Basically, if a copyright holder is aware of an infringement, and doesn't take steps to stop it, they relinquish thier rights to that property (making it public domain.)

You are confusing copyright and trademark law. You do not need to enforce a copyright in order to retain it, and can choose to enforce it at any time, even if you haven't in the past; you do need to enforce your trademark or you may lose your IP rights to the trademark ("genericised trademark").

I don't know about anyone else, but every time I have ever worked for a company, I had to sign an agreement, in advance, giving up all my rights to original works to the company.

This is actually something enshrined in US Copyright Law, not contract law. If you are creating a work for hire, the author is not the creator of the work but the company that commissioned the work. Anything that you create for a company within the scope of your employment is considered a work for hire and is owned by the company. (This is why you should never work on personal projects at work, at least without getting a written agreement beforehand that you retain the rights to the work — the company can assert ownership of them.)

That is, that the 'life' of the author, when a corporation is involved, is based apon the corporation itself and not any single individual.

This is not true. For works for hire, copyright lasts the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, rather than the usual life of the author plus 70 years. Still a ridiculous term, but not infinite.

Others will collect copyrights, or buy them cheap and than perhaps offer some kind of expensive download. As a result there will be only few games that go into public domain.

This is not possible; once a work enters the public domain, anyone can use it, and no individual can own it. You can't extend the length of copyright ownership by transfer. That's the whole point of public domain; it is work that is "public property" and can be used at will. That means the original creator can continue to sell it if they want... but so can anyone else. Or they can take it and use it for free. Or they can take it and use it as part of a new, original, copyrighted work.

Snover: Well, crap, you're right (about the copyright/trademark error of mine.) I just looked it up in my book, which is rather dated anyways. I do know why I keep making that mistake, though. It goes back to when I consulted a lawyer (friend of the family,) about abandonware (though, AFAIK, it wasn't being called that back then.) If a copyright holder is made aware of an infringement and takes no action within a reasonable length of time (he suggested 6 months minimum to be safe,) then the copyright holder is considered to have given the persons involved tacit permission, and cannot later file charges for infringement for that single particular case. They still retain the copyright, they just cannot take steps against that particular infringement. The catch is, you have to have proof that the copyright holder was aware of the infringement, which can be rather difficult or convoluted. A simple certified letter isn't enough, I found out. You have to also have proof of the contents of that letter.

Also, about the works-for-hire: In every case my job was not a creative one. I'm just not that creative. However, my employment contract always included a clause that anything I produced while employed (even if I did it all at home,) that had even the slightest possible relationship to the company, was theirs, and not mine. I remember thinking it a little strict, but then again, I was also not the least bit concerned, for the reason already stated. According to my copyright book, the work-for-hire only covers works that were specifically requested, or works that are a result of job performance (they were created within the scope of the person's employment.) The works-for-hire would diffinately cover game programmers working for any game company you name.

As for the 'eternal' copyright. This isn't actually in the copyright laws themselves, and also remember my book was published in 1989, so copyright laws may have adjusted to take this loophole of incorporation out. Basically, at that time, if a company worded thier articles of corporation correctly, the corporation would gain the status of a living entity. Meaning, that the copyrights on any work they produced would do so as if a single individual created it. To make things worse, if the corporation failed for some reason, then the status could be passed on to another (either real individual or another correctly formed corporation,) not as an inheritence, but as a continuation. Basically, from a legal standpoint, the 'single individual' never actually dies, (unless the continuatio is through a real individual, not another fake one,) and thus the 50 year (or 70 year I guess,) clock never starts. Now, I don't know the exact laws involved here, all I have on this are the notes I took in class as the instructor explained some of the loopholes companies have exploited.

Was this lawyer an expert on copyright and patent law? They pretty much need to be, because it's such a horrible mess of legislation. Anyway, I am pretty sure that the information they gave you was not correct; the statute of limitations on copyright infringement is 3 years, and that clock starts from the moment of infringement (in the case of someone publishing a Web site with copyrighted work on it, that means 3 years from the moment the infringing work is removed from the site; in the case of a singular act, it means from the moment of that act). There may be a reduction in punitive damages in the case of being sued for infringement if it can be proved that the copyright holder was made aware and didn't act in a reasonable period of time, but I don't think that what you were told is right. (But, IANAL, I just study this stuff for fun. 😀)

Corporations are not natural persons, but they have been given the rights and responsibilities that a natural person would have, and are considered legal entities (they can be sued, they can take out loans, they have obligations to human rights (HAHAHA), etc). Nevertheless, copyright law can't allow perpetual copyright (it is unconstitutional), which is why we keep passing new laws extending the length of copyright when they are about to expire, thus giving effective perpetual copyright without the issue of constitutionality. While I wouldn't be surprised if there was some loophole, I really don't think that there is, otherwise companies would use it instead of lobbying to pass new legislation.

