| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 3 of 4 : « ‹ › » |
| 12 AUG 2004 at 2:15pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Bazza (12 AUG 2004 1:44am) Well might count for the USA but not for most other countries in the world where you buy the whole product as a good and not a licence to use it! ...Try this with butter... you have the right to use the butter unless we declare it unusable... lol. Besides that the only contract that is binding is between you and the shop, the shop is your partner when it comes to guarantee issues etc. if there are limitations of use they have to be ON the package and you must be able to read them BEFORE buying and unwrapping the box at home. Thats what the law says in my country (Germany) There were several court trials here and they all declared the licence that pops up when installing the software as invalid. Saying that the only licence that is valid is the shops terms of business usually printed on the backside of the bill. And even this has to apply to the law else unlawful parts of it are invalid, too. |
| 12 AUG 2004 at 2:39pm | |
krkdnosePrivate Detective  Posts : 707 Joined: 9 JUN 2004 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Bazza (12 AUG 2004 6:53am) [smiley=rofl.gif] [smiley=rofl.gif] |
| Profile Search | |
| 14 AUG 2004 at 8:08am | |
lakerzPrivate Detective Posts : 654 Joined: 11 OCT 2002 Status : Online | What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas... |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 AUG 2004 at 4:48am | |
DJ SouzaJourneyman  Posts : 1452 Joined: 19 OCT 2002 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Ogre (12 AUG 2004 2:11pm)And I think you mistook what I said. I never intended to say that the developer's make no money out of copies sold on Ebay, it's clear that the Ebay seller has to buy the game before selling it later. What I meant is that the developer never gets the money when the game becomes a rare collectible, and then other people start making profit out of his creation. Why rare games cost so much? Because you can't find them anywhere else. So it's okay to sell them for huge amounts of cash on Ebay and make a huge profit, but it's not okay to distribute them for free, with no profit at all, even though the game can no longer be purchased in stores? Still don't make much sense to me![smiley=boggled.gif] It's just not reasonable to let old games stay abandoned that way, how many people are willing to spend so much cash buying on Ebay an old game that might not even run correctly on his new computer? However, my opinion is not supported by current laws of software. It's only my personal opinion that I think that old games, as an underated form of art, should be easily available to anyone who wants to play them after the game is not being supported by its company for more than 10 years. I don't remember how many years does it take for a game to become public domain, but it's just too much. It should be at least half of the time of other types of art. A book does not become outdated, a game does, the situation is different, the game companies loose interest in the games way faster than a book publisher company looses interest in republishing the same book. But maybe things might change a bit with this new machine I have heard of, which is currently available only in few computer stores, that lets you buy games that are in the memory of a computer, then it will burn the cd for you in an instant, no need for shelve space anymore. HOWEVER, this won't solve the problem of the company spending money only to provide technical support for old games, something that MUST be provided for all legal owners. [center]DIEGO J. SOUZA&&Consulting Detective for Hire[img]http://www.justadventure.com/public_html/YaBBImages/smilies//detective.gif[/img]&&&&[img]http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Fairygdmther/Avatars/A-G-E-S_SIG.jpg[/img][/center] |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 AUG 2004 at 7:30pm | |
ogtoIntergalactic Janitor  Posts : 4 Joined: 16 AUG 2004 Status : Online | Originally Posted By DJ Souza (16 AUG 2004 4:48am) Well yeah, sure. This is a personal opinion and it's quaite practical. You can find abandonare games on the net, can't you? And they are free? Not all of them, but most of them. But even so. They are not really legal. Maybe, when the gener becomes BIGGER (and abandonware will be very big) companies will do things about them. Enjoy it while you can... It's a pitty some games cannot be found even in abandonware sites. You'll never find a Monkey Island game in such a site, even if you can't buy form anywhere... Abandonware is great. I'm completly PRO abandoware, and who wouldn't be? Who doesn't want to play the 'oldies but goldies'? Like Discworld and Broken Sword and many others... But it might not last. Enjoy it while you can... |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 12:18am | |
