5 ms·

I'm not sure if I understand, is this abandonware? From Wikipedia: "Abandonware is a product, typically software, ignored by its owner and manufacturer, and fo

by reidrac 12y ago

I'm not sure if I understand, is this abandonware? From Wikipedia: "Abandonware is a product, typically software, ignored by its owner and manufacturer, and for which no product support is available. Although such software is usually still under copyright, the owner may not be tracking or enforcing copyright violations." So the software will be there until (or because) the copyright holder won't enforce his rights.

maxerickson 12y ago
The Internet Archive styles itself as an internet facing library (which is a way to claim more latitude re copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 ). The argument that they are providing access to the material, rather than distributing it, is probably a reasonable one to make (I guess it probably isn't technically legal).
- eli 12y ago
  The Internet Archive is an internet facing library. That's not (just) a "legal fiction" to get around some laws.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    My phrasing is such because "internet facing library" is not a well established concept, in any sense.
    - azakai 12y ago
      Well, probably few people here are lawyers specializing in copyright law. But at least at first glance, the rationale for the IA's position is that they are a nonprofit, and their motivations are clearly just to archive and preserve this stuff for the future. And, without them, this stuff might well end up not being preserved.
zokier 12y ago
It is piratism, plain and simple. Calling it "abadonware" is just disingenuous whitewashing.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  I'm sure they're going to be very fast at removing things once the relevant copyright owners actually notice and send takedown demands. However, for all of the copyrighted material for which they never receive a notice, how is it immoral for them to host it? If nobody cares, nobody's receiving any money from their ownership of the copyright, so the hosting obviously can't be reducing their profits.
  - joepie91_ 12y ago
    > If nobody cares, nobody's receiving any money from their ownership of the copyright, so the hosting obviously can't be reducing their profits. Well, realistically, that wasn't really the point of copyright to begin with anyway (increase/guarantee of profits). The point was a distribution/derivative monopoly for limited duration to allow a creator/inventor to recoup their investment. The whole profit thing is just a means to an end. If you look at copyright the way it was actually intended to work, it becomes very hard to argue that distributing abandonware should be prosecuted, no matter the circumstances.
- pmarin 12y ago
  It is called preservation.
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  Nice kneejerk response. Seriously though, no, it is not "whitewashing". It is a very specific term to describe a type of software that is considered obsoleted and 'abandoned' to the point that the rightsholder (if it is known at all) is virtually guaranteed not to make claims on it, simply because it's too old to be relevant. In the broader sense of the term, it is also used for software that has attained an unclear legal status because of some weird historical oddity that isn't handled by copyright law; many undocumented IP acquisitions, death of the entire family tree of the rightsholder, and so on. What you are describing, "piratism" (which, by the way, is the first time I see that particular spelling of "piracy") is what somebody supposedly does with it, not what it is. They describe two entirely different things. Not to mention that in some cases, distribution of abandonware can legitimately not fall under the banner of "piracy" due to one of the aforementioned edge cases.

by reidrac 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

The Internet Archive styles itself as an internet facing library (which is a way to claim more latitude re copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 ). The argument that they are providing access to the material, rather than distributing it, is probably a reasonable one to make (I guess it probably isn't technically legal).

eli 12y ago
The Internet Archive is an internet facing library. That's not (just) a "legal fiction" to get around some laws.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  My phrasing is such because "internet facing library" is not a well established concept, in any sense.
  - azakai 12y ago
    Well, probably few people here are lawyers specializing in copyright law. But at least at first glance, the rationale for the IA's position is that they are a nonprofit, and their motivations are clearly just to archive and preserve this stuff for the future. And, without them, this stuff might well end up not being preserved.

zokier 12y ago

It is piratism, plain and simple. Calling it "abadonware" is just disingenuous whitewashing.

cbd1984 12y ago
I'm sure they're going to be very fast at removing things once the relevant copyright owners actually notice and send takedown demands. However, for all of the copyrighted material for which they never receive a notice, how is it immoral for them to host it? If nobody cares, nobody's receiving any money from their ownership of the copyright, so the hosting obviously can't be reducing their profits.
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  > If nobody cares, nobody's receiving any money from their ownership of the copyright, so the hosting obviously can't be reducing their profits. Well, realistically, that wasn't really the point of copyright to begin with anyway (increase/guarantee of profits). The point was a distribution/derivative monopoly for limited duration to allow a creator/inventor to recoup their investment. The whole profit thing is just a means to an end. If you look at copyright the way it was actually intended to work, it becomes very hard to argue that distributing abandonware should be prosecuted, no matter the circumstances.
pmarin 12y ago
It is called preservation.
joepie91_ 12y ago
Nice kneejerk response. Seriously though, no, it is not "whitewashing". It is a very specific term to describe a type of software that is considered obsoleted and 'abandoned' to the point that the rightsholder (if it is known at all) is virtually guaranteed not to make claims on it, simply because it's too old to be relevant. In the broader sense of the term, it is also used for software that has attained an unclear legal status because of some weird historical oddity that isn't handled by copyright law; many undocumented IP acquisitions, death of the entire family tree of the rightsholder, and so on. What you are describing, "piratism" (which, by the way, is the first time I see that particular spelling of "piracy") is what somebody supposedly does with it, not what it is. They describe two entirely different things. Not to mention that in some cases, distribution of abandonware can legitimately not fall under the banner of "piracy" due to one of the aforementioned edge cases.