If no one is publishing the "abandonware" games anymore, if no one gets profit from them anymore, and when you can't get these classics anymore from any stores online or offline, does that negate the rights of a person who has not played the game before to try it? Are they now lost forever with the original buyers? So no one else ever gets to experience these classics? - when there's no more place you can ever get it?

I'm really talking about the games which are no more resurrected by sites like GOG and so on.

And even then, you don't get the original packaging and extras like those days. (I'm still keeping the little pewter figurine which came with my Drakkhen game.)

Sorry it took so long. I've been digging through my notes and trying to track down my old instructor, it has been 20 years after all. All I have are fuzzy memories on the details. What I remember seems to be that if the articles of corporation are formed right making the corporation a legal entity, then when it fails and gets taken over or is part of a merger, it doesn't legally cease to exist (dies.) It just becomes part of the new organization. It was a loophole in corporate law that impacted on copyright.

As for the lawyer, no he is not board specialized in any field. Again, though, the loss of rights isn't part of copyright law itself. Basically, in layman's terms, someone can't indicate to you that it is all right to do something, then turn around and take legal action for it. By ignoring a know infringement, they are giving tacit approval. The longer you can prove that they knew about it, and ignored it, the stronger that approval becomes. No guarantees on any specific time. 6 months was just given as a reasonably safe time period. If they had a good and valid reason for the delay, that time period could be extended greatly. But the only one that I'm told would really hold any weight is if they had reason to believe that they were not the actual owners of that copyright. The example of EA and Ultima wouldn't hold, as it is in clear record that they gained the rights when Origin went under. However, the letter I sent EA about Ultima 1 was responded too very quickly. Which is why I'm still hoping to find a copy for the C64 (um... legal copy,) that isn't going to cost $250+. Sure, I would love to have the cardboard maps, bag, & coin, but I just want to play the game again 🙁

As a point of interest here, if the infringement also involves criminal actions, approval doesn't enter into it, unless it involves an actual overt act of permission. For it be to criminal it must be done "wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." ("A Practical Guide to Copyrights & Trademarks" (c) 1986 by Baker & Hostetler p25.) BTW - that falls into legal use of copyrighted material. Though I'm not 100% sure if they own the rights to that phrase, as they seem to be quoting another source (un-credited,) here. Probably a quote from federal law itself, though I could be wrong about that. So unless you are given specific permission (I'd insist on having it in writing,) you cannot sell copies of a work, even if you told them you were doing it and they neglected to act. Unless, of course, they waited 3 years or longer before doing anything (statute of limitations.)

**ps** Spell checkers don't do any good when the mispelled words are actually correct for a different work (are instead of or, Origin instead of EA.) Sorry about that guys.

Ack... To get back to topic (I always hat it when the topic strays.)

I'm still not sure who would be hurt by an abandonment amendment to copyright law? As long as the copyright owner has a reasonable means of preventing it, who would it hurt? From what I've read they would have at least 2, and maybe even 3 ways of doing this.

First, and foremost, would be to just keep producing it. They could do this with limited cost by making a digital purchase available somewhere. There are many places that offer that now. There are even some companies that are doing this themselves.

Second, would be to maintain support for the title, even if they aren't actually producing it any more. Write a FAQ, point them to this board and DOSBox. There, you've just provided support. It's not much but it's something. It's one single web page, write it and forget about it (until a link becomes broken.)

Finally, and this wasn't in the original proposal, it was something I added in. Set it up so that the copyright owner can get extensions to the abandonment time limit. Fill out a form once a year, or once every 2 years, or whatever. They can continue doing this for the entire life of the copyright if they want.

There, everyone's rights are all protected. The only titles that would become public domain because of the abandonment amendment would be those titles were the copyright owner actually doesn't care if it happens. They would maintain any specific rights (such as the series name in the case of Ultima,) in case they wanted to create more sequels. It would just be that one single work that becomes available.

What about the Old sierra classics like KQ, Sq, LSL, and PQ from my understanding that Viviendi dropped all support for those games. What happens to the copyright of those games? Im just curious.

Fender_178 wrote:

What about the Old sierra classics like KQ, Sq, LSL, and PQ from my understanding that Viviendi dropped all support for those games. What happens to the copyright of those games? Im just curious.

Dropped? Understand? Wake up and smell the coffee:

http://classics.sierra.com/us/

MiniMax wrote:

Dropped? Understand? Wake up and smell the coffee:

http://classics.sierra.com/us/

Those would be 4 perfect examples of titles that would exempt from the abandonment amendment 😀

Just FYI - Got the entire LSL series through them. Though I did have to turn around and find the original EGA version of LSL1 and the Talkie version of LSL6 on eBay.

