Abandonware

[Frank]

Is it still legal when you once owned it, but lost it / threw it away?

Is it when the owners go out of business?

Because, the point that you cannot buy it anymore is void. You can still buy all of it, if you try long and hard enough. Only that the official owners don't sell or benefit anymore sounds good.

[Richard]

Is it still legal when you once owned it, but lost it / threw it away?

Is it when the owners go out of business?

Because, the point that you cannot buy it anymore is void. You can still buy all of it, if you try long and hard enough. Only that the official owners don't sell or benefit anymore sounds good.

Owners going out of business doesn't change matters as there is no God given right that stipulates: You Shalt be Able to Play Any Game Known to Man. Owners going out of business only matters in Davros' situation in that other thread where the media is unreadable, etc.

Not finding it for sale: there's always eBay, etc. I've also heard the argument: "but I can't find it for x dollars" but again, I know not of any God commandment that says games have to be affordable.

Losing it or throwing it away is that person's own fault.

The only situation where "abandonware" is legal is when the copyright owner explicitly forgoes his right to commercial exploitation of the work. In which case, the software becomes freeware.

[INKster]

The case of GTA, GTA 2 and Wild Metal Country from Rockstar, for example (http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/).

[Frank]

So, there doesn't exist something like abandonware, and there is nothing you can download legally unless it's OpenSource or Freeware, even if the local laws of the poster say it's perfectly fine to do so?

From what perspective? Do we have to abide to the US rules in this forum, no matter where the posters live and what their local laws have to say about it? Like, it being illegal to circumvent any copy protection, like by using a No-CD patch? Could you guys post that in a FAQ sticky, so nobody inadvertedly gets banned by only complying to the rules of their own country?

[nutball]

So, there doesn't exist something like abandonware

Is there a legal definition of abandonware under Dutch copyright law?

<snip>

[Frank]

No, but there is no case if there is no active seller. No victim. So, a company would lose if they don't actively offer it up for sale anymore.

[Richard]

No, but there is no case if there is no active seller. No victim. So, a company would lose if they don't actively offer it up for sale anymore.

Again, that's a not a valid reason, as I mentioned, not existing someone that can sell you the game does not entitle you to play that game. Here's an extreme situation: what if the copyright holder just doesn't want to sell the game anymore? Someone copying it, because he can't find it for sale, would not be taking away any sale either. It's about rights, not money.

As for which jurisdiction people should follow, someone with more knowledge of International Law should comment, but from my limited understanding you use whichever is mentioned in the legal text for your particular product, unless local laws contradict it.

Could you guys post that in a FAQ sticky, so nobody inadvertedly gets banned by only complying to the rules of their own country?

Actually, since Rys resides in the U.K. and is ultimately the one responsible for the site it's more likely U.K. law is the yardstick to use.

[Frank]

Again, that's a not a valid reason, as I mentioned, not existing someone that can sell you the game does not entitle you to play that game. Here's an extreme situation: what if the copyright holder just doesn't want to sell the game anymore? Someone copying it, because he can't find it for sale, would not be taking away any sale either. It's about rights, not money.

As for which jurisdiction people should follow, someone with more knowledge of International Law should comment, but from my limited understanding you use whichever is mentioned in the legal text for your particular product, unless local laws contradict it.
Ok, but that is truly high moral ground: it doesn't matter if it's legal, only that it would philosophically be the wrong thing to do, if you think about all the implications real hard, and go out of your way to please the produces, who also came up with all the stuff that can make it really hard for a honest buyer who follows all the rules to enjoy it.

Holier than the Pope?


Actually, since Rys resides in the U.K. and is ultimately the one responsible for the site it's more likely U.K. law is the yardstick to use.Well, that makes things a lot easier. Not Danish-easy, but much more lentient than the extremely pro-business and against-consumers US rules.

[Davros]

something would only be abondonware if the publisher went down without being taken over or any assets being sold to a third party and they didnt have any creditors

[Zaphod]

Again, that's a not a valid reason, as I mentioned, not existing someone that can sell you the game does not entitle you to play that game. Here's an extreme situation: what if the copyright holder just doesn't want to sell the game anymore? Someone copying it, because he can't find it for sale, would not be taking away any sale either. It's about rights, not money.Sadly, that's the way it has grown to be, but this interpretation of copyright law is a rather crass distortion of the original intent of copyright legislation.

Exclusive rights to creative works were granted in order to promote "progress of science and the useful arts". The need for such rights (way back when) were the prohibitive costs of publishing a book, sheet music, or distributing a scientific journal. The real investment in access to print and the logistics of distribution were not insignificant, and a monetary incentive (to encourage publishers to print and distribute works) was necessary.

In the digital age: not so much, and the idea of copyrights as a means to prohibit no cost distribution of desired works 'just because you can' is quite contrary to the spirit of the law.

It's ironic then that, as distribution costs continue to go down, copyright terms have been gradually and vastly extended by corporate lobbying, and that most holders of publishing rights to creative works are in no sense of the word 'creative' entities themselves when it comes to adapting to a changing environment.

Progress of science and the useful arts indeed.

[Davros]

copyright terms have been gradually and vastly extended by corporate lobbying, .

Thats the mickey mouse theory. The u.s goverment will continually extend copyright terms because it will never let disney lose the copyright and trademark of said mouse

[Zaphod]

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of copyrights (author's exclusive rights for a set period of time) to a large degree (the principle is sound, its real world application increasingly insane), it's just the absurd and illogical reasoning that goes contrary to its original intention and erosion of exemptions that pisses me off. An industry that was built based on a set of legal procedures to protect authors because distribution was hard and expensive have turned the fact that the whole basis of their necessity is eroding into a rationale for tightening legislative practice in their favor? Had we applied that kind of reasoning to other aspects of society, the world would have ground to an abrupt halt ages ago. The mind boggles.