software protection have been invented to try to reduce software theft but, with sufficient effort it is always possible to bypass or "crack" the protection, and software protection is often annoying for legitimate users. Software theft was estimated for 1994 to have cost $15 billion in worldwide lost revenues to software publishers. It is a serious offence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which states that "The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to copy the work.". It is illegal to: 1. Copy or distribute software or its documentation without the permission or licence of the copyright owner. 2. Run purchased software on two or more computers simultaneously unless the licence specifically allows it. 3. Knowingly or unknowingly allow, encourage or pressure employees to make or use illegal copies sources within the organisation. 4. Infringe laws against unauthorised software copying because a superior, colleague or friend compels or requests it. 5. Loan software in order that a copy be made of it. Both individuals and companies may be convicted of piracy offences. Officers of a company are also liable to conviction if the offences were carried out by the company with their consent. On conviction, the guilty party can face imprisonment for up to two years (five in USA), an unlimited fine or both as well as being sued for copyright infringement (with no limit) by the copyright owner. When software is upgraded it is generally the case that the licence accompanying the new version revokes the old version. This means that it is illegal to run both the old and new versions as only the new version is licensed. Some people mistakenly think that, because it is so easy to make illegal copies of software, that it is less wrong than, say, stealing it from a shop. In fact, both actions deprive software producers of the income they need to continue their business and develop their products. </quote> So, we're back to square one. I would take issue with this definition, of course, as it applies to what we're talking about, very old games that are no longer a source of revenue for the business or developers. But in the interests of fairness, there ya go.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#98</b> "asspennies" wrote... <quote>So, we're back to square one. I would take issue with this definition, of course, as it applies to what we're talking about, very old games that are no longer a source of revenue for the business or developers. But in the interests of fairness, there ya go.</quote> Ok, you seem to be providing yourself squeek room when discussing piracy and theft, but I'd say you need to do more work get get over the copywrite issue, that's a stumbling block still.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>Barneyque</b> (#51): <quote>Craig: I'd like to request a feature. Instead of Ignored people showing up on my screen as ignore's, I'd like them to be totally gone. Like they simply did not exist. I don't even want to see that 36 posts are being ignored.</quote> I'll think about adding that, but it'll most likely be disabled by default if I do. <b>Craig</b><i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#100</b> "Craig" wrote... <quote><B>Barneyque</B> (#51): <quote>Craig: I'd like to request a feature. Instead of Ignored people showing up on my screen as ignore's, I'd like them to be totally gone. Like they simply did not exist. I don't even want to see that 36 posts are being ignored.</quote> I'll think about adding that, but it'll most likely be disabled by default if I do. <B>Craig</B></quote> That's cool, your the Chief. Whatever you decide. It's somthing I'd certainly find usefull when a thread is being ambushed as like what happened to this one last night. Thanks for considering it though. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#99</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Ok, you seem to be providing yourself squeek room when discussing piracy and theft, but I'd say you need to do more work get get over the copywrite issue, that's a stumbling block still.</quote> And see, I think that the "squeak room" there involves the ephemeral nature of software itself. The problem with software as opposed to, say, Mickey Mouse, is that the monetary potential of software is markedly short-lived. No one is using WordStar anymore. No one is playing Avoid the Noid. As the industry evolves, so does software - and much gets left behind. For the most part, abandonware advocates play these games for purely nostalgic purposes. Otherwise, it's to learn something or play a game you haven't played but heard about. I have never and will never support "abandonware" of games that are still for sale in one way or another. As I stated before, I would gladly pay a fee of $5-$10 to play any of these old games. That mechanism simply isn't there for most games. So, let's look at the definition of copyright again, forgeting that which was in the FOLDOC: <quote>The legal right granted to an author, a composer, a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.</quote>Pretty unwavering. But there's nothing there about when said right-holder refuses to publish their work. What happens then? It's the legal grey area that we are currently involved in.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
On the subject of licenses, the whole licensing scheme used by software companies is ludicrous--mainly, the part you agree to that says you accept the product "as-is", regardless if it's a piece of shit that doesn't do what you though it would do. That little bit coupled with the no-return policy of most retailers pretty much dooms the end-user if the program is a POS.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#102</b> "asspennies" wrote... <quote><B>#99</B> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Ok, you seem to be providing yourself squeek room when discussing piracy and theft, but I'd say you need to do more work get get over the copywrite issue, that's a stumbling block still.</quote> And see, I think that the "squeak room" there involves the ephemeral nature of software itself. The problem with software as opposed to, say, Mickey Mouse, is that the monetary potential of software is markedly short-lived. No one is using WordStar anymore. No one is playing Avoid the Noid. As the industry evolves, so does software - and much gets left behind. For the most part, abandonware advocates play these games for purely nostalgic purposes. Otherwise, it's to learn something or play a game you haven't played but heard about. I have never and will never support "abandonware" of games that are still for sale in one way or another. As I stated before, I would gladly pay a fee of $5-$10 to play any of these old games. That mechanism simply isn't there for most games. So, let's look at the definition of copyright again, forgeting that which was in the FOLDOC: <quote>The legal right granted to an author, a composer, a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.