[Agustin]

Originally Posted by Burns11

It's not a gray area at all, it's very much black and white: unless the copyright holder relinquishes those rights it's 100% illegal.

Current laws also are not failing, you don't have a right to play these copyrighted works no matter how much you may want to.

Very few things are black and white in this world. Harald B proposed one case where laws blatantly fail: legal limbos do exist and we see creations with very few chances of being re-released because their rights became severely mixed-up (we were recently discussing about the Legend titles, a good example).

But I go one step further. You talk about the holder's right; I talk about another right, one that is not covered by any law: the consumer's right to accessible culture. I'm strongly against piracy and I'm a huge advocate of endeavors like GOG.com. We need more like them, and pirating games that are widely available (especially in such low prices for the PC) is really shameful.

However, as much as I'm against piracy, I'm a strong believer in accessible culture. What I mean by this is that any creative work, particularly those that have cultural significance, should be freely accessible. My philosophy is that once a creative work becomes public, there is an implicit right for the consumer: no matter how much time passes, anyone should have the right to appreciate such work. Even if that goes against the author's wishes. Yes, the importance to preserve culture kills everything. Take what George Lucas did with Star Wars: with his obsession, he has crippled the original movies, which can no longer be acquired by "legal" means. The hell with him and his wishes, period. He has a responsibility as the author and holder of rights to make such versions available.

So the laws look after the copyright holder rights but aren't addressing the sensitive issue of preserving culture. Games are obviously culture and thus I commend the work of "responsible" abandonware sites that preserve some games. Even so, there are some really stupid exceptions. Nobody here will deny the importance of Maniac Mansion in our industry. Now you tell me, where can anybody legally acquire Maniac Mansion these days? I'm not sure what's the current situation with its rights but it's likely that somebody screwed up. It's unthinkable to me that a new generation of gamers can't appreciate this title because some executive hot shot was irresponsible. Nobody - and I really mean this - should feel bad about downloading Maniac Mansion as long as it remains unavailable.

I rest my case. I'd like to stress again that I agree that sites like this should remain neutral given the circumstances. But abandonware isn't taboo -- it's a solution to a problem that nobody is addressing.

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Agustin

However, as much as I'm against piracy, I'm a strong believer in accessible culture. What I mean by this is that any creative work, particularly those that have cultural significance, should be freely accessible. My philosophy is that once a creative work becomes public, there is an implicit right for the consumer: no matter how much time passes, anyone should have the right to appreciate such work. Even if that goes against the author's wishes.

I disagree. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me, and is EXACTLY the sort of argument used by those who DO employ piracy.

I don't see any compelling argument that I am ENTITLED to have access to all creative works ever made, no matter what. That sort of thinking is EXACTLY what leads people to think, "They are charging more than I want to pay for that. It should be freely accessible, therefore I am justified in illegally downloading it, since they won't make it available at a price I can afford." If you didn't make it, or somehow legally acquire it, I don't see where you could say you have ANY "rights" to access it, even if it would be NICE if you could.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

I disagree. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me, and is EXACTLY the sort of argument used by those who DO employ piracy.

I don't see any compelling argument that I am ENTITLED to have access to all creative works ever made, no matter what. That sort of thinking is EXACTLY what leads people to think, "They are charging more than I want to pay for that. It should be freely accessible, therefore I am justified in illegally downloading it, since they won't make it available at a price I can afford." If you didn't make it, or somehow legally acquire it, I don't see where you could say you have ANY "rights" to access it, even if it would be NICE if you could.

It's more about preservation of culture than entitlement, though I don't see anything wrong with entitlement in itself when the thing is commercially inaccessible. You can characterise it however you wish, but if you want an argument why public access is important here's one from the Abandonware Ring (I didn't write it nor is it my own point of view):

Why abandonware should not be considered piracy by Walt Crawford

When the U.S. was young a copyright lasted 14 years, renewable only once if the author was still living. Between the nation's founding and 1909, only one term extension took place. In 1909 the term was doubled to 28 years. However corporations still felt it was too short. So in 1976 Congress changed the copyright to a remarkably long and unpredictable term: Life of the author plus 50 years - and, for works made for hire (corporation) a generous 75 years.

Under corporate copyright, the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoon would have entered the public domain 75 years after the first cartoon's release, in 2004. Thus, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) in 1998, which extended both forms of copyright 20 years (70 years for an author, 95 years for a corporation). Is there anyone who believes that the Disney Corporation won't push for another 20 year extension in 2018 - or that Congress won't pass it?

