Is ROM Collecting Wrong, or Just Misunderstood?

An anonymous reader writes "Game Bunker has posted an interesting article on whether you should own roms or not. With the latest piracy concerns, I think it's a good topic to bring up." The various writers at Game Bunker do a good job of showing the different sides of this issue, with some siding with industry while others, like most of us, merely want to play old games without having to dig up an ancient console.

Comments

Doesn't change the law

[Sancho]

A few opinions on the subject doesn't change the law. Copyright violations are illegal. Morality is a different issue.

Many people mistake copyright as being about money--it's not. It's about control. If a company doesn't want people playing their games anymore...well they can't stop those who have already purchased legitimate copies of those games, but they can stop future people from buying the games by stopping production. That doesn't give the public the right to pirate the games.

That said, I don't think anyone has any moral problem with pirating NES roms since, frankly, you can't get the games anymore. But older, classic games being included in newer products (the original Metroid on the Metroid Prime disc, for example) and even Atari games being bundled with a controller that plugs directly into a TV's AV inputs really prove that there is still money to be made with these old games, and it muddies the moral dilemma.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Schnapple]

Right, well this is a different issue than, say, MP3's in my opinion. If Nintendo were still coming out with NES games and they were pirated almost instantly, then I can see why there would be bigger isses with ROMs.

Back when feasible emulation first started out Nintendo and others put the smack down on ROM web sites - especially sites by "big time" operations like GameSpy's ClassicGaming.com. They came down on emulators as illegal, but they've amended that stance. I think once the initial emulation hype died down the only people still interested in emulation were the ones who could go find the ROMs anyway. If Nintendo were the RIAA they would be hunting down and destroying computers and P2P networks and suing the pants off of those who download Donkey Kong. They're not. They can't condone it - so places like Mame.dk get knocked out. But they realize it's counterintuitive to try and eradicate it, so they let the people who would go download an old copy of Zelda 2 do what they want. And I think most true old school gamers would much rather pay $5 to the small time video game shop for a cart than play an emulator any day.

Ironically this bit of piracy I alluded to earlier still happens - whenever a new GBA game comes out the ROM image is all over the Internet almost automatically. However, the number of people who would play the game on their PC in lieu of on a real GBA is small - witness the number of GBA's sold, hell, GBA SP's sold, and games sold in the last three years. And notice who Nintendo goes after. Not the people ripping the games or making the emulators (past tactics of theirs) but rather the people who make and/or sell the cart linkers. It's not a problem until or unless the ROMs can be played on an actual GBx/GBA.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[ichimunki]

That doesn't give the public the right to pirate the games.

Actually, the public has a natural right to use, dissassemble, reassemble, copy, share, tinker with, and destroy the software/games/music/books/photos it obtains. In the U.S. this is even recognized in the Constitution, which required a special clause to allow Congress to create copyrights and patents. The idea was that the public needed to bargain away some of its rights in order to encourage authors and publishers to do their thing. Of course, now that we've bargained away our natural rights (well, I didn't do it, and neither did you, but we're stuck with the decision to do so made by some guys who died 200 years ago), what you say is true. I just wanted to clarify. :)

Re:Doesn't change the law

[PainKilleR-CE]

A few opinions on the subject doesn't change the law. Copyright violations are illegal. Morality is a different issue.

Many people mistake copyright as being about money--it's not. It's about control. If a company doesn't want people playing their games anymore...well they can't stop those who have already purchased legitimate copies of those games, but they can stop future people from buying the games by stopping production. That doesn't give the public the right to pirate the games.

Fortunately for most of us, there's no copyright issue involved in downloading a ROM for a game we already own. At best, there may be a violation of a license agreement in playing the game on a platform for which it was not released (ie an emulator), and in many cases those types of agreements did not exist on the original cartridges. MAME may in some cases be a different situation, as those involve emulation of arcade machines, but even then there are cases where those games were offered on other platforms as well.

You do not violate copyright by downloading or otherwise moving content to another medium for personal use. You violate it by downloading or otherwise copying content of which you do not have a legal copy, or by making copies available to those that do not have legal copies (which is where the whole debate comes from in the first place).

I despise the fact that so many people (especially copyright holders) believe that people use P2P software (or other distribution methods) only to download material of which they do not or never will own legal copies. Personally, I would never own a copy of Metallica's new album if my only exposure to it were through the single song they currently have on the radio and MTV, but if I could listen to the other songs through one method or another, I might buy it (especially since it's dirt cheap compared to other CDs right now). Normally I'd listen to a friend's CD, but thanks to their last two studio efforts, I don't know anyone that would buy one of their CDs any more.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Artemis P. Fonswick]

And I think most true old school gamers would much rather pay $5 to the small time video game shop for a cart than play an emulator any day.

But is there really much of a difference between buying a used cart than just downloading the ROM? (Honestly, I have no idea...does the publisher ever see any money from used game sales?)

And irrelevent to what you posted (because I agree with most of what you said), I consider myself a "true old school gamer" and would much rather play Atari and NES games on an emulator hooked up to my TV. The Atari stick and tiny NES pad may have a deep sentimental value, but my sexy Sidewinder never cramps up my fingers.
Plus, I never have to blow on a ROM to get it to work.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Schnapple]

does the publisher ever see any money from used game sales?

Nope. This is why, for more recent games, game stores love used games - they keep everything above the price they paid to the person who sold them the used game. This is also why, when music stores started to carry used CD's, they got all kinds of hell from the RIAA.

I guess I was really alluding to the fact that most people like having lots of old carts, the systems for nostalgia, and the fact that you never have to worry about the quality of the emulator if you have the "real thing"

Plus, I never have to blow on a ROM to get it to work.

Depends on what kinds of games you're into.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people mistake copyright as being about money--it's not. It's about control. If a company doesn't want people playing their games anymore...well they can't stop those who have already purchased legitimate copies of those games, but they can stop future people from buying the games by stopping production. That doesn't give the public the right to pirate the games.

It is about money. The only reason for copyright is to reward people who contribute (eventually) to the public domain, thus promoting the public domain.

The very idea of a copyright holder stopping people from getting these games is the exact opposite of the reason for having those rights. It's an abuse.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[DavidTC]

In what universe is 'control' the justification for copyright law?

The point of copyright law is NOT to let artists control their work. It is to reward artists for giving their work out, and thus hopefully encourage more work.

Any company that refuses to give their work out has basically already broken their end of the arrangement. In times past, the work would fall into public domain after a few years...but no work does that anymore. Sadly, there's not a way for that to void the contract under current copyright law...but there should be. As copyright law has been entirely taken over by giant corporations, though, I doubt we'll ever see that.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

But is there really much of a difference between buying a used cart than just downloading the ROM?

You mean besides the fact that one is illegal and the other is not?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[lightspawn]

You do not violate copyright by downloading or otherwise moving content to another medium for personal use.

Am I violating content by (to coin a phrase) "platform shifting"? If I paid for, say, Pac Man (it must have been in 3-4 classic game collections / updates I bought over the last few years) and I can legally play it on the PC, Dreamcast and gamecube, am I "entitled" to play it on MAME?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[PyroMosh]

Yeah, I love that! The law is so stupid!

You can even kill people without having to go to jail by outsmarting the law!

You see, it's legal to kill tresspassers, so I just put up "no tresspassing" signs on my lawn (I have a house on a street corner) and when people cut across my lawn (even an inch or two!) I shoot them with my rifle from my attic window! Sure the cops always show up, but I just tell them "They were tresspassing, so technically it was legal for me to kill them." and they just go "ohhh! Yeah, we'll get these bodies out of here for you now." and leave.

