http://www.copyright.gov/1201/index.html

What do you make of it?

I'm wondering about this bit

That is is not sold without the copyright holder's concent.

Make money on someone else's work will always be copyright infringement, unless you have permission.

Very interesting, at least the way it sounds, looks promising perhaps. Although I'm not a lawyer.

It is legal to bypass copy protections of "old" games for preservation purposes if you don't violate other laws.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom Henrik @ Dec 3 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]269982[/snapback]</div>But the problem is that copyright infringement doesn't have to mean making money out of it, it can just as well be sharing like AB do. I believe that in the eyes of the law (in this case, the US law), making games available for download without the permission from the copyright holder, is infringement, unless what we read here would mean that we have a three year period of bliss coming.

No! It's only about bypassing copy protections. It only refers to "our main business".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Dec 3 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]269990[/snapback]</div>If what you are stating is true, then I don't really understand what would constitute as a non-infringing use of that rule... Do you have an example?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kosta @ Dec 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]270032[/snapback]</div>If what you are stating is true, then I don't really understand what would constitute as a non-infringing use of that rule... Do you have an example?
[/b][/quote]

No, and that seemingly contradiction is what confuses me.

Okay, can somebody translate this from lawyerish to english? Pleez?

lemme see what I can make out all of these blabla: The US government released abandonware games to the public, which games was distributed on now obsolete media (like casette or big-floppy). Is this right?

No, you won't be prosecuted if you bypass any form of copy protection if you need to do that in order to use a game in a legal way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Luchsen @ Dec 3 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]270056[/snapback]</div>Hm, that sounds as if they are saying its legal for library of congres to make copies of it digitized archives and distribute those within the library itself without breaking any copyright laws. For example they have X copies of software y, and they need more as its being requested a lot but they can't obtain legal copies anywhere. Then it is legal for them to multiply the copies they have. Or something like that.... :ph34r:

At first glance it looks non-threatening and as if ESA-type rules/laws are loosening, however, on closer examination it seems as if nothing in particular has changed. I think the most important part of that particular clause is this -

This is a particularly nasty sentence bacause I believe that it leaves lots of room for re-interpretation by nasty corporate and ESA lawyers. Where I believe that Abandonia could easily be classed as an archive, providing the downloads of the games in question for distribution (although free) could be argued as being against the terms of this determination, because although the games are exempt from copyright laws due to their running on obselete hardware, they are still under copyright - so as usual, it's up to the parent companies to decide if they want to bring the hammer down on Abandonia.

Doesn't look like much has changed to me - Abandonia still lives in the grey area :ph34r:

It seems more that if you copy your copy of Jet set willy from casette to computer it will no longer be Copyright violation.

That's why the whole copyright concept is stupid.

Before this you could buy a game on floppy disk but you were actually not allowed to copy it on a CD (to be more safe) cause you would be breaking the law (ehm the US law). with this new law it seems you can actually copy it for preservation purpose. as for abandonia - users are acrhiving the games for preservation purpose as well. :)

That more or less applies to DOS systems and the games/software that runs on DOS exclusively...

ehm if so what about win 3.11, win 95 and win 98. the systems are no longer supported by Microsoft. and no longer sold. offcourse the game would have to run on them exclusivelly. and there were a few....

and as for DOS i think Terra nove definatelly can't run even in Win98. Well luckilly this guy made special patch that can bypass some problems (still a messy installer, but game works fine).

There were a few games that are simply impossible to run on newer Windows too, and I agree it might also apply to them.

For example Dark Reign and it's expansion. Both cannot run on 2k/xp/etc. Designed only to run on win95/98 (DX backward compatibility doesn't work in this case). Can DR be considered that sort of game?

All in all nothing is changed - this is just something that had to be done since tchnology is progressing.

Question about AB will never be answered by hte laws for old games but by the way companies see AB. If they think we break law by distributing their games, then it's a crime, if they don't mind and say that AB puts games for preservation only, no problem. But still we have games for download, we are not like Mobygames that are surely only for preservation.

It looks like the law has changed to allow the circumvention of technical measures controlling access to the media - so this seems to make DOSBox, etc. legal, as well as the breaking of copy protection on games that require media as a condition of access (e.g., requiring the CD to be in the drive). However, it doesn't seem to mention anything about distribution. So, while it may be legal to break the copy protection on a game that requires technology that's no longer easily accessible to run, nothing seems to have changed along the lines of how those games may be distributed.

Funny, this is the first forum where people actually think that the US legalized abandonware. Originally I thought so myself until the DOSBox forum almost lynched me for thinking that.

