TO BRING LAWSUIT. not to keep the copyright.
"
It is a common misconception to confuse copyright registration with the granting of copyright. Copyright in most countries today is automatic on "fixation" – it applies as soon as the work is fixed in some tangible medium. This standard is established internationally by the Berne Convention (1886), which most countries have signed onto since. Registration may be required by countries before joining Berne. For instance, the US required registration of copyrighted works before it signed onto the Berne Convention in 1989; at that point, registration was no longer required for works to be copyrighted in the US.

The observation that registration is not required in the United States, however, has been described as misleading.[2]:86–87 This is partly because registration remains a prerequisite to filing an infringement suit,[2]:87 and also because important remedies depend on prompt registration—such as attorneys fees and statutory damages.[2]:90 At least one commentator has questioned whether the conditioning of legal recourse on registration is inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Berne Convention regarding "formalities
"
Additionally I question your thought process about old games not being registered. Why not? Surely 99% are registered.
http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/zork-screen_5.jpg

as example of 35 year old game.

Yep, all good points and links. In particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware#Law has a decent summary.

The rights transfer to whomever acquires the failed company's assets. I'm not sure if there is a case where that would not happen, but if there is I'm not sure about a grey area like that. If it is just for the purposes of intellectual exercise I would research it online, however if it were a legitimate concern that I was faced with concerning a legal decision I needed to make about such a case I would not consult random opinions online about it, but rather an IP attourney. IP attourney's aren't cheap for actual advice, but you can get some tips from them if you happen to have one in your elbow-rubbing roster. :)

One more thing I should add on such a situation that popped into my mind from a conversation with an attourney in the past, is that copyright rights are the sole ownership of the copyright holder and nobody else has any rights unless the copyright holder grants them explicitly. This means that rights do not transfer to others via assumptions and implications, they must be stated in writing and individually list each right being granted in the form of a license (ie: our modern EULAs). If a license does not explicitly grant you a specific right, then you do not have that right. Since rights do not transfer implicitly to others ever, even in the death of a company to which their copyrights are not bought or otherwise acquired via another entity via a proper written legal transfer of rights, they do not transfer to anyone else either. I'd have to ask to get an official legal word on it, but past experiences with copyright related issues suggests to me that nobody would be granted rights to use the copyrighted work in question but unless a legal owner could step forward with documentation showing they were the owner, there wouldn't be anyone that would have the legal ownership that could step forward to sue for infringement either.

If that were the case, it would be a legal grey area rather than someone being officially granted a right implicitly somehow. Of course, IANAL so nobody should ever do such a thing without consulting one first.

Another thing worth noting, is that online discussions concerning opinions about copyright law often focus on the laws of the United States of America. If the matters in question are solely confined to the USA, that is fine, however often the discussions are more general than that, or involve a specific copyrighted work of which the owners are not within American jurisdiction, and the potential infringers may not be either. In such a situation US laws hold no jurisdiction or meaning. The only relevant legalese is the Berne Convention itself, and the laws of the country that have jurisdiction on the copyrighted work, and potentially those of a potential infringer.

Copyright laws of most countries around the world are in accordance to the Berne Convention since somewhere around 2000-2001 or so (I forget exactly), and many other places prior to that. Individual country's laws build upon the Berne Convention and may convey additional rights etc. One such thing I'm aware of is in Germany, where you always retain copyright of a work even if you sell or transfer it to another entity. I don't remember what that is called under German law, only that I encountered it once a long time ago. The German attourney said that the German legal concept in question could be thought of what we might call a "birth right" in terminology here even though we have no such legal concept (in Canada nor the US AFAIK). I thought this was an interesting aspect of German law (circa 2004 or so, but I presume that's still valid today). Thought I'd share this info also as I found it rather interesting that you can sell your copyrighted work in Germany and yet still retain legally protected rights to it yourself that you can't give up, which is unlike how things work over here. :)

In the context of the larger conversation here, if it were a video game made by a German developer that went belly up and the rights did not pass on to a usurping company, perhaps the original author of the code or their heirs would own the rights under German law, although that's pure speculation on my part. The laws of individual countries or regions definitely make such global discussions take on increasing complexity to say the least. :)

Ok at least you read it ;)

And you are wrong, the US (and not only the US) IS requiring a registration BEFORE you can file a lawsuit, which is NOT against the Berne convention at all. Last recognised by the EU court against MS. They did not want to publish the source code, hence no legal claim and a rather hefty fine.

As in any legal case the courts needs facts, how shall a court decide upon who has the copyright IF there is no proof? THIS overrides ANY other idea! The idea of berne was mainly as you mentioned correctly for physical stuff, like a book, you can open it and see it yourself, the physical proof is there. But SW does not fulfill this requirement at all.

Reminder, ever heard about netscape? You might want to read up on it! It involves this stuff as well.