IT'S PERFECT, JUST LIKE YOUR IDEA THAT BUYING A THING ONCE ENTITLES YOU TO DOWNLOAD COPIES OF IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR EVER!!!!!!!

Aren't we both just so clever?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Anonvmous Coward]

"But older, classic games being included in newer products (the original Metroid on the Metroid Prime disc, for example) and even Atari games being bundled with a controller that plugs directly into a TV's AV inputs really prove that there is still money to be made with these old games, and it muddies the moral dilemma."

Except for those of us who had already paid for those games ages ago, there are no moral issues. They got their money.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Artemis P. Fonswick]

That's my point.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[rthille]

> Many people mistake copyright as being > about money--it's not. It's about control. Not according to the constitution. According to the founding fathers, it's about promoting the science and the arts:

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;

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Drgnkght]

But is there really much of a difference between buying a used cart than just downloading the ROM?

Yes, there is a difference. A used cartridge was part of a series of some number of cartridges. The copyright holder, for better or worse, decided to make that many copies of their work. No matter how many times that used cartridge is resold, the copyright holder authorized the original production of that cartridge. There will always be, at most, the original number of that particular cartridge. Thus there are no unauthorized copies. (Ignoring the possibility of counterfeit copies.)

Re:Doesn't change the law

[hawkstone]

I don't think I'm reading too much into it, but I believe what he was saying was that if you bought MarioBros for NES, then you download the SAME ROM as the one you already physically have on a cartridge, that's the same thing as extracting the ROM from your cartridge. Thus, if it's legal to extract the ROM from your cartridge, it's legal to download the same ROM from online. (Whether or not the law agrees may be a little unclear.)

Also, he did explicitly say MAME may be a different situation. The exception he pointed out was that some were released on other platforms. There are exact examples of this: many arcade machines (e.g. NEO-GEO?) use the same hardware as a home platform, and the ROM will be essentially unchanged between what the arcade had and the home version had. Thus if you owned the home version, the arcade ROM was the same under copyright law. But again, this was an exception he pointed out, not the rule.

I think you're trying to disagree with what was never said.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[lightspawn]

I think you're trying to disagree with what was never said.

Actually, I was asking a question.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[hawkstone]

Oh... sorry, then. I was just annoyed that most of the "insightful" comments in the topic were all of the opinion that owning a ROM was always piracy, no questions asked. Yours merely struck me because I finally found a comment that presented the opposite side of the story reasonably well, and it looked like you were trying to disagree with one of its less significant points.

Your question read more like incredulity to me, by the way. So again, I apologize.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Sancho]

If you're talking about my "insightful" comment (the one that spurned this particular thread) then you need to learn to interpret better. For one, the article (which is solely composed of people's opinions on ROM collecting and seems to have little to no legal basis) discusses, among other things, obtaining roms that are difficult, if impossible to find cartridges for. As I said, copyright is about control. If you can't buy it legally, it doesn't make it legal to pirate it. That was the point of my post.

In fact, most of the time when people are talking about "downloading X intellectual property" they're almost always talking about copying content for which they have not paid. But even in cases where they are talking about downloading something they "already own", the law isn't clear on whether or not that is illegal. Lots of people say that it is legal, but there's no legal basis for that. It's something that doesn't come up much because copyright holders almost always focus on the uploaders rather than the downloaders. I absolutely don't think that it's morally wrong, but take the following example:

Suppose I buy a cassette tape of Metallica's Black album. Does that give me the right to download the mp3s, which are almost certainly of higher quality? What about if the RIAA actually did start selling mp3s. Does just owning the CD entitle me to bootlegging those mp3s? I don't think it's nearly as clear as many people try to make it.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Mysticalfruit]

Huh?

I own a copy of "Burger Time" for the Intellivision. My intellivision is no longer functioning, but it's sitting there in the box along with my frogger atari game.

Now, I could go out and buy a prom reader and backup my copy of Burger Time. This is perfectly legal.

Now I can setup a mame emulator on my linux box and play Burger Time until my hearts content.

However, it's illegal for me to go and drop that rom image on my anonymous FTP server because I've gone from backing it up to distributing it.

Now, maybe I'm totally off base... if so, oh well.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Sancho]

Things change. Millions of court cases and extra laws on the subject have changed the point of copyright. You can go all the way back to the constitution, but if you ignore everything but the basics then there are lots of things that don't make sense. Like the original founding fathers didn't want women to be able to vote. I guess that you feel the same way, since you think that only the original definition matters.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[PainKilleR-CE]

You see, it's legal to kill tresspassers, so I just put up "no tresspassing" signs on my lawn (I have a house on a street corner) and when people cut across my lawn (even an inch or two!) I shoot them with my rifle from my attic window! Sure the cops always show up, but I just tell them "They were tresspassing, so technically it was legal for me to kill them." and they just go "ohhh! Yeah, we'll get these bodies out of here for you now." and leave.

Just a hint, drag the bodies into your house and make sure they can't figure out the people were in your lawn when you shot them. It's also a good idea to shoot them in the face so the cops don't think they were attempting to leave your house when you shot them. You'll still get taken in and have to go to trial, but as long as you can prove they were in your house and you didn't invite them there, you're within your rights to have shot them.

IT'S PERFECT, JUST LIKE YOUR IDEA THAT BUYING A THING ONCE ENTITLES YOU TO DOWNLOAD COPIES OF IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR EVER!!!!!!!

Actually, it's perfectly legal for you to do if you still have your original copy. Look up fair use laws sometime, you can make copies for personal use all day, and there's no difference in the eyes of the law whether you made the copy yourself or had someone else make the copy for you. Now, if you can't prove that you own the game, you're screwed, just like you would be if the RIAA found that Britney Spears CD you downloaded last week on your hard drive but you didn't have the actual CD.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[PainKilleR-CE]

Am I violating content by (to coin a phrase) "platform shifting"? If I paid for, say, Pac Man (it must have been in 3-4 classic game collections / updates I bought over the last few years) and I can legally play it on the PC, Dreamcast and gamecube, am I "entitled" to play it on MAME?

Actually, I somewhat wonder about that myself. If the actual game is unchanged from one platform to another, does it matter whether the ROM I downloaded is the same as the ROM I own a cartridge (or other disc) for? I think the safest way to go is to stick with the same ROM (ie use an NES emulator to play NES games), because you never know what the copyright owner will come up with as differences between say the arcade and NES version of Donkey Kong.

Unfortunately, the law isn't completely clear. What is clear, though, is that if you have the same exact item, you're fine, just like you're perfectly fine if you copy your vinyl onto CD. What has yet to be clarified in music, though (in a way that's similar to your ROM question) is whether or not you can copy someone else's CD if the content is the same as that of your vinyl records. If the content hasn't been 'remastered', you're probably on much safer grounds with this than if it was 'remastered', even though it's the same songs with the same copyright holders.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[hawkstone]

Actually, no, I wasn't referring to yours in particular. Yours was quite well stated. I was referring to the fact that most of the highly-moderated comments at the time were "Of course you can't download ROMs, it ILLEGAL!!!!" It's not as though yours and the others were not correct or insightful, it's that they never actually stated the assumption that we were talking about downloading ROMs which the downloader does not own.

Certainly there are a great number of people downloading a great number of ROMS for which they never owned a physical version of. But there are legitimate reasons for downloading ones you do own. I have dozens of Amiga games I've bought, and with the right hardware/software, I could extract all those floppies to my Win32 hard drive and run them with an emulator. I'd rather not deal with my old Amiga hardware anymore.

