WC Game Downloads
- Thread starter DarkOne
- Start date
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
That's a good catch, but it's a weird one too. The file doesn't appear to be at HCl's site either, and he has an archive specifically for files made in the 1997-1999 timeframe.
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
It would be nice to see something like the TIE Fighter total conversion for X-Wing Alliance - they took all the TIE Fighter missions and recreated them in the modern game engine, and then during the install process you stick in your TIE Fighter discs (or CD's) and it uses the audio files from the original TIE Fighter game (and some of the art assets I think, too) to both enhance the game play in the new engine with the original voice overs and to ensure that you are not getting a 'free' copy of TIE Fighter.
The same thing could be done with WC1 or 2, moving it into the Secret Ops engine, though it would take no small amount of work.
The same thing could be done with WC1 or 2, moving it into the Secret Ops engine, though it would take no small amount of work.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
IIRC, there's quite a few files from that timeframe that were (irrevocably?) lost at some point, so they don't appear on HCl's page.
I know I generally like to archive games myself but also wanted to make SSC a nice archive spot for all gamers can go and find there classic game they played when they were a kid. But didn't want any legal trouble down the road by hosting some. Yeah I will put up a disclaimer and I am sure I wouldn't get much push back, but I still wanted to try to do it all legally. But there are a lot of games that should have been saved that can no longer be found at all. It is a shame sometimes that companies hold on to the rights for distribution for so long.
Personally a company should release a game to be free once they don't have net sales over a certain amount of money.
It is like some of the consoles like Atari, most of these games are almost 30yrs old now and you still here the stories of companies giving people flak about hosting a ROMs for the Atari emulator.
It is a real shame to see classics just lost when there is plenty of people willing to keep them alive at there own expense and store them. It would be nice if companies would give a yearly update to the gamers out there saying which games are free to distribute.
Personally a company should release a game to be free once they don't have net sales over a certain amount of money.
It is like some of the consoles like Atari, most of these games are almost 30yrs old now and you still here the stories of companies giving people flak about hosting a ROMs for the Atari emulator.
It is a real shame to see classics just lost when there is plenty of people willing to keep them alive at there own expense and store them. It would be nice if companies would give a yearly update to the gamers out there saying which games are free to distribute.
Wedge009
Rogue Leader
I normally stay out of these debates, but I feel I ought to comment on this particular statement.
There are companies who do indeed choose to release their games for free after some time, both big and small.
But to say that they should do such a thing is not your right to say. For better or worse, some companies will choose to retain their rights to a game precisely because they are still able to generate revenue from them. Even many years after 'net sales' fall below some arbitrary 'amount of money'.
I will cite examples if you so request, but I do not wish to do so at this point.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
It very much is our right, though. In theory, it is the public that, through laws, determines how long copyright laws should protect the copyright holder. In practice, of course, it is the copyright holders that bribe the lawmakers to continually extend copyright durations - but that doesn't change the fact that we can and should have our own opinion about it. It is perfectly reasonable to claim that copyrights should only apply for a given period of time, regardless of revenues - indeed, when first copyright laws were introduced in the 18th century, they only gave protection for 14 years. There's hardly any hope of changing these laws to reduce the length of protection again - but I can't help thinking that 14 years would be pretty perfect for software.
Prometheus
Spaceman
Well I don't know about companies giving them "flak", but I do now that the Atari community pretty much doesn't care, or rather they value preservation above copyright issues. There is a huge archive online (which many of you propably already know, but I don't know if I am allowed to post the link or provide its name, so I'm leaving it at that) which already has ROMs of almost every Atari 2600 game ever released, with the ultimate goal being closing even the last gaps (which only are the most obscure games; which are often duplicates (although sometimes slightly) of already existing games anyway, which so called "pirate companies" from countries like Mexico, Taiwan, Brazil released...)
There doesn't seem to be much moral clash about that in the community at all. I've also never heard of a company complaining, however most of the ccompanies don't exist anymore, the obvious exception being Activision. (The company called Atari today only carries the name, not the history). Last year the so called "Harmony Cartridge" was released, a way to play ROMs on a real Atari via SD card.
However, I know that Nintendo is very pissed off about ROMs for their old game consoles being available online, and even about the very existance of Emulator software alone.
Iceblade
Admiral
Sounds like something the library of Congress would start up...a software/game archive. Certainly for preservation purposes.