Anyway, the full quote is:
I was told this just means one very specific thing - librarians could copy abandonware from floppies to digital media. So even for ilbrarians, playing games which they don't own in DOSBox would still be illegal! Just the copying process and the breaking of any copy protections that stand in its way (copy protection is not the codes you're manually asked to supply inside a game, but the automated floppy disk's protection some games used to have - that first prevented the "diskcopy" function and then disallowed playing without the actual floppy (and the original floppy could not be duplicated because "diskcopy" was disabled by the copy protection) - for example, Karateka used to have that until I supplied a crack.
I do wonder if abandonware sites' owners could call their sites "archives" though. :whistling:

That little word caught my attention. This is not an "abandonwarez" site at all. You know what warez means do you? It means the distribution of illegaly obtained and/or cracked software. Abandonia hosts only abandonware (not warez) games, that have been released to the public/not longer sold and supported/ was freeware. There are however abandonwarez (with the z) sites, that hosts old/classic games that are either ESA protected/cracked or otherwise illegal to distribute. So please next time clarify what kind of games are you talking about, because that little 'z' can be the source of nasty misunderstandings. :ok:

Not sure you're right, but I changed it anyway so as to not distract us from the main issue.

Yes, but it's the distibution from these particular archive sites that will still annoy the big companies, and it still provides no real protection for the site, or people like the good folk at DOSbox.

(By the way, I agree about the "Z" thing - but also because it's just terrible spelling ;) )

As far as I know emulators such as DOSBox have no legality problems --unless they're illegalized but that would be a government abuse and no country has done that as far as I know. Whether one uses them to run legally owned software or not, that's another issue altogether, but the crime would be pirating the software which is run through DOSBox, not using DOSBox. Besides there are people who own legal copies of DOS games.

Well so it seems that USA hasn't legalized anything that concerns us, right?

You're right. I meant that even librarians still can't use DOSBox for games they don't own. All they can do is copy those games to digital media and crack everything that stands in the copying process' way.

I have pondered this fact a bit, and came to conclusion that it seems to legalize NES/SNES ROMs, since neither console is commercially available anymore.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_fifth_horseman @ Dec 13 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]271517[/snapback]</div>Only for people who own the original games and then somehow turn them into ROMs, though.

Yes the point is that what is legalized --in some cases-- is archiving some software, not running it, if I haven't taken it wrong in the end.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Dec 14 2006, 01:30 AM) [snapback]271618[/snapback]</div>Well, the way I understand it, it does mean you'd be allowed to create a ROM of, say, an NES game you already own and run it on your computer. But the point is that you still have to own the game. Passing that ROM on to somebody else or getting ROMs from other sources would still be illegal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(A. J. Raffles @ Dec 14 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]271654[/snapback]</div>Well of course, that was already legal beforehand.

That particular bill means nothing because the government has once again watered the whole thing down. It's a smoke screen guys.

Here is an interesting article on copyright. DRM and all that. why and how...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379309.stm

I hadn't noticed this thread before, but I'm surprised it was omitted: The Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine guys) received exemption under this provision as Library/Archive. TIA is actually a prime example of a group pressing essentially the same agenda as the abandonware community.

I would like to add that no matter what the situation regarding the "abandonment" of software packages, as long as there is any potential money that could be made from any sort of use or sale, IMO, companies will hire legal teams to enforce their ability to collect this compensation. As long as no one feels there is any real profit to be made, most folks are not going to care if a program is "archived" or "warez". But let profits rear their ugly heads and the practices of the past will become just that, practices of the past.

If any one ever figures out a pay-per-play or viable gaming delivery method for older software, people will be coming out of the woodwork to claim their piece of the pie. Laws can be changed virtually overnight to pursue and protect new revenue streams. Even if somehow the US changed all of its copyright laws tomorrow, that does not mean 10 years down the road they won't be changed again.

FWIW, I think this site is absolutely incredible. I loved a bunch of these older games, and it has saddened me to see the gaming industry act as somehow just having arisen in the last 10 years out of a vacuum. These games should be remembered as valid cultural memoribilia. The 1980's and 90's were a great time to be a computer gamer, and is just as valid an art-form as any other. Mass marketing capability does not a great game make, to paraphrase a beloved little green dude.

u fail to see the point
 

I fail to see why the US is covering up old software after all you cant buy them no so they might as well be public domain and them be enjoyed by the masses

re
 

the fact is the US Copywhight Lobby have been a pain in the butt long enough its a bout time they were told to get lost

You massively fail to see the point, and that after two years and four months.

That sentence is ridiculous! You can cite the discontinued purchasability as an argument, but not as a reason to drop the whole copyright instantly.

It's about the obsolescence. Video games should have a shorter copyright period (with renewal clauses, though), but they don't want to admit that new technologies do have shorter cycles. And I understand when one says that you can't discriminate between intellectual property, and thus all intellectual property has to have the same amount of protection. It's something to talk about, but they don't want to talk (and why should they want?).

Here, we have a case of pointless thread resurrection, so:
Closed.

But don't get me wrong: If you want to talk about what you said, you are welcome to open a new thread; you just hit the wrong place. :)