[LauraMac]

puts copyright/trademark attorney hat on.....

Here's the facts. Do as you think best - but this is the exiting US/International treaty governed law on these matters and the rationale behind them

Software and Copyright Law
FAQ's and Posting Guidelines

There has been a huge amount of discussion recently generated on the web and in gaming circles about software copyright law and related matters. Here is some information that may help answer basic questions that have come up, such as:

What can I do with the software that I own?

What does the law really prohibit?

Does copying of software really matter?

What about old games?

Q. What exactly does the law say about copying software?

A. The law says that it is illegal to make or distribute copies of copyrighted material, including software, without authorization. If you do so, this is piracy, and you may face not only a civil suit, but also fines of up to $150,000 and jail terms of up to 5 years. The law applies equally to schools, businesses, non-profits and individuals making and/or distributing software and content.

Q. So I'm never allowed to copy software for any reason?

A. If a backup copy was not included in the box with your original diskettes or if the software instructs you to make backup copies when you turn on a new computer, you are permitted to make one copy in order to have both a working copy and a backup copy of the program. Copyright law prohibits you from making additional copies of the software for any other reason without the permission of the software company. If the publisher has authorized any exceptions to the copyright law, they will be stated in the license agreements that accompany all software products.

Q. But how come I can copy movies and that isn't illegal. Isn't it the same thing?

A. The Court decision that expanded on the fair use portion of the copyright law that applies to video recordings is a very narrow exception to copyright law and is strictly limited to video recordings made from broadcasts. By copying an aired version of a movie/show you are not copying the tape itself. So there is no copyright involvement. It is still absolutely illegal to copy the tape itself. This exception was one of the key counter arguments put forth in the Napster case and they were rejected. In other words the courts refused to enlarge the exception created for video recordings to include sound recordings. It has also refused to extend that exception in preliminary rulings involving warez.

Q. I'll bet most of the people who copy software don't even know that they're breaking the law.

A. Because the software industry is relatively new and because copying software is so easy, many people are either unaware of the laws governing software use or choose to ignore them.

Q. So what harm does it do if I make just one copy for a friend?

A. Perhaps on an isolated basis none, but this occurs over and over again among thousands of users worldwide and the toll on the industry is undeniable. Although it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to go after a consumer or a burned copy of a game distributed to a few friends, there are other reasons to be wary. For one - there is no software support for illegal copies. Secondly, there is a real epidemic of virus transfer through infected CD's and even attached to cracked game downloads. Finally, it's just wrong and does cut deeply on an exponential basis into game profits. No profits - or at a minimum:no break even point - it's simple - NO MORE GAMES.

OK that is the staus of the laws in the US as based upon and upon incorporation of the international treaties and accords.

Next up .........

Q. So where does Adventure Gamers stand on all this?

In the membership agreement that we all agreed to when we registered, there's an area where we all said we would not post material that violated any laws. Yes, we know no one really reads those things, but it's there already and a great place to start. So there is an expressed policy of deleting posts that advocate, solicit or are by their content a violation of existing software copywrite laws.

1. Please don't post a request for a copy of a disc that seems to be missing from your game box.

2. Don't advertise that you have a copy of that hot new (but expensive game) and to be nice, who would like it.

3. You know a great warez site or the location where some games has been cracked and is waiting to be downloaded into greedy cheap gaming hands? Don't even think about posting a link.

It's simple - burning copies, downloads of a game - they are illegal, except for permissable back ups made by the purchaser. If you have to pick the lock - it's theft...period. So such posts will not be allowed to stay on the board, not only for liability reasons, but out of respect for the many game developers who post and read our forums.

*****************************************

There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country basically depends on the national laws of that country.

However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions.

There are two principal international copyright conventions, the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (Berne Convention) and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC).

Their terms parallel the US current copyright laws and vice versa.

********************************

attorney hat off

[AFGNCAAP]

Ikari: actually, rights to the particular game and rights to the whole IP or brand in general are completely different things. For example, Revolution did release Beneath a Steel Sky free to distribute, but that doesn't mean its charactes became public domain or something.

Which brings me to the question I've got to Fov: I vaguely recall you being enthusiastic about AGDInteractive's Sierra remakes. Do you think these guys are more fair to the copyright owners than a person who runs Underdogs?

And one more thing to all: NOBODY here said that illegal things are automatically become immoral, so stop this ridiculous arguing against that or I'll personally pan you!

[LauraMac]

And one more thing to all: NOBODY here said that illegal things are automatically become immoral, so stop this ridiculous arguing against that or I'll personally pan you!

Oh good - Thanks I don't have much thought or time to people's morality plays regarding these things. It's the law - break it - keep it - your choice.



So can we take certain parties off the death watch list now.

[fov]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Which brings me to the question I've got to Fov: I vaguely recall you being enthusiastic about AGDInteractive's Sierra remakes. Do you think these guys are more fair to the copyright owners than a person who runs Underdogs?

Actually, AGDI has a deal with Vivendi that allows them to remake Sierra games.

