Obsolete computer games: copyright

[AnonConfession]

I am a big fan of a certain computer game from the 1980s, and have been participating in an online community: we write and share our own modified versions of this game, free of charge to anyone who wants to download them.

However, I am concerned that our games violate copyright law in the following ways: (a) All our games contain copyright program code, and most of them also contain characters and graphics from the original game. The author has said that he doesn’t mind us distributing our modified versions, but he doesn’t own the copyright, and it would be difficult to track down who does (the company has long since gone out of business, and might have sold the rights).
(b) Some of the games use copyright characters and graphics from other commercial games.
(c) Many of the levels, and some whole games, are named after books, TV programmes, movies or music. I don’t believe that they would still infringe these copyrights if they were simply renamed, but then we would be failing to acknowledge our inspirations up front.
(d) Some of the games use copyright music, albeit only in the form of simple, hand-coded tunes.
I try to justify the copyright infringement in the following ways:

1. 
   *]We are not selling our games for money.
   *]The original game has not been sold in shops for over 20 years, therefore we are not hurting anyone financially by sharing our modified versions now.
   *]The original game is already widely (if illegally) available on the Internet as a free download; we’re not making it significantly more available by sharing our modified versions.
   *]To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single copyright complaint against our games in all these years.
   *]Our games are ‘free advertising’ for the original game, and for all the books, TV programmes, movies and music to which they refer.
   
   I accept that copyright infringement can be an objectively grave sin in the general case, but I am struggling to determine where, on the continuum from grave sin to harmless fun, the following actions fall:
   
   1. 
      *]sharing my own modified versions of this game with the community;
      *]sharing a list of all the modified versions that I and the others have written, with a link to download each one.
      
      If distributing our modified versions is indeed a grave sin against copyright, would it be morally permissable to distribute only the changes from the original game to each modified version, together with a program to generate the modified versions by applying the changes to a copy of the original game that I would not provide?

 

[tgauchsin]

You may want to Google “copyright derivative work” and read around. I personally think you may be in dangerous territory legally and morally with copyright and are trying to rationalize it.

I try to justify the copyright infringement in the following ways:
We are not selling our games for money.

Doesn’t matter

The original game has not been sold in shops for over 20 years, therefore we are not hurting anyone financially by sharing our modified versions now.

Copyright law extends for the life of the author + 70 years

The original game is already widely (if illegally) available on the Internet as a free download; we’re not making it significantly more available by sharing our modified versions.

Sounds like argumentum ad populum argument to me.

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single copyright complaint against our games in all these years.

Doesn’t mean that there won’t be in the future, especially if it goes viral which could lead to a big judgment for copyright infringement.

Our games are ‘free advertising’ for the original game, and for all the books, TV programmes, movies and music to which they refer.

Do you have permission from the copyright holder to give them “free advertisement?”

 

[AnonConfession]

Do you have permission from the copyright holder to give them “free advertisement?”

No.

 

[JerryZ]

I am a big fan of a certain computer game from the 1980s, and have been participating in an online community: we write and share our own modified versions of this game, free of charge to anyone who wants to download them.

However, I am concerned that our games violate copyright law in the following ways: (a) All our games contain copyright program code, and most of them also contain characters and graphics from the original game. The author has said that he doesn’t mind us distributing our modified versions, but he doesn’t own the copyright, and it would be difficult to track down who does (the company has long since gone out of business, and might have sold the rights).
(b) Some of the games use copyright characters and graphics from other commercial games.
(c) Many of the levels, and some whole games, are named after books, TV programmes, movies or music. I don’t believe that they would still infringe these copyrights if they were simply renamed, but then we would be failing to acknowledge our inspirations up front.
(d) Some of the games use copyright music, albeit only in the form of simple, hand-coded tunes.
I try to justify the copyright infringement in the following ways:

1. 
   *]We are not selling our games for money.
   *]The original game has not been sold in shops for over 20 years, therefore we are not hurting anyone financially by sharing our modified versions now.
   *]The original game is already widely (if illegally) available on the Internet as a free download; we’re not making it significantly more available by sharing our modified versions.
   *]To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single copyright complaint against our games in all these years.
   *]Our games are ‘free advertising’ for the original game, and for all the books, TV programmes, movies and music to which they refer.
   
