Is the Ultima Apple IIGS remake considered abandonware?

[Tanrunomad]

I recently did a quick review of the game (mainly because I couldn't find any other videos of the IIGS version). The game is kind of hard to get these days because Joe Kohn, the last person to own the rights to the game, passed away back in 2009, so it has not been available for purchase since. Does anyone know if it is considered abandonware (and therefore free) at this point? I'd love to see it available for the hardcore Ultima fans that may have never played it.

 

Oh, and here's my review if you're curious about this version, which has some really nice music.

http://youtu.be/6utp4T7XW6E

Edited April 25, 2013 by Tanrunomad

[Tempest]

This question was asked a few months ago on the newsgroups. I believe the consensus was that No, it's not abandonware. Someone must own the rights to it, even if they've reverted back to Burger Becky.

 

Glad i got my copy a few years back. Come to think of it, it must have been around 2008/2009. It's a really nice version of the game.

[+Gemintronic]

Abandonware is still pirated software. It just matters whether you care enough to make excuses.

[Tempest]

Abandonware is still pirated software. It just matters whether you care enough to make excuses.

To me the difference between retail software and abandonware is if people are going to care if you pirate it. If a company is going to go through the trouble of send you a cease and desist letter, take you to court over it, or ask you nicely not to copy it, then it's still Retail. If the current copyright holders could care less what you do with it then it's Abandonware.

[+Gemintronic]

It's all acceptable until it isn't

 

Personally, I love abandonware!

 

UPDATE: I guess the real question is: did the copyright holders publicly acknowledge this game can be distributed for free?

[Csonicgo]

What angers me are publishers that are aware of demand, do nothing about it, and aggressively fight piracy of their software.

[+Gemintronic]

If the OP can afford 6 bucks all three games are available on gog.com

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/ultima_1_2_3

[Tempest]

If the OP can afford 6 bucks all three games are available on gog.com

http://www.gog.com/g...rd/ultima_1_2_3

Yeah but not the Apple IIgs version. The IIgs version of Ultima I is the best version around.

[akator]

What angers me are publishers that are aware of demand, do nothing about it

 

There are many reasons why this might happen. Maybe the projections simply don't look profitable.

 

You could offer to fund the development. Or maybe start a campaign to raise money and interest.

 

aggressively fight piracy of their software.

 

IP law is basically a "snooze you loose" scenario. IP holders must aggressively defend their properties or risk losing them. Even when IP is obviously stolen, a thief can claim a form of "squatter's rights" if the true owners didn't take action.

[Tempest]

IP law is basically a "snooze you loose" scenario. IP holders must aggressively defend their properties or risk losing them. Even when IP is obviously stolen, a thief can claim a form of "squatter's rights" if the true owners didn't take action.

Yeah, this is why a lot of companies send C&D letters to people over 'dead' software. It's not that they care if you sell 100 carts of some old game, it's that if they don't fight it then they lose their IP on it so when they want to release a new remake of said game or license it out to some giant company for a classic arcade pack or something they can't because they lost their IP. It sucks for us hobbyists, but that's the law.

[Emehr]

Here's what doesn't make sense: obtaining a free copy of obsolete software isn't a declaration of owning the IP. I don't see why it's considered so. Now, if I programmed a piece of software and used names that conflicted with the IP (like the name of the software or an identifying character), then the original author or IP holder would have a legitimate complaint.

[Osgeld]

or duplicated it and sold it.

 

I notice that many smaller developers of apps and utilities like to retain copyright, but give permission to use and distribute it (ie disk images), but until then one should assume that someone holds it

 

in case of death, I dont know, I know there is a period after death that still can be claimed by the persons survivors, but do they care to even comment on a 20 something year old game?

[Hatta]

To me the difference between retail software and abandonware is if people are going to care if you pirate it.

 

Well then, you know how to find out if it's abandonware or not.

[Tempest]

Well then, you know how to find out if it's abandonware or not.

I'd ask over on comp.sys.appe2. That's where all the apple people hang out (for now, hopefully we can get them over here on AA). They'll know who had the rights last and where they might have gone now. Keep in mind that Origin (or whoever owns them now) still is actively using the Ultima IP so it's a good bet SOMEONE is going to care.

[Hatta]

If I was a little oblique, I was suggesting someone post the disk images and see if a C&D was forthcoming. I'd say that forms a reasonable operational definition of abandonware.

[Tempest]

If I was a little oblique, I was suggesting someone post the disk images and see if a C&D was forthcoming. I'd say that forms a reasonable operational definition of abandonware.

For something like this, I'd still ask as it was being sold up until a few years ago. It's not like it hasn't been available for 10+ years or something.

[JamesD]

I don't see why copyrights always require so much discussion.

 

The game is copyrighted and the copyright hasn't expired.

The manufacturer hasn't made any announcement making the game freely copy-able.

It's up to the copyright holder to legally enforce the copyright and that is unlikely here but if you put it online you might receive a cease and desist order.

I don't see abandonment as an issue since copyright law doesn't say anything about that.

So ultimately, either you respect the copyright or you don't, it's up to you,

[Hatta]

Abandonment matters because copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime. If there's no injured party, no wrong has been done.

[JamesD]

Abandonment matters because copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime. If there's no injured party, no wrong has been done.