</quote>Pretty unwavering. But there's nothing there about when said right-holder refuses to publish their work. What happens then? It's the legal grey area that we are currently involved in.</quote> Just so you know, I'm certainly not looking to round up a bunch of guys in a truck, and go looking for classicgamers, I'm arguing from a purly logical, 'what does the law say' point of view. I even downloaded a little piece of gamming history just the other night. It was a scarry enough experience to ensure I never do that again. A game I held in high regard nearly scared the hair right off my skin. It was brutal. In light of that, and to preserve the memory I hold of my old favorites, I'm not going to be doing that again. Having said that, lets look at your last bit. What it say's about when the right's holder is being a tightass, is nothing, because that is not an exception, the coptwrite gives the holder permission to do just that. Evil aint it?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#103</b> "Ergo" wrote... <quote>On the subject of licenses, the whole licensing scheme used by software companies is ludicrous--mainly, the part you agree to that says you accept the product "as-is", regardless if it's a piece of shit that doesn't do what you though it would do. That little bit coupled with the no-return policy of most retailers pretty much dooms the end-user if the program is a POS.</quote> Agreed. I think it's almost criminal that the customer is left with a pretty much 'like or lump it' recourse in pretty much any case. I hear there are stores that allow returns, but I've not found one yet.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#104</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote> What it say's about when the right's holder is being a tightass, is nothing, because that is not an exception, the coptwrite gives the holder permission to do just that. Evil aint it?</quote> It sure is - and it's why software copyrights should be (and I believe they are) considerably different than other copyrights. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5-year, or at least a 10-year rule on software applications - that is, the applications themselves, not the underlying code or unique proccesses - being thrown into public domain at that point. I would argue that reasonable xtensions could and should be made available if the holder can prove that the software is still profitable. But sticking to the letter of the law in violation of the spirit of the law (which I beleive my proposal is in) is never a good foundation. I'd like to point out that I brought up the "legal and semantic" argument originally because I didn't appreciate, nor agree, with George Broussard labeling abandonware advocates as theives - I still hardly think that is justified. I recognize that it is only in a developer's best interests to disagree with this proposal - Still, I hope you will at least read it and ponder it, instead of just glossing it over as some punk who wants free games.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Electronics Boutique and Software Etc. allow unconditional returns of software, but they're the only ones I can think of, and they're US chains. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>GeorgeBroussard</b> (#84): <quote>It's just a new spin on piracy. </quote> More like Piracy without losses <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
It's just a new spin on piracy. More like Piracy without losses which is, of course, a new spin on piracy. exactly what george said. |
|
Oh boy, talk about great timing. (Is that the correct spelling?) Check out this article. I wanted to snip a few good quotes in regards to this thread, but there are too many. http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTechNews0101/02_kendall-can.html<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
And see, I think that the "squeak room" there involves the ephemeral nature of software itself. It's hardly ephemeral if you've created it yourself. Whether I wrote something yesterday or today is irrelevant, as is whether or not it'll run on today's machine; I created it, and I alone get to decide what can be done with it. The problem with software as opposed to, say, Mickey Mouse, is that the monetary potential of software is markedly short-lived. No one is using WordStar anymore. No one is playing Avoid the Noid. As the industry evolves, so does software - and much gets left behind. The monetary argument is irrelevant. Just because there's no way to buy something doesn't change its status; the law says nothing about money. You don't have to charge for something to have a copyright on it. Don't forget that you made a choice and elected to upgrade your computer; you, in effect, left that old software behind when you bought that 386/486/Pentium/Windows/whatever. There are still computers that will run that software in the world. That the industry involves isn't the fault of the creators, and it doesn't justify violating copyright laws. |
|
"Electronics Boutique and Software Etc. allow unconditional returns of software, but they're the only ones I can think of, and they're US chains." Only to a point, they will deny your ass if your are a constant returner or try to screw them in some way...or they know the game was a total POS... |
|
<b>#7</b> "player11" wrote... <quote>classicgaming.com isn't really abandonware, its just another emu site with roms. Which i have no problems with. So go download some classics bitches! Do they have CPS2 roms yet? :P So go forth to classicgaming and download Street Fighter II for CPS1 grab the emulator and remember why its one of the greatest games of all time. Then download some classics for mame. Then System16, then Raine, then move to Neo Geo. So dont be bitching about classicgaming.com sure its just a site of roms but in its keeping these old games alive on peoples harddrives, which is a great thing,</quote> Classicgaming.com is still allowing people to steal, whether or not it's a rom or PC game. A company that gets so pissy over warez links in their forums should not have a theives paradise in their group of sites. Old games or not, it's wrong and they know it, why do you think Wolf or Doom isn't on classic gaming.com? <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>toadwarrior</b> (#113): <quote> Old games or not, it's wrong and they know it, why do you think Wolf or Doom isn't on classic gaming.com? </quote> Well, forget about ClassicGaming.com for a moment, but did you notice that the Worlds In Boxes article included a link to Doom? But only the *demo* version. I've seen Doom in abandonware archives, same as all the other linked games, but clearly someone involved with the article decided that Doom doesn't count as abandonware. But then, they decided that Gateway does, even though Legend have expressly forbidden distribution. This is what is most interesting about this whole situation for me, the fact that people who didn't work on a game and have no control over its copyright think they should be the ones who decided if and when it's up for grabs. They think their opinion outweighs the copyright holder's rights. Plain arrogance, or something else? |