Speaker4DeadIntergalactic JanitorPosts : 53 Joined: 6 APR 2003 Status : Online | And again, I repeat, that you're ignoring that the profit the seller makes could well go to the developer, or could CONCEIVABLY anyway, and thereby maintaining old copyrights is a sound economical move. Scenario 1: I buy a game from GenericDeveloper, keep it until it is a rare collectible, and sell it. I thereby have lots of money, some of which I could conceivably spend on other GenericDeveloper games. Scenario 2: I buy a game and distribute it when it is no longer publicly available. While there is no direct net loss to the developer, I have not gained all the money that I would otherwise spend on GD games. It's all about preserving the flow of the economy. As long as money is being exchanged, the developers benefit, even if not directly. It's when the good become free of monetary distribution that the developer begins losing revenue. |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 1:51am | |
MichalNGrand Inquisitor  Posts : 7058 Joined: 14 SEP 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Speaker4Dead (17 AUG 2004 12:17am) You're claiming that developer benefits because seller of game A receives X dollars, thereby enabling him/her to spend said X dollars on a new game. Well, somehow you missed the fact that if the game is given away for free, then the receiving party keeps those X dollars and can spend them on something else! Conceivably a game from that very same developer. Let's say person A owns old game G. Person B wants game G. A can either sell G for X dollars, or give away a copy. The two possible end results are: 1) A sold G. A now has X dollars, B has game G. 2) A copied G. A still has game G, B also has game G, B kept X dollars. You will immediately notice that the amount of dollars that is available for spending is exactly the same (but who can spend them isn't). Please explain to me again how case 1) is better for the developer of G. I forgot my sig. |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 5:03am | |
Jenny100Guild Master  Posts : 3510 Joined: 12 OCT 2002 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Speaker4Dead (17 AUG 2004 12:17am) Scenario 3: You buy the game, keep it a few years hoping it will increase in value, then try to sell it. But no one wants it because no one ever heard of it. No one wants to risk money on something they never heard of before and aren't even sure they can get working, whereas they might have downloaded it and tried it if it were free. So the game is forgotten instead of being remembered. There is no word of mouth - no interest in a sequel or remake. And whatever copyright the game had is worthless because no one is interested in the product. |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 6:25am | |
Fibber_McGeeSpace Cadet  Posts : 168 Joined: 2 AUG 2004 Status : Online | Yeah Speaker, that pretty spurious logic. The fact that a seller might spend some of their profit on games, possibly even games from the same company that developed the one they made a profit off of, doesn't change anything. With a lot of these older games, the designer/publisher no longer exists, or has abandoned the adventure genre and so does not deserve our support. Also, people who pay hundreds of dollars for old out-of-print games are not the average gamer, they are collectors, and would likely pay hundreds of dollars even if the game were legally available for free download. The important factor is keeping the game out there to be discovered by gamers, and a game freely available for download is a lot more likely to be discovered than one going for a pile of money of eBay. |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 2:21pm | |
| Deleted User | The copyright one holds on a product is 76 years. Some US politicians would really love to double that times or don't give a limit at all (for the companies they are sponsered from). What some people here not realize is that software is a good like any othr with one big difference... it is possible to make a lossless copy of it. Someone already said it before... when you want to buy a 30 years old corvette you have to pay much much more then the original price of that car was. If you are a stamp collector you have to pay lots of money for a rare stamp... and a stamp is only a piece of small paper with something printed on it. The same counts for software rare old software with package etc can be expensive but these are usually only of interest for collectors who are WILLING to spend so much money for it. When there are no collectors the rare stamp would be cheap, the car would be cheap and the software would be cheap as well. Plainly speaking: Abandonware is nothing but a nicer description for a pirated game that is a few years old. As long as the game isn't over 76 yars old it theoretically makes no difference if you download a pirated version of Doom 3 or Monkey Island they are both simple illegal. If an older good (game) is still made available is the decision of the manufacturer. There