Is it piracy?

I do not support nor condone software piracy of any type. As a website operator, it is simply and totally prohibitive. And I personally just think piracy is wrong. But when a program is no longer available to the public through any legitimate means, I sometimes have to question the issue "is it piracy if it has absolutely no bearing on any product offered today?" Let's take Ansyr's Primer for example. Ansyr doesn't make it nor support it any longer, and it is nearly impossible to find anywhere these days. So is sharing it with others, to include a registration number really piracy?

I can tell you that the pocketpc warez sites on Yahoo offer a multifude of information in their download areas....including hundreds of working registration keys for pocketpc software, which also works on the old hpc versions. Primer 3.X is one those listed.

So, the question becomes...is it wrong to use this for your own use when every other avenue has been exhausted?

I think if there were a poll, the overall concensus would be "no," it is not piracy. But however we rationalize it, I still have to wonder if I am being objective in my response as the authors are really the owners of the software and it is within their right to deny further use of it.

I've recently had a lot of requests from MP900 users asking for the software to upgrade their units to the 900C. The flash upgrade is not supported by NEC, no longer available, not sold by any third party whatsoever, etc. I guess the copyright laws still apply, but I wonder if it is ethical or fair to deny others the opportunity to upgrade.

Anyway, time to get off the soapbox....Rich

The case with Primer is IP ownership infringement. Primer was brought up by another company who now own in full the rights to the program code.

The only answer I can realistically provide here is that yes it is unethical to do so. As a content publisher and someone who has had hands in software development before, as far as I am personally concerned, yes it is within my right to purge it from existance, but I also feel that I wouldn't do it at the expense of users. That is however just me, and not the norm from developers.

In the case of the NEC, it's not just NEC's IP invoilved, but Microsoft licensing too.

I caution forumers to rule #2 in the board rules before diving into this discussion too transparently.

The challenge we face in the H/PC community is the fact that 99% of the development from corporations and developing houses (not individuals) has ceased. Thus we have all this "potential" with application ports and other modifications to make the H/PC that much better.

But piracy is piracy is piracy... Even if development has stopped unless there is expressed permission to port, hack, etc... it's piracy.

Rich

The fact that you have mixed feelings about this issue, should be an clear indication that the answer is -Yes it's piracy and no you shouldn't do it.

A better solution (and one that you've recently successfully taken) would be to convince the developer to release the software to the public domain as freeware - then we all win!!

John, what if the developer can no longer be reached or you cannot get a reply at least?

That would be very unfortunate, but if I can borrow a quote from Clinton's earlier post -

"But piracy is piracy is piracy... Even if development has stopped unless there is expressed permission to port, hack, etc... it's piracy."

It is moot as far as this discussion is concerned.

Just because a developer is not responding or no longer developing a product does not mean that it is free reign for any and all who want to hack it up or port it out. Unless you have strong documentation from the developer allowing you to do any type of modification to the code, it is Piracy!

I'm glad I'm quotable on this one....

Piracy is a big pieve of mine. I see countless thousands of dollars ripped off from developers all the time and it makes me wonder why anyone would get into the field at times.

This is one of the very few soap box issues I have in life.

I'm pleased that we have a concensus here. The term abandonware against payware is made up by groups to make themselves feel batter, it hold no legal prescedence in law in the UK that I am aware of. No matter what your personal view of it. There is no escaping the cold hard reality of the law.

You are not the only one Clinton...piracy has been a pet peeve of mine for many years as well, and I'm not even a developer. I'm one of those guys who buys everything and then has everyone begging him for a copy. Makes me irate at times. Pirates destroy the incentive for developers to develop.

C:Amie makes a good point...someone does still own the code and rights to some software, such as Primer. So while using it illegally may not make any difference in the world, it is still morally and legally wrong.

But CMonex also has a good question...what if some person develops some program, with the intent of selling it to make a few bucks...and then up and dies. He/she is no longer available to sell the program, it isn't posted or available anywhere...it just exists in a few private collections. When is it okay to "share" it? When is it "legal" to share it?

How many times have I heard people say, "Well I just get a copy and if I like it, I buy it." How many people actually do that and actually end up buying it? Not as many as one would believe I bet.

My nephew pirates music over his internet all the time with the rationalization that the record companies deserve it because they price their stuff ridiculously high. That could be a forum thread in itself...how many stupid reasons can you come up with that in your mind justifies piracy....

I guess the best thing to do is never cross the line.

Rich

First, IANAL.

Secondly, IMO, it's *not* piracy.

The copyright laws were enacted to prevent others from stealing the authors works for commericial gain, or stated another way, to ensure the author was fairly compensated by the use of their works.

Once the author withdraws the works from circulation, for whatever reason, they have accepted the fact they will not receive any further payments for their work. Any expectations of compensation are nil after the withdrawal of the works from the market.

There is therefore, no tort commited when something which has no expected value is passed around freely from person to person without any money changing hands.

The tort occurs when someone attempts to incorporate the authors works into another product for commercial sale or outright tries to sell copies of works without fairly compensating the copyright holder.

Patents and trademarks can be revoked or lost when the holder fails to diligently defend their unauthorized use. Copyrights will one day face the same test in court when one giant company takes on another over this issue.

All IMO.

Obligatory URL: http://netilium.org/~mad/dctf/dctf-1.wmv

hm all this talk about laws.. very serious yes.. but it isn't always the best thing to observe the law blindly. i'm sure you can find many examples when it isn't.

as for me... i think this is a very complicated issue. i come from a country where the decision about "piracy" (i'm going to use this word from now on for the sake or simplicity) is not this easy. it is quite a luxury here for many people to pay for every software or even Windows itself. i'm not going to say that people who don't have enough money are entitled to piracy, but at least this shows the question is much harder to answer. nothing will be solved if the answer is just no, no piracy whatsoever.

anyway about abandonware (the original topic), i think i already mentioned somewhere that i agree with wallythacker i'm very sorry but i cannot see it even as a moral issue. i don't see an issue at all there except when i see people suffering unnecessarily because of this abandonware thing.

Edited by cmonex 2006-03-13 5:45 PM

Technically, unless it can be proven that in the case of a death there is either a) no corporation partners or corproate claimants on the code or b) there is no next of kin who hold claim over the estate. Then assets fall into the public domian. Otherwise, it all remains part of the estate.

Wallythacker, you are certainly correct on the copyright laws, however there are Intellectual Property and royalty issues at work here too. Just because a developer stops supporting a program does not equate to a surrendering of the royalty rights to that application - that is what Open Source does. Most developers do not formally withdraw the program, they let it die. Just because a book goes out of print and all but 10 copies of it go up in smoke, does not give a new publisher the right to come along and reprint it without paying royalties. Yes, in some situations there is an age issue involved that nullifies the general copyright, however in the case of software... you'd be hard pushed to find any H/PC application older than 100 years.

You are of course again correct on the desimation of copyright and patent rights upon the failure to make motions to protect it. In the case of a closed key application you would have to prove to a court that the key was issued with the expess intent that it could be used as a public domain entity. Is it therefore to the discretion of the license purchaser to redistribute their key. If so, I'm sure I could probably consider my Windows 2.03 license null and void and exclusively my ownership nullifying all Microsoft EULA terms and ownership of that code - some how I don't think so.
How about PowerQuest Software, Bullfrog, EAC, Adeline, Westwood, Sierra? Symantec and Electronic Arts would have something say I'm sure.

You are probably right, there will come a time when it will be tested in the courts. However until such a time, the law remains the law on both sides of the Atlantic.

Edit: That is one SCARY video.

I found Primer 2.3 avaliable for purchase..