[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by EasilyConfused

I don't know what the legal length of copyright is in Germany, but in the US the Congress seems bent on extending it at every opportunity. In 1998 the length of copyright was extended from something like 75 to 95 years. There is certainly a balance to be struck between protecting authors and letting the public benefit from free access to intellectual property, and the longer you extend copyright protections, the less you are weighing the benefit to the public of access to copyrighted materials.

In that case, I have to say I simply do not think copyright should ever expire (to exaggerate a bit). That's my personal opinion, but 75 or 95 years is fine, too, if not ideal in my opinion. But nothing I'm going to fret about changing.

Let's put it this way, if you guys can come up with a sane rewording of the copyright laws, I'll bother considering the possibility. All I can see in a change in that regard is destructive or pointless in my book, as previously elaborated. So if someone can sketch me an alternative, I'm all ears.

[insane_cobra]

We already did. You're all ears, but you don't want to hear anything.

[SirDave]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Yup, I think so too. Now take a moment to step back and consider it, since you obviously haven't. Oh, and just for reference, you got one thing wrong: I am not ranting about using abandonware.

Moral right and legal right are two different things, last but not least because moral right takes a look at a situation on a case-by-case basis, and legal right shoves everything into rules.

And you quoted it, but I don't think you read it. This is my core point:

Okay I re-read your original post & I'm still confused by the apparent, shall we say 'conflict', in your argument. Where am I going wrong here in your position?

Your first point is that you don't want anyone making off with your recent works since that takes away your well-earned income. Fair enough!

Then you say (paraphrasing), well, if a game is out of production then no one is harmed/hurt if you d/l it, so no real problem.

Then you say, but wait, if it does go back into production, you've screwed the developers out of their income.

Then you mention how you, wink!, wink!, break the law yourself.

Silly me, but I still can't tell where you stand on this issue. I'd almost venture to say that you're not sure either. If not, just when are you saying it's okay for the average Joe to use abandonware- which is (I think) the subject of this thread. FWIW: I gave my opinion of where I stand pretty clearly a few posts above.

[fov]

Note from very stressed out mod: Let's not turn this into a personal discussion / attack / debate, please.

Thanks.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by SirDave

Your first point is that you don't want anyone making off with your recent works since that takes away your well-earned income. Fair enough!

Then you say (paraphrasing), well, if a game is out of production then no one is harmed/hurt if you d/l it, so no real problem.

Then you say, but wait, if it does go back into production, you've screwed the developers out of their income.

That's not quite my point. My point is that by keeping it illegal, the moral question of potentially making those mistakes has a lot more weight than if we'd build a loophole into the copyright law. People will be less likely to hurt people if they bother to think about what they are doing. Psychology. If it happens regardless, well, it happens. I'm just seriously shying away from the concept of relaxing the laws, because I find the thought of someone not getting their hard earned cash because the law says so many times more appalling than I would seeing someone get sentenced for breaking the current laws but having hurt no one. Including myself.

What I do on occasion in the background of this is illegal. It is a risk. It is a risk I am taking because, coincidentially, I've gotten a lot of people to buy the stuff by giving parts of it to them for free first. No, I don't want to get specific on the "it". Anyway, that's my moral decision. It is illegal, and I am glad it is. If I'm caught out with it, then that is right. I have broken the law and if one would sue me over it, then it is right; because the law is right and shouldn't be changed.

I'm just seriously doubting anyone would, and if they would, it would be out of spite. But I'm seriously against taking that sort of right from them.

I feel like a broken record. But has this post helped clear it up? I hope so?

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

We already did. You're all ears, but you don't want to hear anything.

fov, not even a slight snide remark? Please?

I've only seen people say "relax the copyright laws, relax the copyright laws", except for the one constructive suggestion of shortening the time, which I heartily disagree with. If I've missed a specific alternative, then I'm sorry, but I did miss it, there's little point in telling me I can't read, I'd prefer you keep such insults to yourself. Instead, point me to it? It's all I'm asking.

