What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
105 Comments
- thefreshbeats, on 10/12/2007, -6/+78Yes, but Nintendo still sells their SNES games.
- Rayonic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52I wonder if this applies to console ROMs too. I mean, they don't make SNES'es anymore.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47Neither.
It's just freely distributable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50Apparently you people didn't RTFA.
To quote the article:
"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."
SNES, NES, Gameboy, all those are covered. Rereleasing them on the VC doesn't count since the VC is actually an emulator used to replay these games. Since they were originally published on obsolete hardware, it's covered.
Same with PacMan, regardless of the fact it's been included in "Arcade classics" packages all over.
You people need to actually read the law :) - mumblingmynah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44One unreasonable outdated copyright law down, one million to go...
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38Why is thefreshbeats getting dugg down? Nintendo's selling of games over the virtual console clearly shows that their ROMS are not "abandonware" so would not be covered by this ruling.
- i5aac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21if they're selling them, they're not commercially unavailable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30"Question about Digg. Why do you feel the need to digg down the first post?"
Because people on digg are ***** stupid, hence why my post (which is perfectly legit and on spot) is being modded down. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Forced to release the source? That's just plain stupid.
Read the coined term: "Abandonware"
So, according to you. Whenever someone creates software, sells it for a time, then discontinues it, they will be forced to release the code. That will stifle innovation rather fast. - eH9116, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I doubt this applies to ROMS, because they are still selling them virtually on the Wii, Xbox360, etc...
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Finally, a copyright law that favors the consumer rather than a billion dollar industry!
I wonder if this means we'll be seeing software companies go out of their way to re-release old software titles so we can't get 'em for free. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14This doesn't legalize abandonware. It legalizes circumventing DRM for the inclusion of old software in archives/libraries. This doesn't grant everyone and their brother the right to personal use of abandonware. Abandonware is still copyrighted.
The only reason abandonware sites get away with what they do, is that while someone still technically holds the copyright to all the software, no one is currently prosecuting violators.
Note the phrase "when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive". You can't just choose to ignore that part because you don't like it. Lord knows the judge wont. - EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13New exemptions from copyright laws:
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009. - gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19This article is completley wrong kids. It needs to be buried adn removed, lest this site lose and credebility it may have.
The DMCA has provisions allowing the copyright office and library of congress to make rules each year on its application. It does this because technologychanges, so the rules that the law applies to can be constantly updated to keep up with changes in technology. This makes sense kiddies.
The DMCA says that a person can't make a back-up (non-infringing) copy of a work if the work has some anti-copy protection.
This rule says that if the media the software is on has anti-copy protection, and it is no longer availble commercially, you can curcumvent the copyprotection to make your own non-infriging copy.
The rule does not make so called "abandon-ware" illegal. It does not mean you can freely download ROMs. You still need to own a legit copy of the work. The rule says you can make a non-infringing back-up of works that have copy protection.
Also note that a non-infringing copy means that you don't use the copy at all, unless the original is destroyed. Hence the term back-up. Its cease to be a back-up if you use it as a second copy.
I know you kids go to great lengths to justify piracy, but its not going to happen. If your going to pirate, then pirate. Just down whine and make up stuff about the practice. And lastly, not abandon-ware is an incredebly dubious title. - Guye, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Wow. This is a major victory for free exchange.
I don't know how many times over the years, you'd get into a debate with someone over the morality of downloading abandonware. Theres always that guy on a forum that touts the whole "it's wrong!" angle.
Wonder how those arguments will go now that its declared legal. So silly when you think about it though, that so many people are willing to let laws and legality dictate their moral compass... and sort of scary in a way. - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11forced into going open source?
HAHAH
you're kidding, right?
Maybe in communist China... - captainserial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Since when has anyone NOT been "allowed" to release source code they already own?
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"USA"
oooooh yiiih I'm liking this title so far! USA A-OK, baby!!
"Legalizes"
WOWIE!! What could we have legalized? By golly, I can't wait to read the next word of this title!!
"Abandonware"
Awww man! 15 minutes of anticipation for nothing! - fujiman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Ajajadude -- you're right.
This is only going to affect games by companies that are no longer in business (who couldn't sue you anyway).
Companies that ARE in business (like Nintendo and Sega) just have to publish a list of games "available" for sale, with some price attached, saying to "contact the company for details".
And nothing changes.
Not that anyone was waiting for this to become legal anyway... - CapitolK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The heading is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. This regulation DOES NOT legalize the use of "abandonware."
