I recently decided to download a copy of Full Throttle that runs on ScummVM from a pirate site. It seems that to get software for ScummVM you are pretty much stuck downloading it from pirate sites because anything written for Linux would run on Linux directly and either a) be open source or b) commercial and purchasable. I have a copy of full throttle that is legal for dos which doesn't work so well anymore.
I agree with the notion that current copyright law in the U.S. is unethical. Any software program that is neither supported nor sold should not be locked up by copyright. The purpose of copyright is to protect the profitability of writing software. The idea is, it gives you a temporary monopoly over that piece of software. It seems the temporary is lost on some people. So what is the remedy? Should software go out of copyright automatically after 10 years if it isn't sold or supported anymore? Should copyrighted software have to be re- copyrighted after 10 years for a nominal fee forcing those who want to abandon a software program to abandon it properly? I like the copyright is 10 years idea. For software though, even 10 years may be too long. After that there should be a per year charge to keep a program copyrighted IMHO. Maybe emulators throw this argument sideways insofar as old software that is popular could be potentially sold again with an emulator to make it run on modern hardware. Thing is, my idea is to make those who want their software to remain under copyright pay for that privilege after it has been copyrighted for so many years. I justify downloading a pirated copy of Full Throttle because I have one, but what about old games like Warcraft I that I never did buy a copy of? That can be downloaded too from many abandonware sites. Heck, even Warcraft II can be downloaded which seems wrong considering that I bought a copy not too long ago. I think the way copyright has been traditionally used when it comes to software creates a major problem. The old idea of property where you own the property forever doesn't make sense when one is talking about software. Microsoft has a monopoly. If Windows 95 fell into the public domain because it isn't supported or sold by Microsoft and it is over 10 years old, would that still remain true? How about Windows 3.x, it isn't an OS per se, but shouldn't it be in the public domain? Old versions of MS-DOS and Windows are easy to get a hold of from abandonware and pirate sites, illegally that is without the source. Shouldn't someone who wants to compete with Microsoft directly either via a commercially sold OS or an OSS OS be allowed access to the source code of old versions of MS-DOS and Windows? _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
