Time for all games to become (legally) available?
It just came to me that none of us are getting any younger. Not much of an earth-shattering statement I know, but more came of this original thought. When us gamers from back in the day finally lose our last life, how many people will be left to play those games denied us? How many will care that some titles are still jealously guarded by their original owners, or the people to whom their intellectual as well as physical belongings have been bequeathed to?
If many of those games still with-held are left for too much longer, then there won't be many (any?) left who will even know what it is that they are missing out on. Then those games will be lost forever... Which is a great shame considering the time, effort and skill put in to making them.
Much like a classic novel or piece of music, they should be there for posterity. Not necessarily there to be played, but for at least people to be aware that they exist and could be played if they so chose.
The chances are that no-one will be left to care , and no-one will play them whether they are available or not. So why not make them accessible to people who will still appreciate and play them before it's too late?
If many of those games still with-held are left for too much longer, then there won't be many (any?) left who will even know what it is that they are missing out on. Then those games will be lost forever... Which is a great shame considering the time, effort and skill put in to making them.
Much like a classic novel or piece of music, they should be there for posterity. Not necessarily there to be played, but for at least people to be aware that they exist and could be played if they so chose.
The chances are that no-one will be left to care , and no-one will play them whether they are available or not. So why not make them accessible to people who will still appreciate and play them before it's too late?
Post edited by Dwayne Dibley on
Comments
Self defeating really, if you "ban" something, then it automatically becomes popular..........
:intitle (I think the term is) :-o
Originally when Copyright law was created ( statute of Anne 1710AD) it was for 14 years (with renewal) after publication - thus giving society time to consume it as well as the author time to capitalize from their work.
After this 14 year renewal the work would then be considered public domain (28 years total)
so, if I had a magic wand, and there was only one law I could make right... then in this regard - copyright law would be reduced to 25 years after being published.
However, as the games industry moves onto Free2Play (*) and that you'd pay for upgrades to play the game better than everyone else, it might lead (**) to many of the old giants would legally release e.g. ZX binaries on their own sites, perhaps even exclusive rights to WoS although it'd take a bunch of lawyers to set the details. What everyone then would have to agree on is that permitted free distribution does not equal putting games into the public domain, voiding all previous copyrights etc. I'm not so sure that everyone in userland are able to see the difference between that.
(*) I saw some figures yesterday that 25% of current games companies entirely work with F2P and 40% to a certain part do. Just two years ago, the figures were completely different so there is a big change going on in the games industry.
(**) Or perhaps the opposite, just look at the latest Sim City which supposedly requires a connection to the servers to run, in order for the publisher to have full control of who is playing, when and what they do. Allowing offline playing even for defunct titles might counter the idea of letting people get the game for free as long as they remain connected and monitored.
Magenta icon
stuff like the ultimate/codemasters/activision/4mation will never get their status changed unfortunately
really we should be thankful to have what we got
Personally, I am in two minds as an author, authorised distributor, and copyright holder of various items, some of which is software.
Yes, copyright law may seem to run for too long (at life+50 / +75 years), but the same rules apply across the world, so it has to be a compromise between the various governments, bearing in mind the feelings of their electorate, and potentially rules to protect privacy and secrecy.
Some of the routines I have used in early software programs have been re-used by me in later programs - and in many cases, these have been to overcome issues which have puzzled other software engineers. I therefore would prefer to keep my rights to that code.
Some programs I have written, have been done to specifically highlight certain capabilities of hardware and/or software, or toolkits to help others to develop new programs in an efficient manner. Much of this has been donated to public domain libraries and online forums etc.
It is my prerogative as an author and/or copyright holder to determine which items I am willing to share for free, and which I would rather retain the rights to and restrict distribution.
No amount of pressure from end users will make me change those plans - that is up to me to decide whether, given the passage of time, I feel that it would be of benefit to the community as a whole to make something freely available, or not.
What end users seem to forget is the amount of money, time, blood sweat and tears, that many people and companies invest in new works of art / literature / software - basically by demanding that this is then given away for free, it suggests that this has all been for nothing.