Malik wrote:

If no one is publishing the "abandonware" games anymore, if no one gets profit from them anymore, and when you can't get these classics anymore from any stores online or offline, does that negate the rights of a person who has not played the game before to try it? Are they now lost forever with the original buyers? So no one else ever gets to experience these classics? - when there's no more place you can ever get it?

I totally agree, if no one can get these games anywhere anymore, then by all means trade online, or have them make them free, take X-Wing for example. It's still a bomb game, and if people today knew how bomb it was, it would be flying off the shelves!

I'm thinking of buying Planescape: Torment, but its like 40 bucks on E-Bay, and it's still being bid on all the time! High prices, too! Where are people hearing about these classics?

Somewhat relevant:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http% … F-8&sl=sv&tl=en

EU Commission wants the copyright for recorded music be extended from 50 to 95 years.

The disc industry is working hard on the proposal, but now makes the Swedish government thumbs down. Disc industry lost in the last few days a small copyright violation when the government decided to reject the EU Commission's proposal for an extended protection of recorded music from 50 to 95 years.

MiniMax wrote:

Somewhat relevant: […]
Show full quote

Somewhat relevant:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http% … F-8&sl=sv&tl=en

EU Commission wants the copyright for recorded music be extended from 50 to 95 years.

The disc industry is working hard on the proposal, but now makes the Swedish government thumbs down. Disc industry lost in the last few days a small copyright violation when the government decided to reject the EU Commission's proposal for an extended protection of recorded music from 50 to 95 years.

Rather directly relevant, I think. The main difference between most forms of entertainment, is that, if it's good, it never really gets dated. A good book doesn't have to worry about a bigger and better book coming out, with better graphics (type font?) or better sound (sound, from a book?.) I think you know what I mean though. Same thing with music, poetry, art, whatever. Movies, though, have that problem a bit, but not as much as software. All of the other forms of entertainment get re-released on a regular, or semi-regular basis.

In almost all cases, this is not so with software. Once it becomes dated, the producers usually just stop producing it. Eventually, they even stop supporting it. For an example, pull out Ultima VII and try to get EA to help you get it up and running. They care so little about it, that they even lost the original source code. I think they have the original masters still, but I'm not even sure about that. If they don't, they cant even produce it any more, even if they decided they wanted too.

There are always bigger things on the horizon for almost any creative endeavour. I think thatt the book to game comparison is questionable - publishers often drop and employ a variety of writers based on genre trends and fashions. Writers do indeed feel the fear of losing relevance too. The Hard S F which was very much the order of the day in the late 70s and early to mid 80s has all but faded from shelves in modern times and is now very much a niche product. Moreover what about books that stem from TV and Movies, like the Star Wars and Doctor Who pantheons? They're just as trend aware as any other form of licensed entertainment and do indeed suffer some element of shelf life. While it is true that computer games have previously held a shorter shelf life than most other forms of entertainmet this aspect is beginning to be less of a problem as

a. emulation has become a far more appealing prospect due to its continual performance growth in relation to CPU speed increases and more standardisation (ie DirectX, OpenGL, SDL, USB etc)

and thus consequently;

b. Software Houses and Publishers can feel safer in rereleasing older titles knowing that they can generate sales to markets that aleady are well acquainted with their products, such the case with XBOX titles being sold on XBOX Live and a variety of older computer and console games being sold on Nintendo Wii channels.

The arguement that many older emu fans tend to take, which is what you put forward FD, is really one that doesn't apply anymore from this old emu fan's perspective anyway. The world is changing and while many of us would like the laws to change accordingly in our favour the fact is that they're far more likely to swing in favour of those who stand to profit more should the laws change in their favour . They can afford the legal fees to ensure it happens.

I guess what I'm saying is that the book you read as a child, stands just as much of a chance of intertaining your kids as a new book might. I'm not saying it deffinately will, I'm just saying there is a good chance. The book in question may never hit the top 10 charts again, but the enjoyment can still be there.

Meanwhile, the emu scene is mostly followed by old fossils like myself. A game you loved as a kid, is nowhere near as likely to be enjoyed by your kids. They see the bright bells and whistles of a new game and scoff at the course graphics of the old. I've seen this just from family friends, they are only 10 or so years younger than me, and they cannot believe that I actually enjoy playing Ultima (for example.) They are so "ugly" according to them.

It also boils down to the producers themselves. In the book and music industry, there are reprints still coming out from titles 50 years ago. Some of these have never even come close to hitting the top 10 when they were new, and yet the publisher still feels comfortable re-printing them.

