Is there a time after which software becomes automatically free?

[dammy]

I think this page describes abandonware pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

"Definitions of "abandoned" vary; generally it refers to a product that is no longer available for legal purchase, over the age where the product creator feels an obligation to continue to support it, or where operating systems or hardware platforms have evolved to such a degree that the creator feels continued support cannot be financially justified. Software companies and manufacturers may change their names, go bankrupt, enter into mergers, or cease to exist for a variety of reasons. When this happens, product rights are usually transferred to another company that may elect not to sell or support products acquired.

"Abandonware" is a term created with no legal basis so it's not recognized by the courts.  It's illegal to trade in it, it's a question if you will get caught and if there will be anyone that will seek a penalty.

[swoslover]

it's a question if you will get caught and if there will be anyone that will seek a penalty.

The official CUSA blueprint

[persia]

Berne convention says 50 years, so in most of the world it would be 50 years after publishing, the EU and US add years to this, but I'm not sure how many, here in Australia it's simply 50 years.

[EDanaII]

When playing a game I always thought of extra stuff I would have wanted in the game. A prime example of this is Colonization where I always wondered - like many others - why the Portuguese and other nations where not added (memory concerns?), or the lack of some type of unit, etc., etc., etc..

Therefore I was wondering, is there a time by which software automatically becomes free, and one is allowed to de-compile, fix, compile and distribute (free of course)? Would this be feasible?

This is more feasible: http://www.freecol.org/

[carls]

If games automatically became free after a limited amount of time, then alot of people would just wait.

Well, in the case of computer games, would people wait ten years? Fifteen? I doubt it. Besides, with the rampant piracy, most people who don't want to pay, don't have to wait at all. I'm talking about what's basically abandonware here.

While perhaps not the case for computer games, I also feel that it's strange that the copyright holder can earn money from something another person, who long since passed away, produced.

The alleged author of the song "Happy birthday to you", with the current lyrics, passed away in 1938. Up until the rights were sold in 1998, a company with the sole purpose of collecting royalties for this song existed and was quite profitable. Currently the song is earning Warner Bros. $5000 per day. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status)

To me, this is beyond madness.

[kedawa]

For the purposes outlined in the OP, you don't need to wait any amount of time to reverse engineer the software and release your own mods, so long as you don't distribute the original software with it.

[takemehomegrandma]

Yes.  It's called time for stealing.

"Stealing?" But nothing is taken, nothing is lost, not to anyone. It's not like shoplifting a DVD player from a store. When it comes to digital/"virtual" IP (not existing in a physical shape) such as SW, movies and music, the only thing that can be lost is a potential sale, and if no potential sale could be there anyway, then not even that is lost, so you are perfectly clear from a moral point of view. And when the legal IP holder doesn't care either, then you are perfectly clear from a legal point of view as well. It's not a "crime" (:lol:) until the IP owner says it is by filing a law suit on you. It's not like the society cares per se, that's not how copyright laws work — they are there to help an IP owner to enforce their legal rights (if they *want to*, which is entirely up to them, and nobody else), nothing more, nothing less. If the property owner doesn't care, then society won't care either, since no harm is done. It's not like if someone goes rampage down the avenue beating up senior citizens, or is drunk-driving around the kindergarten. Those things are illegal.

"Abandonware" is a term created with no legal basis so it's not recognized by the courts.

Of course not, did anyone claim so? Rather the opposite I think, yes...?

[sim085]

I did a quick search on the net and found the following;
http://www.discreetfx.com/Care/faq.htm

Seems the idea of de-compiling and improve upon is not such a mad idea after all.

[commodorejohn]

After ten years with no sale, who gives a crap?

[Tripitaka]

One of the big problems that a lot of people have when talking about law is the lack of understanding about what law actually is.
In the UK we have lots of different types of law like so:

Natural Law: You can't break natural law as it is the physical law of reality therefore no one needs to uphold it.

Common Law: Common law basically states that you may not cause "Harm or Loss" to another. Upheld by officers of the law.

The Magna Carta: The main document in UK law to make sure Mr. Average doesn't get shafted by the royal family or those working under the purview of the royal family (eg. the Government). Upheld by officers of the law.

Statutory Law: The contract made by the "legal identity" of a natural man or woman with the company of "UK PLC". Upheld by company policy officers ( or Police officers as we call them).

Now the first thing to consider is that infringement of copyright is illegal, it is not however unlawful. This is because Copyright law is statutory law and infringement of copyright causes no loss or harm. Loss of monies is not considered as a loss, as money itself is a fiction (just as a legal identity is a fiction) due to only being created under statutory law. If the money was backed 100% by real goods (eg. gold) this would be a different matter, but it is not.