The post by PainKilleR-CE was one of the only ones to present this argument, and although he (she?) seemed more sure of the copyright laws than I would be comfortable asserting, I felt it was still well phrased. The response to it appeared to be missing the point (although that was apparently just my own interpretation) so I felt like maybe I could help clarify some of his arguments. Enough of the meta-discussion, however... let's get back on topic.

As to your question about Black. First, we know what the RIAA's answer would be and can move on to fact and reason. If you have a cassette tape and download the MP3, and we make the assumption that the CD cost more, then you might consider that the CD cost more because it was higher quality, and it is very questionable whether or not you can legally download the higher quality MP3.

Now suppose I bought the CD and ripped it with full error correction, using EAC 0.9b5 and encoded with LAME3.9.0 -V 3 -b 112. Is that okay? I sure as hell hope so. Now instead of doing it myself, I found one ripped and encoded using the exact same software, and then I downloaded it. Is that legal? A little questionable, but I personally think it should be.

The ROM issue I usually view the same as the latter, not as the cassette tape one: one can assert that you can convert from an Amiga disc to a Win32 .adf file, and be pretty sure about the legality. But if you've got the Amiga floppy, and a .adf file that wasn't converted by you but is a bit-for-bit match of the one your would have generated if you had done it yourself, does that make it illegal? Again, I really hope not, but that's just injecting my opinion where I don't have a definite answer. I can tell you I would have no moral qualms about it, though.

Part of the fuzziness is where you own the PS2 version of Baldur's Gate, and then download the XBOX version; this is more like your cassette tape example. The games are virtually identical, but not completely, and thus the legality is even less solid here.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

Well, one follows copyright, one doesn't.

One says I respect the creator, one doesn't.

If the creator has not released their product into the public domain, it's disrespectful to them to trade the ROM images.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[PainKilleR-CE]

Things change. Millions of court cases and extra laws on the subject have changed the point of copyright. You can go all the way back to the constitution, but if you ignore everything but the basics then there are lots of things that don't make sense. Like the original founding fathers didn't want women to be able to vote. I guess that you feel the same way, since you think that only the original definition matters.

The original founding fathers also permitted for the courts to interpret what they wrote and for Congress to ammend to what they wrote. In the case of copyright terms, the courts have allowed the clarifications made in various laws to stand, or have not ruled on them. In the case of women being able to vote, Congress ammended the Constitution, so if you go back to the Constitution, it's there, as long as you read it long enough to figure out that you can drink alcohol (if you're of legal age; if you read it long enough to find out you can't drink alcohol, and then stop, then you probably won't get to the women's right to vote part).

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Sancho]

Excellent points, I think on a moral or at least "what we should be allowed to do" we pretty much agree. As for being able to download what you could encode yourself...well yes, the download should be legal, but it is still illegal to upload (and thus a big part of the p2p filesharing subculture is destroyed--if everyone was a leecher, no one would have anything to download anyway).

But that's a point for another discussion :)

Re:Doesn't change the law

[Kris_J]

That said, I don't think anyone has any moral problem with pirating NES roms since, frankly, you can't get the games anymore.

This is a bad example of moral issues surrounding ROMs, but a very good example of what big business has done to revoke the legitimacy of the secondary market. You can still buy a huge range of video games since the beginning of video games, you just can't buy them new -- or at least, not new in their original form. Looking purely at console games, four years ago I owned nothing better than a dozen PSX games. Now I have a collection of nearly 1,000 original carts, cards,, disks, discs and tapes. In the last few years I've purchased games for the: Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Intellivision, Colecovision, Sega Master System, NES, Sega Mega Drive, SNES, Sega Mega CD, Sega 32X, Sega Saturn, N64, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour, Sega Game Gear, Dreamcast and Playstation 2. Some new, most secondhand.

Most people use emulation, ROMs and retro-gaming as equivalent terms. They're not. I enjoy retro gaming yet I hardly ever touch an emulator. I have more to do with emulators when I'm playing stuff like the Activision Anthology for the PS2, or a Namco Museum on the PSX, or even Sonic Jam on the Saturn than when I'm playing, say, Parker Brothers' Amidar for the Atari 2600 (on a 7800).

So, do I have a moral problem with ROMs -- not really. But I do have an aesthetics problem with ROMs -- I prefer the feel of a real cart.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[mechugena]

Nah...she's just blowing the hair aside to find that measly little thing often mistaken for a clitoris!

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

Well, one follows copyright, one doesn't.

One says I respect the creator, one doesn't.

If the creator has not released their product into the public domain, it's disrespectful to them to trade the ROM images.

Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?

First of all : Copyright is not simply designed to make works available to the public, since works were available to the public BEFORE copyright existed. Copyright exists to offer creators and incentive to create works, which can then be made available to the public, and that is an important distinction.

Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?

Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.

If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?

Little example : Stanley Kubrick, after much public outcry, controversy and even threats to his family after the release of A Clockwork Orange, decided to pull the film from UK release.

Do you feel that the man should not have had the right to control whether or not (and where) his movie was shown?

Personally, I feel that, as the creator and the person who ultimately bore responsibility for the film, as well as it's criticism, he was within his rights to not release it in the UK. Copyright law seems to back me up.

And anyone in the UK who had gone ahead and shown the movie, against his wishes, would have been disrespectful, in my opinion.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?

Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.

If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?

Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator, the creator's part of the bargain is to make the work available for public consumption. If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator

Not true at all. The GPL is made possible copyright, where does "compensation for the creator" come in?

Answer : it doesn't. You can copy, use, and modify any GPL'd piece of software without paying any sort of compensation.

What Copyright does is allow the GPL to dictate control over code and how it's used in non-Open Source software, it does NOT ensure that the code authors (or anyone) will be compensated.

Society's part of the bargain is to cede control over the copyrighted materials for a period of time (a time I feel is currently too long, but that's a whole different debate).

If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.

Also wrong. Nothing in copyright law says a creator MUST continue to distribute his works forever, if he does not wish to. In fact the whole concept of copyright is what allows the creator to have control over such distribution.

Sorry, read up on the topic and try again.

Also, you didn't address my example about Kubrick. What is your opinion?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[ip_vjl]

One difference would be in how it affects the initial sale price.

It could be argued that if a product has a resale value later on, it can justify a larger initial sale price.

For example (I'm making up numbers):
If game X has a future resale value of $10
You pay $25 for it, knowing that you're only out $15 years later when you decide to get rid of it.
However, if you know full well that this game will be made available for download later for free, you might not be willing to pay $25 for it, but instead, maybe only $15 or $20 ... knowing that there really isn't a large resale value.

So, even though the publisher doesn't get any of the resale money, lingering value for games can affect their initial sales price. Allowing ROMs could undercut that value.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

The GPL is a license under which the author expects to be compensated by the contribution of others.

As far as the rest, we are talking about what should be and what is, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution states that the purpose of copyrights are "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." Not distributing a work completely defeats the whole purpose of having copyrights in the first place.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

As far as the compensation comment goes, you are stretching it a bit, at least in relation to the grandparent comment.

However, regardless : creators have the RIGHT to not distribute their work if they do not want to. Nowhere does it say that they HAVE to distribute it.

Again, copyright encourages creation by giving the creator control. If you are advocating not actually giving the creator control, then their is no encouragement.

I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.

Protecting non-distribution encourages distribution how?

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

Protecting non-distribution encourages distribution how?

It's very simple:

If you give someone control over what they make, they are encouraged to make things.

If you don't allow someone control over what they make, then they are discouraged from making things.

If no one ever made anything, then there would be nothing to distribute.

By giving people who make things control over distribution of their works, the overall amount of distributed work is increased.

