Talk:Abandonware/Archive 2

Definition
The common definition of abandonware by the "abandonware community" (the largest group of sites and people, including many who are responsible for the terminology, which is a fairly cohesive population) is contingent on the availability of the software, not upon the age of the software (as is implied by the article). Furthermore, the moral justification which is most commonly used is that the damage caused to current or potential future owners of the IP in question is outweighed by the benefit of the availability of the software. Lists of commonly misconcieved titles which are actually still available for sale are maintained (though I believe the primary list is currently out-of-commision) to guide what sites should not make available. The age of the software is a distant second to the availability (for example, many Apogee/3DRealms games are prohibited even though they are far, far older than many commonly termed abandonware titles).

As for the unethical / "bad" aspects of Abandonware, they are appropriately represented, but the organization of the article is such that things are slightly muddied and poorly structured. The article needs to be revised and reorganized. Research pertaining to the relevant sections of the US Code and the international Berne Convention agreements has been done and is available in the Abandonware community, but I do not have it readily available currently. Considering the legal and ethical status of the issue this cross-referencing would provide extremely beneficial to the article. Some extremely valuable information is also available from the Internet Archive as they have recently been involved in a court case  to more firmly establish the status of abandoned ("orphaned") digital works (and also recieve judicial permission to become a public archive).

Slightly off-topic from the above, but the mentioned iD games are *not* freely available. Much of the engine core has been open sourced, but rarely -- if ever? -- the entire codebase (for example the Windows source for Doom was not released because it contained licensed 3rd party sound code) and thus far no games that they have released have included the art or level files (WADs, etc). As such, legal copies of the original game must first be obtained and I think that these titles should be removed. --129.252.196.36 01:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have observed that as technology evolves so does the language used to describe such technology (just as languages themselves evolve). As a result, I see instances now in multiple discussions which refer to hardware devices rather than software which are being described as 'abandonware'. I recall an instance of SCSI Host Adaptor Cards produced by one manufacturer who became absorbed by another larger Corporation who immediately abandoned the products of the acquired company or NVidia's abandoning of 3DFX. I see several current discussions online regarding mobile phone manufacturer Samsung especially in reference to their Galaxy i7500 and Behold II mobile phones specifically using the word 'abandonware' to appropriately refer to hardware devices.

Modifying major sections of this definition to encompass the evolution of the term strike me as being unnecessary, but perhaps a gradual drift towards inclusion of hardware is something which might be considered; as the scope of what is being so defined is clearly changing. It is interesting that invariably where hardware devices are described as 'abandonware', it is usually because they require updated driver software or firmware in order to continue to remain viable.Aethandor (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This note should be on top!
Seriously! As Stebulus showed before, while the article addresses the legal implications of.. illegal distribution, there are just too many people that think abandonware = old warez. The sentence "Those ignorant of copyright law have incorrectly taken this to mean that abandonware is legal to distribute, although no software written since 1964 is old enough for copyright to have expired in the US." needs to go on top of the article in big-ass, bold letters! Not somewhere at the end of the article. -- Darklock (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Encyclopedias generally don't put legal warnings at the top of articles in big-ass, bold letters. Furthermore, we have a content guideline which explicitly prohibits the use of disclaimers in articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking
We can't link to sites distributing Abandoneware illegally. All the sites I deleted were doing this, or were offering links to sites that would allow you to do so. Some of them were simply taking older games, regardless of whether they were 'abandoned' or not, and releasing them (like Classic-Games, which had full Mortal Kombat 4 for download). Frankly, I see no good reason to link to these sites.
 * Does this mean that if a page is illegally doing something in some country it should be blacklisted from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.247.128.164 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Remake / Clone of Abandonware
The discussion is very much about if it is legal or not to play (without paying) an abandonware game, but what about making a remake of an abandonware? How legal is that? Comments? For example, if a company releases a game very much like, say, Double Dragon (or another old game which the company that made it doesnt exist anymore, dont know if someone still owns Double Dragon), can the old owners sue the new makers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.150 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC) In general yes, as the Copyright expiration is very long, 70 years +. There is recent (clone not remake) example under Clone (computing): The Ville vs The Sims Social. Shaddim (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Reducing related/tangential sections
This article discusses a lot of topics which are not directly related to the topic of abandonware. One will note that most of the current references do not actually discuss the term "abandonware" at all, and are rather there to bolster arguments/possible original research.