A good example of the problems this is already causing is going on right now in the movie industry. Dacaying nitrate-based film from the early days of motion pictures may not be restored because Moviecraft and other companies that restore and reissue these movies can't do so because they can't identify the copyright holders and the movies seem to never pass into the public domain. Preservation activities in general, and particularly digital preservation activities, are made more difficult when material never enters the public domain.

This is why we have abandonware. If these games are not shared and preserved now do you think anyone will have a copy of IBM's Alley Cat in 2079 when it's copyright expires?

Who knows how many games have disappeared into the abyss due to copying restrictions in law? Just as bad is the situation when nobody plays an old game anymore because it can't be found. In that light, the efforts of abandonware sites seem almost heroic, at least in bringing to our awareness these games and letting the forgotten be experienced.

Originally Posted by thejobloshow

I wouldn't want this website to compromise itself by promoting copyright infringement.

I would. A campaign against condemning old games to obscurity is much needed to counter the absurd laws which compromise the preservation of historic culture for the public good. That goal seems more important than a website, and it's not like it would be illegal anyway.

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Oscar

It's more about preservation of culture than entitlement, though I don't see anything wrong with entitlement in itself.

Preservation of culture is one thing, the idea that everybody has a right to own their own copy free of charge is quite another, to my mind. There's an awful lot of artwork of various types that are preserved, but which I cannot access without making payment (and some which I cannot access at all, since they are held by people or organizations that do not allow easy access).

I would tend to agree that copyright extensions have gotten out of hand, but I see that as an argument in favor of addressing copyright law, not feeling free to ignore it.

The problem I see with entitlement is that it tends to lead to the creation of "rights" with no justification other than "I want it to be that way". There is a big difference between believing something SHOULD be a certain way, and working toward that as a goal, and believing something should be a certain way, and thus simply claiming it as a "right" and using that to justify ignoring the current circumstances.

[Agustin]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

I disagree. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me, and is EXACTLY the sort of argument used by those who DO employ piracy.

I don't see any compelling argument that I am ENTITLED to have access to all creative works ever made, no matter what. That sort of thinking is EXACTLY what leads people to think, "They are charging more than I want to pay for that. It should be freely accessible, therefore I am justified in illegally downloading it, since they won't make it available at a price I can afford." If you didn't make it, or somehow legally acquire it, I don't see where you could say you have ANY "rights" to access it, even if it would be NICE if you could.

But you're missing a crucial point of my argument: provided they're no longer available. The key word here is availability. I did not say these copies should be free of charge. On the contrary, charge for them like GOG does. Their work deserves monetary recognition. But allow consumers to acquire them by legal rights; if you fail to do that, the consumer has a right to acquire the work by other means.

That is the very basis of preservation of culture.

[Fien]

I agree one hundred percent with what Mister Ed said. The voice of reason.

Agustin, so if you no longer give people the right to pay money for your creation, you automatically give them the right to get it for free? That is absurd.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

Preservation of culture is one thing, the idea that everybody has a right to own their own copy free of charge is quite another, to my mind. There's an awful lot of artwork of various types that are preserved, but which I cannot access without making payment (and some which I cannot access at all, since they are held by people or organizations that do not allow easy access).

I would tend to agree that copyright extensions have gotten out of hand, but I see that as an argument in favor of addressing copyright law, not feeling free to ignore it.

The problem I see with entitlement is that it tends to lead to the creation of "rights" with no justification other than "I want it to be that way". There is a big difference between believing something SHOULD be a certain way, and working toward that as a goal, and believing something should be a certain way, and thus simply claiming it as a "right" and using that to justify ignoring the current circumstances.

Maybe it would be easier to discuss if you presented your argument why copyright should exist over old and non-published works, since we've only seen your attack of our 'anti'-arguments, which I'd say Agustin disposed of pretty well.

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Oscar

Maybe it would be easier to discuss if you presented your argument why copyright should exist over old and non-published works, since we've only seen your attack of our 'anti'-arguments, which I'd say Agustin disposed of pretty well.

Except that isn't my argument. I DON'T think copyright should be extended to the ridiculous extremes it now is. I just don't beleive that my opinion on such constitutes the basis for a RIGHT for me to ignore the law as it stands. Rather it constitutes a motivation to work to CHANGE the law.

[Adventurere No.1]

Originally Posted by Fien

I agree one hundred percent with what Mister Ed said. The voice of reason.

Mister Ed you have got the support of fien herself, means you gotten you self totally protected

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Agustin

But you're missing a crucial point of my argument: provided they're no longer available. The key word here is availability. I did not say these copies should be free of charge. On the contrary, charge for them like GOG does. Their work deserves monetary recognition. But allow consumers to acquire them by legal rights; if you fail to do that, the consumer has a right to acquire the work by other means.