This is the principle behind copyright, and this is why the laws are written they way they are.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

Let's say I write an "original" poem such as "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue" but I don't publish my work. You come along and also are inspired by the color of roses and violets and write the exact same words. You are so proud of your "original" poem that you do decide to publish yours. Not only have you violated my copyright despite not copying anything, you have also wasted time that could have been better invested creating a poem about the beauty of daffodils and carnations instead.

Non-distributed copyrighted works do nothing to "further the arts and sciences", and may in fact hinder them when it comes to source code because of the repeated use of common variable names code structure.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

What was your point with that example? It has absolutely nothing to do with what this thread concerned : copyrighted works that WERE published and at one point being distributed, but are no longer being distributed.

I maintain, as does copyright law, that the creators of said works have the rights to stop distributing them.

I used the example of Kubrick and A Clockwork Orange before - the film had unintended consequences for Kubrick that he didn't anticipate (death threats on his family), so he stopped it's distribution. This was within his rights, and it did not mean that everyone suddenly had the legal right to make copies of the film and distribute it themselves. Do you feel that people should have had the _right_ to make (and distribute to others) copies of a Kubrick's film, against his express wishes? I do not.

Again, copyright gives creators control over their works, so that they can feel confident those works won't be used in ways they don't approve of, and thus be able to continue to create. If you take away their control of the things they make, then that confidence disappears, and less things will be made. Since these things eventually go into the public domain, everyone suffers if less things are made (and I think, as you probably do, that copyright times are too long).

That is the founding principle of copyright and you have yet to come up with any counter-argument to that that makes sense.

Also : your example is cute, but flawed even with the point it intends to make. Copyright starts from the date something is published (even self-published). If you have a poem bouncing in your head, and someone else coincidentally writes and actually publishes the same poem, then the copyright belongs to them. They published it. Unless, of course, you can produce proof they copied it - which you won't be able to, since they published it and you did not. That's your own fault for not stepping to the plate. (Also note that many copyright suits are because the works are considered too simple or universal.)

Again, however, this has NOTHING to do with what this thread has been about up to this point, so I don't know why you brought it up.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

"many copyright suits are DISMISSED", I meant to say.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[EzInKy]

I was replying to your "reasons not to distribute" comment. I doubt will see eye to eye on this, and being copyrights are a favorite topic here I'm sure will have the opportunity to debate in a more current thread.

Re:Doesn't change the law

[indead]

Probably so... However, we aren't really "debating" since you don't address the majority of my points, nor do you respond to any direct questions that I bring up...

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Denied!

You show me where

[Hellraisr]

If you can show me where I can buy an original Pac-Man or Ms. Pac-Man arcade game in mint condition, I wouldn't need to use MAME.

Re:You show me where

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's your right to have everything you want, when you want it, no?

Re:You show me where

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I can show you. http://gamesforsale.biz/pacman.htm
Wow that was hard!!!!!!

Re:You show me where

[ichimunki]

Why do you need to buy an original? There are lots of Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man games out there, both in arcade boxes and as rewrites for new hardware.

Re:You show me where

[iainl]

Well, Ebay are currently showing 3 coctail versions in current auctions, and another 3 upright ones, for a start.

But this is kind of by-the-by. They are more interested in the fact that you aren't purchasing any of the perfectly fine currently available versions for your home machines.

Re:You show me where

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of examples were provided here. Have you uninstalled MAME yet?

Re:You show me where

[PyroMosh]

You can buy a new copy right here.

There. That's why you don't have to use mame. Sometimes companies DO want to port their old code to new machines. And emmulation dilutes the value of that.

Just like piracy dilutes the value of retail software.

Emmulation people like to pretend that emmulation is somehow diffrent than regular software piracy because "it's only old / out of print games!"

Well, sometimes a company can stop selling one product to sell another. Not to mention that it wouldn't be profitable for say, Atari to still sell Ms. Pacman for the 2600. Not enough people would be buying it to justify production costs these days. But they can (and if the demand is there, they often do) rerelease classic games to new consoles.

Re:You show me where

[Radius9]

Why does it need to be in mint condition? Your mame version looks like a computer, a generic cabinet should be fine for you.

Re:You show me where

[Anonymous Coward]

Namco actualy sells pacman still.
It is a combination cabinet with both pacman and galaga.

Re:You show me where

[Anonymous Coward]

Found a link to where you can buy it.

http://www.moneymachines.com/pacgal.html

hmph

[Hubert_Shrump]

Console games I could care less about - but there's great history and art in the old arcades. As long as someone is preserving the ROMs, I'm happy, but I'd like to see retro enthusiasts de-criminalized.

what jacked up teen that plays vice city all day would want to take major havoc or tac-scan for a spin? c'mon. at this point, most of those old cabs are right on the edge of being called 'vintage' by most people.

free the retro dorks!

let's not delude ourselves here...

[Anonymous Coward]

regardless of the arguments for roms, the fact remains that they are illegal under our current laws. since I find it highly unlikely that anyone can justify their rom collection as some sort of silent protest against the tyranny of copyright holders who withhold their creations, people have two choices: don't collect roms or collect them under full knowledge and acceptance that what you're doing is illegal and, if discovered, will justifiably be punished.

Re:let's not delude ourselves here...

[indead]

The thing is, if people wait until the copyrights on old arcade game ROMs expire, many of those games will be lost forever... It's the same with many movies from the first half of the 20th century - they are rotting away in vaults.

Re:let's not delude ourselves here...

[evilWurst]

Well, after the unasked for (by the public) arbitrary retroactive extension of copyright beyond mortal lifespans, the obvious public response is total lack of respect. Something has to give, here. Either the extensions into eternity get pulled back to something saner, or copyright gets a hell of a lot weaker to compensate.

I expect the content creators and owners would much rather see "dead" property being passed around like this than the new stuff they're actively trying to profit from.

Why don't they just sell them?

[AtariAmarok]

Why don't these ROM companies have a site that lets you download them for 99 cents each; an Apple Music Store sort of thing?

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[Schnapple]

Well the Apple Music Store has at least some controls in place to keep people from turning right around and sharing the songs. Short of developing a SecuROM solution (hmmm, where have I heard that?) they wouldn't be interested.

Besides let's be honest here - Nintendo takes some old SNES game and places it on the GBA and sells a truckload. Why would they give that away for cheap? Plus remember that Nintendo didn't make all the NES games - hundreds of publishers did. They can't vouch for them all, and Nintendo's found a much more lucrative venue for their old products.

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[Drakin]

Probably the sheer number of individual pubishers involved make it a daunting task.

Not to mention the need to trace exaclly who owns the rights to what. There's been various mergers, selloffs of divisions, not to mention companies folding in the years we're talking about.

Plus, as mentioned in another reply, there'd be the need to develop a less acessable ROM format, and a offical emulator as well (to prevent more "piracy")

Plenty of leg work needs to be done, I wouldn't look for anything like that for a long time...

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[vitaflo]

Why don't these ROM companies have a site that lets you download them for 99 cents each; an Apple Music Store sort of thing?

While that would be nice, that would also mean that Nintendo, Sega, Atari, et al, would have to make their own emulators to play the games on. You don't think they'd want you to use an unlicenced emulator do you?

Because of that, I don't see this happening.

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[ichimunki]

Not to mention the need to trace exaclly who owns the rights to what.

Then who is going to prosecute me for trading those games, eh? :)

Seriously, this is why the latest proposed copyright law amendments which proposes to expire copyright unless renewed for a small fee and requires the registration of the copyright holder into the public record is so important.

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[Ondo]

Why would that stop it from happening? Nintendo has already made their own NES emulator for the GC, it's in Animal Crossing. I think some (all?) of the classic gaming collections are just ROMs and an emulator.

