[jl6]

> Playclassic.games does not intend to violate any copyright or violate any license of a game.

I thought there was a chance this site might have arranged licenses from the original publishers, funded by revenue from the (many) ads, but no, it appears to be good old fashioned piracy.

Edit: I tried Settlers, which has one of those copy-protection systems that involves entering information that can be found in the printed manual. Either I got very lucky, or this game has been cracked. Or, as the site euphemises it, “unblocked”.

Now, I’m sympathetic to the cause of video game preservation and use of abandonware, but the second you put ads around it and make money off it for yourself, you cross a line.

[coldpie]

Hard disagree. Severs aren't free to run. They're welcome to recoup those costs and even make a profit from providing a valuable service. Ethically they're doing nothing wrong by letting people play a 30-year-old game for free, even if they're in violation of our utterly insane copyright laws.

[Sargos]

A website costs a few bucks a month to run and the files should be distributed via BitTorrent anyway. This service could be funded by any single individual.

[coldpie]

Sounds like you're volunteering! Have fun!

[jl6]

I didn’t see any statement on the site that the ads and donations were ringfenced to cover server costs.

[coldpie]

Sure, I said they're welcome to make a profit.

[jagged-chisel]

Plus, intent isn’t relevant. If the copyright holder doesn’t pursue, you’re fine. If they base their decision on “intent,” then fine.

Infringement is infringement, intentional or not.

[troad]

There's been a trend of putting 'no copyright infringement intended' on top of blatant copyright infringement and thinking they're fine. This is nuts. Legally, it's about as sound a defence as chasing down a crossing guard in your car while shouting "no injury intended!"*

Copyright laws are nuts too, and I'm very empathetic to game preservation efforts, but this kind of boilerplate is legally nonsense. Don't make the mistake of thinking this in any way protects you, folks. It does nothing. If anything, you're indicating that you knew that the content was under copyright protection at the time you posted it and that you knew you didn't have permission to use it.

(* Not saying they're equivalent offences, just equally nonsensical defences!)

[jrm4]

Yeah, lawyer here.

I suppose (and this is absolutely not advice) another thing to consider is "likelihood that someone is going to take time out of their day to sue you."

Do with that what you will.