However, this has not always been the case (initially they just made the games with the statement that they would take them down if Sierra / Vivendi asked them to - similar to what HOTU says), and I supported them even then. Fan games that use trademarked characters and copyrighted material are not legal, by any stretch of the imagination. But there is a difference, to me, between creating your own work based on the work of others, and making other people's work available for download without their permission.

I never said I like the fact that old games are hard to find or that people who download them should go to hell. I never even said that I disagree with sites like HOTU doing what they do. The original question, though, was if abandonware is legal, and it's not. Whether or not people decide to download old games (or AGDI remakes or other fan games) is a personal decision. But is it legal? Absolutely not, and no amount of complaining about how unfair that is changes the law.

[Sage]

I have never bought a new computer. Every one that I have bought (over a hundred so far) has come from a thrift store or second-hand shop, used. The vast majority of these have contained games and programs which are no longer available, and I have on more than one occasion been sternly admonished for not immediately erasing this software since I did not also posess it's original install disks, as if the Software Gestapo might break down my door some dark night and seize the computer upon which I was playing the 1986 black-and-white version of "Tetris" and haul me off to the Game Publisher's version of Dachau.
I have given this subject some consideration, and submit the following proposal:
Ten years after any game's release date it becomes public domain to be copied freely at will by any and all unless it is formally and openly re-released by the party or parties who hold the copyright on the game prior to the ten year limit, in which case the copyright would be renewed from that second release date for an additional five years.
Realistically, the biggest portion of money that is made from any software is made during the first year or two of it's release, so this should be fair to the holder's of a game's copyright, and this would also force publishers to either re-release popular older games OR lose their exclusive copyright privileges to those games.
Does this seem fair to anyone else?

ScottMate

[AFGNCAAP]

Fov, thanks. And I hope you know I didn't mean to attack you or anything. I just want to try to look at the matter from different angles. Doing so, I had put aside the discussion whether abandonware is illegal merely because the answer should be obvious, and I can't understand people claiming otherwise.

Oh, and I perceive difference between "creating your own work based on the work of others, and making other people's work available for download without their permission" much more marginal than between the latter and stealing friend's jewellery. Other than that, believe me, I share the views you presented in this thread (so far) 100%.

[fov]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Oh, and I perceive difference between "creating your own work based on the work of others, and making other people's work available for download without their permission" much more marginal than between the latter and stealing friend's jewellery. Other than that, believe me, I share the views you presented in this thread (so far) 100%.

Well, I have been known to write stories involving trademarked / copyright protected characters, and I have not (yet) stolen a friend's jewelry. So I may have a bias there.

Scott - what you propose is very similar to how copyright law stands now, except that the expiration period is much longer (something like 80 years). The problem is that when copyright laws were written, there were no games or other forms of media that could become "extinct" so much more quickly. Maybe it should be revisited. Send your proposal to Congress!

[LauraMac]

I have often thought the law could be a bit more realistic on software life times and marketability.

On the other hand look at a game like Bad Mojo, out 10 years ago and now re-issued. Or Limbo of the Lost - originally in development for the Amiga console and home PC over 10 years ago and now ressurected and scheduled for release sometime late this year.

So 10 years may not be long enough to equitably protect copyrights. But the issue is relaxing the current length - for how long is another matter.

Find out which Congressional office is behind relaxation of US copyright laws and help em out. I am sure there is a lobbying or at least grass roots level group already in place trying to ease the restrictions or reach of exisiting copyright laws.

EDIT: Just saw Fovily's post - Heyyy again we post the same thought almost simultaniously - oooh spoooky.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I don't think the comparison is fair.
Books are still on sale, or still can be found in library, decades after they're been written.

Keeping your book in enough stores that you can make any money is as much of a fight as anything. Getting a work published doesn't magically mean it will continue to be published for all time - but there's always the chance that a few years down the line you could get it reprinted/republished... Of course that's probably out the window if you'd earlier declared that it was okay to release the book as a free PDF online.

[AFGNCAAP]

Ten years after any game's release date it becomes public domain to be copied freely at will by any and all unless it is formally and openly re-released by the party or parties who hold the copyright on the game prior to the ten year limit, in which case the copyright would be renewed from that second release date for an additional five years.
Realistically, the biggest portion of money that is made from any software is made during the first year or two of it's release, so this should be fair to the holder's of a game's copyright, and this would also force publishers to either re-release popular older games OR lose their exclusive copyright privileges to those games.
Does this seem fair to anyone else?

ScottMate

Personally, I would go as far as completely erasing the part you italicized. Basically, whoever came up with current amount of time needed for copyrights to expire (which I don't remember right now, but it's several decades) may have good intentions, but no foresight. Compare it to 25 years of such period in music industry - which is far less dependent on technology, has almost infinitely longer shelf life etc.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by LauraMac

Find out which Congressional office is behind relaxation of US copyright laws and help em out. I am sure there is a lobbying or at least grass roots level group already in place trying to ease the restrictions or reach of exisiting copyright laws.

And for every one of those there are about 8 Disneys trying to extend every facet of copyright law as long as possible. So, good luck with that.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by fov

Well, I have been known to write stories involving trademarked / copyright protected characters, and I have not (yet) stolen a friend's jewelry.