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[Drakin]

I was refering to the case of actually selling the ROMS on a per download basis. Few companies would take the risk of selling any games that they didn't have thier greedy fingers wrapped around a contract stating they can sell it.

Otherwise, they'd be sure to be hearing from the copyright owners, probably in the from of a lawsuit.

But I agree with the copyright law amendments... although, if they're passed in the US, they still mean little to me. I'm not American. :)

Re:Why don't they just sell them?

[vitaflo]

Why would that stop it from happening? Nintendo has already made their own NES emulator for the GC, it's in Animal Crossing. I think some (all?) of the classic gaming collections are just ROMs and an emulator.

Because they're not in the business of making PC software. They'd have to make emulators for PC, Mac and possibly Linux and update and maintain them. That's not something they're going to do.

Now, if the next Nintendo system came out with a hard drive, broadband, et al, THEN I could see them having ROM downloads online that you could play on a Nintendo system. I'm just saying I don't see it happening for PC's.

Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

" Because it's your right to have everything you want, when you want it, no?"

Certainly, why is it not reasonable to be able to copy it for free if they refuse to sell it at all? No moral problem there: they pretty much have a piece of duct-take over the slot in the piggy bank: no payments allowed.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly, why is it not reasonable to be able to copy it for free if they refuse to sell it at all?

Because you don't own the copyright. Plain and simple. Perhaps they have reasons for not selling it at this time. They may sell it again in the future, they may not. It's not up to you to decide.

No moral problem there: they pretty much have a piece of duct-tape over the slot in the piggy bank: no payments allowed.

We could spend all day coming up with ludicrous examples of why you're out of line, but I'll settle for one:

If I'm walking by a store late at night, after they're closed, why am I not allowed to steal their garbage can outside? If they wanted me to pay for it, they'd be open twenty-four hours, so I could pay for it when I felt like it, right?

Oh, wait, that doesn't make sense. I don't get to take the garbage can just because I want it, and they're not obligated to give it to me just because they're not selling it. I suppose I could go buy a garbage can from somebody that wants to sell one to me-- that way I wouldn't have to rip anybody off. The problem then, of course, is that I'd actually have to pay for something.

I know you'd like to fire back with the difference between physical property and intellectual property, but it's a moot point. In the eyes of the law, it's the same thing.

Game over. If you want into the real world, you're going to need to check your sense of entitlement at the door.

Natural response to ridiculous copyright lengths

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly clear that the US public doesn't accept the traditional period of copyright + IP ownership. mp3 sharing is a big thing--people have no moral qualms about doing it. The laws should reflect the morals of the people. Why is murder illegal? Because most people consider it immoral.

The issue with these video games is that the company that produced them already made their money 20 years ago. The fact that people now expect to be able to do whatever they want with the rom images (and proceed to do so) indicates the public's moral opinion that the original makers have already made enough money on their original works, and that the information should now be public domain.

The Beatles came out with lots of albums in the 60's that were very popular--they became rich on their work. 30 years later I still have to pay someone in order to legally listen to Beatles music. This is ridiculous. The original creators of the music have already reaped fantastic financial rewards. Now society is better off if the information is free and available. And suprise, everyone agrees because almost everyone who is able to is perfectly willing to swap mp3 files.

Copyright lasting until 50 years after the author's death? Software patents on obvious ideas that have lots of prior art? Get a clue.

The public's actions determine what can reasonably be enforced. Patent and copyright law are becoming irrelevant to life in the real world today, and I say *BRAVO*.

Why ROMS? Because sometimes modern games suck

[AtariAmarok]

I recently purchased Sinistar Unleashed, fondly remembering the old "Sinistar" arcade game.

I was greatly disappointed: while this new one had "modern 3-d graphics", it was something that looked like a descendant of "Star Raiders" but was much harder to play than "Star Raiders", with clunky controller action, and a murky,muddy display where just about everything looked the same (a bunch of shades of black).

Captain Pedantic Strikes Again!

[Andy_R]

This article isn't about collecting ROMs (which is of course entirely legal), it's about collecting copies of the data from other people's ROMs.

Re:Captain Pedantic Strikes Again!

[Captain Pedantic]

Actually I didn't, but I do agree with your post.

Nintendo's issue

[leifm]

I think is that they are recycling much of the NES/SNES era stuff on the GBA. So I suppose they could have a valid argument that if ROMs keep floating around a GBA port won't sell. And lagally they are in the right as well. I don't happen to agree in many cases, but they are right.

One thing I'd like to see, but I doubt it will happen is Nintendo throwing the entire NES/SNES library on a GameCube disc for like $50-100, and you could play them all, just choose your game from a menu. That alone would make the 'cube worth purchasing.

Re:Nintendo's issue

[leifm]

lagally == legally

Re:Nintendo's issue

[lightspawn]

One thing I'd like to see, but I doubt it will happen is Nintendo throwing the entire NES/SNES library on a GameCube disc for like $50-100, and you could play them all, just choose your game from a menu. That alone would make the 'cube worth purchasing.

You can do exactly that with a Dreamcast. Just mail Nintendo a check for $50 (or buy 1-2 games you wouldn't have bought otherwise?).

Realistically, this kind of thing can't be done legally because just the attorney fees to figure out who owns the copyrights for what games would be overwhelming (ask the Blue Sky Rangers about trying to license 20 year old games).

Re:Nintendo's issue

[leifm]

Yeah, the legal hurdles occured to me several min after I hit submit. So I will just leave it at this, software patents/copyrights should last less time than other things. Software moves very fast, and in most (not all) cases 10 years after the fact most software isn't making anybody anything. So I think (and nobody cares what I think but...) software copyright and patents should expire after 10 years, at least for consumer software.

Re:Nintendo's issue

[jeeryg_flashaccess]

A buddy of mine modded his xbox. Now he has every NES and SNES game on his HD all selectable through a custom menu. It's hard to feel bad for companies when a console jukebox is sitting right in front of you!

Re:Nintendo's issue

[Wog]

I did this about a week ago. It is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

Keep in mind, though, that most of the games I play (SNES RPGs) I already went to the trouble of finding and buying. I just don't want to pull out my SNES and worry about whether the battery in Earthbound is about to die.

Someone's not paying attention

[Ondo]

It would be a shame if, 10 years from now, no one has the chance to play great games like Mario Bros 3, The Legend of Zelda, or Metroid.

Mario Bros. 3 will be re-released as Super Mario Advance 4, the Legend of Zelda is available on Animal Crossing, and Metroid is available on Metroid Prime.

Are we starting to understand why Nintendo doesn't like ROMs?

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Fammy2000]

Good luck getting Legend of Zelda out of Animal Crossig without some sort of cheating.

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[LordYUK]

" the Legend of Zelda is available on Animal Crossing, and Metroid is available on Metroid Prime."

Huh?

What?

Where?

How?

Really, how? I'd buy AC if I could play Zelda on the GC...

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Ondo]

Get an Action Replay for the GameCube (~$40). It's the only known method of unlocking Zelda right now.

www.animalxing.com/nesgames.php has a list of the NES games in Animal Crossing and some info on how to get them.

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Jerf]

Mario Bros. 3 will be re-released as Super Mario Advance 4

Oh for the love of Pete, would it hurt Nintendo too much to release an original game for a change?

I thought after they released Yoshi's Island they'd be out of games. Well, I guess after 3 they really are out... what then?

Probably figure out how to jam Mario 64 onto the gameboy, although it might actually be easier to bother to write a new game at that point...