   I accept that copyright infringement can be an objectively grave sin in the general case, but I am struggling to determine where, on the continuum from grave sin to harmless fun, the following actions fall:
   
   1. 
      *]sharing my own modified versions of this game with the community;
      *]sharing a list of all the modified versions that I and the others have written, with a link to download each one.
      
      If distributing our modified versions is indeed a grave sin against copyright, would it be morally permissable to distribute only the changes from the original game to each modified version, together with a program to generate the modified versions by applying the changes to a copy of the original game that I would not provide?

1. 1. 
      “hmmm”.
      
      Mostly it is a matter of MONEY, if you are not making huge profits or none at all it is unlikely anyone will ever bother you even if the copyright has not yet expired as particularly games have a short market life.
      Once they are not profitable anylonger no one cares about them.
      

      Copyright and Video Games

      So what does this mean for gaming? Copyright’s application to software is still a relatively young field (compared to the printed word), but on the basic level the rule is the same: Copyright protects the expression, not the idea. This is probably more easily explained through a series of short examples, which will all be video game specific, rather than explain the law word for word. This list is not exhaustive, but it covers many of the bigger issues. Of course, these are all hypothetical examples, and specific facts may have a different result.

      1. Making an unauthorized copy of a game and selling it is, quite clearly, infringement. For example, if I burned a copy of Doom II on CD and sold it to you, I would be infringing on id’s copyright.

      1. Making a backup copy of a game you own a license to is not infringement. For example, if I made a copy of my Half-Life 2 DVD and put it in my safe, that would be acceptable.

      1. Making a backup copy of a game you own a license to and distributing it is infringement, no matter what. For example, if I made a backup copy of Magic of Scheherazade and put that ROM online for others to download, it is infringement even though the game is no longer in production (and a bit hard to find).

      1. Copying significant elements of the source code of the game would be infringement, even if the game looked completely different. For example, if Gears of War wasn’t authorized to use the Unreal 3 engine, that would be infringement.

      1. Taking a major character from a series and making your own series is infringement, and this includes machinima. For example, if I made “Halo 0: The Cortana Story” to tell the backstory ofCortana, I would be infringing whether that was a video game, movie, book, machinima series, etc. because it is a derivative.

      1. A Game Genie (or Action Replay or Game Shark) is not infringement, but a card that plugs into an arcade machine to speed up play is. (It’s a bit confusing, but those are the actual cases.)

      1. Copying major element of the GUI (the “look and feel”) may be infringement, but so far, it hasn’t been (although it arguably could have been, were it not for the Windows 1.0 license). This is, unfortunately, a very complicated area that hasn’t been as well defined as other areas. For example, Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect both have menus that have File, Edit, etc. This is not infringement. But if I were to make a game that had an identical in game menu and GUI system as World of Warcraft, down to the smallest detail, it would likely be infringement.

 

[JerryZ]

Cont.

1. Example: Reverse engineering Diablo to play on an open source alternative to Battle.net is infringement.

1. Making a game that re-uses a general game idea that is already copyrighted is not infringement. For example, if I were to go make a new golf video game, EA couldn’t claim infringement simply because they already make a golf video game.

Conclusion

As you can see, the concept of copyright is far more narrow than many people think. In the software realm, it is also not as well defined as with other media. It is still important to protect your game, however, with copyright. In fact, it is now even possible to preregister for copyright protection before the work is done. On the other end, as a gamer, it is important to not actively infringe on the copyright of the developer. After all, they put a lot of time and money into creating the game you’re enjoying.

 

[Paul1Up]

To quote the FAQ from Abandonia (my emphasis):

Since the software is no longer sold or supported, the copyright holders are not directly harmed in any way. This is why abandonware sites are, for the most part, ignored by the law.

The distribution of copyrighted software however is, and will allways be, illegal!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I haven’t yet come up with a complete line of reasoning, but my gut feeling is that since you have been unable to contact the copyright holder and assuming that if the copyright holder contacts you and asks you to stop (for legally binding reasons) you actually would, then what you’re doing is probably ok. But that’s just my gut feeling.

 

[1ke]

“hmmm”.