In effect this means that Joe of the family of Bloggs cannot commit this illegal act (he is a natural man and not bound by statute) but Mr. Joe Bloggs (the legal identity of Joe of the family of Bloggs) can commit this illegal act.

Mr. Joe Bloggs (the legal identity) was created when the legal identities of the parents of Joe of the family of Bloggs informed on him by registering his birth. This is of course an unlawful contract as Joe was not an adult at the time and did not agree to the creation of his legal identity.

Now if a Policeman (a policy officer) came to arrest Joe for said infringement Joe must be very careful. If he gives the policy officer his legal identity as a name or admits to his legal identity in any other way he will be in trouble. If the Policeman says "Do you understand" and Joe says "yes" he is also in trouble as in legal terminology he has just agreed to " stand under", ie. "be bound by" statute.

If Joe instead gives his name as Joe of the family of Bloggs and never agrees to stand under statute he is a free man. To be sure of his freedom he should write a letter to the queen declaring "Lawful Rebellion" under section 61 of the Magna Carta disavowing himself from the unlawful legal identity created for him.

He will also then not be required to pay tax, nor will he be entitled to state benefits however, and there are many other implications too. Note that if you have entered a lawful contract you are still bound by it. If you buy a piece of software and agree to the EULA you are still bound by it. Note also that if you declare lawful rebellion you are no longer protected by limited liability. So if you do something unlawful you will probably get a longer sentence.

The situation is very similar in other countries.

In the US you have a constitution. In theory the constitution is "LAW". Sadly this constitution has been eroded to the point of the ridiculous. I will leave the US citizens among you to research this yourselves, you will be horrified at just how little of your rights still exist, and just like us in the UK, it was your legal identities that agreed to it.

If you wish to research what it means to be "free" perhaps you should, it's not as easy or as black and white as some would have you believe though so be careful not to act on questionable advice and please take all I have written above as very much over-simplified, because it is. I don't feel like writing a 200 page essay today.

As an example of just how grey this can all get consider this. In Joe's case the copyright holder claims that the loss of monies resulted in a real loss of food as that is what he would have spent the cash on. Now the situation IS a case of law rather than statute as real loss is involved. See what I mean? More shades of grey than a box of artists pencils.

If it wasn't this way we wouldn't be paying lawyers so much.

As for the original question, there is no harm in adding mods or pokes to a game and/or distributing them providing you don't distribute the copyrighted code itself.  Have you ever heard of anyone getting arrested for an unofficial patch?

So don't wait for them to become free, get coding!

[runequester]

The easier solution is to do what some retrogame coders and tabletop gamers have done. Let's say you want to make an improved Alien Breed.

Well, change the title a bit "Alien Spawn", and then make a game that more or less just happens to work the same way.


As far as abandonware, it doesn't exist as a legal concept. However, with companies that don't exist anymore, the effective, actual risk is basically zero.
Heck, music piracy is actively being pursued and the amount of people who get threatened compared to the amount of songs downloaded is so low that even grandmothers get in on the action.


Also, theft isn't copyright infringement. Ironically stealing a bunch of real stuff in a store is generally punished far less than sharing some imaginary computer data.

[runequester]

After ten years with no sale, who gives a crap?

The internet lawyer brigade!

[Darrin]

@ Tripitaka:

Brilliant!  

[Fats]

Just to be clear, the idea is not to profit but rather just to improve over the original - if such a thing is possible.

People have done that before even not using abandonware excuse by just distributing patches that patch an original file. A basic patching framework is already in whdload that you can use as a starting point.

greets,
Staf.

[LoadWB]

Tripitaka's screed is well thought out and articulated.  While I do agree that our country is on the slide to severely reduced rights and individual responsibility abdicated into the hands of an over-reaching federal government, I feel, however, that it grossly exaggerates individual sovereignty and sounds more like a sovereign citizen or anarchist manifesto, or a hard-core Ron Paul disciple.

[Darrin]

Tripitaka's screed is well thought out and articulated.  While I do agree that our country is on the slide to severely reduced rights and individual responsibility abdicated into the hands of an over-reaching federal government, I feel, however, that it grossly exaggerates individual sovereignty and sounds more like a sovereign citizen or anarchist manifesto, or a hard-core Ron Paul disciple.

It just shows how our laws are written.  It is still illegal in London to walk a pig the wrong way down a one-way street, beat your wife after dark and taxi cabs are supposed to carry hay to feed their horses.