Course most wide-distribution games (with dev. materials included) in the last decade have probably been archived/back-uped by their developers/publishers.
Course most wide-distribution games (with dev. materials included) in the last decade have probably been archived/back-uped by their developers/publishers.
Hmm, despite that statement, last time i checked most of the emulators needed bios roms, which were illegal and atari did chase down.
There was something on the news here in the UK recently about a games archive being set up, though with the coming budget maybe it'll die before it gets started!
Prometheus
Spaceman
Many emulators, especially of the simpler consoles, don't need bios roms. Obviously, the 2600 emulator doesn't.
If you think of pure game consoles, I'd say most of the emulators do NOT need bios roms. However, if you think of classic computers, then you may be right, most of them need them.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
And this should be expected, as Nintendo makes millions of dollars selling their thirty-year old games as portable releases or Wii software downloads. Atari also rereleases classic games.
I don't think the idea that these games should be free is a realistic expectation. We don't expect that movies or music from the 1980s can all be downloaded for free. It only seems justified on the surface because it's not always easy to obtain a certain game from that era, but that's just because the infrastructure is behind, just like music downloading before iTunes and Amazon fixed that.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Yep. There is certainly a case to be made for reverting to a limit of 15 years for copyrights - but it's not a case anyone will listen to, even if there's good reasoning behind it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, I did mean specifically the atari and amiga emulators i tried some 5 years ago, if those rom restrictions have gone then great, although the illegaility of those roms still holds up the emulators as being in a dubious legal area!
As for the change of copyright, issue, I don't believe that we will see a games equivalent of itunes any time soon, games that are obviously making money (wii releases of classic nes games etc) should remain protected, but defining what does and doesnt get covered is a very tricky issue!
Farbourne
Rear Admiral
There is a subtle difference between games and music when it comes to copyright, and actually, I think the case is strong that MUSIC copyrights should have a 15-year life than game copyrights.
Fundamentally, the reason why copyrights exist...i.e. why the government creates a capacity for a very limited type of monopoly by protecting a certain kind of intellectual property...is to encourage additional production by creating a means for a profit from intellectual work. If there was no such thing as a copyright, then very few artists (musicians, writers, photographers, etc.) would actually create their art, unless they were independently wealthy and did it just for personal satisfaction, because creating art takes time and effort, and unless there's some kind of profit motive, many would be unwilling or financially unable to create the art. Similarly, few companies would be willing to fund the development of a game unless there's some way of earning profit from that game...and copyrights allow the company to earn the profit.
On the other hand, the public does have a certain right to "fair use" of material, and furthermore, by eliminating the copyright after a certain amount of time, you give a larger number of people a chance to enjoy the art and increase the total public good. As Quarto points out, it is (ideally) the public, acting through their agent of a representative government, that creates copyrights in the first place, because of its benefit to society.
So, in theory, there should be a copyright duration that maximally benefits the public interest...long enough so that there is sufficient profit motive to continue to produce art (including games), but short enough so that, once this profit motivation is satisfied, a maximal number of people have the opportunity to enjoy the art. Of course, as Quarto has pointed out, years of lobbying by folks such as Disney, the RIAA, et al., has caused copyright law to be structured to maximize profit, and not public good, by making copyright durations extremely long.
Here's where the subtle difference between games and music comes in. Music is, in theory, created by either a single individual or a small group of individuals, and these are the individuals that, ideally, should be compensated for the creation of their art, so that they keep producing and so that there is a profit motive for other talented musicians to produce the art. However, because of the way the music industry is structured (don't get me started, that's a lengthy discussion for another day), few musicians see a cent of royalties from their music after a certain number of years, and the only thing the copyright is doing there is allowing mega-giant corporations to make larger profits. For example, none of the surviving Beatles see any royalties from their music (I think Michael Jackson owned the copyrights of the Beatles collection...but I'm not sure who has it now). Reel Big Fish and REM are among bands who's former record companies continue to make profits from their songs, but who do not receive any royalties, because of bad contracts they were forced to sign when they were getting started. For a huge percentage of copyrighted song material, the original artist is actually dead, and the copyright is, at best, producing profit for that person's estate, but is probably just buying additional yachts for record industry CEO's. In other words, very long copyrights for music are not enriching the public good by encouraging more artists to make music, and hence do not serve a useful (to society) purpose.