OK - some software written in 1984 may not be being sold today, but there is always the possibility that it will become available again at some time in the future in some form or another (maybe as a remake, a derivative, or a re-release) - look at the success Elite has had with its catalogue of games for the iOS Speccy emulator - in reality, if the software had been released as public domain prior to this, then Elite (or anyone else) could have released this package and stuck two fingers up to the original authors - not even acknowledging that they had written it in the first place.
People should just respect the rights of the copyright holders to determine what happens to works which they have created (or own).
After all, would J K Rowling have written the Harry Potter books, knowing that in a few years, the character and even the whole of her books could be reproduced and made freely available (or sold for profit) without her agreement - without her children and grandchildren benefiting?
That's my two-penny worth anyway.
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
Imagine if you could only read novels like Frankenstein, Dracula or Great Expectations if you owned the original first edition? Or hear Tchaikovsky's Nut Cracker Suite if you owned the original manuscript? Of course these aren't like-for-like comparisons, because the vast majority of gaming software hasn't been made available for sale since original publication. But imagine if the original authors (and their benefactors) had denied reprints of original novels and pieces of music?
The big difference with gaming is that the only way to play most games legally is to own the original hardware and software. Which isn't always that easy to do, and with the passing of time eventually will become impossible. So the situation then is that either they are made legally available, or they are lost forever.
I do think that companies should either make them available for purchase or allow them to be owned for free; and do this whilst there are people out there who would appreciate it. Like I say, sooner rather than later - just like with the vast majority of entertainment media - no-one will remember or care.
This isn't a demand or in any way a criticism of companies who choose to deny their games to us - just a heartfelt plea on behalf of the gamer. Judging by the amount of permission given , it seems that most coders/companies from back in the day feel the same way.
Copyright on videogames is different than for things like books and music because the media much of it is kept on will likely not last for the period during which the games are protected by copyright. A mere 30 years on and some tapes and disks don't work - imagine how many will work in another 45 years! Also, unlike films, books and music they have a very limited shelf life because of the transitory nature of the platforms they run on.
Of course, this isn't much of an issue because the software is being digitally preserved but it's largely being done illegally. If the law were properly enforced then we wouldn't have most of the digital libraries of games we currently have.
The software houses have little interest in preserving old IP, and in many cases aren't even aware that they own it. Nonetheless the legal department of any software publisher, once it realises it owns IP, will clamp down on any attempts to pirate it for whatever reason. This does not imply that it has something it wants to do with the IP, it's just always good business to protect your IP, even if its dormant, because it might make money some way down the line.
There are instances of IP holders making the games freely distributable but they're rare, partly because so much games IP has been sold to large companies who have nothing to do with the original publishing of the software (let alone the programming) and whilst they will never give permission for free distribution of the games (because it's bad business to give IP away) they also, as far as we know, are making no attempts to preserve it.
This is a common problem: the spirit of the law being overtaken by the letter of the law. The spirit of IP law is that it allows the creators of games, art, music, writing or whatever to profit from it for a long period; this is intended to encourage the creation of more of the same and it works. The problem is that the letter of the law keeps this protection even if a work is "abandoned" and the IP holder no longer attempts to profit from it.
What's needed is an overhaul of the IP laws whereby companies and individuals must a) demonstrate that they are making their art commercially available or b) are actively preserving it for the nation. If they fail both then their IP is made public regardless.
If you have a drug in clinical trials that seems to have a beneficial effect, you will probably apply for a patent on it before anyone else does (it gives you the exclusive right to produce it for about 20 years.) By the time the drug has gone through clinical trials there may be only about ten years left on the patent in which to recoup the investment you made researching and trialing it.
After that any other drug company can copy and sell your product. Companies selling generic copies of drugs have no costs of research or trials.
To me anyway it all makes copyright law (assuming it's effectively enforced!) seem a bit over luxurious.
Very true. People just keep discussing the same thing again and again just like if it could change anything.
And it's true that if we counted on copyrights holders, most of old software would be lost forever. These guys won't move their finger if it doesn't bring them money. It's us, retroenthusiasts who made a great job of preserving this stuff for ourselves and future generations.
And yes, we are doing it illegally, according to current laws :) But copyrights holders have one good side. They aren't helpful but they mostly aren't harmful too. Websites with old games are hanging around internet for years and nobody chases them.
So instead of moaning, if you want to play Knight Lore - just go and download Knight Lore. Nobody really cares :)
True though, that they shouldn't just sit on their work. Do something with it, release it for sale, but don't hide it away.
