Home » General Chat » Circular File » Copyright laws (split from Serial help)
| Copyright laws (split from Serial help) |
Sun, 19 March 2006 19:50  |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| Bathtubian wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 04:59 |
BTW IMHO stars! can be considered "abandonware", since "Mare Crisium" seems to be defunct, regretably.
|
And that means what? Absolutely nothing.
Most abandonware is still considered illegal unless the publisher has re-released the software as freeware.
U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights are valid for 75 years from the date the software was first published. So the current availability of a product is irrelevant to its copyrighted status. Unlike trademarks, copyrights are not considered abandoned if they are no longer enforced. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available.
Stars! Copyright © 1995-2000 Jeff Johnson & Jeff McBride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware
[Updated on: Sun, 19 March 2006 19:57]
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Sun, 19 March 2006 20:29  |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
And that means what? Absolutely nothing
|
Originally there was no such thing as copyrights. Then copyrights were valid for 14 or 28 years (if author was still alive).
The latest extension of copyrights was likely due to Disney being afraid of losing mickey mouse. I am not sure how well that fits into for good of public in general that copyrights are supposed to support.
There are terms such as fair usage which can become vague, in Canada court has ruled that recieving "copyright" files through those peer to peer networks that the mp3 horders like is legal (just sending isn't).
There are other grey areas that also can be mentioned. Do you think a majority of citizens of the US would vote in favour of copyright extensions such as the one that helped Disney? Or that such a law change in average helps them? If not, then why would such a law be passed? (Note that many countries including US have strong laws against the buying of lawmaker influence against the best interests of the public)
To a certain degree law is represented by what is enforced, there are many laws that aren't enforced, such as it being illegal to give a gift of candy under 50 pounds (in michigen).
Search "strange laws" on google.
Note that www.the-underdogs.org is well known to many who publish games. They distribute abandonware as long as no one complains, under theory it helps everyone.
Do you know of any law suits against guys like www.the-underdogs.org?
[Updated on: Sun, 19 March 2006 20:29] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Sun, 19 March 2006 22:21 |
|
| c64k |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 42
Registered: March 2006
Location: .us | |
|
I dunno if The Underdogs have been sued, but I do know that they have received requests from various copyright holders to remove downloads, and they have complied. The files that do remain up are presumably those where the copyright owner either doesn't know or doesn't care to excercise his/her copyright (in this latter case, I suppose that the copyright holder is implicitly granting a de facto free-use license). On that note, I think that the only "true" abandonware is software where the copyright holder either implicitly (i.e., the owner knows and decides to let it be) or explicitly grant free-use; where the owner does not know or objects, then it is not abandonware, even if the software is 20 years old and nobody sells it.
Unless there is an explicit relinquishment of the copyright, the copyright owner nevertheless still owns the copyright--the issue is what terms of use the copyright owner will agree to. Remember, things under the GPL are under copyright, too... it just so happens that under the GPL, the licensing terms are so loose that it is, for most intents and purposes, the same as no copyright (but even then, the GPL has licensing restrictions too).
The fact that there are a lot of games available on Underdogs even though they have been online for some time now and even though they are well-known would seem to suggest that most of these copyright owners really don't care (as a programmer myself, that's not surprising), but that does not mean that one can make a blanket statement about all games.
(that having been said, there have been a number of copyright extensions in US history and they are too long now; but that issue of length does not change the issue of abandonware in general as pretty much all the abandonware that we're talking about would still be in copyright even if we were using the original copyright lengths)
[Updated on: Sun, 19 March 2006 22:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 01:48 |
|
|
|
My point is it is a grey area. For example as mentioned in canada (where I live) some download hordes of mp3s and courts here ruled that was "fair usage"/legal under current laws. To me that sounds like bigger violation of copyright law. What does "fair usage" mean?
Underdogs doesn't allow downloads of software if it can still be bought or someone complains, but instead tells people how to buy it. If old software is still loved it makes users more likely to buy a newer version if it is ever made. For these reasons, underdogs and similar are probably seen as asset by the software makers.
