Anyone want to host some images?

[Chuck(G)]

On and off, I've been going through my diskettes, and picking out those that are (a) device drivers, (b) demo programs or (c) PD software. I've got lots of commercial software on 5.25", but I'm not going to step on anyone's copyright claims. The DRI stuff was released by Caldera a long time ago, so it's fair game. But Windows, Desqview, OS/2, etc. is probably stepping on someone's toes. For example, I've got several versions of Wordstar, but I think that may have passed to new ownership as well as a pile of Borland stuff.

So, for instance, I've got driver floppies for various devices (a), demonstration floppy (160K!) for MS Word 1.0 (b) and a couple of versions of Concurrent PC-DOS (c). All comes from original floppies. I'm archiving them using Dave Dunfield's ImageDisk, so they're all IMD files.

I've got the first 60 5.25" floppies done in two archives and will continue on as time permits.

Does anyone want to host a web site or ftp for these things? If so, drop me a PM and I'll pass an ftp link to the files along to you.

 

[Shadow Lord]

On and off, I've been going through my diskettes, and picking out those that are (a) device drivers, (b) demo programs or (c) PD software. I've got lots of commercial software on 5.25", but I'm not going to step on anyone's copyright claims. The DRI stuff was released by Caldera a long time ago, so it's fair game. But Windows, Desqview, OS/2, etc. is probably stepping on someone's toes. For example, I've got several versions of Wordstar, but I think that may have passed to new ownership as well as a pile of Borland stuff.

So, for instance, I've got driver floppies for various devices (a), demonstration floppy (160K!) for MS Word 1.0 (b) and a couple of versions of Concurrent PC-DOS (c). All comes from original floppies. I'm archiving them using Dave Dunfield's ImageDisk, so they're all IMD files.

I've got the first 60 5.25" floppies done in two archives and will continue on as time permits.

Does anyone want to host a web site or ftp for these things? If so, drop me a PM and I'll pass an ftp link to the files along to you.

Chuck,

Let me be the first to say thanks for doing this. While some of the commercial SW can still be acquired (second hand through eBay for example) original driver disks, PD/FW (and to a lesser extent SW) stuff, and older demos are things most people either threw away or re-purposed the disks from.

A question: are you doing this manually? I tried to setup Dave's program through a batch and while most of it can be automated I never found a way to make it create the actual image w/o my intervention. When there is only one or two disks it isn't such a big deal but if you want to image a large set of disks it would be nice to have it done w/ a batch file.

 

[pearce_jj]

Happy to host Chuck. As said, thanks for taking the time to do this!

 

[Chuck(G)]

A question: are you doing this manually? I tried to setup Dave's program through a batch and while most of it can be automated I never found a way to make it create the actual image w/o my intervention. When there is only one or two disks it isn't such a big deal but if you want to image a large set of disks it would be nice to have it done w/ a batch file.

One of the issues is that I wanted an open standard image file and Dave's tool looked like a pretty good candidate. The whole process for me was composing an index at the same time as reading the floppies, so I used JOE for DOS to do the editing, shelling out to IMD with as many command line arguments as possible. That reduces the manual intervention to a few keystrokes--and I have to enter the disk information anyway. So it's not bad. The biggest problem is that the 5.25" are a mix of 160K, 180K, 320K and 360K as well as 1.2M formats. 25 or 30 images per archive seems to keep things manageable. While I try to keep related floppies together, there's no particular grouping by format or function.

If I can improve on this, I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Arkady]

I've got lots of commercial software on 5.25", but I'm not going to step on anyone's copyright claims. The DRI stuff was released by Caldera a long time ago, so it's fair game. But Windows, Desqview, OS/2, etc. is probably stepping on someone's toes. For example, I've got several versions of Wordstar, but I think that may have passed to new ownership as well as a pile of Borland stuff.

Hello,

I've got a problem with what is abandonware or not : i'm going to try to make my statement clear enough (Be nice please because English isn't my native language).
I'm not a "warez" fan at all : i hate it, because everyone has to be paid for it work. Period.

I'm French and i'm collecting all the commercial or non commercial 5.25 floppies i find in French language and also in English. My "primary" goal is French, but i also keep English versions.
Believe me or not, but it's very, very hard to find French versions. They disapeared because :
- French versions weren't very common;
- their owners trashed them;
- floppies cannot be read anymore (often the protected disc), even if i'm not bad at reading old damaged 5.25 discs.

