abandonware games \o/
category: general [glöplog]
quit huffing glue.
So what's the difference of moral to stealing something which you don't have the property to have:
a) something someone produced and has not made available to public.
b) something someone made available to public once upon a time via purchasement and 'now' doesn't make it available to public.
Before publishing their work these people make the statement that they want their property remain proprietry, whether they sell it or not. (They don't even have to make a statement actually.) When their works are being spreaded out of their will and inform, there isn't anything left to discuss.
They aren't losing any money when their work is released out of their will because they are not in the market, just as when someone doesn't lose money for his work, which has never been in the market, released by other people. (like my bones) While these abandonware sites 'are' making money by putting advertisements around the spread of works of these producers.
No matter how much you move to anarcho-capitalism you can't reach the justification of obtaining something by means other than the produces/supplier wants if the good is not on the market. In such extreme views, copyrighted material can be obtained by self-directed means only if it is clear that the good will not be in one's own market within his/her lifetime, while it is on other markets. And ding ding no more local markets for software anymore! You can't have other's software unless the owner of the work wishes. And this is the most liberal view of common acceptance that exists today.
Well if you think all this morality/intellectual property/proprietry stuff is bs, I advice admitting the illegality of whatever you do instead of trying justifications to your barbarian view of the world, or actually 'acting' and creating your stuff and/or propose people create their stuff under more liberal terms other than copyrighting, such as free licenses and creative commons.
a) something someone produced and has not made available to public.
b) something someone made available to public once upon a time via purchasement and 'now' doesn't make it available to public.
Before publishing their work these people make the statement that they want their property remain proprietry, whether they sell it or not. (They don't even have to make a statement actually.) When their works are being spreaded out of their will and inform, there isn't anything left to discuss.
They aren't losing any money when their work is released out of their will because they are not in the market, just as when someone doesn't lose money for his work, which has never been in the market, released by other people. (like my bones) While these abandonware sites 'are' making money by putting advertisements around the spread of works of these producers.
No matter how much you move to anarcho-capitalism you can't reach the justification of obtaining something by means other than the produces/supplier wants if the good is not on the market. In such extreme views, copyrighted material can be obtained by self-directed means only if it is clear that the good will not be in one's own market within his/her lifetime, while it is on other markets. And ding ding no more local markets for software anymore! You can't have other's software unless the owner of the work wishes. And this is the most liberal view of common acceptance that exists today.
Well if you think all this morality/intellectual property/proprietry stuff is bs, I advice admitting the illegality of whatever you do instead of trying justifications to your barbarian view of the world, or actually 'acting' and creating your stuff and/or propose people create their stuff under more liberal terms other than copyrighting, such as free licenses and creative commons.
yay for analogies instead of reasoning!
_-_-__: You realize scientists actually use analogies and metaphors to explqain and communicate some of this world’s most complex ideas and concepts. :-) Not that this is a particularly complex issue, it basically boils down to whether we allow greedy corporations and lawyers to dictate ridiculous laws to us or not
anes: the thing is, nobody wants your bones. you can keep your old rotten bones! :-P however, I *DO* want to play Elite Frontier, Carrier Command and Speedball on my old 14 year old Amiga. An artist who paints the most beautiful picture ever known to man and sadistically REFUSES to not provide prints so people can enjoy its beauty in their own home is the criminal in my eyes. He is effectively denying enrichment in people’s lives, which is cruel. So those who visit his gallery, take hires photos and print them “unlawfully” are morally justified, imo. They are like modern-day Robinhoods, stealing from the greedy to enrich the lives of the masses. I have no sympathy for the Artist, he should never have shown his picture. He should have kept it locked away forever in his basement.
.No doubt it is “illegal” but who cares apart from killjoys like yourself and lawyers who are become rich by suing everyone and anyone for any little human misdemeanor . :|
And another thing, I agree with you that NOONE but the original author of formally commercial software should profit from their "illegal"disribution. I never support sites like these, I use peer-to-peer for ROMS.
anes: the thing is, nobody wants your bones. you can keep your old rotten bones! :-P however, I *DO* want to play Elite Frontier, Carrier Command and Speedball on my old 14 year old Amiga. An artist who paints the most beautiful picture ever known to man and sadistically REFUSES to not provide prints so people can enjoy its beauty in their own home is the criminal in my eyes. He is effectively denying enrichment in people’s lives, which is cruel. So those who visit his gallery, take hires photos and print them “unlawfully” are morally justified, imo. They are like modern-day Robinhoods, stealing from the greedy to enrich the lives of the masses. I have no sympathy for the Artist, he should never have shown his picture. He should have kept it locked away forever in his basement.
.No doubt it is “illegal” but who cares apart from killjoys like yourself and lawyers who are become rich by suing everyone and anyone for any little human misdemeanor . :|
And another thing, I agree with you that NOONE but the original author of formally commercial software should profit from their "illegal"disribution. I never support sites like these, I use peer-to-peer for ROMS.
I don't think even the abandonware sites claim it's legal. But there's a big difference between illegal and immoral. And a big difference between property and intellectual property.
As for the bigger picture, you're talking about spreading software only with "implicit consent", and under specific conditions (the software is old, no longer sold, and so on), and only as long as the copyright holder makes no objection. You can actually do that without assuming all kinds of software piracy is OK, and one doesn't inevitably lead to the other.