[AFGNCAAP]

I meant not to post in this thread anymore but may I just chime in to say I had no problems understanding Pinkgothic's supposedly "self-contradicting" view? I have neither will nor time to rant, so I'll make a quick analogy: the traffic laws are necessary. Imagine modern world without them - heck, they're not really an issue of morality, they exist to prevent total chaos! But despite that, do I cross the street on red light, provided I feel I can't wait and it wouldn't endanger anyone? You bet - every day!

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

What I do on occasion in the background of this is illegal. It is a risk. It is a risk I am taking because, coincidentially, I've gotten a lot of people to buy the stuff by giving parts of it to them for free first. No, I don't want to get specific on the "it".

Erm.. Should we worry about you?

[SirDave]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

That's not quite my point. My point is that by keeping it illegal, the moral question of potentially making those mistakes has a lot more weight than if we'd build a loophole into the copyright law. People will be less likely to hurt people if they bother to think about what they are doing. Psychology. If it happens regardless, well, it happens. I'm just seriously shying away from the concept of relaxing the laws, because I find the thought of someone not getting their hard earned cash because the law says so many times more appalling than I would seeing someone get sentenced for breaking the current laws but having hurt no one. Including myself.

What I do on occasion in the background of this is illegal. It is a risk. It is a risk I am taking because, coincidentially, I've gotten a lot of people to buy the stuff by giving parts of it to them for free first. No, I don't want to get specific on the "it". Anyway, that's my moral decision. It is illegal, and I am glad it is. If I'm caught out with it, then that is right. I have broken the law and if one would sue me over it, then it is right; because the law is right and shouldn't be changed.

I'm just seriously doubting anyone would, and if they would, it would be out of spite. But I'm seriously against taking that sort of right from them.

I feel like a broken record. But has this post helped clear it up? I hope so?

Okay, I sorta think I'm getting it, but as I said before it's.....interesting. The problem I have with leaving things the way they are is that there is this 'black or white' argument going on in more than one forum on the abandonware subject. Some want to call any use of abandonware as some sort of absolute moral sin while some other's think using any abandonware is alright depending on things like one's fiscal situation.

I tend to think that the use of some abandonware that is long since out of production & doesn't have a 'hope in hell' of reappearing as not only not such a big deal but may actually keep a game alive. That serves 2 purposes- it means that someone's beloved creation is not lost forever & if by chance it is ever re-published there will be an even bigger market for it- especially if there is value added to it (ie. better graphics etc.)

[DarkJewel]

I have to say, although it is likely biased of me since I know Pinkgothic very well ... that I do agree with her.

It makes a good deal of sense to me.

[Enter the Story]

Can I say a word in favor of patent law? Patents are harder to obtain than copyrights, and generally represent a greater investment. Yet patents typically last for 14-20 years. It's a good length of time. Copyright law could learn a lot from patent law.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by SirDave

Some want to call any use of abandonware as some sort of absolute moral sin while some other's think using any abandonware is alright depending on things like one's fiscal situation.

That's kind of where I don't want to force my point on anyone. I've definitely lines where I think it's okay and where not - and I'll probably not get along with someone very well who thinks anything that looks even remotely abandonned is good to distribute - but I'd just rather people decided for themselves. All I want is that they're forced to think about it. I've never agreed that morals are the same in each and every person, or even should be - and that's why I put such a clear distinction between law and morals.

I think AFGNCAAP illustrated the point I'm trying to make perfectly. I've never been very good at analogies, unfortunately, so I couldn't come up with that one myself... but yeah, I read it an thought, "why didn't I think of putting it like that"? In short, what AFGNCAAP said is almost exactly what I'm trying to say.

Anyway, really, I'm just insanely, horribly paranoid that some people cannot deal with freedom given to them. I prefer those that can deal with it taking it and treading with the carefulness they are smart enough to use. I consider myself pretty liberal in that respect, if in a very twisted, 'shady' way.