are many many products that aren't available anymore (Star Wars figures from Parker, the 1st series of Magic the Gathering trading cards and so on) and if someone wants to have such things they have to pay the collectors prices nowadays because those items can't be copied. Just because software can doesn't make it right! Hell I would love to have a Black Lotus (a card from Magic) but it costs 2000 Dollars or so so for me it just isn't worth so much so I won't buy (get) it and never will. So is it fair that you can download software for free while you can not have a 30 years old Corvette for free? The laws make perfect sense in that matter! Only difference is that you are right when you say people have just so and so much money they can spend. Look at the movie and music industry telling every year anew that pirated music/movies made them lose billions and billions of Dollars... they always forget telling that people couldn't have bought that anyway. And why the hell does a 5 year old CD costs usually as much as a new one? Who pays such prices for that? Still its not legal to download older songs. Why is it forbidden to download music from the net... you can listen to it on TV or on the radio for "free" why not downloading it for free via internet - it makes no quality difference if you download a song from a p2p network or if you rip a radio stream (winamp + streamripper) - the mp3 file will be the same - only difference one is legal the other not. Does that make sense? |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 9:43pm | |
DJ SouzaJourneymanPosts : 1452 Joined: 19 OCT 2002 Status : Online | What some people here not realize is that software is a good like any othr with one big difference... it is possible to make a lossless copy of it. But there's ANOTHER major difference between old software and new software, and even between abandonware and other forms of art, a difference so big that make old software really special: it's outdated. Not just out of fashion, but outdated, in the sense that you probably won't get it working right on any computer available in the current market. To me, that's the biggest difference (not legal, of course) between abandonware and newer software. We all know that software needs technical support, old games won't work in your new pentium with XP just by installing them. There's no way out of this, you have to read and read, and ask on forums how to do it, and search a lot of websites concerning old games in order to make them work. That's why the games are ABANDONED, no one cares for them anymore but the fans. And ONLY diehard fans know how to make them work. Go ask the company that made the game (if it still exists) and the company won't probably even know they have created such a game. I do sense a difference between abandonwares and new software, it's not a difference based on any laws, just based on my knowledge of how old games are simply the most underated form of art (it's even below new games. And games are still being sold and marketed towards teens most of the times, one of the reasons why adventures don't get the attention it deserves). Buying abandonware IS different than buying an old car, or an used book. You buy the car (a WORKING car, mind you), the only thing you got to do is turn on the key and the car will start. Buy a book that is 100 years old, and you can still read it. Buy and old music CD, and you can still play it in ANY CD drive, EVEN DVD-ROM drives! But if you buy and old computer game, then trouble and frustration lies ahead of you... unless you're a certified old game computer nerd, then it's no skin out of your nose. If you're not an specialist in old computer games, then you shouldn't even botter trying to make a millionaire offer on EBay. Unless, of course, you are willing to become part of this select group of software gravediggers... On this matter, old computer games are also different from consoles. In can still buy an old used Atari 2600, plug it and play. NO technical support needed. The cartridge should work with no problem. For all the reasons mentioned before, I do believe that abandoned computer software MUST be considered different from other forms of art. There really IS a reason to call them "ABANDONED", it's not just to justify piracy in my opinion (even though a lot of people use the term like that). I do think that the laws concerning software copyright should be changed, the definition of abandonware SHOULD be included. There's no denying that laws of copyright still have a lot of improvement to do, just remember that Disney know how to manipulate the laws to make Mickey Mouse a character that will NEVER be part of public domain - just to use a recent example of bad use of copyright. EDITED for a LOT of spelling mistakes (there might still be a few left, but I'm too tired to look for them right now...) [center]DIEGO J. SOUZA&&Consulting Detective for Hire[img]http://www.justadventure.com/public_html/YaBBImages/smilies//detective.gif[/img]&&&&[img]http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Fairygdmther/Avatars/A-G-E-S_SIG.jpg[/img][/center] |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 AUG 2004 at 10:28pm | |
