Talk:Abandonware

Who makes the argument?
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
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}