Abandonware

What happens when games disappear from sale? Publishers fold, rights become tangled, and software becomes unavailable through legitimate channels. Abandonware sites stepped into this gap, distributing games their creators had seemingly abandoned.

⚠ The legal position is clearer than the term suggests, and worth stating plainly. Distributing copyrighted software without permission is copyright infringement. It is not “technically” infringement, and “abandonware” is not a status recognised by any copyright system. Copyright does not lapse because a publisher folded, stopped selling, or never noticed — rights persist without being actively defended, and a rightsholder who has ignored a title for twenty years can still enforce it.

What is genuinely uncertain is different, and narrower: who owns a given title after decades of insolvencies and asset sales, and which exceptions apply — library and archive preservation provisions, personal backup rights, and fair use or fair dealing, all of which vary by country. That is where the real grey is.

Two definitions, and they do not agree

The community’s definition is the one at the top of this entry: software you can no longer buy. The trade body’s is close to the reverse.

Retro Gamer put the question to John Hillier of ELSPA’s Anti-Piracy Unit in 2005:

ELSPA defines abandonware as software which is still available, but on which further support and development has been deliberately discontinued.

Still available. The publishers’ term describes withdrawn support; the community’s describes withdrawn sale. Both were in circulation at the same time, which is part of why the word settles nothing.

The 2005 legal position, from the enforcers

Hillier’s answers cover exactly the claims this entry makes, and are worth having in the original words.

Age confers nothing. “No, as some companies may wish to release ‘old’ games at a later date… Other than the 50-year limit on copyright, the age of a game is not an issue.”

A dead publisher frees nothing. “In order for any software to be freely distributed, the permission of the copyright holder must be acquired, regardless of the age of the product or the status of the original IP owner. Often when a company ceases trading, the rights to the intellectual property are sold on.” His summary: “In the majority of cases, someone, somewhere usually owns the copyright, whether or not they do anything with it.”

Giving away and selling are different offences. Free distribution is “classed as a civil tort in the eyes of the law”, for the IP owner to pursue. Selling is criminal, “under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, both of which carry a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and unlimited fine.” That is the UK position as ELSPA stated it in 2005.

Permission has to be documented. Sites claiming to be legitimate would need “written approval from all the relevant copyright holders”, and Hillier doubted any could produce it “in respect of all games offered.”

Elite: when the authors disagree

The sharpest illustration that ownership is the hard part is not a case of a vanished publisher. It is a game with two living, findable authors.

Ian Bell put Elite on his own website for anyone to download. David Braben “disputed this, and originally insisted that it must not be made available for nothing.” Lawsuits followed in 1999 and “Bell’s website was even closed down following legal action.” It was restored later, and Braben stated he had no objection — while pointing out “that the Elite IP still belongs to Bell and himself.”

A co-author could not release his own game unilaterally. That is what “who owns this” means in practice.

The route that works

Rights holders did grant permission, and the period noted it: “Several commercial games have been made freely available to the public by their copyright holders. These include Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto, Revolution’s Beneath a Steel Sky and Sierra’s Tribes.”

Why enforcement arrived

The early sites operated on an unwritten rule: only host what is no longer sold or supported. It did not hold. As the archives grew, “sites started to offer commercially available titles, and games that were still actively supported by the original IP holder were available illegally. Soon the lines between abandonware and warez were blurred to such a degree that it was inevitable the authorities would step in.”

Many sites closed. Others changed shape — some began “to post links to official online resellers of games”, which is the pattern that survives.

Fast facts

Definition: Unavailable commercial software.
Legal status: Not a legal category. Copyright applies as it does to any other software.
Purpose: Preservation, access.
Era: 1997 onwards (term coined).

What qualifies

Criterion	Typical standard
Commercial status	No longer sold
Publisher status	Often defunct
Age	Community convention, often 5+ years — no legal significance
Enforcement	Not actively defended — which does not end the copyright

Legal reality

Position	Status
Copyright	Still applies
Enforcement	Rarely pursued
Defence	“Abandoned” is not a legal term and is not a defence
Risk	Real. Rarely pursued for obscure titles, but injunctions and damages remain available

Preservation argument

Point	Counter
Cultural heritage	Still copyrighted
No commercial harm	Owner’s choice
History access	Libraries exist
Platform death	Emulation issues

Notable sites

Site	Focus
Home of the Underdogs	Reviews + downloads
Abandonia	DOS games
MyAbandonware	Multi-platform

Industry response

Approach	Example
Ignore	Most common
Takedowns	Occasional
Re-release	GOG.com model
Open source	id Software

GOG.com alternative

Model	Benefit
Legal purchases	Rights cleared
DRM-free	Consumer-friendly
Compatibility	Updated for modern systems
Preservation	Commercial solution

Cultural significance

Impact	Manifestation
Gaming history	Accessible to researchers
Nostalgia	Players find favourites
Education	Development study

Preserving forgotten games