ROM's and Abandonware Issues

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

Playstation, Sega Dreamcast, Sega Saturn, etc, games are not abandonware.

That is a ROM site, legally you can download those ISOs only if you already own original copies of those games.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do

....just not a good idea to post those links in a public forum.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
Playstation, Sega Dreamcast, Sega Saturn, etc, are not abandonware.

The games were atleast 10 years old. Why would 10 years old pc games be considered abadonware but 10 years old consoles games not? I dont see the difference. Ive seen plenty of abandonia and underdog games links here. And underdog offers roms too like the llylgamyn saga you tried yourself.

Also the site has been open atleast since 2006 so I think ESA would have closed it by now if it was not abandonware. Ill study the site further to see if I can find any info.

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

Because only the developer can say when they are abandonware. Original Nintendo and SNES games are a lot older than that and even those aren't considered abandonware yet.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

Then the site is not that different from abandonia and underdog (should links to them be removed?). Underdog offers snes games too and newer ones like 1999 system shock2 (never released as freeware). The games in the site were older than that.

Too me it seems noone is protecting the status of these old console games so they are considered as "abandoned" just like system shock2. If som organisation like ESA tells them they are not then they remove the links. Thats how abandonware sites work. Ive seen many games removed from abandonia and underdog games.

Zaleukos said:
www.the-underdogs.info is great, but hasnt been updated for a while. I think real life finally caught up with the admin, so look at it while it still is up.

Isnt underdogs link illegal too? EA owns rights to i.e system shock1-2 and the site has snes roms too. Just wondering.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

It seems they do uphold the ESA just like abandonia and underdogs:

I deleted all ESA protected games, not only the title they requested this time. (final fantasy) -administrator

They deleted all ESA protected games (just like abandonia and underdogs have) and if the site brakes ESA rules in-any-way their host would suspend them. So they should be as "legal" as abandonia or underdogs that have been posted into this thread.

They even monitor their own site to keep it clean of non-abandonware:

xxx xxx Community is getting bigger and bigger everyday... we almost have 3.000 members now. that means 100s of new posts/threads a day.

Our moderators are working hard to catch all bad bad posts breaking any of the rules. yet some of them slips away...But You can help us... if you see a post breaking the rules, report it and we can take action.

2. Do NOT post PC Applications/Games/Cracks/Serials/Key Generators/etc or links to such sites. This is an emulation community, and we do NOT support the trade and discussion of/linking to Warez on the forums (except abandonware PC games and related stuff).

But naturally its not my decision but the ones of this site so what do the admins think?

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

I deleted all ESA protected games, not only the title they requested this time. (final fantasy)

Not sure what he means there, but I do know that all Playstation and Dreamcast\Saturn ROMs, as well as ROMs from any Nintendo console, are not freeware and are not legal to distribute.

2. Do NOT post PC Applications/Games/Cracks/Serials/Key Generators/etc or links to such sites. This is an emulation community, and we do NOT support the trade and discussion of/linking to Warez on the forums (except abandonware PC games and related stuff).

He's talking about general Warez with that statement, that is different altogether than ROM distribution.

From Nintendo's website http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#domain

People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by Making Old Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. This Does Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's the Problem?

The problem is that it's illegal. Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets.

Isn't it Okay to Download Nintendo ROMs for Games that are No Longer Distributed in the Stores or Commercially Exploited? Aren't They Considered "Public Domain"?

No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
Not sure what he means there, but I do know that Playstation and Dreamcast\Saturn ROMS, as well as Roms from any Nintendo console, are not freeware and are not legal to distribute.

It means they work just like underdog games and abandonia. Those sites remove downloads of old games IF ESA asks them so (or its in the ESA list). In example both of them were asked to remove eye of the beholder download:
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=387
http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/98/Eye+of+the+Beholder+1.html

This console site is no different. It has removed all ESA protected games. You do know that abandonware is not the same as freeware?

Abandonware

n. software that is no longer sold or supported by the original publisher / developer, often found as free downloads on the internet because it cannot be obtained elsewhere. Not legal, but often seen as morally acceptable because the company that made it is no longer selling the title, nor releasing it as freeware, therefore abandonware is "keeping the game alive", so to speak.

Abandonware is not legal.

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

zakhal said:
It means they work just like underdog games and abandonia. Those sites remove downloads of old games if ESA asks them so:
http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/738/Caesar.html

This console site is no different. It has removed all ESA protected games. You do know that abadonware is not the same as freeware?

Ok how can I explain this?

PC software and "video games" are not the same thing. Read again the the 2nd 3rd paragraphs from that portion off Nintendo's website that I posted.

Anyways, to say that site has removed all ESA protected games is ridiculous. It has just about every Playstation game ever made!!

You do know that abandonware is not the same as freeware?