This discusses the issue of copyright law and abandonment:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=dltr

 

"Proving that a copyright owner abandoned his copyright is a rather

onerous process. To establish that a copyright was abandoned, a defendant

must show (1) that the plaintiff intended to surrender rights in his or her

work; and (2) that the plaintiff committed some overt act showing this

intent.59"

 

Unless you are prepared to prove that in a court of law then I'd skip the abandonment argument.

[Hatta]

I mean abandonment in the coloquial sense of not enforcing your rights, no the legal sense of literally not having those rights anymore. Here's an analogy. Tresspassing is a tort like copyright infringement. If you leave your property and never check on it you haven't abandoned your rights in the legal sense. But the only thing that makes tresspassing "wrong" is the objection of the property owner. In the absence of that objection there's absolutely no reason not to tresspass. There's only one party with standing to sue, and that party doesn't care enough to do so. There's absolutely no reason anyone should care more than the property owner, especially when the law itself doesn't care.

 

Obviously, if you ever see the inside of a court room, then it wasn't actually abandoned. As a practical matter if no one's going to sue you, there's no reason not to copy or tresspass.

[+poobah]

To me the difference between retail software and abandonware is if people are going to care if you pirate it. If a company is going to go through the trouble of send you a cease and desist letter, take you to court over it, or ask you nicely not to copy it, then it's still Retail. If the current copyright holders could care less what you do with it then it's Abandonware.

 

There is no such thing as abandonware. Unless the owner of the copyright gives you permission, copying it is not allowed.

There is no requirement to agressively enforce copyright to retain it, and there is no requirement to continue selling something at retail.

If you choose to pirate some old software, weill that's your choice, but trying to legitimize it by claiming "oh its abandonware" is a fallacy.

I apologize for being pedantic about it, but sooner or later someone is going to be sued over this.

You never know when the owner is going to show up and ruin your day. (Gorf on the Jag....)

[Tempest]

There is no such thing as abandonware. Unless the owner of the copyright gives you permission, copying it is not allowed.

There is no requirement to agressively enforce copyright to retain it, and there is no requirement to continue selling something at retail.

If you choose to pirate some old software, weill that's your choice, but trying to legitimize it by claiming "oh its abandonware" is a fallacy.

I apologize for being pedantic about it, but sooner or later someone is going to be sued over this.

You never know when the owner is going to show up and ruin your day. (Gorf on the Jag....)

Well from a legal standpoint you're completely correct. I was just giving the 'law of the internet' definition.

[Emehr]

You never know when the owner is going to show up and ruin your day. (Gorf on the Jag....)

 

I don't know what the situation is with Gorf on the Jag (I don't follow the scene), but if a homebrewer got a stern legal talking-to for copying the IP of another publisher (which was probably justified), I would say that that is nothing like copying and sharing once-commercial software for obsolete hardware. Copyright and intellectual property are two different beasts.

 

I really wish someone would draft up a software-centric law or treatise regarding copyright as it pertains to software. Books, music, and videos can easily transcend mediums. Software, on the other hand, relies either on maintaining elder hardware running specific operating systems or developing and maintaining emulation software to run the object code. If a publisher is unwilling to maintain a specific build of their software so it can run on current hardware and operating systems, then there should be a grace period where that build is considered abandonware. They don't lose the IP, just the ability to enforce copyright laws for that specific build of their software.

 

As an example, take Photoshop 6 for Mac OS. It will not run on Mac OS X. Adobe does not sell Photoshop 6 for classic Mac OS. It's been years since they have done so. Under my pipe dream treatise, Photoshop 6 for Mac OS would become abandonware. People can copy and share as they please. That doesn't mean that a programmer can create graphic editing software and call it "Photoshop". That doesn't mean that a programmer can disassemble the code and use it in their own program. Adobe doesn't lose their IP. That would be ridiculous since we are talking about copyright here. They still sell Photoshop for modern operating systems. They just lose the ability to sue people for copying and sharing Photoshop 6 for Mac OS specifically, a product they do not sell or monetize from anyway. On the flip side, the people copying and sharing the software should never be allowed to profit from it (which should go without saying).

 

I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be, I just want to see some sensibility in the software world regarding copyright laws. Primarily for the sake of software preservation.

[+poobah]

I don't know what the situation is with Gorf on the Jag (I don't follow the scene), but if a homebrewer got a stern legal talking-to for copying the IP of another publisher (which was probably justified), I would say that that is nothing like copying and sharing once-commercial software for obsolete hardware. Copyright and intellectual property are two different beasts.

You are completely correct. The point of bringing up Gorf was that the rights holders of old games do occasionally rise up from the dead and assert those rights. It is folly to believe one is safe because something is "abandoned".

 

I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be, I just want to see some sensibility in the software world regarding copyright laws. Primarily for the sake of software preservation.

Amen. Copyright law is seriously jacked up in the US. It was meant to be for a "limited time" to encourage the progress of science and the arts, not a never ending stream of cash for hundreds of year. (We will all be long dead before any work produced today enters the public domain). I'd like to see it rolled back to 15 or 20 years max, perhps less on things like computer software.

[Hatta]

There is no such thing as abandonware. Unless the owner of the copyright gives you permission, copying it is not allowed.

 

Sure there is. Unless the copyright holder takes action to stop you, copying is allowed. I'm not even sure what it means to say something is "not allowed" if no one cares enough to do anything about it. Could the copyright holder stop you? Sure. But if he chooses not to, there's nothing else stopping you. Tieing your hands over a copyright the owner doesn't even care about is ridiculous.