Software, on the other hand, is generally more like patentable technology, where it requires a huge investment by a large corporation employing teams of programmers, art designers, writers, etc. The more long term profit can be earned, the more likely a company is to fund the creation of a new game. Hence, as long as there is any profitability for keeping a software copyright active, you are encouraging more companies to produce games and hence, theoretically, enhancing the public good.
So there's a much stronger case to be made for long software copyrights than long music copyrights.
In other words, I should have to still buy WC1, but I should be allowed to download 80's music for free.
Fundamentally, the reason why copyrights exist...i.e. why the government creates a capacity for a very limited type of monopoly by protecting a certain kind of intellectual property...is to encourage additional production by creating a means for a profit from intellectual work. If there was no such thing as a copyright, then very few artists (musicians, writers, photographers, etc.) would actually create their art, unless they were independently wealthy and did it just for personal satisfaction, because creating art takes time and effort, and unless there's some kind of profit motive, many would be unwilling or financially unable to create the art. Similarly, few companies would be willing to fund the development of a game unless there's some way of earning profit from that game...and copyrights allow the company to earn the profit.
On the other hand, the public does have a certain right to "fair use" of material, and furthermore, by eliminating the copyright after a certain amount of time, you give a larger number of people a chance to enjoy the art and increase the total public good. As Quarto points out, it is (ideally) the public, acting through their agent of a representative government, that creates copyrights in the first place, because of its benefit to society.
So, in theory, there should be a copyright duration that maximally benefits the public interest...long enough so that there is sufficient profit motive to continue to produce art (including games), but short enough so that, once this profit motivation is satisfied, a maximal number of people have the opportunity to enjoy the art. Of course, as Quarto has pointed out, years of lobbying by folks such as Disney, the RIAA, et al., has caused copyright law to be structured to maximize profit, and not public good, by making copyright durations extremely long.
Here's where the subtle difference between games and music comes in. Music is, in theory, created by either a single individual or a small group of individuals, and these are the individuals that, ideally, should be compensated for the creation of their art, so that they keep producing and so that there is a profit motive for other talented musicians to produce the art. However, because of the way the music industry is structured (don't get me started, that's a lengthy discussion for another day), few musicians see a cent of royalties from their music after a certain number of years, and the only thing the copyright is doing there is allowing mega-giant corporations to make larger profits. For example, none of the surviving Beatles see any royalties from their music (I think Michael Jackson owned the copyrights of the Beatles collection...but I'm not sure who has it now). Reel Big Fish and REM are among bands who's former record companies continue to make profits from their songs, but who do not receive any royalties, because of bad contracts they were forced to sign when they were getting started. For a huge percentage of copyrighted song material, the original artist is actually dead, and the copyright is, at best, producing profit for that person's estate, but is probably just buying additional yachts for record industry CEO's. In other words, very long copyrights for music are not enriching the public good by encouraging more artists to make music, and hence do not serve a useful (to society) purpose.
Software, on the other hand, is generally more like patentable technology, where it requires a huge investment by a large corporation employing teams of programmers, art designers, writers, etc. The more long term profit can be earned, the more likely a company is to fund the creation of a new game. Hence, as long as there is any profitability for keeping a software copyright active, you are encouraging more companies to produce games and hence, theoretically, enhancing the public good.
So there's a much stronger case to be made for long software copyrights than long music copyrights.
In other words, I should have to still buy WC1, but I should be allowed to download 80's music for free.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Hey guys, Slashdot called--it wants its terrible thread back.
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
....says who?
Prometheus
Spaceman
Copyright law, for example? Sure it varies from nation to nation, but you in the USA seem have some pretty clearly defined criteria on what constitutes "fair use".
Other countries have similar rules, we here in Germany don't have "fair use" like in America, but we have some similar rules, that unfortunately are not as well defined as yours.
Almost universally accepted seems to be "educational use" as being fair use, or more or less exempt from copyright restrictions.
Another example that is more of a gray area, is when someone takes one piece of art and uses it as the base material to create a new piece of art. It's a gray area because it is subject to interpretation. What is art? What usage is "too excessive" and therefore plagiarism? And so on...
Somewhat related is the "right of citation", without which writings of scientific standards would not be possible. Or posting screenshots of Wing Commander games on a website for that matter.