Are these games legal to download?

-Alone in the Dark 1 - 
-Descent - 
-Ecoquest - 
-Ecoquest 2 - 
-Jack in the Dark - 
-Little Big Adventures: Twinsens's Adventure - 
-Prince of Persia - 
-UFO Enemy Unknown - 
-Veil of Darkness

They are technically illegal.They fall into a grey area known as
abandonware.The site owners that host these games will usually remove
them if requested by their lawful owners.You will probably not be able
to buy them anywhere either.

Read more here http://www.the-underdogs.org/faq.php

The 'legal status of abandonware' is unclear (you can check using that
phrase on Google) at this time.  If you want a legal answer, a lawyer
would be the right person to go to.

For practical purposes, try buying the games first. If they are in
fact abandonware, downloading and using them still respects the intent
of the copyright (but perhaps  not the letter of the law, which
probably needs a revision).  If the copyright holder wants you to stop
using it or pay for it, be ready to do that (or pay whatever
reasonable price for its past/continued use).

If the worst happens and you get sued, where are they going to find a
jury that will convict? :)

Dear mister2u-ga,

Thanks for the link to the underdogs site--I am a copyright and
Internet lawyer, and I confess with embarrassment that I had not heard
the term abandonware until I read your post and the FAQs.  Most
interesting!

From your comment, I assume that you know or understand where
movieman89 is going to get these games.  Do you know for sure that the
various publishers have discontinued them and that they are indeed
"abandonware?" (I am assuming the publisher is the entity or person
that actually owns the copyright).  I ask because under copyright law,
and assuming that these are works made for hire, the copyright in them
last for 95 years from the date of first publication (the date they
were released to the public).  So, unless (a) the publisher has
actively, volitionally surrendered the copyright and released the
games to the public domain, (b) a court has determined that there is
no valid copyright in the games for one of a variety of legal or
factual reasons, (c) the sites from which movieman89 downloads them
has a license from the publishers, or (d) movieman89's downloading
them is a fair use under copyright law, then I agree with you that
downloading them is likely copyright infringement.

Athena4, I am intrigued by your comment that "downloading and using
them still respects the intent of the copyright (but perhaps not the
letter of the law, which probably needs a revision)."  What did you
mean by that?   There is no legal basis for your position; if one or
more of the four above exceptions are not present, the act of
downloading them is by definition an act of copyright infringement.

Regards,
IPFan

From your comment, I assume that you know or understand where
movieman89 is going to get these games.  Do you know for sure that the
various publishers have discontinued them and that they are indeed
"abandonware?" 
These games are generally considered abandonware.In the case of Prince
of Persia the game is still being made,it's the older versions that
are no longer being sold.With some abandonware the company that made
them no longer exists.For the most part the legality is a non issue
except in cases where the copywrite owner specifically requests a game
not be distributed(and it does happen).Most companies don't care about
a product which thet no longer sell.

Abandonware is defined differently by different people. Home of the
Underdogs defines it as games that have been discontinued due to poor
sales. This is different than the traditional definition (at least
when I was younger), which is as follows:

A discontinued game where the copyright holder no longer exists as a
legal entity, or cannot be located.

By this definition, Athena4's comment is completely accurate.
According to the United States Constitution, copyright serves to
enhance the public good by allowing creators to profit from their
works as an incentive to create. If a copyright holder is dead,
dissolved, or otherwise unlocatable, distributing abandonware does not
hurt the copyright holder, creates no disincentive for creators to
create, and the public good is served, having received creative work.
The purpose of copyright is served, but it's still illegal!

On the other hand, the common interpretation of abandonware is an
excuse for copyright infringement. For many of the games listed above,
the copyright holder is still around. Their rights are intact. They
could, at their discretion, choose to release these games again,
perhaps for a portable platform. For example, consider Atari 2600
games: Many people considered these games abandonware. After all, they
were no longer available, after many years, being perceived as
unviable. However, the copyright is still in effect on them. These
games have recently been rereleased for platforms such as pocketPC and
cellphones, which they are well-suited for. I believe this
demonstrates that the common interpretation of abandonware is not
valid, as old games are still perfectly viable in many cases. That a
publisher chooses not to release one game or another is irrelevant; it
is their property to do with as they wish (though it may not serve the
public good to do so.)

The real question abandonware asks is, is it sane for copyright to be
almost a hundred years, survive the creator's death, and be extended
indefinitely whenever Mickey Mouse comes up for copyright expiration?
It clearly contradicts the constitutionally stated purpose of
copyright, but I guess it's pretty nice if you're a multi-billion
dollar copyright holder.

Every one of these games have been invented in the last hundred years,
all of them are undercopyright unless someone can post a link to an
explicit statement from the copyright holder releasing the game into
the public domain. Otherwise none of them are technically legal to
download.

Dear lacus_odii ("Lake of Hatred"?  Yikes!),

Excellent observations.  You may enjoy reading the opinion at
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/sprigman/archives/order2.pdf since
it supports the position in your third paragraph, that it's still
illegal despite the Constitutional imperative regarding profit motive.

The atari games I always saw for pcoket pc were simply emulators where
you used illegally downloaded ROMs of games to play.

ipfan-ga asked " Athena4, I am intrigued by your comment that
"downloading and using them still respects the intent of the copyright
(but perhaps not the
letter of the law, which probably needs a revision)." "

I didn't mean to start an argument (and hence the suggestion to see a
lawyer) and was suggesting a reasonable, practical way to use those
works.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution (1787) says
that the US Congress shall have the power "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries;" - the key phrase for me in this case being "to promote" 
rather than deny it to the people.

Of course, it is all opinion/interpretation till tested in courts, but
my suggestion stands the reasonable-person test.    (You may also want
to check out "Jury Nullification".)

it's illegal. most everything is. espically when it comes to computers.

Of Course ...
This Games Are To Old And The Producers Alowed to Play them Free 
So We Can Download them Free And Play

No downloading these games is illegal. I would contact Game Instinct
for available options: http://www.gameinstinct.com/services.html