Vintage Software Liscencing

[Cory5412]

You're allowed to crate an archive of abandonware, including ways to circumvent copy protection. However, the definition of what constitutes as an "archive" and "abandonware" is rather dubious.

It's interesting that the Library of Congress would say something like that given that there's no legal concept of "abandonware." -- Unless I missed some very recent developments.

even if it means making backup copies

Many EULAs back in the day encouraged making backup copies of software, and this is a practice I still hold today with my modern software. (Most of which ends up on a network share in my home, and that server gets backed up.) Most software vendors don't really care if you have a second copy of the installer, so long as you don't...

make a load of unauthorized copies, lay out a blanket on the front lawn and sell them to others for a price, aka piracy

But arguably even transmitting "backup" copies to other unlicensed parties over the Internet (free of charge) and letting them use it (with your serial/authorization, or with one they found or invented) is still illegal and still piracy.

it is perfectly reasonable to make the investment in producing your own version of the software

One of the most woeful things about the Classic Mac OS scene is that we've got a lot fewer good hobbyist programmers (like Cameron and tenfourfox, for example) than some of the other platforms like IRIX and Solaris have. Part of this is the intent of the whole platform. The Mac, when it was new, was made for writing letters and balancing checkbooks -- not really for hobbyist programming usage. Another part of this is the architecture of the software on old Macs. It's easy to write and compile a new version of libwhatever.so on IRIX and then replace the system file with it. The whole thing is UNIX95 (or UNIX98, I forget) and POSIX compliant, and is fairly predictable. Firefox may not have stayed up to date on that platform, but a lot of other stuff has.

Of course, that also presumes anybody has a commercial interest in the continued running of a 68k Mac. I'd be interested in hearing/seeing more about it if this was true.

Strictly for personal use, you can likely get away with using actual unlicensed software on ancient computers.

I'm not going to tell if you don't, but just because I agree that this is probably okay doesn't mean we can use the site to transfer those files. (I know you're all aware of this, go with me here for a moment.) ALthough in a world where we could (Let's say copyright law was suddenly and extremely changed to match Knez' suggestion in some way. How would that all be cataloged and distributed, and who would be responsible for it? Archiving is something that it turns out few people on a scene really agree on. Although I personally think the act of archiving and organizing information is really interesting. Like, information organization is one of the reasons I like computers so much, so it'll be interesting to see how that shakes down, should a version of the universe where we can do that manifest itself.

 

[Cory5412]

Knez' suggestion i

I have received intelligence that I am using the wrong name. I'm supposed to say "Theresa Knezek" as "Knez" and "Theresa Knezek" are different but very similarly named individuals.

 

[phreakout]

I agree with what Theresa is trying to say, but on one condition. In the paragraph that starts out, "The publishers would retain all copyrights to the products,...", I would eliminate the second and third sentences. I say this because we don't want to limit distribution rights, whether you're the author or an authorized archivist. What would be the point of archiving if you can't have the freedom to distribute as many copies as you want to as many people as you'd like?

The authors, publishers and shareholders in that piece of software have already taken a write-off whenever a title and version number are discontinued, even if they didn't make enough profit off of that product. They want to wash their hands of it and not be burdened by something that old. I say it's much easier to say make that software free to distribute and let everyone else sort it out. The archivists acquire their copy, which then get distributed freely amongst others.

In a way, the title may as well be issued a GPL and considered freeware-unsupported by the original owners. But in the meantime, until someone wakes up and realizes this, I will continue to freely archive and distribute my resources to those who ask kindly of it. I don't want to make a profit for my efforts and any profit I could make would go towards funding the costs of blank media (floppies, CDs, DVDs, etc.). As long as the demand is still there, I will continue to do so. I like helping out and also like collecting. But what's the point if I can't have the freedom of ownership?

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

A little point to clear up about backup copies:

AFAIK, the courts have ALWAYS supported the individual's right to make a backup copy of ANY copyrighted material distributed on any kind of media. The reason that companies were able to code and distribute programs like Copy II+ over the objections of software, movie and music distribution companies was this very principal.

I laugh every time I pop one of my old VHS tapes into the player and see the idiotic claim that he quality of the product was protected by MacroVision. Such copy protection schemes, when they worked for any appreciable period of time at all, protected ONLY the distributor's revenue stream.

That changed at some point, apparently . . .

Anybody remember the Big Brother Chips that were supposed to go into all televisions . . .

Computer years are like dog years, 25 years is way too long a lead time for copyrighted code to enter the public domain.