Some of these topics are perfectly valid and noteworthy; however, as they relate to abandonware, I think it would be better to reduce them to a "See also" section, or perhaps more defined sections such as "Related topics in copyright law." As abandonware touches lots of other issues, I think this article should be more focused on the subject of "abandonware" itself, in situations where that term is specifically used. 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow-up thought here, abandonware is specifically software which is under copyright. This article currently discusses a lot of topics related to software which is NOT under copyright (i.e. freeware). I think these are the sorts of topics which would be better served as "See also"-type links. They dilute this article and confuse the subject. Geethree (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the feeling that the main problem with this sections is just that the connections are not clear enough, e.g. wording. So, some eager removal of large part of the article and structure seems to fast to me, please lets discuss a new structure and single aspects here for finding a consensus. For instance the section removed "Re-releases by digital distribution" is infact a direct response, an society "impact/reception" to the problem Abandonware (missing availablity), sections which are expected in a good article. I'm open for suggestions on sharpening of sections by reformulation or restructuring, but not for removing large sourced parts of the article without consensus. regards Shaddim (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however I question reverting all of my edits. For instance, the lead paragraph is currently very short and un-sourced. My lead paragraph was sourced (with a few tertiary sources, yes, but that is why I provided several. Frankly it's an uncontroversial definition - better sources can be found and I included secondary sources as well). Additionally, I attempted to summarize the article's existing material. So, to start, I propose reverting to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abandonware&oldid=635256556 Geethree (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, several of your additions were benefical, also extending the introduction in general is a good idea. But I object for instance this part "While abandonware is not a legal term, it is often used when the likelihood of legal action is extremely low, " as I would argue what you describe here is the response of the public to abandonware, the unauthorized distribution of non-available software, for which a "low likelihood of legal actions" is beneficial. Abandonware itself is just software for which no support is available, which is unavailable for purchase and is ignored by the developer/producer, which is at that point independent to legal considerations. Shaddim (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "low likelihood of legal action," I added that because I think it's a helpful way to introduce the "legal limbo" aspects of abandonware, which are IMO significant to understanding how abandonware is distinguished from, from instance, the general topic of software piracy. Multiple sources discuss this aspect of abandonware and as such I think it's good to put in the article lead. That said, if it's a contentious point, or other editors feel strongly it is better discussed in its own section, I am happy to omit it for now in favor of fleshing out the intro with other material. Geethree (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the legal aspects surrounding "Abandonware" should be illuminated, but in a very specific way: I believe it is essential for this article to separate between the concept of Abandonware itself and the response to it, for instance the redistribution of software by third-parties. Only second one has the controversial legal and society implications only, see orphan works. Shaddim (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am moving this discussion to a new section to keep things organized. Please see "Proposed new lead" Geethree (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new lead
''The current lead paragraph is short, un-sourced, and vaguely defines the subject. I propose replacing with the following, which defines the subject and summarizes key issues, incorporating new sources as well as pre-existing material and sources from the article.'' Geethree (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Abandonware is a name given to software which is technically under copyright, but which is no longer available to purchase or otherwise supported by the copyright holder. Typically, software comes to be called abandonware when the copyright holder is no longer in business, or when the software is particularly old or obsolete.

There are many debates surrounding abandonware. Some advocates of abandonware believe that it is ethically and legally distinct from software piracy. As the software is considered "out-of-print," some people who distribute abandonware believe it is a form of digital preservation. Others believe it is important for people to be able to access old software, even if it's no longer commercially available. However, software can be re-released despite being previously unavailable, and copyright holders have enforced their copyright even when software is seemingly "abandoned".
 * Hello, thanks, for the prosposal I will comment in detail in the next time! Shaddim (talk)
 * As conversation seems to have died down here I am going to edit in this lead per WP:BOLD :) Geethree (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I already indicated your current proposal mixes Abandondware with the response to Abandonware which is therefore not preferable. I will reformulate the introduction. Shaddim (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any interest in editing this page if progress is going to move forward this slowly. It is not my style to edit over this long a time-frame and frankly I am a bit confused whether this conversation is ongoing or abandoned, so I do not think I will be able to productively contribute here. As my edits are visible in the edit log, other editors are, of course, invited to draw from them if they feel it is appropriate. Geethree (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, but I didn't had the time recently to formulate...but I'm positive that I will find the time around christmas time....sorry again!Shaddim (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226809/opensource-subnet/why-we-should-preserve-useless--old-software.html