|
<b>#12</b> "Atma" wrote... <quote> The difference between abandonware PC games and abandonware console ROMs is great. Console ROMs are "morally okay" to make an illegal copy of because most people's consoles have long since gone ka-put. If i wanted to play 'Sentinel Wars: Future Magic' (circa 1988, EA), I could. Why? Because it was written for DOS (aka Win9x). Anybody with a computer that runs Windows 95/98/ME could still play Sentinel Wars, 13 years later! </quote> Totally wrong. You can find virtually all the games you'd want for a console and even the console but you gotta pay. Even arcade units can be bought and they're not hard at all to find. Any console stuff can be found via Ebay or the right newsgroup. Some stuff, like the Genesis and SNES stuff can even still be bought in regular stores. Anyone claiming they need to steal N64, PSX or Dreamcast games because they can't find them, is a bull shitter. Old PC games don't always run right on a PC but that doesn't really matter, you can't buy MULE so you'd actually have more of an excuse to warez PC games. You shouldn't steal either because you can find both. I wanted the Q1 mission packs, could not find one store off or online that had it. Rather than steal it, I went to Activision. Who has them at their store. Claiming you can't find the original software(or hardware) is BS because you can. Some companies are still profiting on old games. One company is releasing arcade units that play hundreds of old games on one unit. An arcade operator can have all the arcade games from the 80's on one machine. Also, King of Fighters '98 isn't exactly outdated but it's on MAME. Some companies even sell legit roms for old systems(as well as carts) and roms hurt their business and make those old "classics" disks that publishers put out less attractive. There's money being made off those old games, the excuse that you can't find them or no one's making money off them is BS. It's harder to find legit copies of old PC games so if anything shold be ok to steal, it's PC games but better yet, don't steal anyone's stuff. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#28</b> "the_reformed_pianist" wrote... <quote>YEAH!!! Put that in your cock and smoke it, backspace!!! Can you <B>feel</B> that???</quote> Tit head<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#114</b> "Andy" wrote... <quote> Well, forget about ClassicGaming.com for a moment, but did you notice that the Worlds In Boxes article included a link to Doom? But only the *demo* version. </quote> They wouldn't dare piss off Carmack because too many people will listen to him. If some employee from Technos complain about people playing River City Ransom on a NES emulator, he'll get laughed at. Not to mention if Carmack wanted to, he could probably make it so Q3 won't work with their crap and perhaps continue to do that with Id's future games.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#48</b> "Hambone" wrote... <quote>#25 <quote>Example.. cause id released the source code for Doom 1....... does it mean doom 1 is abandonware?! nope.. </quote> What kind of stupid person logic do you use to figure that one? If I can download the source code, and download a free C compiler, then compile the source code, then why the hell couldn't I just skip those steps and download the fucking game? id doesn't give a rats ass, and neither should you.</quote> The source code only gives you the engine, not the graphics or sounds, dumbass. You can compile that code and get a nice little .exe file but it won't let you play Doom, so no the free source code isn't the same as the game. The worst part of Quake being open sourced is now there's people asking where they can download the full verson of Quake now that it's open sourced and they do this almost daily. Free source code does not equal free game. The actual content isn't free.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#61</b> "Zdim" wrote... <quote>Zork I - III have been freeware for a quite a few years now, as confirmed by Activision whenever this issue comes up. The version of M.U.L.E. we (the GameSpy.com Worlds In Boxes article) posted was a zip containing the c-64 ROM, the manual (which is VERY hard to find) and the ccs64 emulator with full documentation. My thought here is that if someone is willing to go through all of the trouble to run M.U.L.E. this way, then they REALLY want to see the game, if for the first time (which would be a boon for a budding designer) or to relive old fond memories of this classic strategy/arcade game. </quote> Doesn't matter if it's a rom or not. Why would stealing the rom be any better than stealing the PC version? <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#75</b> "asspennies" wrote... <quote> That argument does not hold water in the case of software. If you steal my car you are <B>depriving me of a car.</B> If you copy my software, you are depriving me of <B>nothing</B>, save what you would normally owe me for purchase. And if it is no longer available for purchase? </quote> But you deprive the developer the right to resell his product. If every can get Wolfenstien for free, why would they buy it if Id sells a anniversary edition? There's a company that's basically made a arcade unit that's an emulator, they buy the rights to put the games on it, they do and sell it. Who's gonna play it when you can get all those games for free? The company is deprived of sales because he can't sell his units to an arcade operator if no one's willing to pay to play. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: 'Free' games from GameSpy: Abandonware or piracy?
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 91 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2004 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|