Mostly it is a matter of MONEY, if you are not making huge profits or none at all it is unlikely anyone will ever bother you even if the copyright has not yet expired as particularly games have a short market life.
Once they are not profitable anylonger no one cares about them.

This is (a) untrue and (b) unrelated to the illegality and immorality of doing what they are doing.

Makng money or not making money has no bearing in infringement.

 

[1ke]

I haven’t yet come up with a complete line of reasoning, but my gut feeling is that since you have been unable to contact the copyright holder and assuming that if the copyright holder contacts you and asks you to stop (for legally binding reasons) you actually would, then what you’re doing is probably ok. But that’s just my gut feeling.

But that is not the LAW on the matter. What they are doing is not OK

 

[bitznbitez]

Legally you could be in some form of jeopardy.

I used to be all spun up about this sort of thing till one day I was standing in a nursery, looking at a potted plant of some kind, which had a note on the paper sticking out of it that the plant was somehow or other proprietary and propagation without permission, cuttings, seeds and what not, was strictly prohibited.

Right then and there my entire concern vanished in a puff of smoke.

Its the trying to claim ownership over ideas and things of beauty and charging others for them that is evil.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

But that is not the LAW on the matter. What they are doing is not OK

Yes, strictly speaking it’s illegal, but strictly speaking so is driving 56mph when the speed limit is 55. However, it is understood by everyone that there is some wiggle room, in the US we don’t treat speed limits as though they are the fastest speed may possibly drive (even though legally this is what they are) but as the speed that we are supposed to drive (or in some places, 5mph slower than the speed that we are supposed to drive).

And so, even though this is not strictly speaking the law, because it is the common understanding of what is allowed that is shared by everyone (including law makers), one is not doing anything immoral by driving 56 in a 55.

I think this might be a similar case. From what I’ve read on the subject, it seems as though it might be. But I’ll admit that most of what I’ve read is from people doing a similar thing, so it could be biased.

Basically, while I know that it is sinful to break a just law, I tend tothink “law” in this sense means law as it is understood to apply, not necessarily the strict letter of the law. Hence the speed limit example - in another culture (if such a one exists) where speed limits are understood to be absolute upper bounds on how fast one can drive not only in the letter of the law but also in how the letter is actually used (so that if the speed limit is 55, people are expected to drive around 50 in an attempt to make absolutely sure they don’t go over the limit), then it would be sinful to drive 56 in a 55.

My thought is that what they are doing is not sinful in itself, law aside, and that it probably falls within the broad understanding of what the law is for and so probably isn’t sinful for that reason either.

 

[Joe_5859]

With copyright issues, the morality hinges on the legality because we are called to obey the just laws of our civil society.

Your best bet is probably to consult a lawyer.

 

[Myqyl]

The author is ok with it. You attempted to find the owner of the copyright. As someone that has code out there from the 1980’s (and 1970’s) I can tell you I’m glad someone is keeping those games alive. You are doing a historic service. You’ve made good faith attempts to comply with copyright laws.

In my opinion, you’re ok morally, ethically and legally…

Disclaimer : I am not a lawyer, a priest or an exceptional ethical person, so I may be wrong.

 

[SonCatcher]

I am a big fan of a certain computer game from the 1980s, and have been participating in an online community: we write and share our own modified versions of this game, free of charge to anyone who wants to download them.

However, I am concerned that our games violate copyright law in the following ways: (a) All our games contain copyright program code, and most of them also contain characters and graphics from the original game. The author has said that he doesn’t mind us distributing our modified versions, but he doesn’t own the copyright, and it would be difficult to track down who does (the company has long since gone out of business, and might have sold the rights).
(b) Some of the games use copyright characters and graphics from other commercial games.
(c) Many of the levels, and some whole games, are named after books, TV programmes, movies or music. I don’t believe that they would still infringe these copyrights if they were simply renamed, but then we would be failing to acknowledge our inspirations up front.
(d) Some of the games use copyright music, albeit only in the form of simple, hand-coded tunes.
I try to justify the copyright infringement in the following ways:

1. 
   *]We are not selling our games for money.
   *]The original game has not been sold in shops for over 20 years, therefore we are not hurting anyone financially by sharing our modified versions now.
   *]The original game is already widely (if illegally) available on the Internet as a free download; we’re not making it significantly more available by sharing our modified versions.
   *]To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single copyright complaint against our games in all these years.
   *]Our games are ‘free advertising’ for the original game, and for all the books, TV programmes, movies and music to which they refer.
   
