Delance
Victory, you say?
The positivist approach is weak. The fact that it's against the law is fairly easy to erode, all you need do is change the law, or find a way to push more suitable interpretation for it. The example of the Mona Lisa is bad, because whatever copyright could be involved would be long gone. I don't like the 'theft' metaphor for copyright infringement precisely because it's a right, not a thing that can be subtracted.
“Abandonware” is a very precarious notion for many reasons. Copyright law is not absolute, there’re plenty of limitations. There might be number of theories that can be constructed to at least allow a fair use base to use old software, but “Abandonware” is not one of them.
The thing is, some old games were released to the public by their own holders freely. They are not abandoned, they are freeware. And not only some obscure shareware game from the 90`s, but commercial titles have been released for free. Companies have a interest in their IP and that definitely should be respected. EA, for example, has just released a compilation of old games. There’s no way to say they are “abandoned”. This makes the whole concept of “abandonware” wrong.
“Abandonware” is a very precarious notion for many reasons. Copyright law is not absolute, there’re plenty of limitations. There might be number of theories that can be constructed to at least allow a fair use base to use old software, but “Abandonware” is not one of them.
The thing is, some old games were released to the public by their own holders freely. They are not abandoned, they are freeware. And not only some obscure shareware game from the 90`s, but commercial titles have been released for free. Companies have a interest in their IP and that definitely should be respected. EA, for example, has just released a compilation of old games. There’s no way to say they are “abandoned”. This makes the whole concept of “abandonware” wrong.