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Ondo]

Addendum: You can also send someone else items in Animal Crossing. You give their town and character name and the game removes your copy of the item and gives you a code that can only be used by the named character in the named town to get that item.

So if some kind soul with Animal Crossing and an Action Replay were to pick a town and character name and post the code for Legend of Zelda (and/or other NES games) you could start the game with the proper names and use the code. Possibly someone has already done this somewhere on the net, but I haven't found any yet.

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Fammy2000]

I believe Zelda (and the Mario Games) are "non-tradeable". Sorry!

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[stuuf]

You think Gameboy advance will be around 10 years from now?

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Ondo]

You think Gameboy advance will be around 10 years from now?

Of course. The NES is still around 18 years after release, and games for the original GameBoy are still supported by new hardware 14 years after it's release. I think there will be GBAs, GBA SPs, and/or GameBoy Players 10 years from now.

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Alaric42]

You mean like this, this, this, this, or this?

Re:Someone's not paying attention

[Jerf]

Sorry; original Mario game. Not Wario either...

Hardly...

[pb]

Actually, you can still find a lot of actual NES games out there; I got a copy of Final Fantasy I from my local game store not too long ago, and they have a wide selection. And if you don't have something like that nearby, there's always the web, right?

The problem with the copyright issue is that it can provide the original company with monopoly powers that are simply too broad, as the dissenting opinions in Eldred state. I see nothing wrong with letting companies keep their successful copyrights, but I feel they should have an obligation to "use it or lose it"; that is to say, companies should not be able to use copyrights to *suppress* works that could otherwise be in the public domain. They should theoretically have an obligation to sell things at a fair market price, but with copyrights, they don't have to. There's no check against their monopolistic behaviors.

However, the illegal copyright infringements of ROMs, of music, etc., etc., has proven to the industry that there is a demand that isn't being filled due to monopoly powers. You didn't see the old arcade games being re-released by the companies and the current swath of remakes we've had until well after the development and popularity of console and arcade emulators. I think it's quite possible that it's now easier to obtain legal ROMs or games because of the interest spawned by illegal ROM copying, and without it, there would be few or no arcade collections released for the PC nowadays.

Re:Hardly...

[NetDanzr]

[i] I see nothing wrong with letting companies keep their successful copyrights, but I feel they should have an obligation to "use it or lose it"; that is to say, companies should not be able to use copyrights to *suppress* works that could otherwise be in the public domain.[/i]

Care to explain this to me a little? After all, as long as something is a company's property, they have the right to do anything with it. If they feel that selling a product would canibalize the sale of their other products, they should be able to lock it up in a vault and prosecute the distribution of the product. After all, it's their property.

Re:Hardly...

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, but why should we go for that?

Copyrights aren't granted for fun -- they're granted because the idea is that such a grant will promote the public's interests. Namely it helps spur the creation of works, and then forces their widespread, free, availability.

If copyrights are abused so that works are suppressed, that doesn't strike me as being in the public interest at all.

And copyrightable works are hardly property. Individual copies sure, but that's not what we're discussing.

Civil Disobedience

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

Laws are nothing more than public oppinion. We all agree to certain rules (more or less) and generally try to get along. When public oppinion changes, so do the laws... that's how democracies work (in therory anyway).
So I want to play Loadrunner and don't feel like dredging up an AppleII... I'm going to be sued for breaking some archaic copyright law? Please. Don't we have better things to worry about?

It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what YOU think. It only matters what THE LAW thinks. You can debate whether you think it's right or wrong or illegal or perfectly fine, but THE LAW says "Distribution of copyright other than by the holder is prohibited". Pretty open and shut.

Of course, that won't stop any of you. Napster, kazaa, gnutella, freenet, emule, mldonkey, direct connect, hotline all exist for the sole purpose of copyright infringment. Don't dance around it.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be that women could not vote. "It's not what YOU think..." it's what the LAW thinks, right? And that Black people could not use white designated restrooms, or vote without paying a poll tax. "But it's not what YOU think...it's what the LAW thinks."

The overbearing copyright BULLSHIT in this country (the US) and others is just that....BULL. The Founding Fathers NEVER intended DISNEY to perpetually make money off their creations....SORRY. NO amount of "dancing around it" can prove otherwise.

Sometimes the law is wrong....oh, and it's not a CRIMINAL offense unless you RESELL it.

Re:It doesn't matter

[NotQuiteReal]

Illegal? Yes. Wrong? No.

I guarantee God will not smite you for it.

Just think about the artists!

[duffbeer703]

The coders of QBert are starving right now because evil pirates aren't buying their software!

Nintendo "branding"

[johndoejersey]

Would nintendo prefer me playing a rom of super mario brothers that i didnt pay for, or playing on the X-Box? Personally speaking, id rather be playing the rom, having been a life long fan on nintendo, the opportunity to play some of the games from yester year (and discover some new ones) has just reinforced my preference towards them over ps2/xbox.

Re:Nintendo "branding"

[secolactico]

Would nintendo prefer me playing a rom of super mario brothers that i didnt pay for, or playing on the X-Box?

Well, if *I* can't have you, no one else will!! Muahahahaha...

Re:Nintendo "branding"

[Anonymous Coward]

Would nintendo prefer me playing a rom of super mario brothers that i didnt pay for, or playing on the X-Box?

Well, if you're playing an Xbox, Nintendo gets no money from it. And if you're playing a ROM, Nintendo gets no money from it. So I don't think they care either way. Maybe you could buy some new Nintendo games, if you love the company so much?

Re:Nintendo "branding"

[matlokheed]

I'd think they'd prefer it on an Xbox.

1) If you're going to use a ROM on your PC, you're not gaining them any money

2) If you're going to use a ROM on your Xbox, you're not gaining them any money.

3) If you're going to use a ROM on your Xbox, you've got a modchip in your Xbox. I've never actually seen or heard of anyone who's used their Xbox with modchip for legal backups of games and I'm going to go out on a limb and make the statement that /most/ (not all) people with Xbox modchips are using their chip for some piracy (maybe in addition to other reasons, but definitely for the piracy).

Since Nintendo doesn't make games for the Xbox and Microsoft doesn't make games for them, they have no stake in seeing Microsoft make valid sales and I'm sure they'd prefer their competitors to be pirated.

Re:Nintendo "branding"

[johndoejersey]

My point probably wasnt exactly clear. You play on super mario bros rom you download, you enjoy it, brings back memories etc. You see mario sunshine in a shop bundled with a gamecube for cheap, remembering the good times on mario bros, you buy it. Thats my story, Nes/Snes roms took me on a huge nostalgia trip with nintendo, and actually inspired me to buy a gamecube.

Ok, I'll show you where!

[Andy_R]

http://www.bhmvending.com/namcoclassicreunion.html

$2700 (plus $250 shipping) gets you a brand new official 'Class of 1981 Greatest Hits' 25" screen arcade cabinet, manufactured by Namco, which plays Ms Pacman, Pacman and Galaga. It even has a dollar bill validator!

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[PainKilleR-CE]

The Beatles came out with lots of albums in the 60's that were very popular--they became rich on their work. 30 years later I still have to pay someone in order to legally listen to Beatles music. This is ridiculous. The original creators of the music have already reaped fantastic financial rewards

and that someone, in most cases, is either Michael Jackson or the last remaining living Beatle (other than Ringo). Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter who wrote the songs, either, as Michael Jackson owns the rights to songs written by Paul, and Paul owns the rights to songs he did not write. As long as the Beatles' original albums are still available in new formats (or at least in unprotected formats), and Paul is still alive, I'm ok with paying for those albums. When Paul's dead, I don't really want Ringo, Michael Jackson, and some record exec splitting the profits, so I won't buy Beatles albums any more. Luckily, I think I'll manage to have every Beatles CD I want before Paul kicks the bucket.