That is the very basis of preservation of culture.

As I said, I don't think preservation of culture requires that EVERY person be able to personally acquire every work of art ever made. I think it is possible for culture to be preserved even if I, personally, don't have access to it. I would agree, though, that it isn't preserved if NOBODY has access to it, but that is very seldom the case under discussion.

If there was an adventure game museum somewhere, where all these games were preserved and people could come in and play them, would that satisfy the preservation of culture? I'd say yes, but it seems like some feel such an end is ONLY served if everybody can have their own copy.

If you aren't arguing for access free of charge (which I admit may have been my own misreading of your use of the term "freely accessible") then I agree that is a laudable goal, but I still don't see how it is a right. And if the works are still under copyright, but not offered by the copyright holder, there isn't really any legal way to charge for a copy that I can see.

I think we see the same situation needing to be fixed, but I'm not disposed to "fix" the problem by pretending it isn't there, which is what addressing the problem of overzealous copyright law by feeling free to ignore it based on some self-created "right" seems like to me.

Don't get me wrong. I probably sound really judgemental here, but mostly this reasoning informs my own actions. I don't feel constrained to work to thwart those who feel otherwise, and I maintain warm friendships with people who would actually go even further in this direction than you would. I don't want to make any enemies here. I'm just trying to make my own position clear, and sometimes I don't come off very well when I do so. For that I apologize.

[Agustin]

Originally Posted by Fien

Agustin, so if you no longer give people the right to pay money for your creation, you automatically give them the right to get it for free? That is absurd.

Why? I gave you my reasoning. What's yours?

I say it again: you must give people an option to acquire your work. Sell it or give it for free, but ensure its availability. Right now a copyright holder has no such responsibility. Allow me to illustrate with another example:

The Sound produced some of the most amazing records in the 80's. They were never commercially successful though, so they still remain mostly unheard of. Yet many critics agree they were just as important as Joy Division or Echo & the Bunnymen. Trust me on this one: their records are pure gold.

Two band members, including their founder, are dead now and the rights completely belong to Warner. However, Warner has consistently failed to publish those records for well over two decades.

Simply put: this is nothing short of a crime. The copyright holder isn't even trying and The Sound remains condemned to oblivion. The system has failed, therefore the system must change.

People has the right to listen to The Sound. And it's just as important as the right Warner holds right now.

[Agustin]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

As I said, I don't think preservation of culture requires that EVERY person be able to personally acquire every work of art ever made. I think it is possible for culture to be preserved even if I, personally, don't have access to it. I would agree, though, that it isn't preserved if NOBODY has access to it, but that is very seldom the case under discussion.

Then we disagree. I believe EVERYBODY deserves the same right to access culture. Preserving has not point if only a few select people will enjoy those works.

If there was an adventure game museum somewhere, where all these games were preserved and people could come in and play them, would that satisfy the preservation of culture? I'd say yes, but it seems like some feel such an end is ONLY served if everybody can have their own copy.

I won't deny this is an interesting solution but we both know that will never occur. And I would go as far as saying that, yes, everybody deserves the right to have a copy. Think about books since we may see games here too much as "products" and not culture. Suppose, oh I don't know, 1984 were no longer for sale. It would be highly impractical for people to visit a museum to read that book. Doesn't make the least sense to me; it's a culturally important book, therefore everybody must have access to it.

If you aren't arguing for access free of charge (which I admit may have been my own misreading of your use of the term "freely accessible") then I agree that is a laudable goal, but I still don't see how it is a right. And if the works are still under copyright, but not offered by the copyright holder, there isn't really any legal way to charge for a copy that I can see.

My point exactly: I think the system is failing. Laws are dictated by humans so they can be wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I probably sound really judgemental here, but mostly this reasoning informs my own actions. I don't feel constrained to work to thwart those who feel otherwise, and I maintain warm friendships with people who would actually go even further in this direction than you would. I don't want to make any enemies here. I'm just trying to make my own position clear, and sometimes I don't come off very well when I do so. For that I apologize.

No worries. It's a discussion, and a civilized one at that

[Adventurere No.1]

i will not comment on any one or tag his words... but simply ask yourself this if these old game and their copyright owners gave away their games as some freewares for every one to get and download it their choice!!, then isn't it self evident that when some developer now or even after 30 years want to use this Old X Game as a remake or for sequel then eventually will ask those owners 1st for a permission , like telltale making Money Island and Sam & Max under the permission and supervision of Lucasarts ...

so that no one get lost here,all i am saying that example only to say it is the copyrights owners who decide and whatever they want to do with their Products no one can argue with them or about that.

some developers or company want to give out games of Sierra for free or with little charge like GOG then it K.Williams call ,or who whoever worked with him

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Agustin

Then we disagree. I believe EVERYBODY deserves the same right to access culture. Preserving has not point if only a few select people will enjoy those works.