Speaker4DeadIntergalactic JanitorPosts : 53 Joined: 6 APR 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By MichalN (17 AUG 2004 1:51am) The thing is this. We're arguing abstractions correct? That is, there will be obvious pratical exceptions to any case either of us propose, but we're talking in generalities. I posit two economies: In Economy A, every game is bought once by Player A, and then resold to player B, who resells it to Player C and so on. Whenever Player A has enough money to buy a new game, he does so. In Economy B, every game is bought once by Player A, who then makes the game available for any who want it. Your argument would posit that in both economies, the developer makes the same amount of cash, because Player B would spend the money he'd make buying the game off Player A on buying more games from the developer...but that doesn't make sense, because in Economy B, player B has pirated the games, and if he hadn't, then he would otherwise have given the money to Player A. The point is that Player B's money doesn't reach the developer directly in either case...in one scenario, it goes to Player A, in the other it remains in his pocket. But if it goes to Player A, whose money DOES go to developers, then there is some profit for the company. Economy with no game trade: Player A's Money -> Developer Player B's Money -> Either nowhere or to developer Economy with resell Player's A's Money -> Developer Player B's Money -> Player A Player A's Money He Got From Player B -> Developer Economy with Abandonware Player A's Money -> Developer Player B's Money -> Nowhere, because he already has the game Not to mention all the Player Cs, Ds, and Es, that benefit from the initial piracy of Player A. Theoretically, developers would benefit most from an economy with no resale or abandonware, but GIVEN the choice, resale is a far preferrable option. Of course, if the developer is no longer in business, and no longer supporting the game, the situation is murkier. After all, if Player A's money isn't going to go the developer, then it doesn't matter if he sells it or abandonwares it, because the money Player B saved not buying wasn't going to the developer anyway, right? I would say wrong, from a basic capitalist perspective. The fact is, it STILL hurts the industry, because Player B is receiving a game for nothing, thereby gaining all the potential enjoyment of a game without paying for one, and without supporting any developer at all. I would argue that if I sell an old copy of, I dunno, Zak McKrakken, and then go buy a copy of Doom 3 with the money, I've still contributed much more to videogaming as a whole and to commerce as a whole than if I'd just allowed people to download the game. I mean, let's say I'm bored and want a game. I could go out and buy a new game, or I could download for free and older and better one. Even if the old developer is long out of business, the very institution of abandonware hurts the modern videogame industry by cutting its profits. I realize that I'm coming from a different perspective, that many of you are saying the goal should be to distribute old games, to make them available, to have everyone play them, etc. The thing is, a world in which far fewer people have games, but the few that do pay great sums for them, is one far more beneficial to the videogame industry, and to modern adventure gaming, as a whole. |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 AUG 2004 at 9:51am | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By DJ Souza (17 AUG 2004 9:43pm) Well when saying all this.. what does it change? you can also buy an old car that is broken and needs a lot of repairs. Can everybody do that? No! It's still a fan-thing. People who play old games know just like the hobby-mechanic what they are up to when they really want to make the "good" usable. The Mickey Mouse copyright thing reminds me of something. Isn't Sherlock Holmes far over 100 years? I remember that Paramount had to pay lots of money to the owners of the Sherlock Holmes franchise when using some characters in Star Trek TNG. I guess they thought there is no copyright on Sherlock Holmes anymore. Examples like Mickey Mouse show how powerful the industry is when they can still make money out of a franchise and how much the people really have to say... almost nothing... unless they start another French revolution and make the ones who are in charge (politicians and big business players) a head shorter. The only problem is that the people who after them come to power will be the same after a short time. Money corrupts. Well, sigh, I guess as we don't have real communism (there is no practiced communism in the world, countries who claim to be communists practice just another form of dictatorship) where everyone is equal these things will never change. And its the people who have to change. As long as there is a thing like money and we don't work just to improve ourselves for the benefits of everyone, with everyone owning the same there will be copyright issues. And it doesn't really mater whats wrong or right - the law is the law. |
