What i meant was that though i do download abandonware i don't just go, "Hey! Doom III was kind of fun. I think i'll just go and pay 5 dollars and get it burnt to disk".
Yeah, but Doom III is most certainly not abandonware. That's out-and-out piracy. The key is that "abandonware" has never really been defined. Is it piracy or isn't it? So, the Doom III analogy doesn't quite work, but I know what you're saying.
But some games, they were around in 1989 and nobody longer wishes to know about it and the copyright stopped back in 2000 and i really REALLY want to play it and after about 1 month of searching a i can't legally buy it, i'll download it. I ain't no pirate just because of that am i?
That's the debate. I don't see how anyone can be considered as such. Obviously, others do.
Freeware doesn't exist from a legal standpoint either. A game is either Public Domain or it's not, most freeware games aren't. Freeware and abandonware are both terms invented by gamers.
No, that's not true. "Freeware" is a viable term in that it has a different license than public domain.
"Public domain" is just that - it belongs to the public who can do whatever they want with the material.
So the term freeware is made up as well. But I thought companies could make games free without having to relinquish the rights to them.
That is correct. "Freeware" is software that is made available to the public for free; however, it is still owned under copyright by the software company or developer. The public can legally distribute freeware, but cannot alter or modify it without express consent of the copyright holder.
Freeware authors often also put other stipulations, such as the software cannot be sold, cannot be included with another package, and so forth.
The statement that it was developed by gamers is also not correct. The term "freeware" was not coined by gamers. It was started by someone who wanted to distribute a communications program. Freeware includes all types of software, not just games. You can get software under "distributed as freeware" licensing for just about any category imaginable.
"Public domain" is just that - it belongs to the public who can do whatever they want with the material.
So the term freeware is made up as well. But I thought companies could make games free without having to relinquish the rights to them.
That is correct. "Freeware" is software that is made available to the public for free; however, it is still owned under copyright by the software company or developer. The public can legally distribute freeware, but cannot alter or modify it without express consent of the copyright holder.
Yes, but my point was that freeware is not a legal term. It's a term that describes software that has a license that allows anyone to spread it. You won't find the term in a lawbook like Public Domain. Or maybe you will, I'm not an expert on this.
Yes, but my point was that freeware is not a legal term. It's a term that describes software that has a license that allows anyone to spread it. You won't find the term in a lawbook like Public Domain. Or maybe you will, I'm not an expert on this.
The term has been used for over a decade to represent a specific type of legal, licensing methodology. It might not be in a dictionary, but that doesn't make the term any less valid. Besides, any issue regarding law will be defined by the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA) for the application/utility/game that is in legal question, not the descriptive word that's assigned to that type of licensing. Different types of freeware have different types of licensing. The licensing is what any lawyer would be concerned about.
Abandonware, in the sense that most people use it, is inherently bad, since it is also illegal. Copyrights don't just expire because noone defends them. It is always better to have the consent of the copyright holder.
Now, there is a considerable movement in the games industry towards releasing old games as freeware, subject to license agreements that make it clear that the developers still hold the copyright. Many developers use the GPL or similar licenses if they release source code along with the game.
Some people like to refer to these previously commercial games as "liberated games".
Some high-profile examples include:
Rockstar Games (released GTA 1 & 2, and Wild Metal)
Team17 (released their entire Amiga lineup of games)
Revolution (released Beneath a Steel Sky to ScummVM)
A good place to start looking for officially liberated games is, apparently, liberatedgames.org .
Abandonware, in the sense that most people use it, is inherently bad, since it is also illegal..
See, this is exactly the kind of attitude that gets under my skin.
You cannot equate illegal with being inherently bad. There are many things that were illegal that now are not. It was once illegal for women to vote. So, women voting was inherently bad?
Conversely, there are a lot of things that are now illegal that are by no means inherently bad. Just look at the number of lawsuits being by the legal abuse of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's now to the point where Congress realized that they were stupid in enacting the bill as it now is as it does nothing more than strip away consumers' rights. I guess that consumers' rights are inherently bad in your world since many actions that were once legal are now illegal.
Your statement that anyone downloading a game that is no longer supported, sold, or even cared about by its original developers is performing an inherently bad action is mind-numbingly short sighted.
You're going to be lawyer, I take it.
(See? You folks just had to hit this hot button again, didn't you! )
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
"Public domain" is just that - it belongs to the public who can do whatever they want with the material. That is correct. "Freeware" is software that is made available to the public for free; however, it is still owned under copyright by the software company or developer. The public can legally distribute freeware, but cannot alter or modify it without express consent of the copyright holder.
Freeware authors often also put other stipulations, such as the software cannot be sold, cannot be included with another package, and so forth.
The statement that it was developed by gamers is also not correct. The term "freeware" was not coined by gamers. It was started by someone who wanted to distribute a communications program. Freeware includes all types of software, not just games. You can get software under "distributed as freeware" licensing for just about any category imaginable.
BING! BING! BING BING!! BING! We have a winner.
Yes, but my point was that freeware is not a legal term. It's a term that describes software that has a license that allows anyone to spread it. You won't find the term in a lawbook like Public Domain. Or maybe you will, I'm not an expert on this.
>_>
<_<
Now, there is a considerable movement in the games industry towards releasing old games as freeware, subject to license agreements that make it clear that the developers still hold the copyright. Many developers use the GPL or similar licenses if they release source code along with the game.
Some people like to refer to these previously commercial games as "liberated games".
Some high-profile examples include:
Rockstar Games (released GTA 1 & 2, and Wild Metal)
Team17 (released their entire Amiga lineup of games)
Revolution (released Beneath a Steel Sky to ScummVM)
A good place to start looking for officially liberated games is, apparently, liberatedgames.org .
You cannot equate illegal with being inherently bad. There are many things that were illegal that now are not. It was once illegal for women to vote. So, women voting was inherently bad?
Conversely, there are a lot of things that are now illegal that are by no means inherently bad. Just look at the number of lawsuits being by the legal abuse of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's now to the point where Congress realized that they were stupid in enacting the bill as it now is as it does nothing more than strip away consumers' rights. I guess that consumers' rights are inherently bad in your world since many actions that were once legal are now illegal.
Your statement that anyone downloading a game that is no longer supported, sold, or even cared about by its original developers is performing an inherently bad action is mind-numbingly short sighted.
You're going to be lawyer, I take it.
(See? You folks just had to hit this hot button again, didn't you!