Those ROMs are neither abandonware or freeware. Just follow the link I posted and read about it.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

PC software and "video games" are not the same thing.

Just read the definition of abandonware:

# Abandonware is defined as any PC or console game that is:
1. At least four years old
2. Not being sold or supported by the company that produced it or by any other company. When a certain piece of Abandonware is later found to be sold or supported by a company, then it ceases to be Abandonware.

# Why abandonware is technically software piracy
According to U.S. Law and International Treaties, a copyright belongs to the author of a software product for 70 years beyond the life of the author or 95 years after the copyright date if the work is done by a corporation or anonymous source. Before that time expires, nobody (except the author) has the right to copy that piece of software.

http://www.abandonwarering.com/?Page=FAQ

Basicly abandonware is piracy that nobody cares about. Nobodys loosing money so it doesnt matter.

JDR13 said:
Anyways, to say that site has removed all ESA protected games is ridiculous. It has just about every Playstation game ever made!!

Can you find games that are still sold in stores or that are in ESAs list? Atleast one? Playstation1 was released in 1994 - thats 14 years ago. Its all games are getting quite old by now so of course many of them become abandonware.

JDR13 said:
Those ROMs are neither abandonware or freeware. Just follow the link I posted and read about it:

No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available.

Click to expand...

Thats not the whole truth. Abandonia and underdogs do post copyrighted games too. The only difference is that ESA doesnt tell them to remove the links of those games so they keep sharing them on their site. In truth they share everything that is not in ESA's protectionlist.

Just last week abandonia discussed about resharing old lucasarts games because lucasarts left ESA:

Well, the unthinkable happened: Vivendi, Activision and LucasArts have just left ESA.

We're currently sorting through all the affected titles and re-evaluating their status one by one - in the following weeks you can expect several popular titles to become downloadable again.

www.abandonia.com

ESA is the only organisation that really protects old games. They actively enforce their protection by contacting sites that share games on their list.

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

# Abandonware is defined as any PC or console game that is:

1. At least four years old

No it's not.

# Why abandonware is technically software piracy
According to U.S. Law and International Treaties, a copyright belongs to the author of a software product for 70 years beyond the life of the author or 95 years after the copyright date if the work is done by a corporation or anonymous source. Before that time expires, nobody (except the author) has the right to copy that piece of software.

You see the contradiction?

Thats not the whole truth. Abandonia and underdogs do post copyrighted games too. The only difference is that ESA doesnt tell them to remove the links of those games so they keep sharing them on their site. In truth they share everything that is not in ESA's protectionlist.

It is the whole truth, that statement was refering to console ROMs, not PC software. Also, just because something is not on ESA's list doesn't mean it's legal to distribute.

Can you find games that are sold in stores? Atleast one? Playstation1 was released in 1994 - thats 14 years ago. The consoles all games are getting quite old by now so of course the games become abadonware.

You didn't read that information I posted did you? Doesn't matter if it's 14, 20, 30, 50, etc years old. It's all right there on that page.

the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
You didn't read that information I posted did you? Doesn't matter if it's 14, 20, 30, 50, etc years old. It's all right there on that page.

Did you read the abandonware definition I posted? Abandonware is piracy (piracy of old games to be correct). It doesnt matter what the copyright laws say.

The only difference with new games and abandonware games is that nobody* is enforcing the copyright law of abandonware games. Thats why abandonware sites both pc and console are able to share old games that are still copyrighted.

*(ESA in this case)

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

zakhal said:
Did you read the abandonware definition I posted? Abandonware is piracy (piracy of old games to be correct). It doesnt matter what the copyright laws say.

As piracy is illegal then you are agreeing with what I'm trying to say whether you realize it or not.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

Yes but there is no difference between console or pc abandonware. The title of this thread is "Abandonware" - not just "PC abandonware".

Im willing to do whatever the admins choose but if you want to discuss this further then make a thread for it and Ill join in.

Alrik Fassbauer · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
Because only the developer can say when they are abandonware.

What if the developer doesn't exist anymore ?

And then there are games like "Hare Raising Havoc", which are almost Millennia old, but aren't allowed to be Abandonware because Disney doesn't want it.

All in all, this is merely a reflection of how people think over games

- games are for profits only (one opinion)
- games are meant to be played, not to be stored away (another opinion)

The constant fight against Abandonware is to me a clear sign of the "games are for profits ONLY" philosophy by the companies.

Which is in result a very in-human belief-system, because playing is an inherent human behaviour. Profit is not.

At least in my own philosopy.

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

zakhal said:
Yes but there is no difference between console or pc abandonware. The title of this thread is "Abandonware" - not just "PC abandonware".

Yes there is, the difference is that there is no console abandonware yet, not for any popular console anyways.

Alrik Fassbauer said:
What if the developer doesn't exist anymore?"

The problem with console games is that the right to distribute is owned by the maker of the console. - Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, etc.