But games and art don't save peoples' lives, these drugs do. It's quite right that they're made public property much more quickly.
..If there was a forum search option for "locked threads" we might not need to start a new one each time.. :p
You could easily argue that one in reverse.
If a company has spent years and millions developing a drug that saves lives, maybe they should have more rights to make back and profit from their investment than someone who has published a computer game, or song.
(I dont really believe this! Personally I think the patent system for drugs as it stands is fine - it encourages development of new drugs, encourages drugs to become cheaper in a reasonable time frame and obviously works or they would stop bothering. They must be making money after all!)
I'm pointing out that copyright seems a little over-generous in comparison.
The problem is that once you release the IP or copyright on something (two different things), then it does not prevent someone in the future making money from your work! Look at the number of people that sell games collections on CD-ROM or DVD - is it fair that the original owner has surrendered their rights, just for someone else to start making the software available at a price?
What if MS decided to make a new game for the XBOX - Manic Miner 360 - based on the original game, selling 100,000s of copies and nothing going to the original copyright holder / designer ? Is that fair?
This type of thread can really annoy me - particularly when you look at the attitude of some people who are 'preserving software' - last year, I came across an instance where someone in Spain had openly admitted that they knew certain QL programs were subject to copyright but would put them on their website.
When I and other copyright holders told them to remove the items from their website (particularly as they were still available commercially and the person concerned had not even had the courtesy to try contacting us) - it caused an outrage on a Spanish forum, where people made various insulting comments, because I was not willing to just freely hand over my copyright on items.
Unfortunately, it is this type of attitude that makes people even more determined to protect their IP and copyrights.
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
I often wonder what Linus Torvalds thinks about the companies who charge money for a copy of Linux supposedly for 'support' when in reality they do nothing to update the software themselves, but wait on communities to find and fix issues, or come up with new features.
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
I got Dukem 3D for free from gog.com, but not yet Doom. Publishers and authors - we depend on them. Not all of them will change their mind, but I think we should be glad that most of ZX software is free. And we have so many new titles also free. Look at the bright side, too.
Its every citizens right to question, query and request change to legislation - again for the public good which takes into account the provider and the consumer - well its supposed to.
IMHO - art (in all its forms) is to be consumed, in this regard it becomes part of the pubic in a lot of way part of peoples lives, its history, iconic or otherwise. Sadly the idea of copyright has been perverted by greedy corporations essentially wanting more for less - with their lobbying dollar power - the public interest IMHO is not met.
In regards to music - its 50 years + death - really.... that in a normal lifetime (could mean as long as 110 years - should some one develop something at age 20 and die at age 80) - thats just crazy thats over 3 generations of humanity we are talking about!
Copyright terms are an absolutely joke. Compounded to that literature works are covered to 75 years + death - with the example above one could be looking at a copyright term of 135 years!!!! thats nearly 5 generations of humanity right there!
I have no qualms in people making money from their ideas - its their idea and I would be happy to help them in anyway I can - but should one expect to be afforded over 130 years of payment for one piece of work?!
If a craftsman builds a Kitchen, or plumber fixes / installs a pipe - would he expected to be continually paid (and his dissendents) for the next 100 or so years....
25 or even 30 years seems IMHO more sensible - the copyright is preserved from exploitation. Although I would argue that there could be a non-commercial extensions to this... this is just my thoughts on the matter.
I would hope that Linus Torvalds would be happy in the knowledge that there are some great free distributions of his original work, as well as proper server software back-bone.... but lets be realisitc - where would Linux be without Unix?
Copyright is always a pretentious topic, but its a perverse hobby of mine, I decided to take a couple of modules of IP law at university and got bitten by the bug so to speak.
Well arguably the publisher that produces the reissues and distributes them to retailers is investing money in these titles. They are therefore entitled to be paid for this. There is also no guarantee these titles will sell.
A group of people who happen to be related to Great uncle Charles or Great Grandma Mary are not doing anything yet you seem to think they should receive money for this. I have no idea why - not even a clue where you might be coming from with that line of thinking...
Obviously they have just as much right as anybody to write a sequel to these books, or invest in some sort of movie adaptation if they so wish. That's how it should be. I'm sure the Dickens and Shelley families are quite capable of getting jobs and making their own ways in the world!
