I love turning a blind eye to casual piracy as much as the next man, but I feel that I should make a counterargument. The reasoning given by the FAQ author is flawed, and misleading. There is definitely a case for an organised effort to encourage copyright holders to put truly abandoned past work into the public domain, and that could even be stretched so far as to making such software available until asked otherwise. But the FAQ's definition of abandonware is in no way congruent to these goals - it is simply trying to put a veneer of legitimacy on software piracy. Not being able to afford to upgrade your PC doesn't give you carte blanche to rip off games.

"Game companies (and other software companies) are no longer selling any software that is compatible with my computer (much less an XT). If they did sell software that would work on my computer, I would be more than happy to pay their price. But they don't."

This is simply not true. Or rather, it may have been true for a short time window during the hardware generation the author is refering to, but even that is highly doubtful. What the author is actually saying is, some newly released games titles will not run on his PC. Unless Moore's Law took a holiday at some time, there has never been a period when all games software practically commercially available has been beyond the capabilities of a PC that someone would consider broadly suitable for entertainment or work tasks.

"I think that is a violation of good, decent justice and could be considered antitrust."

In the light of the obvious falsehood of the preceding statements, this amounts to nothing more than factually baseless melodrama.

Then follows a lengthy and ill-thought-out analogy which seems to hinge on the belief that when this person bought his computer, all games software publishers signed into a legally binding agreement to supply him in perpetuity with new games software that would run on his machine. As anyone with any computer older than 10 years in their attic will tell you, the real world doesn't work like that. (As for the belief that any politician would take the oil industry to task for antitrust violations...)

"Why should a simple copyright keep me from obtaining software for my low-end computer? As long as no other software company is selling the software and the software is at least 5 years old, why shouldn't I be able to obtain it from my next-door neighbor, a local BBS, or a Web Site on the Internet?"

The answer, of course, is because this is in violation of intellectual property law. Whether one thinks the law is fair or not (or even has their own idea about the length copyright terms should be), it is still the law. These laws exist to protect (within reason) copyright holders, not to protect lazy or stingy people.

The problem with the argument the FAQ writer puts forward is two-fold: Firstly, in the overwhelming majority of cases games software is commercially available for at least five years after its initial publication. Secondly, the placement of a cut-off point where a piece of software can no longer be 'profitable' for the copyright holder is extremely difficult (see for example the porting of many 8-bit and 16-bit era games to the Game Boy Advance, mobile phones and other more recent platforms) but more to the point, irrelevant. Commercial viability has no bearing on the interests of protecting intellectual property. I can't envisage a workable (or desirable) system by which it could be made a factor.

"That's not fair."

No one said you had to buy a PC. Or play video games. Or can't look on eBay.

"Computer prices should either come way down so we can afford to upgrade every two years or the software companies should start selling old software to people who have old computers."

This has largely happened, and in the second case, was already happening at the time the FAQ was written.

"As far as I'm concerned the software companies have abandoned their old software by not selling or supporting it. Therefore, we as owners of old computers have a moral right to copy it so we can get good use of it."

Finally we get to something vaguely reasonable. Although how 'mutually overlooked casual piracy' can be transmuted into a 'moral right' I can't begin to imagine.

"It is designed to give software and support to people who have out-of-date computers. Since the software companies won't help us, then we will help ourselves."

Translation: The author wants to play old games without paying for them. Understandable, but not justified by the arguments given.

The definitions themselves are worse still:

"Abandonware is software that is either:
1.More than 3 years old
2.Not still being sold and supported by a company.

Oldwarez is software that is:
1.More than 1 year old"

Either through the document being outdated, or ignorance on the author's part, the mooted three year figure is completely ludicrous. Today it is virtually unheard of, barring bankrupcy or legal dispute, for any videogame title to be taken off of the market within three years. Indeed, two of the largest-selling PC games franchises (The Sims and Half-Life) are seeded with products going back 4 and 5 years respectively. Even those products that have faired the worst at full price (in which case there will still be plenty of copies in the retail channel...) will be picked up by a budget label. Or let's say the publishers are jealously guarding the rights in the hope of making a sequel. Not a happy situation maybe, but it's not unknown in such circumstances for the publishers to make earlier installments of a series freeware to promote the sequel. (For example: Grand Theft Auto, and Betrayal at Krondor.) Or another case, what if the developers have just stumped up enough money to buy back the rights so they can make money out of the game? If it's all over the internet thanks to 'well-meaning' pirates, they're screwed.

The 'Oldwarez' definition seems to have no justifiable purpose for inclusion short of as an incitement to piracy.

Basically, the document is a product of a bygone era, written by a hothead. Although I don't have figures to judge one way or the other, I would imagine that the net effect of abandonware is pretty harmless to the industry's bottom lines. However using a document as misleading and legally shaky as this to attempt to justify it is irresponsible. I have seen 'abandonware' sites carry more and more recent games under this two-faced protestation of moral righteousness. This is a sure-fire way to completely tar the image of the whole concept, drive a wedge between developers, publishers and the gaming community and give the industry representative organisations (IDSA, ELSPA) an even stronger position.