Sometimes I wonder if it makes me evil that I don't give much of a toss about laws and that I draw the moral/law line so harshly.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by DarkJewel

I have to say, although it is likely biased of me since I know Pinkgothic very well ... that I do agree with her.

Ky, you're so embarrassing. *ruffles* Thanks for the support, honey, *big hugs* though I wish you'd be a bit more eloquent than just "My opinion = Her opinion". That's a bit... um... anyway.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by tolworthy

Can I say a word in favor of patent law? Patents are harder to obtain than copyrights, and generally represent a greater investment. Yet patents typically last for 14-20 years. It's a good length of time. Copyright law could learn a lot from patent law.

Perhaps. I have to admit I know next to nothing about patent law. 14-20 years? That's frighteningly little to me. Renewable, though? Just checking.

[DarkJewel]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Ky, you're so embarrassing. *ruffles* Thanks for the support, honey, *big hugs* though I wish you'd be a bit more eloquent than just "My opinion = Her opinion". That's a bit... um... anyway.

*blushes and snugs pinkgothic*

Well .. I don't know how else to say what I mean when I agree with you.

[pinkgothic]

Aaah, nooooo, you're making it worse!



DarkJewel

*ducttapes mouth shut* *sweatdrops*

[lucidrains]

why is pink gothic hiding her face?

[SirDave]

Originally Posted by DarkJewel

*blushes and snugs pinkgothic*

Well .. I don't know how else to say what I mean when I agree with you.

Okay, I've finally got it; it's one of those female/male differences!

[ikari]

I didn't start this!..I swear it..

I don't think it's morally incorrect to download an OLD game you can't legally access nowadays...
I don't feel like I'm stealing something, and I don't think the companies feel that way either.. mostly because the producers are not economically interested anymore and my intentions are not economical either..."I just want to play something they don't sell anymore, ¡and no-one else does!" and that won't harm them at all..
But the laws are ok, because not all of us think the same way..there could be people with "bad intentions", so the law is there to be use against them.
Maybe against me too but, I'm pretty sure that SIERRA will not hunt me down for downloading an old game like Gold Rush (*)..and keep it just as a memory.

(*)which i didn't in case they sue me, and use this as evidence =P

-excuse my english (if it's something wrong)-

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by SirDave

Okay, I've finally got it; it's one of those female/male differences!

So who's the male?

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

fov, not even a slight snide remark? Please?

I've only seen people say "relax the copyright laws, relax the copyright laws", except for the one constructive suggestion of shortening the time, which I heartily disagree with. If I've missed a specific alternative, then I'm sorry, but I did miss it, there's little point in telling me I can't read, I'd prefer you keep such insults to yourself. Instead, point me to it? It's all I'm asking.

First of all, I never said or implied you can't read. Sorry if that insults you, but I don't see how I could be responisble for something I didn't do. Putting words into my mouth insults me.

Just because you don't like or don't agree with the alternatives or relaxations suggested, doesn't mean there haven't been any, you admitted it yourself.

Btw, I was at my information law class yesterday and the theme of the lecture was, bingo, copyright. Apparently, in most Euorpean countries copyright period is set to 70 years after the author's death. The lecturer said he thought that amount of time was ridiculous (his words, translated from Croatian ) and that there is a strong initiative among most European legislators to cut that down drastically. He suggested 15 or 20 years tops and I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by tolworthy

Can I say a word in favor of patent law? Patents are harder to obtain than copyrights, and generally represent a greater investment. Yet patents typically last for 14-20 years. It's a good length of time. Copyright law could learn a lot from patent law.

Patenting software/code is illegal in most European countries and rightfully so (it's legal in USA, I think). Besides, you can't patent a game, patents are for technical solutions to (technical) problems. We were told on the lecture to stay away from patents as much as possible because of the long time it takes to patent something (it could take several years).

May I just add that Nintendo is doing the right thing with its virtual console concept planned for Revolution: every Nintendo game ever made will be available for download and Revolution will be able to run it. They'll charge for that, of course.