The German print magazine GameStar has a three-page article on 'libraries of nostalgia' in its current issue. Since most of you won't be able to buy or read it, here's a short synopsis (and a few comments from my side):

The article starts by defining 'Abandonware', doing so basically in the standard way, and (as expected) falling into the trap of calling it 'halfway legal' and a 'grey area' (which, of course, it isn't). It then goes on to name a few sites and a few example games.

Then, the copyright dillema is stated, using an interesting (but most likely irrelevant twist): It's not just illegal to spread and download copyrighted games, but one would have to get the approval of each person involved in producing the game (i.e. even dialogue authors and such). While the latter could be relevant for really old, independently produced games, it most certainly doesn't play a part for any piece of software which was made as a 'work for hire'. Still, a novel thought at least. The ESA is briefly mentioned, and again, the usual mistake: The article states (implicitely) that anything made by an ESA member isn't Abandonware.

Using a few quotes from yours truly, the article then talks about the question whether the game producers are waging an absurd kind of 'war' on their own fans and how far they're apparantely willing to go to prevent their games being offered on Abandonware sites. I had answered with a clear 'no', because first of all, I wouldn't call myself a fan of the companies currently producing games (because they're not producing anything I'm interested in), and second, the few remaining smaller publishers don't really have anything against their old games being copied. The second part of that answer is combined with another quote about cease & desist letters, fitting together nicely. So, even though I answered 'incorrectly' (in the sense which the article's author wanted to go at), he could still use it, even without distorting the meaning of the quotes too much.

The next part discusses the problems webmasters have to get heard by the companies. There are a few examples of companies which had apparantely forgotten about their own games (use the forum's search function to look for the cases of Dune and Conflict: Middle East ), making it hard to get their approval.

Another interesting aspect is touched next: Old games being re-packaged and released for newer consoles (X-Box and such). If you ask me, that's a whole topic for another day, though (my short comment: I'm not willing to buy some new high-powered system just to be able to play old games which just need the processing power of a toaster).

Finally, there are a few sentences about financing Abandonware sites and a 'black sheep' type site which sells downloads (and also links directly to other site's downloads).

On the whole, the article is very positive about the notion of Abandonware. Even to the degree one might call it one-sided. There isn't a single quote from a game producer or one of its representatives. Whether that's because they refused to comment or because they weren't asked is left open.

I've already mentioned a few inaccuracies, in addition, there are a few claims which I'd at least question strongly (they might have been made by other webmasters, though, so it's not just the author's fault). For example, it's stated that approximately 80% of the software on Abandonware sites are there with the approval of the authors.

The article avoids some questions. For example, there isn't a single line about why anyone would play such old games. Believe it or not: I like that. Even though (as you know) I firmly believe old games are by definition superior to new ones, I'm also perfectly aware that this is a discussion I can't win talking to a magazine whose business it is to tell their readership new games are great.

Anyway, nothing new to see there for people visiting here, of course, but this was written for a broader audience. And as an introduction, it's nice. Never too deep, but a good overview.