Now, with digital download versions becoming more available, there are some older games that are making an appearance. However, I don't expect this to grow too much. Again, because of the trend of younger players to feel that the older games are just plain ugly, clunky, slow, too hard to get up and running, etc... I would love it if I were to be proven wrong here, but I have yet to see any evidence that this will happen.

Finally, and here is the point of the thread that everyone seems to keep looking past. If game producers do put their games up for digital download, or even actually reproduce them (like books keep being reprinted,) then the amendment put forth as a "good idea" by this thread would never apply to them. The amendment in question would only apply if the publisher actually didn't care enough to do something to keep the game alive.

Not long after CDs launched one of the first things to happen on a global scale was that recording companies set about releasing their older catalogued recordings on CD. This was repeated for various offshoot formats such as CD+G, DVD Audio and Super CDA. As emulation progresses this will become the norm for computer games too; the examples I put forward of XBOX and other older titles being rereleased on newer consoles is just the beginning as this new type of industry has already begun to migrate to mobile phones, pdas and so on. Thus I feel it's unlikely that publishers will 'end of line' their products as they have done in the past. It seens more likely that they might follow ID's lead with 'Doom with DOSBox by releasing source code (but not resources) and selling the original works via electronic distribution methods such as the Steampowered Network. This seems logical as they do need to maintain 'masters' of the CD/DVD/whatever target format, nor do they have to incur costs to reprint manuals and packaging. Then they are catering to their fans and customers at the same time, whilst also contributing to the developmental growth of the communities that spawned them.

And being able to exclusively resell the same product for 70 years helps promote new works... how?

As far as I understand them, Copyright laws were invoked to protect the rights of the producers. Whatever else can be interpreted from that is, well, up for interpretation.

Can you explain to me where in copyright law the encouragement to promote new works lies?

I'm not being facietious, I really want to understand where it is you're coming from.

It's enshrined in the US constitution. That part which establishes the right of Congress to create copyright laws.

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.

It is secured for a limited time because the founders realised the importance of a public domain. If you really, genuinely want to learn about this issue, listen to some lectures by Lawrence Lessig, learn about the public domain, learn about the philosophy behind copyright. It's all there, on Wikipedia, or on YouTube.

dh4rm4: Yes, there are some clasics becoming available through digital media. But the availability is sporadic at best. There are a few here, a few there, and massive amounts of clasic games are being left behind. Where is the EA promoted re-release of Ultima 1, for example? Extremely stable emulators are available for the C64, but the only C64 game compilations I can find are all 3rd party produced (and thus illegal.) Same thing applies for the Apple line, Amiga (though there are still new Amiga games being produced,) TI-99, etc...

Ok, XBox 360 has it set up for support and download of Xbox games. Sorry, but I don't consider XBox to be clasic. Also, remember that when the XBox 360 came out, Microsoft also announce that they would never again release any XBox licenses to software company (no more new XBox games.) That last is according to my local GameStop store, not sure how accurate it is, but I cannot find any new XBox games. Oh, and the backwards compatability of the 360 is a joke 🙁 (sorry, pet peave there.)

Most of the re-releases I can find are almost exclusively coin-op or console based. Not that those cannot be considered clasics. It's just that the slugish growth is mostly limited in scope. As it stands, I cannot forsee the vast majority of the clasic games ever becoming available again until they are somehow moved to public domain.

I would absolutley love it if all of my favorites became available for digital purchase (as long as the cost wasn't astronomical, that is.) But failing that, why not have something in place to realease the copyright of works that the owner obviously no longer cares about? If, as you state, all of the old classics will become available in one form or another, such a limitation would have absolutley no impact, so it cannot possibly hurt to have it in place.

There are C64 games being released on Virtual Console Wii right now with more coming down the pipe. There's also heaps of C64 (granted almost all are CodeMasters titles), Arcade, SNES and other platform releases on GameTap (which was made and envisioned by the CodeMasters brothers and is owned by TurnerMedia). It's definitely not as sporadic as you might think and this is literally the beginning of legitimised resales of emulation based product on a global scale.

The reason why I think abandonware will never become an adjunct to law is purely because the software games industry is extremely young when compared with other similar industries and none of the big players (the people who can afford the sort of legal representation and poltical lobbying which ensures their financial security) want to give up any of their IPs just yet. That's essentially what abandoning a product entails, it isn't just about the gamers who want to play older unsupported and untargeted titles. Once something reaches the public domain, it can't be easily if ever brought back under publishing control.

This is precisely why companies like ID and the like only release their source code and not their resources - that way they always retain their IP but also allow others to learn from the source code and possibly even expand on - such is the case with all of the Doom and Quake 1 ports and variants.