Alrik Fassbauer said:
- games are meant to be played, not to be stored away

Amen!

zakhal · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
Yes there is, the difference is that there is no console abandonware yet, not for any popular console anyways.

Im curious - whats your definition of abandonware? Sega saturn and playstation 1 are popular consoles?

JDR13 · May 24, 2008

zakhal said:
Im curious - whats your definition of abandonware? Sega saturn and playstation 1 are popular consoles?

Ok....one more time...

Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

My personal definition\opinion doesn't matter, nor does yours. Laws are laws.

zakhal · May 24, 2008

As I allready said earlier, what you are referring to is freeware, not abandonware. Those two are different. This should make it clear:

Question: What is the difference between Freeware and Abandonware?

Answer:

Freeware is software that is free to own and usually free to distribute with out penalty from the developer and/or copyright holder. It is usually made available by the copyright holder.

Abandonware, on the other hand, is software that is readily available for free yet the copyright owner has not given the rights to own this software for free. and is usually either unable or unwilling to enforce it’s copyright.

http://compactiongames.about.com/od/abandonwarefaqs/f/abandon2_faq.htm

As I allready said earlier, what you are referring to is freeware, not abandonware. Those two are different. This should make it clear:

Question: What is the difference between Freeware and Abandonware?

Answer:

Freeware is software that is free to own and usually free to distribute with out penalty from the developer and/or copyright holder. It is usually made available by the copyright holder.

Abandonware, on the other hand, is software that is readily available for free yet the copyright owner has not given the rights to own this software for free. and is usually either unable or unwilling to enforce it’s copyright.

http://compactiongames.about.com/od/abandonwarefaqs/f/abandon2_faq.htm

My personal definition\opinion doesn't matter, nor does yours. Laws are laws.

Law in case of abandonware is pretty much useless because nobody enforces it.

the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Also this threads title is about abandonware so posting them here shouldnt be a problem. Its the admins of this site who decide whether abandonware is okay or not.

EDIT:
Sorry if I have wasted your time with this pointless argument (I dont even know if we have the same subject) - I certainly have wasted mine and wont continue no more. I hate when this happens.

Turjan · May 24, 2008

I think that abandonware is simply not a legal term, unlike freeware or shareware. It's just a description of the state of matters.

It's pure speculation, but sometimes I have the feeling that some companies might tolerate abandonware in order to keep awareness of unused intellectual property in the mind of fans (and to gauge interest). They cannot recognize this officially, and they have to become active if said property becomes too popular in order not to lose their copyright. But if the level is right, they might tolerate abandonware and reuse their property for a commercial product one day.

I always cringe when fan projects put a lot of work in remakes and then ask the copyright holder whether he is ok with it. In that case, it's hard for the copyright holder to ignore the copyright infringement, because he cannot claim afterwards that he didn't know of anything. The more benevolent companies probably prefer the gaming equivalent of a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Alrik Fassbauer · May 24, 2008

JDR13 said:
Ok....one more time...

Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

My personal definition\opinion doesn't matter, nor does yours. Laws are laws.

It will be my pleasure to develop/make something that would help humanhood worldwide - and keep everyone from distributing it.

Or develop/make something ridiculous and force everyone to stop spreading it.

Or I could even leak it into an sharing network and THEN demand it to be taklen down ...

Or I could "offer" it online and THEN sue everyone who had taken the bait ...

There are sooooo many ways to exploit laws in one's one sense ...

Here in Germany, lawyers have found and are exploiting a new way of gaining more money: Dissuasions. Because they can invent ANY money value for a violation of copyrights, and then write a dissiasion letter to someone. And keep the money they get from this procedure.

Okay, it's actually a little bit more complicated but this, but in its core this is no joke at all !

What about companies which just buy patents on innovative inventions just for taking them away and NEVER releasing them just because it would mean that their own products would be out-dated ans successfully beaten ?

What about companies which act like SCO , which ALL of their money-income scheme seems to consist on sueing the distributors of Linux because they believe that they have things in Linux that might belong to SCO instead ?
And they DO know that they can't stop the whole Linux distributions ... - so instead they are suieing them in order to get money from them.

What about companies which make money ONLY by buying and selling and licensing IPs (intellectual properties) to other companies ?

What about companies which do nothing but speciulate with intellectual property so that they get the most money out of it ?

Thoughts aren't free. They can easily bought, sold, traded and licensed.

This is the end of man's paradise of free thoughts. This is the commercializing of one of the very things that makes humans human-like : Thoughts.

And the word "thought" just is no other word than "intellectual property".
The latter word is just an euphemism for the word "thought", probably invented by some marketing-guy, nothing else.

Thoughts have become crude wares, people.

ROM's and Abandonware Issues

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

TL;DR

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Keeper of the Watch

TL;DR