Windows
Would old Windows versions that are no longer supported be called Abandonware? &mdash;ScouterSig 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * grey area. there are current versions of windows that are (nominally) supported by Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Microsoft maintains copyrights on all of it's software and operating systems, back to the first version of DOS. -- Elaich   talk 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... the copyright issue pretty much has nothing to do with whether old versions of Windows (e.g., 1.0, 2.0, 3.1) are abandonware. Unless your abandonware was written over about a half-century ago, it's almost certainly copyrighted. As of November 2008, 3.11 is no longer available for distribution at all. I'd call that, and everything before it, abandonware. Langelgjm (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If they do not sell certain versions anymore, then they can be called abandonware by definition (does not mean you can just distribute copies of course). -- Darklock (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows 3.* has recently been "abandondoned". 90.205.124.252 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Windows 95, 98, 98 SE, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, 2003 R2, XP x64, Vista, and even 7 should also fall into this category. Alexey Topol (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Lost source code cases
Magic Knight Rayearth (video game) (stored for later use)Shaddim (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC) http://kotaku.com/5859963/an-entire-mmo-was-accidentally-erased-from-the-internet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abandonware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Atari-7800-Source-Code%2Cnews-4187.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090706155155/http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/games/ to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/games/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331234239/http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/09/yes-the-library-of-congress-has-video-games-an-interview-with-david-gibson/ to http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/09/yes-the-library-of-congress-has-video-games-an-interview-with-david-gibson/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725100437/http://bdn.borland.com/museum/ to http://bdn.borland.com/museum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Major cleanup incoming (June 29,2017)
I'm about to begin a huge cleanup of this article to improve grammar and reduce its verbosity. I will make every attempt to maintain the overall structure of the article and relocate any citations that I displace. I apologize in advance for any editing errors. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Aaand it's done! I've made quite a few changes, so here's a brief summary: I did a sweep for grammar, removed a number of redundant citations, merged several sub-sections, and trimmed a few sections that were excessively 'wordy' or contained citations that were only tangential to the article's purpose.  If I've missed anything, or anyone has any objections to my revisions, please feel free to make further adjustments.  70.66.215.159 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm quite unhappy with your fast & radical (almost 50% of content eradicated) reduction of the article. In fact, I think I will revert and would like to go step by step with you here in the discussion. Would that be fine for you? Shaddim (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * your concerns /actions were, behind my concerns:

Shaddim (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ('Legal Status of Copyright' merged with 'Law')) -> this domain and chapters indeed need rework and restructuring, but I would argue expansion and clarification
 * (→‎Community support)
 * (→‎Support for Abandonware: One-word adjustment.)
 * (→‎Alternatives to software abandoning)
 * (→‎Arguments for and against distribution) (Tag: references removed) -> quotes are fine... maybe less
 * (→‎Response to abandonware) -> crucial chapter!
 * (→‎Definition)
 * (→‎Implications: Major cleanup.) (Tag: section blanking) -> this section is to small not to big IMHO
 * (→‎Definition: Merging sections.) -> what is the benefit
 * (→‎Types: Merging sections, as both say essentially the same thing.) -> I disagree


 * Thanks for speaking up! I only intended my changes as a quick-and-dirty cleanup to create a 'starting point'.  I'll follow your list to explain my reasoning:


 * I merged 'Legal Status of Copyright' (which was actually 'legal status of abandonware', when I made my changes) with 'law' because they're really the same thing. I agree that the section needs expansion.
 * Community Support: I tried to trim the examples, because Unofficial Patch already has an extensive list and goes into fan-made/unofficial patches in greater detail. Additionally, the grammar in that section is quite awkward, which is what I focused on when trying to adjust that section.
 * I merged 'Support by Community Release' and 'Community Support' (farther down the page) because they're the same thing. I think we can merge those two items into one section and not lose anything.
 * Re: 'Alternatives to Software Abandonment'....well, frankly, this is an article about abandonware, not alternatives to abandonware. No problem with revisions if that's the consensus, but I advocate for just removing it as irrelevant to the article.
 * I agree with having fewer quotes in 'Arguments for and Against; my primary objection is that the references all link to the same article. I think we could use one reference (to direct readers to the article itself), but three references that link to the same document, in my opinion, is overkill.  I suggest either putting all three references in a general 'this is what people say' sentence, or picking one quote that adequately expresses the opinion of the remainder.
 * 'Response to Abandonware', I would argue, is not crucial in itself; since most of the 'responses' are legal in nature (i.e, 'my lawyers want you to stop selling copyrighted works') perhaps we could move it to a sub-heading of whatever we end up calling the 'law' section.
 * I removed 'Shareware' and 'Freeware' from the list, because they are explicitly not abandonware. Shareware receives technical support, even if it's on an ad-hoc basis, and freeware is not 'abandoned', but distributed for free.
 * The 'Implications' section needs a grammar overhaul. 'Missing purchase availability (besides used software)' could be written much more clearly ('outdated software', or the like).  Also, 'implications' has a slightly different meaning than was apparently intended: 'the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated'.  We're not making implications about abandonware, we're discussing the consequences of software abandonment.
 * Again, I merged 'Shareware' and 'freeware' to highlight the distinction between the three terms; shareware and freeware are not necessarily 'abandoned' software.
 * Re: the 'types' merge: I reduced 'Commercial software unsupported but still owned by a viable company' and 'Commercial software owned by a company no longer in business' for several reasons: first, 'commercial software' is, by definition, owned by a company. Second, we don't need to 'make the point twice' with regard to a company that's in business or out of business; we can simply state, in the first category, that a company that goes out of business no longer provides technical support.

