Make:

This is pretty neat, I wish he had done due dilligence and gotten permission.
His copyright statement on his page is a rambling "I dont know who owns the copyright, so it must be ok"

just because he doesnt know who bought broderbund or because no one has re-released the software for non- C-64 platforms, doesnt mean the artwork in the program is not copyrighted. These models are under copyright until at least 2050. This guy has no right to publish them on the web.

He's a copyright/software pirate, plain and simple.
He should
A. find the copyright owner and get permission and take down his website until he does.
B. Design his own original models.
Make shouldn't be encouraging this.

Reply to this comment

Posted by: boerner on August 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Matt,

I was the one who sent the link to Make for inclusion on the Make blog after half a day of racking my brain trying to remember the software title I liked so much when I was 12.

After I stumbled on to the aforementioned website, I very pleased to see that the work and effort that had gone into the product had been preserved for others to see. The product came out in 1986, and has long since been discontinued. I only found one copy of the Apple II version on eBay for $75 yesterday (someone will probably beat me to buy now...).

I would have no problem paying Broderbund or the original developers for their work, but I have no way to do so. This is the case with many old pieces of software many many large publishers. I still cherish the copy of Marble Drop by Maxis (before EA bought them), but it can no longer be bought and is considered abandonware.

I see this website as a preservation or an archive of what was (and still is) a great work. It can now be enjoyed by future generations. The website is also providing the information for free and is not attempting to profit from someone else's work.

Perhaps this publicity will encourage Broderbund or another publisher to re-make the package for modern PCs?

Reply to this comment

Posted by: boerner on August 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

It might be impossible to even figure out who owns the copyrights...according to Wikipedia, Broderbund has been bought/sold/acquired many times since 1998.

If I had more time/resources, it would be interesting to track down who actually owns the rights and/or the original creators of the work to see what they think.

I can't imagine they would mind. I would hope they would be flattered :-)

There was a TV series called the Secret Life of Machines that aired on the BBC in the 80's by Tim Hunkin. It isn't really available on DVD. He actually encourages people to download the videos from file sharing sites and bittorrent so people can still enjoy them. Great way to look at it in my opinion.

BTW, even the NY Times liked Toy Shop when it was first put out:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/04/science/personal-computers-making-your-own-toys.html?&pagewanted=all

Reply to this comment

I say good on him for preserving stuff like this. I too remember this 'game' from my early Apple II computer days.

The copyright laws have been subverted from their original purpose (to preserve cultural history). Matt, if this has to remain hidden until 2050 when the current copyright expires (and if the corporations have their way that will be extended) as you seem to suggest there won't be anyone about who remembers it and it will be lost!

As Jimmy says there are legal ways the copyright holders can deal with this (stupid as the DCMA is). With a bit of luck they try it, more people hear about it and realise how their cultural heritage is being stolen from them and take 'back up' copies so stuff like this doesn't disappear!

Reply to this comment

In my opinion, the copyright law is wrong, but Matt is correct. The laws are designed to protect companies who have worked to create marketable merchandise. The laws have been and will continue to be extended to protect the interests of companies whose characters and product, though created in the twenties, continue to be relevant and make money. I have no issue with this. However, I believe the laws are too broad. If a company fails to make a product available, it clearly no longer has value to the company and should, after a period of time, fall into the hands of society. Additionally, if a company can even be tracked down, in this situation it is no longer a company, it is an asset purchased by company after company, and anyone looking to secure approval will likely be shot down simply because, being an asset, even if not being used, it is wise to protect it, 'just in case.' Additionally, many companies feel the cost of filing paperwork for permission is simply too extravagant to warrant the consideration. It's a shame, the law needs a revision, but without some strong arms in Washington, it isn't likely to happen anytime soon; the pockets of the entertainment industry lobbyists who push for the expansion of this law are just too deep.

That aside, even if one were able to acquire this software secondhand, and acquire the computers necessary, the ability to use it is hindered immensely by the fact the computers and printers are no longer supported. Simply, you can no longer buy ink cartridges for the printers supported by the software. The blogger details his great pains to capture these images in a digital format rather than an analog one, and it is clearly a difficult labor of love, not simply a matter of pirating and plagiurizing. He gives full credit and receives zero compensation.

Reply to this comment

I'll be the first commenter to not complain about the copyright laws and mention that I have two original copies of Print Shop in the original boxes sitting here. One day I'll actually get around to plugging in the Apple IIgs and laying with it.

Reply to this comment