So, when i can read and "imaging" a 1985 French version of "Lotus Symphony", i'm not that happy.
Keep in mind that it only works with slow 286 (less than 8mhz) or 8088 because of the "Superlock" protection : so it does not have a commerciel value anymore.
It still has value for old Diplodocus like me ! :D
Yes, i salvaged it, but even if i'm not that old, i won't live forever.
The question : what can be the real risk if i drop it onto an FTP/HTTP web site ? I mean something ONLY dedicated to REALLY OLD, RARE and NEARLY EXTINGUISHED software (ex. : until 1989)
To be really honest, this idea has been in my head for at least a year : i think (but i still hesitate a lot) to make WEB pages for old PC/XT AT with hardware and sofware (images of drivers and OLD disapearing commercial or not disks, pictures, tips, etc...). It's not common in French language (i'd even say very rare).
The philosophy is salvaging, not making a dirty warez WEB site, something like the W.W.F., but for old software.

But as said Chuck, i don't want to step on someone's toes.

 

[ChrisCwmbran]

Personally I think the best approach is to host it along with a message saying that there is no intention to infringe any ones copyright and that you will gladly remove anything if anyone lodges an objection.

 

[Unknown_K]

I have toyed with the idea of hosting vintage disk images before. Might be worth it to also do a torrent of the archives. Original driver disks are harder to come by then most commercial software.

 

[mbbrutman]

Arkady,

Your English is far better than my French ...

In some locales copyright protection lasts far longer than it should. Mickey Mouse should not be protected decades after Walt's death - it is a perversion of the concept of copyright when the copyrights effectively become indefinite.

It is less of a practical problem for software because software becomes obsolete far quicker than the copyright can expire. So a copyright holder might get upset or concerned about copyright infringement, but it is very difficult to do anything about other than say "Stop doing that" because it is difficult to prove that the person is benefiting commercially from the infringement. So while IBM probably is the copyright holder for the 1985 version of Lotus Symphony, IBM has no commercial interest in strictly controlling the distribution of it in the year 2013.

All programmers should be paid for their work, unless they don't want to be (shareware, open source, etc.). But after a certain point the programmer has been paid and there is no more economic value in the work - the work is obsolete even though the copyright is still valid. It's time for that programmer to do something new.

Games are a notable exception - games are playable long after they are obsolete. That is generally because there are aspects of the game that transcend any particular implementation, and those aspects are covered by copyright as well. Commercial software can have those aspects too, but they do not have as strong as an impact. For example, most people will be able to take a favorite word processor and find another one that works good enough. They might not be happy about it, but it can be done. But getting somebody to drop a favorite game for a substitute is much more difficult because particular quirks of games often are not found elsewhere.



Chris,

By most interpretation of copyright laws, posting a copyrighted image is already copyright infringement - by posting it you purposefully infringed on the copyright, unless you had permission to do so up front. So that message (disclaimer) that there is no intent to infringe won't help too much.

One large factor to consider is how much does a person benefit from the infringement. If you are running a major warez site and are selling advertising, then you are very clearly infringing on copyrights for commercial gain even if you are not directly selling the copyrighted software. If you are posting it discretely and it doesn't look like anybody is benefiting financially, it is a lot easier to just say 'Opps - Sorry' and remove things when confronted. But the larger the amount of software that is being hosted, the less that defense works.



Diskettes for device drivers I think would be less of a copyright problem. A device driver is useless unless you have the physical device. So there is no economic harm being done by distributing software that enables people to use the devices they already own. It would be hard for a copyright holder to press that issue too far.

I'd love to see an archive for device driver diskettes. What happened to Driver Guide sickens me.

In general, these bits need to be preserved. But if you want to avoid scrutiny it should look like historical preservation, not a commercial venture.

 

[Shadow Lord]

Are driver diskettes really an issue? I don't know. Yes they are copyrighted but most manufacturers make them freely available to dl. True they don't do it for all of the HW because of either obsolesce (in the eyes of the manufacturer), or the company being bought out (demise of the 3COM archive after HP bought them), or just lack of thought/resources/etc. But when they do make them available they are easily found on multiple sites (officially and unofficially) w/o issues. I think that you would be very safe with posting driver disks. Accessory disks maybe more of an issues (e.g. bundled programs) even though they are part of the driver package.

