Talk:Abandonware: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Abandonware/Archive 2) (bot |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}. Tag: |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=low|software=yes|software-importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=mid}} |
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=mid}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{Limitedgeographicscope}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| algo = old(90d) |
| algo = old(90d) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
==External Links== |
|||
The following links were added at the bottom of the article and then removed without much explanation why. Rather than start an edit war, the links are posted here for more careful consideration of whether they add value to the article or not. Please discuss your arguments for or against individually. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 22:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* [http:///www.winworldabw.com WinWorld] — website devoted to abandonware. Features downloads and a [http:///www.winworldabw.com] forum. |
|||
** Based on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Winworld]], I believe there is enough evidence to reinstate this link. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] |
|||
*** That link was most likely put here by someone affiliated with the site. In addition it contains copyrighted software for download, including Windows NT 4. It's also hosted off a dyndns account if that means anything. It's also not responding. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 01:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* [http://www.klasikoyun.com/English/index.htm Klasikoyun Abandonware |
|||
**I quickly reverted all links to this site - it's being spammed - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* The term spam is not true for this site. Each site that is related with the subject gains the right to be listed. Rather than spm it must be called as an edit war.* |
|||
**This is an encyclopedia, not a shopping catalog or link farm. Sites we link to must have some kind of '''informative content''' that goes beyond what is in this article. Poorly documented download sites don't make the grade, nor would a site that has less information than this article. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**:I also don't see any point in keeping links to sites that are too unstable to stay up. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 03:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* If it's not a link farm than remove all the links. Klasikoyun.com has informative content. Who decides a site is stable or unstable? |
|||
** Let's see. In addition to distributing unauthorized software, that site has spammed Wikipedia, and the site violates the GFDL by reproducing Wikipedia content without attribution. [http://klasikoyun.com/English/Games/Nintendo/nintendo.htm] Honestly I can't think of a site that's more worthy of not being linked from here. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 14:00, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* Since most links either link to pages with copyright-infrining downloads, or lead to them (Open Directory), I removed them. Embarrassingly, this leaves Legal Abandonware, so I at least removed my name from there. ;) [[User:Evktalo|evktalo]] 20:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Public domain vs freeware == |
|||
Freeware is, 99% of the time, NOT public domain software. Just because you can download something for free off the internet does not mean it is in the public domain. In the case of the Rockstar releases I'd guarantee they're not in the public domain. I changed the sentence in the freeware download links section to reflect this. |
|||
*It is good, if difficult, to make the distinction. I think the heading "Major software placed in the public domain" is misleading. [[User:Evktalo|Evktalo]] 15:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Need cleanup == |
|||
''I think'' this page needs some cleanup regarding weasel-wording, though not critically, but the vanity linking by anon's should be weeded out and watched for. I'll give it a go later, removed one such so far. We also need to get a consistent look to it, re. most of the style guides - it shouldn't look like it's been written by a million users. Get past that, add relevant info and history, and the subject has potential to become featured. Because it's a broad subject which could easily be researched and vastly expanded. First, though, cleanup.--[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 17:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=="Piracy" section== |
|||
I've just removed this IP-editor added non-wiki text, some of which could be validly added to the article but not in this form. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp]]:[[User_talk:VampWillow|Willow]] 15:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
''Comparison to piracy'': |
|||