First time is always the hardest one.

[LauraMac]

And for every one of those there are about 8 Disneys trying to extend every facet of copyright law as long as possible. So, good luck with that.

Yep - which is why I won't be butting my head up against that one - just making a suggestion if he wants to pursue it.

I personally only butt my head up against things like people's rights being seriously watered down or disregarded. People in serious need of help for daily existance frivolities like food, shelter, medical care. and good luck on those things too. But at least they are well worth the headache

Originally Posted by fov
Well, I have been known to write stories involving trademarked / copyright protected characters, and I have not (yet) stolen a friend's jewelry.

I am not bringing jewelry to E3

[Jake]

Originally Posted by LauraMac

I am not bringing jewelry to E3

Whoa hey, neither am I! We're like twins!

[ikari]

Ninth: what I'm saying is that most of the companies do not care about the distribution of abandonware...I think is even better for them to have people who recognize their past works because when they release a new -for example- Monkey Island, people will be more enthusiast...It keeps the saga alive...
I think they just don't do it because it's better to let the fans do the work...if they would gift the Monkey Island I the game would loose importance...
but yes you're right ><

[LauraMac]

Whoa hey, neither am I! We're like twins!

Then there's that "Black Rider" connection. hmmm

Oh man - we always wondered where Mom had lost that one kid.....She was busy - forgot then it was 8 states later.

Brother!!

[SakSquash]

I can't believe how much this post has exploded, espc since it's been done to death before.

[insane_cobra]

My god, there's already a whole new page to read! But before I get to that...

Originally Posted by fov

As for why publishers hold on to rights when they have no apparent desire to do anything with them, look at Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude.

Okay, I'm gonna have to quote myself on this one:

Originally Posted by why, me!

Nobody's asking of them to give up their rights...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough? It's not about giving up their rights or IPs, it's not about giving their games freeware status, it's about not nagging the people who put the game available for download once it's stopped being sold and supported.

Originally Posted by fov

Look at Labyrinth of Time and Bad Mojo. Widespread downloading of a game -- no matter how old it is, no matter whether the copyright holder said "don't do that" (or if they even knew) -- kills the chances of the game selling well upon rerelease. We don't know what Vivendi has up its sleeve. Wouldn't it be ironic if they've been planning to repackage the King's Quest games all along but opted not to because the abandonware issue has made such a project unprofitable for them?

And what about hundreds of games that never get rereleased? Should we just forget about all of them? Abandonware hardly makes things unprofitable, it's not even clear to what extent outright pirating harms the sales. Labyrinth of Time and Bad Mojo Redux probably didn't sell that well, but blaming it on abandonware is just plain silly. Not many people are interested in old games, that's all. And those who are would probably gladly pay for them. Let's not forget abandonware is a reaction, not a cause. If those games were available for buying in the first place, by definition they wouldn't be abandonware. If anything, abandonware can keep old franchises from being forgotten thus making it easier and more profitable for publishers to revive the brands.

Originally Posted by fov

Yes, as a writer, I love for people to read my work. But I would not love it if someone took what I wrote and published it in a white supremecist publication, or even if someone made 100 photocopies of something I had published in a for-profit publication and stuck them under the windshield wipers of all the parked cars in the area. Copyright protects me from having people I don't want do things with my work that I don't want them to do. Maybe abandonware isn't as awful as the neo-Nazi example, but you can't just pick and choose which parts of the law get enforced. Copyright laws are important.

Once again, in case of abandonware, those games are not sold or distributed by copyright holders anymore, not in any way. Not available. We're sorry you want it, you can't have it. How does that help anyone? If you didn't want it to be consumed, why did you ever release it to public then? I don't think that situation has anything to do with your (very picturesque, I admit) Nazi example.

Originally Posted by fov

I guess that "mine mine mine" mentality is pretty common everywhere these days, though, so it shouldn't be all that surprising.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, companies holding onto properties they don't want to do anything with except to yell "Mine mine mine!"

Originally Posted by fov

The U.S. Copyright Act...

I grabbed a random DVD off the shelf, here's what it says:

WARNING

All of the visual, audio and graphic materials on this DVD are protected by copyright. The motion picture/programme may only be used to show in private homes, to which the general public is not invited and/or an entrance fee is not charged.

Any other unauthorised manner of exibition and any broadcast, public performance, diffusion, editing, copying, reselling and hiring in whole or part is strictly prohibited.

This prohibition may be enforced by legal action.

So although it's considered acceptable, it's not strictly legal.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

Ten years after any game's release date it becomes public domain to be copied freely at will by any and all unless it is formally and openly re-released by the party or parties who hold the copyright on the game prior to the ten year limit, in which case the copyright would be renewed from that second release date for an additional five years.

I was also giving it some thought and here's what I came up with: When a game is out of print for 5 years, if someone offers you to buy the rights off of you (for a minimal sum that can also be legaly regulated), you have to sell it. If it's out of print for 10-15 years or so, then it becomes public domain.

[Jake]

Arbitrary rules like that are dangerous.