| 18 AUG 2004 at 12:31pm | |
Fibber_McGeeSpace CadetPosts : 168 Joined: 2 AUG 2004 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Ogre (18 AUG 2004 9:51am) There wasn't, but there was still a copyright on Professor Moriarty, who came into being a few years later. Paramount was apparently confused on this issue. Isn't this sort of thing why studios have a legal department? Sheesh! |
| Profile Search | |
| 19 AUG 2004 at 12:55am | |
DJ SouzaJourneymanPosts : 1452 Joined: 19 OCT 2002 Status : Online | And it doesn't really mater whats wrong or right - the law is the law.The law is always changing, adapting to the current situation. New laws are created every year. It's not like copyright laws were always like they are right now, is it? The concept of abandonware won't be part of the law untill there is a great amount of people endorsing this new term. But abandonware sites are becoming more and more common, I think. Game companies invest a lot of money to prevent new games from being pirated. They also hire people to investigate warez sites and arrest all those big warez groups. But it's a known fact that abandonware sites are just not worth their time, so it seems. Abandonware might not be legally accepted, but it already achieved a different status among players. Abandonware is considered to have "implicit" acceptance because the game companies couldn't care less for their old products. Games that very few people still play are not worth being supported by the game publishers, at least that's how they usually treat their oldies. Hence, that's why they're called abandoned. That's another reason, at least for me, to support the inclusion of abandonware in current laws. The people have spoken! Abandonware RULZ! [center]DIEGO J. SOUZA&&Consulting Detective for Hire[img]http://www.justadventure.com/public_html/YaBBImages/smilies//detective.gif[/img]&&&&[img]http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Fairygdmther/Avatars/A-G-E-S_SIG.jpg[/img][/center] |
| Profile Search | |
| 19 AUG 2004 at 1:00am | |
InlandAZGuild Master Posts : 5586 Joined: 4 MAY 2007 Status : Offline | But abandonware sites are becoming more and more common, I think. It depends on the platform I suppose - go find a rom site for NES or SNES... Nintendo just doesn't leave them alone. Sell them... heck no.... allow them to be distributed for free... once again... heck no. I'm not saying you can't find them - but, they're sure shut down fast. What? |
| Profile Search | |
| 19 AUG 2004 at 9:23am | |
| Deleted User | I agree, the most abandonware or ROM sites I've seen became shut down pretty fast. A few years ago (2000-2002) there were lots more that were easily to find. Today you have to look really hard to find them. Even P2P sites who don't offer direct downloads but just links are shut down all the time, Sharereactor comes to mind. That the Underdogs still exist is sort of a miracle to me. |
| 4 OCT 2004 at 2:33pm | |
krkdnosePrivate DetectivePosts : 707 Joined: 9 JUN 2004 Status : Online | Back to something that was discussed previously in this thread: EULAs I don't know if anyone has followed the case of "Blizzard vs. bnetd". Basically, some people created some software to to play Blizzard games online instead of having to use Battle.net to do so. Blizzard sued them under the DMCA for reverse engineering their software. Well, the United States District Court in Missouri has ruled in favor of Blizzard. As a result: 1) Click-through EULAs are indeed enforceable. 2) Fair Use rights can be waved through a EULA 3) Right of First Sale can be waved through a EULA What #3 means is that if the EULA says that you're being granted a "license" to use the software, and not ownership of the software then you have no right to sell it to anyone else. So selling used games is illegal if the EULA says so and you click "ok". :-/ |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 OCT 2004 at 9:13am | |
| Deleted User | Man, I'm happy that in my country courts decided differently... what isn't written clearly on the box or bill and has been seen by the buyer BEFORE buying the software is absolutely MEANINGLESS here. Besides our courts here also said you don't buy a licence but the whole product!!! It is even legal for shops to sell OEM products for a cheaper price than the retail versions. |
| 9 OCT 2004 at 6:42pm | |
InlandAZGuild MasterPosts : 5586 Joined: 4 MAY 2007 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ogre (9 OCT 2004 9:13am) Safe as you may feel - even Germany was included: 459 European P2P users sued What? |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 OCT 2004 at 8:03pm | |