I mean, how illegal is the HVSC archive? (Quite. It's quite illegal.)
As for the bigger picture, you're talking about spreading software only with "implicit consent", and under specific conditions (the software is old, no longer sold, and so on), and only as long as the copyright holder makes no objection. You can actually do that without assuming all kinds of software piracy is OK, and one doesn't inevitably lead to the other.
I mean, how illegal is the HVSC archive? (Quite. It's quite illegal.)
First off, intellectual property and piracy are very shitty terms. They compare things that cannot be compared and suggest certain ways of thinking.
Copyrights are supposed to encourage creativity by making it profitable to invest in it. Copyrights should not be extended further and further so people can get money for rehashing things - especially not until 70 years after the last author died!
Laws and such are not a basis for morality: rather the opposite should be true. For instance, in the Netherlands it is legal to download all videos, pictures and music you want. Yet it is illegal to download a ROM for a NES game I bought but are now unable to play because my NES died.
Moral rights are not only very stifling to creativity but also largely unnecessary with laws against defamation, which operate from a much more sensible point of view than that of owning ideas.
Of course it is best to try to avoid this whole mess by preferring sensible licenses, both for your own work and for what you use. For instance the 3-clause BSD and GPL licenses for software, Creative Commons with by and/or sa (not with nd and rather not with nc) for other kinds of media.
Copyrights are supposed to encourage creativity by making it profitable to invest in it. Copyrights should not be extended further and further so people can get money for rehashing things - especially not until 70 years after the last author died!
Laws and such are not a basis for morality: rather the opposite should be true. For instance, in the Netherlands it is legal to download all videos, pictures and music you want. Yet it is illegal to download a ROM for a NES game I bought but are now unable to play because my NES died.
Moral rights are not only very stifling to creativity but also largely unnecessary with laws against defamation, which operate from a much more sensible point of view than that of owning ideas.
Of course it is best to try to avoid this whole mess by preferring sensible licenses, both for your own work and for what you use. For instance the 3-clause BSD and GPL licenses for software, Creative Commons with by and/or sa (not with nd and rather not with nc) for other kinds of media.
Intellectual rights to any work for more than 10 years is a farce, writers have been shouting this from the top of the roofs for ages, ok Rowling may not have, but real writers have.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. ~Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
people tend to mix up ethics and law, do not do this. it only serves to muddy the waters. ethis are ethics, and law is law, they are not even remotely connected to eachother.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. ~Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
people tend to mix up ethics and law, do not do this. it only serves to muddy the waters. ethis are ethics, and law is law, they are not even remotely connected to eachother.
but of course, trusting your own sense of morals requires a little autonomy. people are scared to make their own decisions and need rules and regulations to live their lives. just as many people needed religion to guide their morals and behaviour. law is the new moral guide for most people, which is why the lines are bluring. "if it's law then you don't question it, it's devine truth!". sad, because any crooked/criminal called Joe can write-up "laws" these days, and Joe certainly wrote these insane IP laws
Legal Amiga games & software: Back to the Roots:-)
Really legal? Yes, check the Acceptable Usage Policy!
Really legal? Yes, check the Acceptable Usage Policy!
Fans of Star Control 2 should know this for sure: The Ur-Quan Master
PS: I'm addicted to Super Melee!
PS: I'm addicted to Super Melee!
I had hundreds of games available at amiga L33tz.
complaints: 0
hits: 8 million
average leeching: OMG per day
I don't really think they are hunting people for 15+ yo games :)
complaints: 0
hits: 8 million
average leeching: OMG per day
I don't really think they are hunting people for 15+ yo games :)
el burro aka mr. "deviance is not death" am^fm ;D
Quote:
so is it ok to steal something if it's not on sale?
No, it isn't. Anyway we're not talking about *stealing* here, we're talking about *copying* stuff. There is a certain difference.
"Free Culture" is a book that everyone should read.
KeyJ: So copying the sources and plans of anothers' projects without their consent is not stealing. And I don't think Timbaland has anything taken from Tempest, he just copied.
turrican, katakis, rtype, bckid from factor5: http://factor5.com/downloads.shtml
Jones In The Fast Lane
Alley Cat
Turbo Pascal 0.82a
LOGO
...
Turbo Pascal 0.82a
LOGO
...
anes: That's a false analogy. Tempest's music was public domain and as such couldn't be "stolen". Problem was Timbaland pretended he had written the song, and that he made money from it without sharing with Tempest.
And "copying is different from stealing" does not imply "I'm a complete and total anarchist and I'll take anything I want". The first is a reasonable observation, the second is an extrapolation.
And "copying is different from stealing" does not imply "I'm a complete and total anarchist and I'll take anything I want". The first is a reasonable observation, the second is an extrapolation.
pn_____ - yeah you can download them but only if you have originals :/
counterfeiting, plagiarism, private copying, legal copying etc.. are far better words.
my, Gargaj, he DOES sound like he's huffing glue!
:D
Quote:
And I don't think Timbaland has anything taken from Tempest, he just copied.
Yes, and he made money from it without sharing it with the original authour which is why he is a fucktard.