A law needs someone to care about it for it to really apply often, tell me where you live and I will try to find laws still on books that no one cares about, and out of curiousity find out for example if you will avoid giving box of candy to a lady that is less than 40 pounds.
Copyright was suppose to be in public interest, the good of the citizens of the country. I think it would make more sense if terms were 7 years for software, then public domain (as goes obsolete faster), and old 14 or 28 year terms for rest. (Note that patent protection varies depending on type) I think if anyone including the guys at disney or lawmakers were found to be influencing/making laws as influence of personal profit/briberly rather than public good then they could be punished. Current anti corruption laws if actually applied may be many years in jail and/or all damages which could be called billions of dollars. But not my decision/problem.
(In canadian politics, the law on buying political influence is very vague, easy to interpret different ways. We currently have new prime minister being investigated by ethics commisioner for getting a member of other party crossing floor to be a minister in his government. Ethics commisioner was appointed by previous party/government and didn't investigate when his party did similar).
...
A personal story on my opinion on certain other laws. I used bicycle to get to work even in cold/snowy weather, good exercise, cheaper and better for enviroment. Law that bicycle is not suppose to go on sidewalk except some specially marked ones. I would try to follow it. Others often didn't, cops never ever cared.
Then one day I thought about it. In certain situations, there is no pedestrian on sidewalk, and road is busy. By following law exactly, I was drastically increasing my own risk and risks of drivers going by me at times. No one was helped.
So I came to conclusion that if there was no pedestrian on sidewalk and was much less risky, I would take sidewalk. If I saw a pedestrian walking, I would dismount before passing (so no chance of extra risk to anyone).
By BlueTurrets judgement perhaps that is evil, I am not perfectly following the law. But perhaps putting peoples lives at risk to strictly follow a law that no one seems to care about in this situation is greater evil. Perhaps driving a car (which also puts lives at risk) is greater evil.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 March 2006 02:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 12:04 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
| Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| Quote: |
My point is it is a grey area.
|
Unfortunately it is not a grey area. Even your Underdogs example is not grey. Underdogs site makes this quite clear in its FAQ:
But isn't abandonware illegal?
Unfortunately, yes. Despite the fact that publishers no longer derive revenues from these games since they have stopped selling them (and any revenues from retailers that still sell them were gained a long time ago, at the time of sales), it is illegal to distribute them so long as copyright holders have not released them into the public domain, and 95 years after the games' release have not elapsed.
| Quote: |
If old software is still loved it makes users more likely to buy a newer version if it is ever made. For these reasons, underdogs and similar are probably seen as asset by the software makers.
|
With over $13 billion in estimated annual lost revenues due to piracy I doubt very seriously that most software makers aren't concerned about illegal distribution of any kind. Even games that have been discontinued for some time, are sometimes revived and installed in newer products thereby the revenue flow for the authors/copyright owners is restored.
So which game do you think will sell more if revived: a game that people miss and haven't played for years, or a game that everybody has illegal copies of on their PC's?
| Quote: |
Copyright was suppose to be in public interest, the good of the citizens of the country.
|
The copyright laws in the US weren't intended solely for the public interest. They were designed to protect the authors or creators.
in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. It states…
The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . .
President George Washington signed the first copyright law on May 31, 1790. Since then the copyright revisions have been aimed at balancing the author’s right to reap the benefits of his or her work, and society’s ability to benefit from that same work.
So we can discuss all day long what we believe and don't believe, what we think or don't think is fair or whatever. But the bottom line is it is illegal by law. And do what you wish, you are free to choose, but you are committing a crime when you break a copyright law.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 March 2006 12:11]
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 12:54 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Unfortunately it is not a grey area
|
Please tell me why it is legal to download mp3 music in canada according to canadian court ruling? Please DO NOT avoid that issue again if you are going to INSIST that no grey areas.