Except that isn't practical in the case of MOST art througout history. I have less access to the Mona Lisa than somebody who lives next door to the museum where it is on display. Would you deny the right for anybody to ever OWN a painting unless they open their home to whoever wishes to see it? I know I'm not prepared to go that far. More relevantly to this discussion, a person who can't afford museum access (or to purchase a product like a book or game) has less access than somebody who can. You can't really, from a practical standpoint, give everybody "equal access" to some things and still insist that people should be able to charge for them. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work in practice, since money is as big a barrier to access as any other I can think of.

Originally Posted by Agustin

I won't deny this is an interesting solution but we both know that will never occur. And I would go as far as saying that, yes, everybody deserves the right to have a copy. Think about books since we may see games here too much as "products" and not culture. Suppose, oh I don't know, 1984 were no longer for sale. It would be highly impractical for people to visit a museum to read that book. Doesn't make the least sense to me; it's a culturally important book, therefore everybody must have access to it.

They could always check it out from a library. (Actually, I just remembered that my local library DOES offer several computer games. A library would be more plausible, and practical, than a museum.) What if it was only available in a snazzy hardcover edition that cost $40? Wouldn't that limit access? Yet we aren't talking about taking stuff for free, so limits on accessibility will ALWAYS exist.

Originally Posted by Agustin

My point exactly: I think the system is failing. Laws are dictated by humans so they can be wrong.

And of course my point is that if the laws are wrong, you fix them, not ignore them. Yes, there are times when I would be OK with ignoring laws, like when the governing system doesn't provide a METHOD to change them, or when the laws in question cause tangible harm to individuals. I just don't consider this situation to rise to that level, especially since I'm fairly certain that, in most cases the culture in question IS being preserved against the eventuality that easier access becomes legal.

I know that Maniac Mansion hasn't totally disappeared, because I've got a copy right here. If the copyright situation gets sorted out, I'll happily provide my copy to help with distribution, and I strongly suspect the same it true of SOMEBODY with respect to most "lost" games. Until then, I will happily loan out my copy (at least to those I trust to give it back when they are done- I'm not THAT altruistic. )

Originally Posted by Agustin

No worries. It's a discussion, and a civilized one at that

Thanks for the reassurance.

[PolloDiablo]

But where does 'commercially available' even stop? If a publisher in Botswekistan still has twentythousand copies of ObscureGameX and is selling them in shops there, does that count as available? How would we even know? If a developer is selling copies on his website but refuses to ship outside the US, does that count as 'unavailable' for everyone outside the US? If a Totally Upgraded Newfangled Polished Limited Collector's Full Talkie CD-ROM Edition is out-of-stock but the non-talkie drab standard edition is still flooding the shops, am I entitled to download the TUNPLCFT for free since I can't buy it anymore? It's a sliding scale.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Oscar

I would. A campaign against condemning old games to obscurity is much needed to counter the absurd laws which compromise the preservation of historic culture for the public good. That goal seems more important than a website, and it's not like it would be illegal anyway.

Actually, it is. I won't pretend to be an expert in all the vagaries of international copyright law (which aren't even consistent worldwide), but my understanding is that being complicit in the promotion of piracy is an actionable offense for a website. Unlikely? Maybe, but far less so than a user simply downloading one.

I personally have great sympathy for the issue of inaccessible games and lost copyrights, and I agree the law needs to be addressed. But despite your willingness to sacrifice AG for this cause (instead of, say, something of your own), allowing a few pointless abandonware links does nothing for anyone.

[chrissie]

Originally Posted by Agustin

I say it again: you must give people an option to acquire your work. Sell it or give it for free, but ensure its availability. Right now a copyright holder has no such responsibility. Allow me to illustrate with another example:

The Sound produced some of the most amazing records in the 80's. They were never commercially successful though, so they still remain mostly unheard of. Yet many critics agree they were just as important as Joy Division or Echo & the Bunnymen. Trust me on this one: their records are pure gold.

Two band members, including their founder, are dead now and the rights completely belong to Warner. However, Warner has consistently failed to publish those records for well over two decades.

Simply put: this is nothing short of a crime. The copyright holder isn't even trying and The Sound remains condemned to oblivion. The system has failed, therefore the system must change.

People has the right to listen to The Sound. And it's just as important as the right Warner holds right now.

