After recently rediscovering Zork, I’ve recalled another computer game I played in my childhood called “Capitalist Pig.” It’s at least ten years younger than Zork, as it actually had graphics (pretty good ones, I recall). The point of the game was that you have a business you have to run. It was along the lines of a “Sims Business.” Does anyone else recall this game? If so, can I download it for free legally somewhere (as abandonware)?
[obligatory]Abandonware isn’t free. Free software is freeware, or public domain. (Shareware isn’t free, either, y’know.) Abandonware is software that is still legally protected by copyright but whose publisher no longer sells the game. If they decided not to sell the game any more, that doesn’t mean it’s free to download. If they went out of business, that doesn’t mean it’s free to download. It’s only free to download if the copyright owner specifically says that (such as Activision did with Zork I, II, and III)[/obligatory]
That being said, I do remember playing the game on a friend’s Macintosh a decade or so ago, and it led to attempts to recapture that feeling by playing Business Tycoon, Entrepreneur, and Capitalism Plus.
It was so fun being a capitalist pig, though…
Try putting “capitalist pig” game in Google. What you want will be around the top of the second page.
Thanks for the direction, Jeff. Now I have uncovered a new problem – the download is for Mac. 
Thanks also, lno, for the information regarding abandonware. I had only heard of it through downloading Zork, and I didn’t realize it all wasn’t free.
Well, now you know how we Mac users have felt for years, whenever the Next Big Game passed over the Mac.
Now who’s laughing, huh? NOW WHO’S LAUGHING!?
;D
http://www.the-underdogs.org has just about everything that is abandonware or freeware, and links to the abandonware ring listed prominently on their front page. If it’s anywhere, it’s probably on one of those, as would be just about anything you’re looking for.
I’ve always found the continued effectiveness of copywrite AFTER a company discontinues a game to be sort of stupid. If the company isn’t going to produce the game anymore, they aren’t going to be making any money off of it anyway, so why all the whiney drama around abandonware? If there are people who’d like to play these older games, why the hell does the company have the right to just sit on their copywrite and prevent anyone from enjoying a piece of nostalgia from their childhood?
Yeah, yeah, yeah … 
The thing is, back in the day when we had the game, we didn’t have a Mac. Well, I’m pretty sure we didn’t, anyway.
I think that website hijacked my homepage when I went to it today.
Good advice, except in this case the only download they have is for Mac. It’s where I sent the OP via Google. Not a good idea to post a direct link what with the potential for copyright infringement.
You need to be very careful what you click on while at that site. I accidently installed some adware/spyware called IE Plugin once.
Why do they have the right to sit on the copyright? Because they do. It really is as simple as that.
Why should we have the right to force someone to sell a creative work that they no longer want to sell?
Some game publishers are sitting on copyrights for old games with the intention of selling them in a “Classics Pack” at some time in the future. If there’s a game that I really honestly want to buy and is not for sale, I drop an email to the publisher letting them know that there’s a potential sale out there. If enough people contact them (or so my naive belief goes) they’ll be encouraged to at the very least make the game available for a nominal fee.
As to the Underdogs, well, they’ve even got a game of mine for download there – I released it as freeware in 2002, and while I retain copyright over it, people are free to duplicate and download it as much as they want as long as the credits remain in place.
The nice part about the webmaster of that site is that she links to locations to buy the game (instead of offering a download) if it’s available anywhere, and removes the download links if contacted by the copyright owner. That doesn’t make it any more legal, but it does assuage some wounded consciences.
[sub]koff koff like mine[/sub]
No one is saying they should be forced to sell anything - only that if they choose not to distribute it, then other people should be allowed to distribute it instead.
Even worse. If they don’t want to sell it, then we should be allowed to just take it? In that case, if they had ever thought of selling it again, their hand is forced, and they have to sell it now.
It’s one thing to require people to enforce a trademark or risk dilution of the name – xerox, kleenex, tylenol – but I don’t think I could get behind your proposal.
That’s one way to look at it. Another is that since copyright is intended to help artists help the public (first by making their works available, second by ultimately releasing them into the public domain - which doesn’t really apply to software, considering the length of copyright terms), then if the copyright holder chooses to abuse his copyright by sitting on something instead of making it available, we ought to revoke it.
If you would rephrase your argument as saying that the duration of copyright is excessive and it should be reduced to a more reasonable term than the present “life of the creator + 70 years”, I’d agree with you completely. I haven’t a good idea what ‘more reasonable’ would be, though.
How about a link? What game did you write?
Well, for software, I’d say 10 years is a reasonable term. Any longer than that and you’d have trouble finding computers that can run it.
[Reported.]
I’m missing where the anger is directed. First, the post was 16 years old and second it is defending artist copyright.
xxx777 do you think that people should be able to just take anything they want?
Wow, glad to see this board is still around!
I think had a pretty good response to that point when lno first made it earlier in the thread, lo these many years ago.
But I think the way you’ve phrased it here obscures an important distinction between “taking” and “taking away”. I can’t speak for our rude new friend here, but personally, I’d say that yes, people should be able to take anything they want – as long as they’re not taking it away from someone else.
That isn’t the case for most products: if you take a can of beans off the store shelf, that’s one less can of beans for someone else to eat. But for software, and other copyrightable works, it is. If I have one copy of a program, and I give you another copy, I haven’t lost anything; now there are two copies.
Star Trek imagined a world where speaking a few words to the ship’s computer would let anyone “take” anything they wanted – any food or replicable object, any knowledge or cultural artifacts in the Federation’s database, any experiences the holodeck could recreate. Was it supposed to be a dystopia? If a Ferengi character had objected that it was wrong for everyone to have access to that stuff with no profit involved, would we be sympathetic?
In the sixteen years since this thread was started, I think we’ve seen overwhelming evidence that developing software (even games) can be a viable business even without a monopoly on distributing copies. I’ve made a career out of it.