   I accept that copyright infringement can be an objectively grave sin in the general case, but I am struggling to determine where, on the continuum from grave sin to harmless fun, the following actions fall:
   
   1. 
      *]sharing my own modified versions of this game with the community;
      *]sharing a list of all the modified versions that I and the others have written, with a link to download each one.
      
      If distributing our modified versions is indeed a grave sin against copyright, would it be morally permissable to distribute only the changes from the original game to each modified version, together with a program to generate the modified versions by applying the changes to a copy of the original game that I would not provide?

1. 1. 
      It seems what you are doing is a form of “fan art”. This is not a problem so long as it is not for profit. I could, for example, paint, display and give away pictures of Mickey Mouse and Disney couldn’t really do anything, so long as I don’t portray him in any unseemly manner (it may still be protected but is so much more likely to attract legal confrontations).
      
      The use of original, copyrighted graphics and sounds is problematic, however, so your community should replace these ASAP (like the tunes you already hand-coded). It would be wise to acknowledge all of your inspirations and post a comment that you are willing to work with any copyright holders within reason should there be a dispute.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I think stealing in any form is not gravely sinful, unless you are stealing something very important or the results of that theft are perilous to someone else’s life or health.

 

[edwest2]

One of the biggest falsehoods known to man is the “I can do it as long as I’m not making any money off of it.” Our books are available on file stealing sites for free, but they violate copyright. It amazes me that some people, not the OP, who know all kinds of ways to steal stuff or find stolen stuff on the internet, have not bothered to check with the US Copyright Office. DO IT.

"We are not selling our games for money."

1. How does does that make it OK?
   
   “The original game has not been sold in shops for over 20 years, therefore we are not hurting anyone financially by sharing our modified versions now.”
2. It’s like taking an old movie or video and dubbing in your own dialog or splicing in a few “new” scenes.
   
   “The original game is already widely (if illegally) available on the Internet as a free download; we’re not making it significantly more available by sharing our modified versions.”
3. What you are doing is creating a modified version that may cause “confusion in the marketplace” if the original creators, musicians and others involved in its production are still around. Example: “Hey Bob. I just saw a copy of your Ultimate Galaxy Destruction game on the internet, and I remember it way different than the way it is here [link to site]. Sorry, but I lost my copy when I moved. But is this really your game?”
   
   “To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single copyright complaint against our games in all these years.”
4. How does that make it OK?
   
   “Our games are ‘free advertising’ for the original game, and for all the books, TV programmes, movies and music to which they refer.”
5. The second biggest falsehood being spread on the planet is the “free advertising” idea. We got that from some people who wanted to do their own version of our books. The reply? No, you cannot. A bad remake or adaptation can:

A) Cause confusion in the marketplace. "Hey, did you guys see this new book based on one of yours? Is it official? Because, if it is (1), Why aren’t you selling it in your store?, and/or (2), “It’s bad, it’s amateur, I didn’t like it. You shouldn’t let other people mess with your books.”

B) Any unlicensed use of our Intellectual Properties is Copyright Infringement, and a bad modification can affect the reputations of all who were involved in making the original books.

The US Copyright Office. They’re nice people. Give them a call: Phone: (202) 707-3002 or 1-877-476-0778.

Read their FAQ:

copyright.gov/help/faq/

They’ll even help you track down the original copyright owner of an old game, or, if the company went out of business, tell you if the copyright is still in effect or abandoned. One possible scenario is the company went out of business and its game titles were auctioned off or sold to a new owner who has not decided to re-release the game but still owns it. For Example: If my company bought the original game at a company liquidation auction, or sale, that means we own the name, the characters in the game and everything else. We could re-release “Ultimate Galaxy Destruction” as a new game with the same characters but update the look and playability of the game, and do a version for mobile or sell UGD II on our web site.

Note: Ultimate Galaxy Destruction is not a real game as far as I know.

Peace,
Ed