This is also another widely discussed topic. "Is it piracy" Well as said before, there are "gray" games and legal "white" games available. But, let's compare this to piracy. By its very nature privacy imposes that you are lowering or degrading the value of something. Thus, stealing from a corporation. This is where the confusion is. Some titles are still being sold but are on abandonware sites. This is clearly breaking the law. ALSO, if there are large amounts of used copies for sale you may be stealing from them. Next piracy imposes that you received protected material without the owner’s permission. Well here is another area of confusion. Notice I said protected. By this I meant copyright. If you notice many "liberated" or re-released programs as freeware still have a copyright on them. But, it was with the owner's permission it was distributed. But, if we go back to the example of Yoot tower (above) we notice there was no copyright found. Now here is the question. We have eliminated already through these two rules, about half of the abandonware sites. Also, we have justified those sites below who did not break either of the rules. But we have a few sites that are still in the gray area. These sites normally say they carry only legal material, asking for user assistance for getting rid of bad material and bringing good ones in. So, if we put Yoot tower to the test, it is no longer sold anywhere (maybe 2-5 used if any) so for the most part it passes the first law. It also breaks half of the second law, there may be a copyright but it is no longer enforced or was simply dropped. But for some reason it does not show up on the copyright search like it's prequel Sim Tower. The last complication of this is there are no longer official websites for either of the games. So, the company may have announced its continuation of the copyright or just dropping it. Then I found it on a lot of pirate abandonware sites and on one that said it was legal. This one was user maintained. Here is the problem with that. The user who uploaded it may have not known the complexity of the status of the game. Or, he was just a pirate and uploaded it anyway. On the other hand, he may know for a fact that it was legal. In these cases, you will just have to make up your own mind.'' |
|||
== Geographic Scope == |
|||
I think the differences in international copyright law need to be explicated in greater detail. --[[User:Malathion|Malathion]] 23:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Who makes the argument? == |
== Who makes the argument? == |
||
| Line 60: | Line 24: | ||
I'm not good enough at dealing with Wiki's to even begin to know how to apply this to this page though, so I'm just kicking it here as an FYI to people who understand this site better. |
I'm not good enough at dealing with Wiki's to even begin to know how to apply this to this page though, so I'm just kicking it here as an FYI to people who understand this site better. |
||
{Sunday, 2006-12-24 T 23:37 UTC} |
{Sunday, 2006-12-24 T 23:37 UTC} |
||
== Internet Archive offering downloads == |
|||
So, the Internet Archive is now (and has been for a while... I'm not sure how long or I'd probably add this stuff to the article myself) offering downloads of various bits of abandoned software. Are they violating the terms of their DMCA exemption, or has it changed? [[Special:Contributions/184.170.93.22|184.170.93.22]] ([[User talk:184.170.93.22|talk]]) 10:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:It is briefly mentioned in the article and the have as archive an extemption from DMCA (or had)... it is written in the WebArchive article. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 10:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Right, but the article specifically claims Internet Archive does *not* allow downloads,specifically due to the terms of the 2006 agreement. I assume that changed with the later extensions and the article hasn't been updated to reflect that? [[Special:Contributions/184.170.93.22|184.170.93.22]] ([[User talk:184.170.93.22|talk]]) 10:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think they implemented an opt out mechanism. As long as no one complains they assume consent. I guess the articles needs to be updated. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim|talk]]) 10:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 02:59, 22 January 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abandonware article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Abandonware" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Who makes the argument?
[edit]The second paragraph of the "Old copyrights that are still of value" needs some citations. Of particular concern is the "reverse argument" and the argument that rereleases aren't as good. Although less concerning, the "some publishers" should likewise be more rigorously cited. (As it stands, the paragraph appears to imply that at least Nintendo and Atari make this argument) - User:rasd
LucasArts
[edit]I don't know if someone wants to really go into this, but Lucasarts in it's various names and forms over the years has been pretty aggressive, especially as far as PC game companies go, in enforcing their rights to their old software. Even games like the Monkey Island and some of the older Indiana Jones games, which stopped being sold in some cases well over a decade ago, are vigerously protected by their legal staff. This is obviously their legal right to do, the only reason I bring it up here is they are far more vigilant then virtually any other game company on the market on the issue, especially in regards to very old games. Also from just quick browse of Abandonware sites, they appear to be pretty effective at the enforcement as well. I'm not good enough at dealing with Wiki's to even begin to know how to apply this to this page though, so I'm just kicking it here as an FYI to people who understand this site better. {Sunday, 2006-12-24 T 23:37 UTC}