As Thomas Jefferson said, copyright is a necessary evil for a free society. He meant copyright to protect an author's right to make a reasonable profit from his work for a strictly limited period of time, certainly not for that period to be extended long enough for his heirs to make a living from his work.

Whatever . . .

 

[Emehr]

This is kinda long so bear with me. I'm digesting some of the responses in this thread so far.

Here's what I propose: I think a distinction needs to be made between art copyright (books, music, film, comics, etc.) and software copyright (applications, games, utilities, operating systems, etc.).

Without getting into the debate of "is software art?" I think it's reasonable to state that art in this sense is a piece of work that is not necessarily tied to the digital format (e.g. print can exist on paper, stone tablet, my forehead, etc.; music can exist as a live performance, on wax cylinder, vinyl, tape, etc.; film can exist on celluloid, tape, a flip-book, etc.). In other words, art is created and meant to be enjoyed no matter what medium it exists on and has a longer financial shelf life for the author. It can be enjoyed for many generations and is easily transferable to new mediums as needed.

Software, on the other hand, must grow with the hardware industry. It is always digital and it always has a small window of shelf-life for the author. By this I mean it must constantly be upgraded to keep up with industry hardware changes. With changing hardware, operating systems, and API's, old versions are quickly made obsolete. Art is dependent on none of these things. Version 1 of any piece of software written in 1988 is certainly not going to share much code with it's namesake written in the present. Company A made all the profit they possibly could with Version 1 of their software in 1988 and has since moved on. That particular piece of software is just a relic and a footnote in the company's history. They have no further stake in it. It is obsolete and will not run in anything save for a virtual environment or some guy's basement who happens to have the particular piece of 1988 hardware that was meant to run it.

Quick note: I'm going to use the term "sharing" instead of "copying". Copying something is meaningless. I can have 50 copies of Photoshop 6 on a hard disk. If I never use it and bury it in my backyard it's essentially worthless. Each copy could not possibly equate to lost revenue on the author's part. Sharing, on the other hand, implies that it is now in another person's hands and they can now access and use the software. Anyway...

My point is, software copyright should have a much shorter lifespan than copyright for the arts. In fact, it shouldn't even be in the same league, IMO. Obsolete hardware and the number of users operating it shrinks smaller and smaller every year. With art, the audience can only grow. Allowing the free sharing of obsolete software for the obsolete hardware it was created for should not be the huge ordeal it's made out to be.

This is not to say that the companies who authored this obsolete software should have to provide any warranty or technical support. The users are completely on their own. This should go without saying. This also doesn't presume that recent versions of software (e.g. Photoshop CS3) should be released freely. Discontinued does not necessarily mean obsolete. If there exists a significant user base for a piece of software then it should certainly be protected.

So, how many years should a software copyright last? Who says it has to be a set number of years? There is no crystal ball that determines when hardware becomes obsolete and in the hands of the few collectors and hobbyists. Software copyright should last as long as it is marketable. Simple as that, right?

 

[KC13]

I have a legal copy of PageMaker for early Macs. The disks are wonky now. I emailed Adobe (the current owner of the product) and was told there was no way at all to get either disks or support of any kind. Would I be considered a pirate if I could find a site to download copies of what I legally purchased and the publisher has declined to support?

 

[olePigeon]

I don't think so, no. You're purchasing a license to use the software, not the software itself. You have a valid license, it shouldn't matter where the media comes from. Adobe used to sell just the media itself for about $5 + postage (basically to cover the cost of the floppy disks.)

They're not losing money by you downloading old software, especially software that you've already purchased a license for. So long as YOU are not the one enabling other people to infringe on copyright, I think it's fine. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[LCGuy]

You're not harming anyone by downloading old software, no. But at the same time, illegal is still illegal.

Its a bit like how I can't drive out into the country, find a long straight stretch of road and put the pedal to the metal. I'm out in the middle of nowhere, in perfect conditions, nobody's around....nobody else is going to suffer as a result...but at the same time...its still against the law.

 

[olePigeon]

It's not always illegal. In the U.S. it's neither illegal nor legal (it's an untested law.) The Library of Congress issued an exemption to the DMCA allowing people to download archival copies of vintage software when they meet certain conditions. Unfortunately he lives in Canada, so this doesn't really apply to him (every country has different laws, of course), but if he were in the U.S., his Adobe software falls squarely under the DMCA exemption.

 

[frankblues]

The Library of Congress issued an exemption to the DMCA allowing people to download archival copies of vintage software when they meet certain conditions.

Source, please?

 

[olePigeon]

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

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.