| Deleted User | That has nothing to do with the EULA of a legally bought copy! Besides from the 459 p2p users only 3 or so had to pay something. |
| 9 OCT 2004 at 8:32pm | |
InlandAZGuild MasterPosts : 5586 Joined: 4 MAY 2007 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ogre (9 OCT 2004 8:03pm) No the link is related to: Copyright infringement - which is why it is illegal to download abandonware. I think it also shows that no one is really safe distributing software just because just because it’s no longer available for sale. Even in Germany - What? |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 OCT 2004 at 6:43pm | |
NavarosIntergalactic JanitorPosts : 25 Joined: 17 OCT 2004 Status : Online | there is nothing wrong with abandonware at all no money is changing hands between the Publishers/developers/end users therefore there is nothing being lost and no reason to feel guilty about acquiring abandonware the current legal mumbo jumbo regarding it is just a stupid technicality that should be abolished patents only last for 2 years or so... so why do copyrights last so much longer? in my view, any game that is off the market for 2 years and which has not had any firm committment by the Publisher to be re-published by that time, should become legally available for download games are meant to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. why limit the enjoyment of old masterpieces simply due to legal mumbo jumbo that is illogical and stupid? |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 OCT 2004 at 1:45am | |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor Posts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . After countless forum debates with a wide assortment of people from around the world on this very issue and virtually all related issues, I have finally come to the conclusion that there simply is no right or wrong answer. The fact is that unlike most every other type of outdated product or original work (literary, musical, visual arts based, multimedia driven or otherwise), an older PC game does become virtually obsolete due to the very evolution of the medium it was first created for. And there is no simple, cost effective method for either the originator of that product or its potential consumer base to connect. This has been pointed out above as have the disparities between laws governing citizens in different autonomous countries - a situation made worse by the combination of vastly inequitable economic conditions and ready access to the Internet by what really is a global userbase. What we are left with is a hodge podge of haphazardly revamped laws that were originally intended to cover a completely different set of circumstances and by nature a totally different type of media delivery system in times past. So we have a sharp conflict now between what used to be a very straight forward set of laws and a whole new set of applications. In this case, applications that themselves become obsolete by default as the technology they require fades quickly into obscurity. Nevertheless, creators still need to maintain a certain degree of control over the use and distribution of their creations - even in our bold, new world of digital technology and instant, global web communications. That is why I have suggested a fresh new start for all such laws that accounts for the fair and equitable treatment of all parties concerned. It could not be achieved by creators / publishers / sellers through existing legal channels, nor exclusively from the consumer rights perspective, nor dictated by a small group of elected officials. No. It would require a broad, cooperative effort on a worldwide scale by a consortium comprised of representatives from all parties equally. A group that would study the issues from all angles with NO bias or obligations to any one faction - so that a true arbitration could be reached. IMO, no other process can work successfully, comprehensively and fairly for such a diverse population on a global scale now or at any time in the future. Of course, getting something like that started here in the USA would take a near unanimous act of Congress with full Presidential and Supreme Court support as well as a legally binding commitment by all publishers / copyright holder groups and all applicable consumer advocacy organizations. And THEN we would have to repeat the same preliminary procedure in every nation on earth just to reach an initial consensus. From there, we could at least begin to study, analyze and eventually arbitrate a new set of rules. In other words, there is not a chance in hell that this will happen as long as any special interests, greed or other human stumbling blocks exist. So IMO, there is no clear, right or wrong answer and no ultimate conclusion to be had - and none will be available in the foreseeable future - making this entire matter a moot point. Cheers, Terry . |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 3 of 4 : « ‹ › » |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