Nintendo MAMEboy

[AtariAmarok]

"Nintendo takes some old SNES game and places it on the GBA and sells a truckload."

Now, that's an idea. Nintendo gets the rights to a boatload of old arcade roms, and makes them available for the Gameboy.

At least someone would be selling them, making them available.

Pac Man programmers are not starving

[AtariAmarok]

Well, we know that the programmers of Pac-Man are not starving due to piracy. They have an unlimited supply of Inky, Blinky, Clyde, Sue, power dots, and smaller dots to engorge themselves on. However, I can't say that this is a very healthy diet.

Paul's dead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Luckily, I think I'll manage to have every Beatles CD I want before Paul kicks the bucket."

You've got the green light to pirate. The bloke died years ago:

"Turn Me On Dead Man"

Re:Paul's dead

[Deagol]

Does that mean we'll need to wait for the death of Billy Shears plus 50 years to pirate later Beatles tunes?

Uh....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an original (I can't read the site because it's blocked at my work, I'm on lunch leave me alone).

In fact it's just a rehash of the Namco Museum it seems with an inflated pricetag and nothing original about it.

Not new though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember the last time I saw a new cartridge of some of the games I want to buy. Even on ebay which has a wider range than my typical driving range.

And I don't buy used carts or systems. They fail all too easy. And if I get a good system, putting a used cartridge that may have lived it's life in a smoke filled house is not what I want to be doing with my (probably) expensive vintage system.

Something tells me too if I beg nintendo to sell me a bunch of older cartridge games, they'll just laugh in my face.

Re:Not new though.

[pb]

It would be harder to find new cartridges, but theoretically an old cartridge is all you need to justify using the ROMs. However, when I had a Nintendo, I bought my games new and used the hell out of them; I think the games are generally more durable than the system, unless you run into a glitch in the battery-backed, on-cartridge saves (as I did once, with Ultima III). If you do run into problems, you can always get your system repaired, generally by repairing or replacing the 72-pin connector.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[Kephren127]

Amen!

Don't buy from Buy Rite games!

[lightspawn]

And if you don't have something like that nearby, there's always the web, right?

Don't send people to Buy Rite games! According to the BBB:

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record due to unanswered complaints concerning delivery problems & product dissatisfaction. The Bureau processed 240 complaints about this company in the last 36 months. One hundred and fifty-seven of those were processed in the last 12 months. Of all the complaints 234 were resolved but not always within the Bureau's time frame and 6 were no response.

Copyright beyond life of original work

[HTH NE1]

In my opinion, it is simply wrong for copyright to continue to be enforced beyond the lifetime of the original work. Why should a 20 year old game cartridge be illegal to copy even when it has ceased to function? Why should a paper placemat at a fast food restaurant enjoy artist's lifetime+50 years when it will cease to exist in less than a month?

Allowing copyright to persist beyond the lifetime of the work itself creates an eternal copyright, especially when the copyright holder takes little to no steps to preserve the work for when^W if it enters the public domain.

And if the only surviving copies are in the hands of the original copyright holder, if the work ever does enter the public domain, that person (or corporate entity) has no incentive to ever publish it again.

All works are not created equal; copyright should not treat them all as equal.

Re:Copyright beyond life of original work

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bordering on nonsense. So the copyright on a stone statue should last forever, many times past the artists lifetime? But the copyright on a piece of software should be short lived because it could be stored on a floppy disk which can be destroyed by placing it on top of a PC tower? The binary or source could instead be carved into stone. It would not be functional, but the data would last forever.

Your arguement is flawed at best. There are better ways already in place to determine a reasonable copyright duration.

Re:Copyright beyond life of original work

[HTH NE1]

No, copyright on a stone statue would still be for a limited, reasonable amount of time. I don't propose extending copyright for durable items; rather that copyright on materials published in fragile media and intended to be useful for extremely short periods (esp. in context of current copyright duration) should have similarly limited copyright durations.

The copyright I enjoy on a sand castle created on the beach should be less than the time it takes for the tide to wipe it out forever. There's no reason for works that degrade to unusability to enjoy protection of creator's lifetime plus 50 years. (Granted, I'd have a hard time proving infringement of another's sand castle on my washed-out work.)

I'd entertain the possibility that works transferred to a more durable media by the publisher within the limited copyright term of its original media (or other continued publishing of the work) could extend the copyright, but only to the extent that it could have enjoyed from its original publication had it been published on sufficiently durable media.

Such as if I make a durable mold of my sand castle. Even current law would allow me to reclaim my copyright after a period of it lapsing into the public domain by casting a new one from that mold. Similarly, if a game's copyright owner doesn't like his ROMs being distributed freely, he can simply republish his ROMs himself and enjoin others from publishing under his restored copyright.

I'd also amend it to require meaningful publication and not just a periodic private sale of a single copy of a program on an obsolete 8" floppy.

I'd be interested in hearing of these better ways to determine reasonable copyright duration, but the lifetime of the original work is an easily understood metric and emphasizes the need for works to lose protection before they are lost to all forever.

It cannot fall upon the copyright owner to preserve his works for their future entry into the public domain when there is no legal mandate for him to do so. Especially while there are laws preventing anyone else from preserving the same works by copying.

Re:Copyright beyond life of original work

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its this "lifetime of the original work" part that is the problem. It is not "easily understood" since you had to explain what you attempted to convey, and it is an arbitrary duration invented by you here. The stone statue has an almost infinite lifetime. By your standard, it is still protected forever.

You now propose different standards based on different media and this creates a value of one media over another. In fact in the sand castle example, a photograph of the castle could persist and that would still be under copyright AS WELL AS the original castle. Should these not be protected as a marketable piece of art? What if someone else photographed your work? You should clearly be protected from them profiting from your creation without your permission. The original is gone, but the copyright must remain.

"There's no reason for works that degrade to unusability to enjoy protection of creator's lifetime plus 50 years."

The sand castle model is further flawed. Code does not degrade or erode as sand on the beach would. It can be moved and copied and individual instances destroyed, but it is persistent as long as one copy exists in any medium. Since we are still specifically talking about ROMs, they have clearly not degraded to "unusability" since people want to and do play them.

You have also now introduced another arbitrary measurement. This "republish"-ing the program in some form. Who would decide how many copies would have to be sold? What if the publisher earnestly tried to sell many copies, but only successfully sold one? No outside entity is entitled to dictate what a copyright holder does with their work until the copyright has expired. This is important to protect individuals as well. What if an individual were not in a position financially to "republish" at your decided interval and quantity? Should any corporation be able to swoop in and turn a profit from their work? Perhaps the individual would be ready to republish at a later day.

We must remember that copyright law applies to individuals as well as corporations that it is trendy to perceive as evil. Current law protects these individuals, sometimes you perceive it to hurt you.

As to the last paragraph, you are right, it must not, and does not. Anyone who has fairly purchased the work can make appropriate copies under fair use laws. Here the work will be preserved (in abundance in the case of software) until it enters the public domain.

Re:Copyright beyond life of original work

[HTH NE1]

I think its this "lifetime of the original work" part that is the problem. It is not "easily understood" since you had to explain what you attempted to convey

Only to those who ignore the word "beyond". Not only should copyright not outlive the work, it should expire before that work expires, because if all copies expire before they have a chance to enter the public domain, they've essentially gained copyright in perpetuity.

Since we are still specifically talking about ROMs, they have clearly not degraded to "unusability" since people want to and do play them.