Copyright should protect the original artist for a limited period of time to make sure that they can make a living from and retain creative control of their own work.
Unfortunately copyright law usually seems to work to protect publishers. As I've said that is not an altogether unreasonable aim - since a publisher will put up the money to invest in printing and advertising a book much like a record label will invest money developing an artist. But many artists find that their publishers have far more rights than they do over their own work. Many bedroom coders from the eighties made very little money at the time and now have no say as to how their work is used. They may be happy for us to distribute - but the publisher has the final word. After all this time that is simply not right and should change.
As it stands, copyright law seems to be mostly used to ensure that the large publishers of today remain the large publishers of tomorrow.
EDIT: I should point out - I definitely don't condone those people on the spanish forum who essentially stole your copyrighted material. I'm all in favour of pressing for a change in the law. I'm not in favour of going out and stealing stuff because of some midguided sense of entitlement.
Excuse me Sir but how would that benefit all those who only discovered the Speecy long after those games ended their shelf life, commercially speaking?
Feel free to help yourself to the Sinclair ZX Spectrum +3 Manual.pdf
That is some very good words there sir!
I would also echo that I do not condone copyright infringement (I wont use stealing as this is a Criminal matter not a Civil one Copyright Law is practised under civil law )
@rwap
It is sad that some don't realize that this can be very detrimental in a tight community, I have seen this time again in the Amiga community where the developer just throws their arms up and walks off - no longer supporting the platform.
Sadly the truth is there will always be people that will look to get you work for free - you can choose to be bitter about it or - as I do just be a little stoked that ones work is so sought after and look to your customers as supporters of your work and that will give you the means to push past the want to be angry...
Most national laws in regard to copyright provides a framework to help you protect your work. Sadly as I am sure you know, civil law can prohibitively expensive to prosecute - its okay for big companies.... but for most individuals self publishing its gets a little outside the realms of financial recourse - especially when its happening in another country.
Copyright should be some sensible term like 20 years from first publication. If the creator dies I can see the argument that their estate should be able to continue to monetize the work for the same amount of time, after all any debts etc the creator had have to be paid.
All the insane copyright extensions are there for the benefit of lawyers and companies who trade rights they've bought from creators or people working under contract.
Dont sugar coat it G..... just say Disney! =)
remember the rights and more importantly is a source of income for them... much like you go out to work, someone can say right.. gimme ?20 out of your wage packet, the portable devices are ripe for spectrum re-releases, much like xbox live has re-makes of old games (no, I don't own one)
To protect the IP they have to do a blanket ban on the games distribution regardless, it goes hand in hand. Or someone that makes a 2013 version can say "oh I just got it off WOS assumed it was copyright free *AND* the author gave permission on there ergo I can use it also". You can tell folk like ultimate don't really want to, but their asset IS the game design.. and notice the ultimate zx games turned up in an N64 title :)
most of the games that people are moaning about , you will find on ebay for a few ? (with the exception of a few that even I don't own ;) ) ... if you are too tight to buy them (if you are pleding poverty then I suggest you give up that ?40+ a week smoking habit) .. then sorry, I find that laughable when they aren't that expensive (and in todays money ?2ish is *4 back then)
it's a bit like a person who said to me they use a snide version of jon's emulator when i went to buy a bundle of games off him. I said, so following your logic you should be giving me all of these games for free ;) .. dunno why he didn't like that. It's not like Jon is charging a lot for it vs the cost of the machines themselves IF you were to buy em.
I can see both sides of it.. e.g. if I have the original commando, and no spectrum to play it on.. why shouldn't I be allowed to play it on my portable device / pc free.. I already own the original tape, just no means to play it (since rumbolows shut down :) )
'Fraid it's just a case of, 'Y'snooze, ya lose.' Just because you missed out on something, it doesn't give you automatic entitlement to have it for nothing. It's either Ebay or getting ya arse down to the carboot. Most are still out there :)
I've missed out on so many cool games, which are now on my to-buy list.
There's nout wrong with the second-hand market.
It is annoying, but, hey, it gives you something to look out for.
Or you can always keep ya fingers crossed for a re-release. :S Oooh, if only.