Adventure Forums - View Single Post - Abandonware -legal Or Not-?

***fov*** · 05-03-2005, 08:23 AM

People assume that these games are never going to be profitable again, so why shouldn't we be able to download them? But they *could* be profitable again. Look at the Turner Network project Fairygdmther linked to yesterday -- something like that DEPENDS on games not being available for free download. No one's going to pay for a service to play old games when they could (illegally) do so for free. These big companies, like Vivendi, wouldn't hold on to the copyrights if they didn't think they were worth something. And we may not like it, but corporations are under no obligation to throw away their assets just because fans demand it. Every time this comes up, I'm a little surprised by the sense of entitlement so many gamers seem to feel about these old games. I love the oldies as much as anyone else, but I don't feel like the companies that made them (or the companies that own the copyrights now) OWE me anything, just because I'm a fan.

As for the comparison between games and books, it's not true that books stay available indefinitely. A lot go out of print, and then you run into the same problem you do with old games -- they're very expensive to buy, and it's illegal (but maybe not immoral?) to photocopy them. But no matter what the medium, consumers don't get to decide what's illegal and what's not based on their individual wants. Copyright laws are in place for a reason... to protect the people involved with something's creation.

I can't give you a list of game developers who support or don't support abandonware (but maybe some of the devs who frequent this forum will weigh in). What I can say, from a writer's perspective, is that people who create things make decisions and compromises when it comes to getting their creations published. A writer may need to decide between giving copyrights to a large publishing house (and losing control of them) or retaining them but not getting as nice of a publishing deal. That's something every writer needs to decide for him or herself, and in a perfect world, a smart writer won't sign away his or her rights for the momentary excitement of seeing their name in print. But the world of publishing is hardly perfect, and unfortunately, people sign their rights away all the time.

I imagine the same struggles exist for game developers. There are creators who have retained the rights to their games, or who have worked out deals with the copyright holders. And there are others who haven't, but they knew when they were working on the game (and working FOR a particular company) that this would be the case. For fans to consistently ignore the companies who own the copyrights -- companies that, in many cases, supplied a lot of money and resources to get those games made -- is ignorant and counter-productive. Pissed off that Vivendi and LucasArts own copyrights to the games you want to play? Think of it this way: if the companies who now own the copyrights hadn't put up their money and staff in the first place, those games wouldn't exist at all. Don't tell me that Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer or Jane Jensen could have achieved the same things as one person alone in a garage. The companies get to retain something for the risk that they took -- the game's copyright, to do with it what they want.

05-03-2005, 08:23 AM	#17
*fov* Rattenmonster Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco Posts: 10,404	People assume that these games are never going to be profitable again, so why shouldn't we be able to download them? But they could be profitable again. Look at the Turner Network project Fairygdmther linked to yesterday -- something like that DEPENDS on games not being available for free download. No one's going to pay for a service to play old games when they could (illegally) do so for free. These big companies, like Vivendi, wouldn't hold on to the copyrights if they didn't think they were worth something. And we may not like it, but corporations are under no obligation to throw away their assets just because fans demand it. Every time this comes up, I'm a little surprised by the sense of entitlement so many gamers seem to feel about these old games. I love the oldies as much as anyone else, but I don't feel like the companies that made them (or the companies that own the copyrights now) OWE me anything, just because I'm a fan. As for the comparison between games and books, it's not true that books stay available indefinitely. A lot go out of print, and then you run into the same problem you do with old games -- they're very expensive to buy, and it's illegal (but maybe not immoral?) to photocopy them. But no matter what the medium, consumers don't get to decide what's illegal and what's not based on their individual wants. Copyright laws are in place for a reason... to protect the people involved with something's creation. I can't give you a list of game developers who support or don't support abandonware (but maybe some of the devs who frequent this forum will weigh in). What I can say, from a writer's perspective, is that people who create things make decisions and compromises when it comes to getting their creations published. A writer may need to decide between giving copyrights to a large publishing house (and losing control of them) or retaining them but not getting as nice of a publishing deal. That's something every writer needs to decide for him or herself, and in a perfect world, a smart writer won't sign away his or her rights for the momentary excitement of seeing their name in print. But the world of publishing is hardly perfect, and unfortunately, people sign their rights away all the time. I imagine the same struggles exist for game developers. There are creators who have retained the rights to their games, or who have worked out deals with the copyright holders. And there are others who haven't, but they knew when they were working on the game (and working FOR a particular company) that this would be the case. For fans to consistently ignore the companies who own the copyrights -- companies that, in many cases, supplied a lot of money and resources to get those games made -- is ignorant and counter-productive. Pissed off that Vivendi and LucasArts own copyrights to the games you want to play? Think of it this way: if the companies who now own the copyrights hadn't put up their money and staff in the first place, those games wouldn't exist at all. Don't tell me that Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer or Jane Jensen could have achieved the same things as one person alone in a garage. The companies get to retain something for the risk that they took -- the game's copyright, to do with it what they want.