Controversial

[Def Zeppelin]

I would like to discuss something controversial.  The use of Abandonware, why is it immoral?  Why is it good for some, and look at as being cheap to others?  Abandonware is just that, games/programs that are abandoned.

I recently bought KQ5 from an eBayer and I am happy with the product.  But the thing is they have the same thing for free elsewhere.  You might be thinking: "Shut up you cheapo, and buy the game" but the things is Sierra stopped making the game, and I hear that Sierra even died.  So shouldn't that mean the game should become freeware?  If the game were still being sold by the company, which it isn't I would gladly pay whatever they asked.  Even if it were $50 I would pay it, because the amount of effort put into this game still lives on.  But they don't, and I feel it is a bit silly to buy a product from individuals who happen to find these games still lying around in there warehouses.

Technically it is illegal, but I do not see why it is.  If the company dropped the game, then they shouldn't complain.  They should complain if anyone steals their gaming ideas and uses it for profit, I can understand that.  They could use those ideas in future projects and make profits.  But the thing is the game is dead, it isn't being sold by the company anymore, they barely know of it's existence.  So why should I have to feel obligated to pay some guy for a game he didn't even make?  The company is losing nothing from this, and if anything they are gaining.  They are gaining new fans by being able to play a type of game they have never experienced, and that can mean big bucks for the future.  But that's my take on it

What does everyone else think?

[Warlock]

Per the law it is illegal, a company still holds the rights to a game even after it has been discontinued, there is no question about this.

You will find that if the law was changed all sorts of loop-holes would be created that could cause quite a bit of chaos, I'm sorry but, abandonware is illegal and should remain illegal, otherwise why even have laws?

The distrubution of a product, even for no profit, could still jeopadize the company in question's abillity to profit on it themselves in the future, etc etc... I think it is quite fair that if you create something, it is yours to do with as you like, and noone should be allowed to distribute it without your consent...

[Def Zeppelin]

Most laws imo, do not make any sense.  Such as this one.  Maybe it's used to stop loop-holes, but people are still going to do what they are going to do.  You can't keep an eye on every customer. Just because it is illegal shouldn't mean it is automatically immoral.  There are times when something is perfectly ok to do, then as soon as they put a law against, it turns immoral.  

If anything, it seems immoral to me for someone to sell a game that they didn't even create.  Even though the law says thats ok, I still think it's a bit off.

Let me give you an example, there are abandonware copies of Monkey island.  Doesn't mean I'll subsitute that for buying the game.  The game is still being produced by the company, making it accessible to the public.  So that means I would buy the game instead of d/ling it for free.  If they are still selling it, and you use abandonware of that game, then I feel that's immoral.  Otherwise, I really don't care what the law says about this.

P.S. I am not discussing whether or not this is illegal.  We already know that it is.  I am talking about if it's immoral or not.

[Yonkey]

I think the major issue with abandonware is that the company itself does not declare their products as "abandoned".  Some outside party decides to distribute them either for free or to make their own profit simply because the company is no longer selling it.  A company owns the rights to their products until they sell them to someone else.  

To take a good example, Dew keeps saying that Windows 9x will no longer be supported by Microsoft after June 2006.  Should this mean everyone that owns Win9x is automatically permitted to set up warez sites with those programs because they can no longer buy them?  If Microsoft found out about sites doing this, do you think they would just disregard them?  Definitely not.

[Vipt]

Yes, I know what you mean. However, it is still their intellectual property, so you can understand why some might not find the idea of their game being sent hither and thither all over the internet very comforting. Plus, internet pirated games are sometime modified (though not usually with games released on the computer), and that's really an infringement on intellectual property rights. Also, companies like to prevent the pirating of currently unavailable games because they might want to release a collection in which the game is included sometime in the future. So there are some legitimate reasons for wanting to prevent the pirating of discontinued games. I however wouldn't put it this kind of pirating on the same level as say, going into a store and stealing a bike, lol.

[Warlock]

P.S. I am not discussing whether or not this is illegal.  We already know that it is.  I am talking about if it's immoral or not.

Breaking the law is immoral, in my opinion

I think it is quite immoral to allow the distribution of a product to people that aren't licensed to do so..

I also agree with Neil that a game hasn't been dropped by a company just because it is no longer destributed.

If you had created something, wouldn't you like to be in control over whether anyone can just copy and give it away as they like without your permission?

I understand your point of view, it SUCKS when a game is no longer being sold, but honestly, that is how it works, I don't think it is immoral, because how else would you have it work? One thing is not being satisfied, another is knowing what would work better...

And as it is, nothing really would.. unless you really want things to become 'immoral'

[MATTANDALEX]

I think unless the comany has droped all the rights or they give the people permission* to, it is immoral

*like al lowes site

[Say]

Hey! I get sick and right away you pop up a new "controversial" thread behind my back, how dare you! lol *cough*

Anyhow, I must say that this is "ok" for now, but at the MINIMAL WEIRD POST I shall lock it, whoever who pushes it, I'll just delete the thread all together. Why?, same old same old, I don't know how the few ones around here from PC topics may go to politics, and from Harry Potter to religion, we used to allow topics like that before, and some just simply can't keep clean comments without being extremely sharp bordering offensive so, watch it. Period. You've been warned already. And this warning goes especially to all forum mods as well.


Post nicely at your own responsability.

[Jeysie]

There's another way to look at this as well...

Namely, the preservation of art/creative works. There are several abandonware sites (Home of the Underdogs, for instance) who look at abandonware in the sense of making sure that old computer games are never lost to the masses. When a game is no longer distributed at all, but instead is left to languish in whatever passes for storage at a company, there's a distinct possibility that a game might eventually be forever lost. (Computer media doesn't last forever after all.)