What it does do is put in place a VERY LIMITED exception to the copyright laws that allows LIBRARIES and ARCHIVES to break copy protection on certain limited types of old software (those that require specialized hardware to run) for the sole purpose of STORING/PRESERVING the software (i.e., so that it still exists in the distant future when the copyrights expire and the software enters the public domain).
To repeat: the regulation DOES NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO LEGALLY PLAY copyrighted games. All it does is allow certain public institutions to break copy protections to STORE some older games. - n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I think that is one of the reasons for the VC on the Wii and the abundance of "Classic Collections" on consoles.
- freedomorfire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14this is so awesome. Now i can play/download my old DOS Games in peace
- uhbeta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Was somebody keeping you from doing so?
- plsailboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."
does this mean we can copy ps3 games now!!! ROFL - mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Would everyone please read at least one of gilbes's comments above? This DOES NOT make abandonware legal. That would be like taking away an artists copyrights just because they haven't published an album on the newest media. It's a direct conflict to the copyright law. All the ruling says is that you can BACK UP YOUR OWN COPY of protected software that is distributed on obsolete media.
Don't bury people's comments about this just because you wish they were wrong. These are hard facts, and you're creating a dangerous situation by spreading the myth that abandonware is now legal. It's definitely not, and won't be until the actual copyright expires, just like music, movies, books, etc. The guy that wrote the blog/article is 100% wrong. A copyright doesn't expire just because someone doesn't sell the work constantly. It's the owner's choice whether or not they want to keep selling and distributing it, NOT the users who never owned it in the first place. Don't bury this, it's the truth, and people deserve to know. - suriyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What about old Gameboy Games that they don't distribute anymore, those, to my knowledge, aren't even on Nintendo's Virtual Console. (Games such as Balloon Kid, Kwirk, the Final Fantasy Legends series, etc..)
- FrankBattaglia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6INACCURATE TITLE
To understand these provisions, you first need to understand there is a difference between copyright and copy protection mechanisms.
The DMCA gave legal force to copy-protection mechanisms; not only do content owners have their copyrights, they can *also* sue you for breaking the copy protection mechanisms. These are two separate concepts.
The problem is, sometimes those copy protection mechanisms (which are illegal to break under 1201) prevent the public from enjoying their fair use (107) or just in general are bad for progress. So, the Librarian of Congress is tasked with keeping tabs on what copy protection mechanisms are used for, and whether they are problematic. In identified classes, he is able to say "you are allowed to break the copy protection here, because it is preventing you from exercising your rights and / or is impermissibly extending the rights of the copyright holder."
That is what these provisions are. They are situations in which you are able to *break the copy protection* (circumvention); but they do not address whether or not you are allowed to make copies (infringe copyright).
The so-called "abandonware provision" merely states that, if you (1) are a library; (2) have software on obsolete media (such as 5.25 floppies); and that software had a copy protection mechanism that required the original floppies, then (and only then) you are allowed to circumvent the COPY PROTECTION for purposes of ARCHIVING the software (space-shifting). So, in this example, you could strip off the copy protection, put the content of the floppies onto a (up to three, if you are a non-profit library open to the public)hard drive(s), and -- THAT'S IT! No more copies. No free distribution rights. This provision IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE UNDERLYING WORK. Just the ability to run a functional library without having to keep an Apple ][ around to play Oregon Trail.
I love how everyone that is point this out is getting buried, and everyone shouting "FREE COPIES FOR EVERYONE" is getting dugg up. Know the law before you moderate, people. - mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Stop burrying people like the parent. He's speaking the truth and trying to help you. The author of the original story is just a huge moron.
- denytenamun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This does not make abandonware legal. The key statement is:
"when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive."
It doesn't say it becomes freely distributable. - gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Completley incorrect. The new rules say you can legally curcumvent DRM to make copies of works you already own for the purposes of a back-up. No where does it say you can violate exiting copyrights by obtaining and distrubting work.
Learn the RTFA, and understand if kids. - slackerbox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Someone please put an old PC game titled Sanitarium online, please!"
There's plenty of them out there already.
Type "Home of the Underdogs" into Google for probably the best of the bunch. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hmm, they should be allowed indee, but why forced? Lifting up the copyright has to do with what others can do with someone's old software (a.k.a others' limitations), but why should it force the person to provide code?
In other words, you say releasing binaries it's not enough. Why shouldn't it be enough? - dexim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10baugles
You could not be any more wrong. If someone posses the coprights to a piece of work (a video game for example) they have the rights to distribute that work in whatever form they wish.Games that are being sold for use on "virtual consoles" are still being sold, and therefore not considered abandoned. - gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9This article is completley wrong kids.