What companies are claiming to have is one thing, and yes you are so far right that like zork is protected by copyright, but a right which they can not claim in court, unless the prerequisite is fulfilled. Don't forget, ideas are NOT protected by copyright, but that is what a lot of people are confusing!

Only the game, the code itself is protected! Like in a book, the text. And how shall any judge decide upon, if the side claiming violation, never ever bothered about publishing it in the first place? Why do you think re-engineering is not allowed in EULA's? They are trying to mix patent/copyright/whatever themselves, but nobody till now (first one EU against MS and netscape) did pick this concept apart!!!!

So again, please show me, where any company fulfilled the above mentioned requirement of publication? And by the way, it would need to be PUBLIC!!!!! ANOTHER prerequisite even according to Berne.....

To stay with your example: You can not claim copyright for a book which you never published. The burden of proof, that it is your work would be on your site, not the others. Hence the publication requisite. And publishing the game is NOT it. despite them claiming otherwise, that only fulfills patent/trademark whatever, but that is not what the companies are trying to claim, as those right already expired long time ago.

So again, you claim that the companies did register it, still waiting for any publication from you, as you would need to prove it, not me ;)
Again you are claiming that they DO have the legal copyright status, which they don't as just mentioned above. And I have never seen a case where this was really put forward, all sides assumed it, but they never showed it! Exception EU court against MS and netscpae.

And for the rest of your part: cutting it a bit short ;)

If you never really possessed it in the first place, you do not give any permission anyway.

But if you do have a lawyer around, just ask him about what I stated, not sure if he ever thought about it himself. A copyright specialist would know for sure, but not (necessarily) a IP one. Two different aspects of the same thing ;)

And why are we talking about US law, quite simple, as this is the law most companies claim to have the proper copyright from!!!! (not joking!!!!).

And according to Berne this would transfer copyright over to the world, SO LONG the fulfillments are there, which they aren't.

EDIT: Wrong, read Berne again!!!!! If the place of origin is placing laws they are applicable as well!!!!!

Dear friends i to aplogoloise for the to go my way for english but on Togo make him so to go to guide OK and for to spellerchekig i go to is guide

TO
FILL
A
LAWSUIT

not to have copyright! You get copyright when work is created in tangible form. you have to register the copyrighted work before you can sue someone for ripping you off but it does not mean your work is not protected you are still talking about lawsuits not whether stuff is protected under copyright. stop it.
stop bringing up some random example without actually explaining why it is valid to discussion. what about netscape? What?
Old games were published. they were sold and bought. so how abandonware game be abandoned if it was publish. what the heck are you talking about? YES YOU CAN!
You get copyright the moment the work is put in tangible medium. That is the law. We cited that before

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created,
and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or
phonorecord for the first time

thats from copyright office official document.

Registration allows one to sue others if they breach it. but you can

"Registration may be made at any time within the life of
the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has
been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to
make another registration when the work becomes published,
although the copyright owner may register the published
edition, if desired"

it is just easier to get damages if you register within first five years. but you can do that anytime after that period. a) why wouldnt they register. even in eighties video games were hundreds of millions of dollars industry. so why would they not do that
b)I provided you 35 year old game notice of copyright. so that means it was registered
c) what difference it makes. still does not mean those games are abandoned and hence can be legally shared. it just means that owner of the rights will not sue you.
d) http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/doctitles.cgi?V2937P085
here.


Sources:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
http://www.copyright.gov/records/index.html

You do understand that you're just wasting your time, yes?

yeah you are right. last thing im out

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=wizardry&Search_Code=TALL&SL=Submit%26TYPE%3Dmm%7C6&CNT=25&PID=dNu13mPde1PmbjGhuVRo8tvUibwB&SEQ=20160916110658&SID=12

At both of you:

You claim they have copyright, which is only debatable in front of court. They do not meet the requirements, hence your point is mood.

Again making a false claim, does not validate the claim. A bogus claim is still a bogus claim. And as the whole discussion was about legal we are talking about meeting the requirements of the legal system.

I gave enough examples, if you ever bothered to read up on it, but you insist on being right on bogus claims.

I gave you the links which are the underlying concepts of what is needed to claim copyright, you didn't bother reading or understanding, you don't even now what a publication is.

To just cite one example of yours: What has this do to with copyright? Trademark, patent, yes, BUT NOT COPYRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I give it a last try:

You write a book, do you have copyright?

NO, read why

You posted it your self

You publish the book ONLY in a encrypted format.

Does it mean, you have copyright?

See above.

AND NOW FOR ONCE THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!

AND I KEPT ASKING THE WHOLE TIME, WHY IS MUSIC/GAMES TREATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT:

The game IS NOT copyright protected! Is a hammer copyright protected? Is a car copyright protected? Is any physical object treated this way? (Excluding art out of obvious reasons)

Not legal, but no one gives a shit.

Ok, this thread has derailed to silliness now.