Add to this the fact that games have incredibly short life cycles compared to other forms of creative work, and you eventually end up with lots of gamers who have never had a chance to experience the roots of the hobby... and lots of gamers who can no longer find or play their old favorites. Games aren't like utility software/etc. ... a newer game with modern graphics, et al is not necessarily a full-function replacement for an older game.

The nature of the business makes it really difficult to walk the line between fairness to businesses, and ensuring that the creative work is preserved and available. Companies, after all, often make money off creating remakes and re-releases of old games after several years, and having the game available as abandonware before that time might hurt things.

I really wish that software companies would create something akin to some of the movements in the film industry... try to create some kind of official preservation "museum" of some sort. Then set up guidelines... a game not commercially available after x number of years, or available for an obsolete platform, or the company's gone out of business, or something like that.

I suppose it may sound kind of silly to worry about this sort of thing (I mean, there's an endless debate over whether or not computer games even count as worthwhile art), but I lament the thought of *any* type of creative art being lost to the public. To me, the state of many old games feels kind of like someone buying the original of a Da Vinci painting, locking it in an unused corner of their attic, and refusing to let anyone see it or make/purchase a copy print of it. Yes, that's legal, but it's not exactly culturally fair.

I personally prefer to buy "hard copies" of games, secondhand or otherwise, especially if the company themself still sells them. And I hope that one day there will be created a method that balances keeping old games available to the public while ensuring that companies get to profit off the games. (Some sort of collective middleman distribution with royalty payments, perhaps?) But until then, no, I don't personally find abandonware to be immoral. If we strive to have books from centuries past still available to read, and TV shows and films from decades past available to watch, I don't see why we shouldn't have games from a few years back available to play. I fall firmly on the "games are also culturally viable and protectable art" side of things.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Def Zeppelin]

Jeysie Wins  

[Jeysie]

Well, I wouldn't say that I win. IMHO, abandonware is, at best, a temporary and imperfect solution. I mulled it over, and came up with the following addendum to my thoughts:

***

Problem #1: General Copyright Law.

I am not a lawyer, so anyone who is (is Jael still around?), correct me if I get anything wrong. I think the gist of copyright law is supposed to work like this:

1. Person thinks up idea.

2. Person has the exclusive right to use (or not use) their idea however they wish during their lifetime.

3. Person dies, or otherwise becomes unable or unwilling to manage the use of their idea.

4. After a period of time, the idea passes into the public domain. Society can now use or not use the idea in whatever way they wish.

Net result: Person benefits/profits from their idea during their lifetime, society benefits/profits from managing the idea after the creator is no longer able to. This is a good thing.

The problem is, now it tends to work a lot more like this:

1. Person thinks up idea.

2. Person gives up some or all of their idea rights to a company.

2. Company has some or all of the exclusive right to use (or not use) the idea however they wish as long as the company exists.

3. Company lasts for many decades, or sells all their assets to a new company, including intellectual rights. New company then lasts for many decades, or sells *their* assets, etc. As a result, the company in charge of managing the idea never "dies", or otherwise becomes unable or unwilling to manage the use of the idea.

4. The idea never passes into the public domain so society can now use or not use the idea in whatever way they wish.

Net result: The person may or may not benefit/profit from their idea during their lifetime. The company benefits/profits from managing the idea indefinitely. Society never benefits/profits from managing the idea. This is *not* a good thing.

That's problem number 1.

Problem #2: Computer-software-specific.

Let's say, for the sake of simplifying things a bit, we have an author and a programmer. The author exclusively has all the rights they're due to the creation of their novel, and the programmer exclusively has all the rights they're due to the creation of their software.

Several decades from now, the author and programmer both die.

Author's novel passes into the public domain. Books likely still consist of some form of printed words, so the novel can still physically be accessed.

Programmer's software passes into the public domain. Computers have advanced considerably in the intervening decades. Nobody can physically access the program, making the fact that they're legally able to rather moot.

***

So, the question of whether or not abandonware is immoral definitely depends on what perspective you're looking at things from. Like, for instance, whether or not you consider the above things to actually be problems.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Petter Holmberg]

Remember that when you buy a game, a move, a record or book etc. you are paying for two things:

1: The actual, physical content (i.e. the packaging, printing, disc pressing and so on). Of course money was spent on manufacturing these things so you're paying for that work.

2: The right to enjoy a copy of the copyrighted media for your personal use (unless the copyright notice says otherwise).

Point 2 is the interesting one. In everyday lingo, you say "I bought this movie yesterday" or something, but technically it is not true. You have bought the right to take part of the movie, under a certain license. If you go to a movie theatre you buy the right to see the movie once at a specific time and location. If you buy the DVD later, you buy the right to enjoy it any number of times.

The same goes for a game. If you download abandonware that is still proteceted under copyright law (which pretty much all software is because it's not old enough not to be) then you are technically in violation of the copyright, i.e. you did not obtain permission to play the game from the copyright holder.

Sierra may be dead, but VU Games owned it, and therefore obtained all of their copyrights, registered trademarks and patents.

[Jeysie]

We all know that abandonware is illegal... that's not what the initial poster was asking. (Your response could be construed as stating you also feel that breaking the law is always immoral, though I don't want to assume unless you specifically state that...)

Though, incidentally, your last paragraph illustrates my main gripe with the current state of copyright law. Sierra didn't create the game (the employees who created it did), and VU Games not only didn't create the game, they never even sold it or cared about it. Furthermore, the idea can never pass into the public domain (or, by the time it does, the nature of software/hardware advance will render the program unusable), because the copyright holder exists in perpetuity.

It's a situation where the letter of the law starts violating what is, IMHO, the spirit of the law. (That is to say, ensuring a fair balance between the *creator* of the idea benefitting and society benefitting.)

Peace & Luv, Liz