Commercial SW is a whole other problem. Commercial SW can irk people for any number of reasons, but as Mike said it may not be financially worth while for the copyright holder to do anything about it. Think of how many sites host MS DOS boot disks or people selling copies of apple disks on eBay but are not being served with take down notices. However, each of these people are at risk of legal action. Will it happen probably not, but you are taking a risk.

 

[Chuck(G)]

My take on it goes like this. If the item is a demonstrator or driver diskette, the originator of the product expects no financial remuneration for it. And indeed, if it's a demo diskette, the original intention was to get wide distribution. In the case of DRI stuff, Caldera released that to be distributed freely. I don't know what the case is with older Borland products, so I don't touch that--the same with stuff such as Ventura Publisher, Corel Draw and particularly Microsoft products.

A knottier problem is where a product was part of an acquisition, so for instance, the Lattice C compiler (acquired by Microsoft). Neither Lattice nor its compiler exists now. But I'm not doing those just to be careful.

So my feeling is that if not the letter, at least I'm respecting the spirit of the copyright laws. Anyone is free to give me notice according to DMCA and I'll get the product deleted.

 

[SomeGuy]

Preserving history should trump copyright.

There are many valuable lessons to be learned from examining old software. To know where we are going, we need to know where we have been. So is it right that the last copy of a piece of software should be sentenced to disintegration?

Hats off to everyone helping to preserve vintage software, in spite of what the pedantics may think.

 

[Chuck(G)]

I have to admit that I'm torn over the subject of copyright. 95 years is just absurd. The fact that I can download "Nineteen eighty-four" from an Australian website, where it is in the public domain, but am a criminal if I do so, even though Australia subscribes to the same WTO treaty on IP. That a musical work composed in 1924 and last published in 1931 is protected, but one composed and published in 1922 is not can doom the former work to obscurity.

As a particularly odious example, consider the anthem of the US Coast Guard "Semper Paratus". Copyright is not owned by the USCG. The family who owns the copyright has refused permission for new editions or arrangements of the work. So if you decide to play "Semper Paratus" in your salute to US Armed Forces, you'd better use a sanctioned version and not your own. Many performing groups simply leave it out of the program as the arrangements of it are pretty awful.

The song "Happy Birthday to You" has a particularly odious history. WikiP entry. Observe that the primary difference in the instrumental version between protected and PD is one note!

I'm in favor of copyright having the same terms and conditions as a patent.

 

[mbbrutman]

Preserving history should trump copyright.

There are many valuable lessons to be learned from examining old software. To know where we are going, we need to know where we have been. So is it right that the last copy of a piece of software should be sentenced to disintegration?

Hats off to everyone helping to preserve vintage software, in spite of what the pedantics may think.

That's great for a guy posting under an alias. ; - 0

Unfortunately, breaking the law (criminal or civil) might have real penalties as a consequence, while being pedantic just makes one annoying.

 

[Maverick1978]

Fact is, folks, and I'm sure that we're all in agreement on this one, copyright deserves to be protected however, it is absurd exactly how long some copyrights are permitted to last (Chuck lists some very pointed examples of this)

It's also interesting to note that the two guys who are commenting openly on copyright are software developers themselves, each with copyrighted code to his name. It's fact that they're not alone in their opinions. Still, copyright law has a long way to go in order to catch up to reality.

On the flip side... if I own a car, and I choose to not use it and let it rot, even when faced with people who wish to purchase that car from me, is that not my right as the owner of that car?

As much as the preservationist in me rails against the idea, software companies have that right as well. I just find it abhorrent that when one company acquires another, they acquire ALL of their IP - current and past. They should only be allowed to acquire what is currently in production/use at the time of sale, while the rest goes to public domain. Still...that's another argument.

The real problem with copyright is this: who are you to say that my idea, my song, my novel, my software, my movie is yours to take after you think I'm done with it? Who are you to say that I don't have the right to take my creation and sell it throughout my lifetime to anyone who chooses to use it? Who are you to say that my creation is any less deserving of being passed on to my heirs in the same way that my home and personal effects can be passed onto my heirs?

