D2CA.ORG - Dan's 20th Century Abandonware

Is "Abandonware" Legal?

The true definition of the term "abandonware" is:
- Software titles that are no longer distributed through normal retail outlets, and have had all support "abandoned."

The literal term "abandonware" has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright status or violating copyright laws.

Abandonware is more synonymous with "obsolete" than "infringement."

The wrong impression.
What has given the term "abandonware" a bad name is some people have tried to justify that just because a program is some years old and not sold in retail outlets anymore that it is OK to give away copies and offer old titles for download on the Internet.

That position is only valid if the software titles being offered are no longer under copyright protection or the author has allowed the software to be distributed freely.

More often than not, those offering copies of "old" software are violating copyright law by offering software titles that are still under non-distributable copyright protection.

That is not "abandonware," that is copyright infringement.

Enter the SIIA, and their position on "abandonware."
The software industry anti-piracy organization Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), formerly known as the Software Publishers Association and still using their old URL of spa.org, claims on their website that "Abandonware is an urban legends created and circulated to justify violations of copyright law on the Internet." (faq.asp) That is a direct quote from their document, and you will note the typo "legends" where "legend" should have been used. They actually use this same typoed statement in at least two places on their site. But, I didn't write this to critique the SIIA site's typos.

Another article on the SIIA's site also states: "...the concept of abandonware is an attempt to justify copyright infringement. Abandonware does not exist. Users who establish abandonware sites and users who download titles from them are both liable under copyright law."

Dan's 20th Century Abandonware -- a legal "abandonware site?"
Either the SIIA has never visited Dan's 20th Century Abandonware, or, if it has, it does not want to have to admit that my "abandonware site" is actually a site where all the "titles" on it are legal!

Oh! Say it isn't so! I'm liable for being legal! Officer! Arrest that abandonware site! Wait! We can't do that because it is legal.
Never mind. Have a nice day.

If the SIIA did recognize my site, they would have to admit their statements about abandonware are in error and would have to retract their all-encompassing insinuation that "abandonware sites" violate copyright laws and have illegal software downloads.

Hey, isn't that slander in the case of my site? They are claiming something about my "abandonware site," through their all- encompassing statements, that is plainly untrue and potentially damaging to my site's reputation. Bring on the attorneys!

"Abandonware does not exist."
With all due respect to the SIIA, I have to disagree with their statement that "abandonware does not exist." In fact, it does.

Let's put this into context, shall we? "Vaporware" exists. Companies have pre-announced software titles for decades. Just as "vaporware" denotes an announced software title that does not as yet exist, "abandonware" correctly describes software that is no longer distributed through normal retail channels and has had all support for it "abandoned," hence, the term.

Did I say anything about the software title's copyright protection status? No. Why? Because the literal term "abandonware" does not refer to the copyright status of a software title.

This is where the SIIA misleads you with their interpretation of "abandonware." A software title that is some years old, not available through normal retail outlets, and whose support has been "abandoned" can still be protected under copyright law as non-distributable.

It can also be called "abandonware" and not be an illegal title.

CASE IN POINT: If I go to a thrift store, as I do quite regularly, purchase an old software title -- one that is several years old, no longer sold through normal retail channels, thrift stores notwithstanding, and whose support has been "abandoned" -- it can correctly be called "abandonware." And it is a perfectly legal title.

I invite the SIIA to try to disprove this example using fact, not FUD.

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
The SIIA incorrectly states that the term "abandonware" was invented solely for the purpose of violating copyright law.

That is simply untrue.

Why hasn't the SIIA focused on the abstract software slang "vaporware" mentioned earlier? What about other slangs such as "bloatware?" "Shovelware?" "Careware?" "Cardware?" "Shareware?" "Freeware?"

Why? Because those terms have not been associated with the potential to violate copyright law. How can you make an illegal copy of "vaporware?" Of "shareware?" Of "freeware?" These slangs on software all refer to titles that are legal to copy and distribute, so again the SIIA cannot use these terms to intimidate people.

The SIIA focuses on "abandonware" because there have been those who have violated copyright laws by copying, distributing, and offering for download software titles, however old, that are still under copyright protection as non-distributable by their authors and incorrectly attempted to use the term to justify this act of copyright infringement.

But that does not mean everyone who has "abandonware" is a copyright violator or violated copyright law to obtain legacy titles.

What about the "abandonware" titles that law-abiding people own legally? Is it fair to say their old software titles are illegal when, in fact, they are not? Millions of people around the world still use "obsolete" software titles legally that qualify as "abandonware."

Is it fair, also, to condemn all "abandonware sites" and say they all violate copyright law?

No, it is not fair. Take a look around D2CA. The SIIA borderlines heavily on slander and outright lying with their incorrect, intimidating, heavy-handed mis-definition of "abandonware."

The SIIA should rethink and restate their position on "abandonware" to reflect what it truly is.

"Software doesn't violate copyright law -- people violate copyright law."

I invite the SIIA to comment about their position on "abandonware" after reading this web page.

Would anyone outside the SIIA care to comment?

I do not, and never will, obtain legacy software titles for this collection from illegal "archive" or "warez" sites.

To learn about the risks of visiting illegal software sites, please read this.