Reading all these posts I've got to agree that the copyright laws are wrong & always have been. In my mind copyright has always been about protecting the work of a writer/artist/game developer etc etc to eliminate plagiarism & in my mind the copyright should never belong to anyone else other them & their heirs.

It should never have been about transferring 'ownership' of someone else's work, the law should never have allowed this to happen & limited contracts for permissions/use of work put in place instead with default conditions in the event that a publisher etc fails to promote that work. I agree Agustin - it is a crime.

It has always happened that singers, musicians, writers, game developers etc (artistic people) are at the mercy of big people in the industries to get their work put forward to the point where their career sometimes get restrained later or there is a block on progressing their original ideas. But unless the law changes then no-one has the right to distribute work other than the copyright holder.

I don't agree with sites that, however sincerely, want to share older games that they have no permission to use. At the same time in a climate where so many easily available current games lose a lot of revenue through illegal distribution I really can't blame anyone for using an abandonware site to try & get hold of a game they can't get anywhere else!

[Agustin]

To address a point raised by Mister Ed:

We're confusing concepts here: art has evolved over the centuries and today it's presented in different forms. Obviously, the Mona Lisa is an unique item and it would be foolish to say that every human being has a right to "own" it (not mention slightly impractical). It's an object that can't be reproduced but it can be appreciated in a museum. And the ticket is free once per month

Books, games, music, they have been released as products. Yes, a product can be art or culture. People don't need to visit a museum to appreciate them and I sure hope it remains that way (can you imagine having to read a book in a museum?).

To say "Maniac Mansion still exists because I own a copy" is moot. Look at it this way: the Mona Lisa exists somewhere yet everybody can google its image or buy a cheap reproduction. And it has to remain that way because its cultural significance demands such availability. Imagine for a second the fierce outcry that would occur if the Louvre would ever forbid *every* reproduction of the Mona Lisa. Crazy, right?

How many people can play Maniac Mansion today? Only those who bought either the original game or Day Of The Tentacle at least 20 years ago. I'm sorry but I can't accept this. I don't give a damn who owns the right. Again: somebody screwed up or has no interest to distribute Maniac Mansion. Their loss. Not our loss.

A decade ago I would have understood if it was too expensive for a publisher to produce a given title again. But with nowadays digital revolution, it's *trivial* to re-release these games. Yet we had to wait until some obscure company in Russia founded GOG and in less than three years became one of the coolest sites in the web. Put into perspective, it makes you want to cry.

Finally, I would go as far as saying that it was in part thanks to the Abandonware movement that a site like GOG exists today. It was countless of fans the ones who kept alive the memory of many, many games, and showed companies that there was so much interest in playing them. Think about that.

To conclude, make sure you read this fascinating article by Benj Edwards: Why History Needs Software Piracy

Quoting him:

If you love software, buy it, use it, and reward the people who make it. I do it all the time, and I support the industry’s right to make money from its products. But don’t be afraid to stand up for your cultural rights. If you see strict DRM and copy protection that threatens the preservation of history, fight it: copy the work, keep it safe, and eventually share it so it never disappears.

Some people may think ill of your archival efforts now, but they’re on the wrong side of history: no one living 500 years from now will judge your infringing deeds harshly when they can load up an ancient program and see it for themselves.

[TimovieMan]

Very interesting discussion.
I'd love to participate more, but Agustin has basically been saying what I'd want to say, but then with better wording.

I'm with Agustin on everything here.
And if all abandonware should eventually wind up on GOG, then we've ALL won!

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Agustin

How many people can play Maniac Mansion today? Only those who bought either the original game or Day Of The Tentacle at least 20 years ago.

I know for a fact it was available more recently than that, as I got my copy more recently, in a Lucasarts collection. In fact, a quick search indicates the last collection to include it was released only 10 years ago, and I find several copies of collections containing it available for sale on Amazon. But that's a minor quibble.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree because on a fundamental level you base your argument on a "right" that I don't hold to be self-evident. The notion that I have a right to the work of others no matter what is an alien concept, and one I find unsupportable. (And citing cultural importance is unconvincing, as that is a nebulous and shifting quality, and in fact is likely, if put to a universal vote, NOT something that would be ascribed to Maniac Mansion by many people outside a specific interest group. Of which I am a part, but still. )

And I also find it to be impractical in application on the universal level you seem to be talking about, especially if one stops short of advocating dispensing free copies, since the ability to pay will ALWAYS be a barrier to access for anything that is bought and sold.

And the quote you provide would be more convincing if the kind of historical preservation he talks about weren't accomplished just as well by my preserving my legally purchased copy, to be utilized by those in the future when the copyright issues are resolved.