When thinking of it from that aspect... it's hard for me to argue that it's only "right" for it to be preserved and shared openly. Or that it should be available for free after X amount of time. And it just becomes murkier and murkier when one starts realizing that copyright holders aren't always single individuals, but multiple people, even corporations.... where do you draw the line? How do you make a "one-size fits all" law with these considerations?

Right now, I think our lawmakers are afraid to even consider revising copyright law. They're afraid to speak out on it as they might piss off the bigwig reps of these corporations and industries that line their pockets with campaign money (and free appearances in the new Batman Begins trilogy movies just because you're a Senator and a fan). And it's just too easy to point at those proponents of copyright law restrictions - people like us - as simple pirates looking to get something for nothing.

 

[Chuck(G)]

I can only speak to US law, Maverick. While the government "taking" of your possessions is governed by the fifth amendment, intellectual property falls under Article 1, Section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note that what's being conveyed is a limited monopoly. This was one of the talking points set up in the Supreme Court case against the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act--can Congress arbitrarily and indefinitely extend the monopoly period and thereby make it indefinite? In other words, can Congress extend copyright to 250 or 1000 years? Scalia didn't have any problem with that notion, BTW. In particular, the only copyright expectation that Walt Disney had in 1926 with Mickey Mouse was the 1909 act, which specified a term of 28 years from date of publication. That was twice the 14 years provided for in the 1790 copyright law.

What's most odious is the ex post facto "do over" that sneaked by in the 1990s. Prior to that date, you could own, copy and distribute works of, say, Shostakovitch or Prokofiev without hindrance in the USA, since the USSR did not acknowledge the notion of copyright. Boom goes the Iron Curtain and the US agrees to "restored copyright". In other words, that score of Shostakovitch's Fifth Symphony that you purchased is no longer in the public domain and you are prohibited under criminal penalties from making copies of it.

I think a 28 year term is perfectly reasonable for software. All we need do is convince members of Congress to ignore the big-money interests who'd like to see copyright extended to 2500 years.

 

[Stone]

On the flip side... if I own a car, and I choose to not use it and let it rot, even when faced with people who wish to purchase that car from me, is that not my right as the owner of that car?

While I agree with you in principle you managed to choose the worst possible example to illustrate this. This is because a car is one of the two physical items that you do not really own outright (even though you are seemingly able to sell your limited ownership rights). If you want me to elaborate on this topic you know what to do.

 

[SpidersWeb]

Vintage Software not for sale and with no alternative available commercially from the same author (to run on that hardware, e.g. MS DOS based)
Loss when pirated - $0.00. They can sue me for their $0.00 if they wish.

I have a boxed copy of Direct Access I got second hand - the company gets $0.00 for that - if I pirated it - the company also gets $0.00.

I'd much rather actually buy the software, but when there is no option.

 

[Shadow Lord]

Vintage Software not for sale and with no alternative available commercially from the same author (to run on that hardware, e.g. MS DOS based)
Loss when pirated - $0.00. They can sue me for their $0.00 if they wish.

I have a boxed copy of Direct Access I got second hand - the company gets $0.00 for that - if I pirated it - the company also gets $0.00.

I'd much rather actually buy the software, but when there is no option.

See there people go again applying logical thinking to illogical commandments, laws and politicians.... TSK TSK! ;D

I must say that Maverick makes a good argument. One that I don't necessarily agree with but at least his argument is based on logical assumptions and propositions. Lets be honest though:

Anything we say here is just wishful thinking (like my wanting an App store for old SW software). The law is the law and it will be applied in a nonsensical manner (as show by the conclusion of the RIAA trials). So you either choose to break it or you don't. My recommendation is if you do break it keep it on the down low...

 

[Unknown_K]

The laws changed when corporations got involved. Nobody cared if a persons copyright expired (others can make money off of the work), but once big companies were formed then laws started changing so they owned the rights forever because they make a bunch of money and they also write the laws.

If somebody could buy a digital copy of vintage software from whoever owns it now (if they even know anymore) along with PDF manuals piracy would be pretty much gone. Companies can still charge for service if there is a market for it, but mostly the buyer would be on their own and the downloads would be cheap. Since most of that old software is abandoned and the new owners could care less about it (if they even know they own the rights) the stuff is no longer sold legally so we pirate it.

 

[Chuck(G)]

Thanks folks! I think we've got a critical mass of hosts now.