The DMCA has provisions allowing the copyright office and library of congress to make rules each year on its application. It does this because technologychanges, so the rules that the law applies to can be constantly updated to keep up with changes in technology. This makes sense kiddies.
The DMCA says that a person can't make a back-up (non-infringing) copy of a work if the work has some anti-copy protection.
This rule says that if the media the software is on has anti-copy protection, and it is no longer availble commercially, you can curcumvent the copyprotection to make your own non-infriging copy.
The rule does not make so called "abandon-ware" illegal. It does not mean you can freely download ROMs. You still need to own a legit copy of the work. The rule says you can make a non-infringing back-up of works that have copy protection.
Also note that a non-infringing copy means that you don't use the copy at all, unless the original is destroyed. Hence the term back-up. Its cease to be a back-up if you use it as a second copy.
I know you kids go to great lengths to justify piracy, but its not going to happen. If your going to pirate, then pirate. Just down whine and make up stuff about the practice. And lastly, not abandon-ware is an incredebly dubious title. - goodshape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Question about Digg. Why do you feel the need to digg down the first post?"
Because the question was answered in the second post, I no longer need to see the first.
It was also a silly question and the two 'options' presented by the OP were obviously both incorrect. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think it means that you can legally pull the silver write protect sticker off the 5 1/4" floppies.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You mean I can finally play Dewey's DOS Decimal Challenge legally for free???
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4But they're not selling ALL of them.
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4don't get your hopes up, very little actually qualifies as 'commercially unavailable'..
- gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That last one should have been at baugles.
There is not legal abondonware. Abandonware doesn't exist in any official definition. Either these works are protected by copyright or release to the public domain. They don't get abandoned and instantly legal to pirate. The owner can release under the public domain. - joeljkp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not legally, unless you're doing it for archival purposes for a library.
- gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5> dexim
You should take your own advice.
This rule in no way makes "abadonware" illegal. All it says is that copy protection can be circumvented on works you own. It does not say you can obtain works that are not commercially availble without permission of the copyright holder. So downloading ROMs is still illgeal under copyright law. Making ROMs yourself of games you own and keeping them as a back-up is now OK.
Note the words cirumvention of copy protection in the rule. That is all it applies to. - theWrkncacnter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really want to play Wing Commander, still copywrited, but the company that made it does not offer it for sale anymore! There are no copies anywhere to buy it. How can you say that it's illegal to download it if there is no other way to get it?
Downloading abandonware doesn't hurt the company or the person who made the game since they are not selling it anymore. In fact it probably helps them with name recognition.
There should be a law that says companies must provide downloads for games that are not commercially available. They could be for cost or for free (like bungie's marathon). This would have been impossible during the early 90's when most abandonware is from.
No one benefits from abandonware being so hard to get. - mrRB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Then the companies get sniped at for 'trying' to get the consumers to pay for whatever attachment would be needed for that old stuff, or forcing BC on consumers who don't want it.
- Skab, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3RTFUSERAGREEMENTROFLWAFFLETOPLETEDCOPLE!!
- Procure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone remember Descent? That game kicked copious amounts of ass... It better be not commercially available...
- ih8regs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a guy on his blog declaring abandonware legal based on his seeing what he wants to see interpretation. If you look at that from which he derives his declaration, the machine and system which render such games perceptible must not be for sale anymore; x86 pcs and DOS(non Microsoft) are still made and sold by several companies. But, that's a small snag in light of this only applies to libraries and archives(an institution, not a file archive).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is no use. This submission is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe. And EVERY time it hits the front page the same idiotic comments about how it is now legal to play these games get dugg up while everyone pointing out FACTS get buried.
It is just one of the things you have to live with if you are on Digg. You have to check your intelligence, logic and common sense at the door in order to fit in. - mrRB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^GLguy: no one actually owns games except the companies/individual that make them. What you own is a physical copy of the data, a pretty box, and a software license that is made specifically for whatever the game is meant to be played on. Not whatever the consumer wants to play it on. The rights and desires of the creator and owner are paramount.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People on Digg have the reading comprehension of a grade school child. This exemption allows you to bypass copy protection mechanisms. It doesn't allow you to distribute. It doesn't affect the underlying copyright at all! RTFA!
The Internet never ceases to surprise me with the overwhelming power of stupid people.
Marked article as inaccurate -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is