From Berne Convention treaty on copyrights
| Quote: |
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
|
I assume this is clause that is used to cover for example copying music off a cd from library or vcr taping a show. Important note here are the parts to unreasonbly hurt abillity of copyright holder to make money... which is influenced by abandonware status.
| Quote: |
So which game do you think will sell more if revived
|
If a better sequel/update comes out, I would pick the latter. (As few otherwise care about game) If a poorer sequel comes out the former. If you want I can list examples of stuff given away for free by copyright holders to promote new versions.
| Quote: |
US weren't intended solely for the public interest...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
|
Which helps public interest! In theory it is all about what is best for citizens as a whole.
...
Do you believe in US it is legal for you to go to library and copy a song from a music CD, or tape a show playing on TV on a VCR? (Are you brave enough to comment on this?) Following you logic, I assume no. But listenning to supreme court of US in deliberations, a different matter.
PLEASE comment on my cycling on sidewalk at times to circular forum, I am curious to see alternative thoughts.
...
Note that most governments have strong laws such as | Quote: |
parliamentary conflict-of-interest code that prohibit inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal benefit
|
So is it illegal for a politician to make a decision because it is in his personal interest but harms the public in general?
[Updated on: Mon, 20 March 2006 13:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 16:43 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
| Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| Quote: |
Please tell me why it is legal to download mp3 music in canada according to canadian court ruling? Please DO NOT avoid that issue again if you are going to INSIST that no grey areas.
|
I don't know. Because the Canadian courts don't give a rat's end about compensating artists for their work based upon what the artist wants to sell his creations for? How much music do the Canadian courts make for you? It doesn't appear the Canadian music organizationa are too happy about it, and aren't likely to give up easily either. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of it yet.
But on the other hand it isn't free, is it? They are going to charge extra for media players, CD's, etc. sort of another tax for others to collect more money. And of course it won't all go to the artists or their sponsors, just a portion. So what right do they have to tell me as an artist that you can only collect X dollars from your product, and we the government will dictate the price to you, that you will be compensated for. That sounds like a anti-free-marketing to me.
I suspect if you were an artist trying to make a buck from your works you would have an entirely different view point about seeing perhaps thousands or even up to millions of your sales negated by government actions.
AS for all the other examples. jes, we can go from games to music to bicycles and just branch out into a dozen different directions. Maybe talk about baby carriages on highways next.  They are all unique situations and can't be equally compared, like apples and oranges.
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 17:28 |
|
| c64k |
| Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 42
Registered: March 2006
Location: .us | |
|
Fair use: Could you clarify as to *precisely* how the Canadian court ruled? If it ruled that all downloads/distribution is legal, then, quite frankly, that court is crazy. Fair use is a tricky issue because its definition is vague at best and in relatively new areas such as online distribution, it is subject to conflicting analogies. For example, if you downloaded a MP3 from me, listened to it once or twice, and discarded it, could that be considered fair use? It would be analogous to you checking out the CD from the local public library to listen (without copying) or dropping by my house to listen to what I just bought. I would say that could be argued as fair use. What if you downloaded a MP3 from me, added it to your permanent library, but only because you used to own the CD but have since lost it. Can it be argued as fair use? I would accept such an argument. What if you downloaded a MP3 from me, added it to your permanent library with intent to listen to it in the future, but have never bought it nor intend to buy it? Could that be argued as fair use? No.
The problem is that fair use is very subjective. I think that P2P should be legal because there are cases where its use may be argued as fair use (note my language: "may be argued as"... whether or not they really are is up for contention) and thus P2P should be legal in general. But by no means does this constitute a blanket statement saying that all P2P activity is legal.
Ultimately, this is why I am somewhat annoyed at the "fair use" people; they argue for fair use (which is good) but they often neglect to point out that in reality, a lot of what goes on is not really fair use (even by the relatively broad and liberal definition of fair use that I'm using; no doubt the RI/MPAA would have much more draconian definitions of fair use).
Compensation: The problem with the pro-copyright side is that they also fail to acknowledge reality. Throwing around large dollar figures, for example. In economic parlance, the problem with that is that such dollar figures assume an inelastic vertical demand curve. They make the false assumption that the alternative action that would be taken if downloads were not possible would be a purchase when oftentimes, it would be non-consumption.