I disagree with adding 'unsupported or unmaintained shareware' and 'Open source and freeware programs that have been abandoned'. All software will eventually be abandoned; we don't need to specifically include shareware and freeware.

Just a quick final note: it's not about how much content an article has, but the clarity and applicability of that content. One sentence that describes Cookie Monster as 'a blue Muppet with googly eyes' is better than three sections that describe what 'blue' and 'googly' mean. :)

70.66.215.159 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I agree, that the article is currently unbulky and hard to read for an reader: clarity could be improved! But on the other hand it is an complicated topic with many facets. Therefore I don't think a significant reduction is helpful for the reader: e.g. differenting different sources of abandonware I think is beneficial and could and should be expanded for clarification. Ok, what about clarifyfing the differnt cases of open source vs close source abandonware (support)? Availability of commercial stuff vs "lost stuff"? cheers! Shaddim (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Blender 3D
I suggest also adding Blender as an example of a previously closed program becoming Free Software by its authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.131.56 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2017 (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? 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. 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? 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. Shaddim (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Solution
Maybe add section for solution like every year IP tax (no pay tax government revoke monopoly, tax also help find owner), maintenance fees (like patents), require company sell software and support it or government revoke copyright monopoly (require responsibilities for balance rights), ask government revoke copyright when can't find owner, short copyrights (5 years), owner destroy original copies (like SGI destroy Cray supercomputer software) lose copyright monopoly. Trinhhoa (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

What could save abandonware from ceasing to exist in the relm of copyright.
I have found a very solution that saves old video games from ceasing to exist, I've talked to my state representative about adding this to copyright:


 * The US copyright office, every certain number of years sends a letter displaying list of each video game made they made or published. It will ask them if they are still enforcing their copyrights on it. If the company fails to say "yes", it goes public domain after a certain deadline. Copyright holders can, do and will forget their works.


 * The exception for copyright is to allow users to upload copyrighted material to a website dedicated to preserving them. While stored, the material cannot be "used" (download, view, stream, etc) until the work in question goes public domain (users can report that the work is now legal to share). Because of this nature, it shouldn't damage the copyright holder in any shape or form, especially when uploaded during the work is being distributed officially.

I did talk to the Internet Archive about adding a file lock feature so that users can "privately" (not really) upload them, and have merely the page about it visible (including links to it), for someone to report that the work becomes public domain. After this, then the work can be "used". They have yet to respond.

I'm just posting this for everyone here to see. Feel free to talk to your representative about this.

(and yes, I have "Watch this page" turned on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed uncited claim
I've removed the following line from the US copyright law section: "However, the original copyright holder may be barred from bringing a court action, via a civil doctrine known as laches, which requires litigants to bring a viable civil action within a reasonable amount of time." It had been tagged for citation needed for over a year, and without one this feels like original research speculation at worst and synthesis at best. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Shareware provider makes it available for free download?
We need to distinguish freely available software from abandonware. Abandonware exists mainly as a pseudo legal concept in the minds of people who want access to free software. This does not make all free software abandonware or affect its copyright staus. Even so called copy left produced IP is protected by the copyright owner's rights. Drewder (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Game based
On reading this article it seemed to be very focused on games to the point where the reader might think this is just a topic to do with old games. This is just a comment and a potential talking point. Mtpaley (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Confusion between free software and freeware, false distinction between commercial software and free software, etc
This article seems to be confused between free software and freeware. "Freeware" always means "software available at no charge (gratis)" whereas the actual meaning of "free software" is "software licenced to preserve user freedom". While free software may often be gratis (non-commercial), it isn't always. Therefore, this article needs to be fixed. I'm saying this here instead of doing it myself because changes in this area that I make are often reverted. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2021 (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. 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.--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. --Vamp: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. --Malathion 23:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)