I also cringe at the idea of intellectual "property". Property in the classical sense applies to physical objects. My hearing the same thing that you hear does not diminish your consumption of that sound/music, but if I ate the same apple that you are eating, then I am depriving you of part of your apple. As such, restrictions such as copyrights and patents, by turning into "property" something that cannot be "property" are inherently evil. But it is a necessary evil because it's really the best way to encourage people to create. Since you are fond of the founders, I'll give you this by Thomas Jefferson:
| Quote: |
Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose.
|
Note that he does not call it "property" (in fact, Jefferson is quoted elsewhere to say that property does not exist with respect to ideas) and instead labels it as a "monopoly" (keeping in mind that he hates monopolies; I'll provide that particular quote when I remember where I found it). Keep also in mind the strict limiting language used. Copyrights/patents are necessary evils to promote creativity. The problem is that corporations these days have forgotten the original spirit and intent of the founding fathers and are abusing what was meant to be a careful compromise (e.g., extending copyright yet again; blech).
So there's one extreme where people are calling for the abolition of copyright/patents and ignoring the fact that people are inherently greedy and that such compensation motivates people. On the other extreme, there are people (*cough* RIAA *cough*) who have forgotten t
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 18:36 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Fair use: Could you clarify as to *precisely* how the Canadian court ruled?
|
I believe they ruled that legal to download mp3s but could be illegal to upload (distribute) them. I am not saying this is great ruling.
Personally I am turned off of music at moment. I used to buy CDs at times. Now I never do, and I only download free mp3s of classical music.
...
IMO the whole system should be balance. 14 to 28 years of original US constitution sounded like that, an artist could make money but after a certain number of years the public got access to everything. In turn artists having to compete with the public domain had more pressure to do something better.
I see current system of 75 years as not being balanced at all, and I don't think vast majority of public would agree with the extensions including the last one in US likely because of pressure/political contributions from Disney. If a judge got those sorts of "contributions" it would be called bribes and jail time would be in years.
IMO if software became public domain after 7 years, then for example Microsoft would have to compete with their own Win98 and Office97. From what I have seen for average joes use, these actually work better for many people than the current offerings, yet people no longer can get them easy. (Less bloatware more than compensates for fewer features and some ways poorer design).
| Quote: |
an artist trying to make a buck from your works you would have an entirely different view
|
I would want a fair system where everyone (artist/public/producers) is balanced and no one is greedy. I would hate having my songs belong to a corporation long after I am dead. I would be ok with 14 to 28 years to make my share of money from my works.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 March 2006 18:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Mon, 20 March 2006 22:47 |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| multilis wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 00:48 |
A law needs someone to care about it for it to really apply often...By BlueTurrets judgement perhaps that is evil, I am not perfectly following the law.
|
Blue Turbit is being nonsensical.
As to breaking laws, this is one I have broken in the past. Well, when I owned a red car, that is. 
Red cars can not drive down Lake Street
And, it might be interesting to hear Blue Turbit, in person, say he has never ever broken this Texas law... 
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 09:22 |
|
| Bathtubian |
 | Civilian |
Messages: 3
Registered: March 2006 | |
|
I think all of you made a good point, even the knights of the copyright  But I see it from a practical side. I really, really like this game, and high traffic on autohost makes me happy. Since it is not available anymore (levl30 dot net is defunct) I think sharing is acceptable, and does not bring any damage to the authors or the owners, to the contrary, it keeps popularity of this "vintage game" up until someday, maybe, in a better world, the successor is released.
BTW did the canadian link help anyone? it was just fine for me...
Spaceward Ho!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 11:44 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
| Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 21:47 |
Blue Turbit is being nonsensical.
|
Excuse me?
| Quote: |
As to breaking laws, this is one I have broken in the past. Well, when I owned a red car, that is.
Red cars can not drive down Lake Street
|
speaking of nonsense comparing dumb laws with copyright laws. And steering in the direction of bicycles on sidewalks and beer sipping. sheech. focus people.
| Quote: |
And, it might be interesting to hear Blue Turbit, in person, say he has never ever broken this Texas law...
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
|
I can honestly say I never ever sipped anything more than one sip at a time.
[Mod edit: fixed quote]
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 07:50] by Moderator
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 12:40 |
|
| Kelzar |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 112
Registered: January 2006
Location: Ohio, US | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 22:47 |
As to breaking laws, this is one I have broken in the past. Well, when I owned a red car, that is.
Red cars can not drive down Lake Street
-Matt
|
Are you sure you weren't just driving UP Lake Street in your red car?
My viewpoint and moral compass typically can answer for me the following question:
Am I breaking the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law?
We all know that there exist laws that may at one point have had a legitimate basis but currently hold no valid concerns, or laws that still should exist in general but may not hold valid concerns on a case by case basis. The latter seems the case for serial numbers for a game that is no longer GLOBALLY sold. Copyright laws exist to protect authors from having their work stolen and used by a third party for credit or profit. Is the author having their work stolen for credit or profit in this example?
Blue Turbit, you like songs right? Ever hear of a little ditty that starts like this...... Happy Birthday to you... guess what, yep, that's right, copyright infringement.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Serial help |
Tue, 21 March 2006 15:06 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 21 March 2006 10:44 |
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 21:47 |
| multilis wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 00:48 |
Blue Turbit is being nonsensical.
|
Excuse me?
|
|
I've already tried...didn't work.
Your whole speal about copyright law on this doesn't pass the smell test. Stinks to me. Your info about loss in potential profits doesn't apply here.
| BlueTurbit wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 11:04 |
With over $13 billion in estimated annual lost revenues due to piracy I doubt very seriously that most software makers aren't concerned about illegal distribution of any kind.
|
There are legit customers out there that would like to buy a SN to play stars...but no one is willing to sell them anymore...This is entirely different than the situation most software companies are trying to deal with. It seems obvious that Empire doesn't care. However, you can bet that they will never let go of their rights to the sofware, either. So, no matter how much anyone spouts off about illegal this, and copyright that, if no one takes my money and gives me a SN, then they have forfeited their rights to future payment and legal action IMO. It's common sense. While that may not make the grade in a court of law, I very much doubt Empire or Mcbride would pursue any criminal charges against someone for simple personal use of 1 SN, given this situation.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Red cars can not drive down Lake Street
|
speaking of nonsense comparing dumb laws with copyright laws. And steering in the direction of bicycles on sidewalks and beer sipping. sheech. focus people.
|
It's people like you, that toe the current corporate political line, that are ruining the creative element in this country. The reason the founding fathers created copyright laws was to protect *individuals* (not large corporations) that created new works, from others that might capitalize on a founders ideas. That would lead to less creativity, since it would be assumed that your ideas would be stolen, less people would create works. No one here is considering that, they just want to play the game.
Pre 1976, IIRC, copyrights were only good for 28 years + 28 year renewal. This was considered good enough to protect individuals, but short enough to allow the material to become public domain and hence allowed to be used by others, thus creating more creativity. That was considered good for everyone, and it is a big part of what built the US. That all changed because of greedy corporations like Disney.
Now then, my examples of silly laws are quite at home with the extensions to the original copyright laws applied lately. Further, applying copyright law to a game that no one wants to sell, or profit by, is a perversion of the intentions of the original copyright code. We are talking about SN's that Empire is refusing to sell, not reverse compiling the Stars code, making updates, and selling the "new" game. So, no matter how much pretty packaging you wrap around this pile of poop, it still stinks.
-Matt
...
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 12 11:06:38 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
There are countries where prostitution is crime.
There are hundred of countries on Earth and there are different laws in every of them. Law is collection of written down rules of LOCAL behaviour. Some dumbass does always something that others do not like. So law gives ways and limits how to punish him with fair face for his bad behaviour.