Except that those ROMs have only survived due to the efforts of others to violate copyright and make more durable copies. Newer games now not only would require violation of copyright to preserve them, but also the DMCA.

If copyright had not been violated by the making of these more durable copies, these works may well have ceased to function entirely and been lost not only to people now but also to the public domain later, unless the copyright holder deigned to republish and assuming he still possesses viable copies himself to republish.

What constitutes effective republishing of works would be a matter left for a court to decide, preferably by the finding of a jury. A fair market at a fair price.

No outside entity is entitled to dictate what a copyright holder does with their work until the copyright has expired.

The law should if it ever intends that copyright be only for limited times as required to be constitutional. If a copyright holder is allowed to enjoy his copyright and still destroy his work before the copyright expires, that person has violated the limited times clause. To avoid forfeiture of all profits derived from the copyrighting of that work, the copyright holder must relinquish the work to the public domain and allow reasonable time for copies to be made before the destruction of any work.

This would apply also to destruction by entropy, especially designed-in entropy such as DVDs that degrade after 48 hours of exposure to air.

We must remember that copyright law applies to individuals as well as corporations that it is trendy to perceive as evil. Current law protects these individuals, sometimes you perceive it to hurt you.

Individuals or corporations, they both have a duty to the public as a whole and to honor the contract that granted them exclusive rights for limited times that such times be limited.

And the law as it stands already provides for the restoration of copyright to a restored work.

As to the last paragraph, you are right, it must not, and does not. Anyone who has fairly purchased the work can make appropriate copies under fair use laws. Here the work will be preserved (in abundance in the case of software) until it enters the public domain.

You forget the DMCA which prevents such preservation by preventing the making of appropriate copies under the fair use defense by making illegal the making available the tools to do so. The only out you have is to make the tools to do so yourself unaided, while those creating the protection schemes have thousands working for them to create them.

And even if one person alone was able to develop the tool (and knowledge behind the tool) to successfully transfer an encrypted game into a durable form, he still cannot share the copy he made with others. He cannot legally distribute it for the purposes of preservation.

Without the (illegal) dissemination, these works are still in danger of expiring before their copyright as those that possess them expire in the traditional sense and even the copies are forgotten.

Effective preservation requires dissemination, because humans themselves (and their intent) aren't sufficiently durable to outlast copyright. And since the law reserves dissemination to the copyright holder, damn straight the law should demand the copyright holder either dissemin

Re:Copyright beyond life of original work

[Anonymous Coward]

Only to those who ignore the word "beyond". Not only should copyright not outlive the work, it should expire before that work expires, because if all copies expire before they have a chance to enter the public domain, they've essentially gained copyright in perpetuity.

The word "beyond" does not come into play until the "lifetime of the original work" is defined. This is what you have tried to show varies from product to product and I still claim that you have made this distinction in an unfair and arbitrary way. The medium should not define the copyright length. It would require further definition of on what is the lifetime based? Intil now you only provide literal examples that fall apart under scrutiny.

Except that those ROMs have only survived due to the efforts of others to violate copyright and make more durable copies. Newer games now not only would require violation of copyright to preserve them, but also the DMCA.
Not true. Merely installing a PC game onto a PC is making a working copy. One is still able to make legal backups for personal use. This part is just FUD, but I dont think you are doing it intentionally. Personal backups are still legal. And FWIW, publishers do keep copies (called masters) locked away in multiple locations for perpetuity. Though I agree they should not hold the only copies as I stated before. HOWEVER, to address the last paragraph here (and consolidate the points as I think they can be) it is true that the tools for making these copies cannot be distributed. This protects an individual or entity, for the sake of comparison and arguement I will call the entity the "ROM Museum", from prosecution from collecting and perserving and backups they have legal rights to, they just can't send them out. This is good and will fulfill all requirements you have stated. The works are stored legally by an entity outside the original publisher. The ROM Museum would be fulfilling the role of a art museum or library. They can store and display works they purchase but can't go around making copies of the books or artwork still under copyright. Hey, if someone visited the ROM Museum (the physical site, not the internet site because this would generate a copy on the end user's PC) they could even play the games legally. I disagree with your assertion that dissemination is necessary for preservation. This is not the case with any work in any medium. We have paintings of which only one was produced still around for hundreds of years.

The law should if it ever intends that copyright be only for limited times as required to be constitutional. If a copyright holder is allowed to enjoy his copyright and still destroy his work before the copyright expires, that person has violated the limited times clause. To avoid forfeiture of all profits derived from the copyrighting of that work, the copyright holder must relinquish the work to the public domain and allow reasonable time for copies to be made before the destruction of any work
Agreed, but I don't consider the law an outside entity as long as it is applied equally to all works. With this adjustable scale you propose new works in new mediums would be subject to outside groups who would seek to influence how long the copyright should last for this new medium. This is inherently unfair. There must be one law for all mediums.

Individuals or corporations, they both have a duty to the public as a whole and to honor the contract that granted them exclusive rights for limited times that such times be limited.

And the law as it stands already provides for the restoration of copyright to a restored work.
The problem still exists, as in the example provided, of individuals or smaller businesses being abused during this duration when they are not unwilling, but only unable, to produce copies for publishing. This is clearly wrong and would get worse under your new rules.

There would be no infringement for copies made while the works were temporarily the

sure.

[pb]

It all goes back to the nature of copyright, "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This balances the benefit to the public of having a work in the public domain. I would argue that when a copyright holder is not using their copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts" (i.e., suppressing knowledge instead of making it available) then they are violating that original copyright agreement, and therefore should not get the benefits of its protection.

Note that this would not be as big a deal if other parts of that language were actually enforced as well, such as the "for limited times" part, or the "exclusive right to their respective inventions and discoveries" (emphasis mine) part. This would imply that a person could reasonably expect a copyright (on, say, the song "Happy Birthday") to expire sometime, perhaps not too long after the death of the original author(s). It would also imply that copyrights can't be transferred or sold. But that isn't the world we live in, sadly.

Re:sure.

[NetDanzr]

Many thanks. This makes a lot of sense, and it's an argument I haven't thought of before.

ok, but...

[pb]

There are lots of retailers out there; I just did a google search, and that's what came up. However, how many sales are we talking about here? I bet Buy Rite does a lot of business. Also, it's good that almost all of those complaints (over 97% of them, at least) were resolved.

Still, thanks for the heads-up. Do you have any suggestions as to which game retailers have better reputations, prices, or selections? (and of course there's always e-Bay... just don't use PayPal, eh?)

Beatles information

[angle_slam]

and that someone, in most cases, is either Michael Jackson or the last remaining living Beatle (other than Ringo). Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter who wrote the songs, either, as Michael Jackson owns the rights to songs written by Paul, and Paul owns the rights to songs he did not write.

Partially correct. Check out this Snopes page regarding ownership of the Beatles. First of all, to say that Paul owns the rights to songs he did not write is untrue. John and Paul had an agreement and followed it--if either of them wrote a song for the Beatles, it would be credited to both of them. Whether or not Paul actually wrote the songs is just wrong, technically speaking, both John and Paul wrote those songs.

Second, Jackson only owns the publishing rights. He still splits royalties 50/50 with Paul and John's estate (presumably Yoko).

As long as the Beatles' original albums are still available in new formats (or at least in unprotected formats), and Paul is still alive, I'm ok with paying for those albums.

So I guess you want copyright terms to be only last the term of life of the author?

Re:Beatles information

[PainKilleR-CE]

So I guess you want copyright terms to be only last the term of life of the author?

I believe that copyrights should be completely in the control of the original author, and that no person or company should be able to continue to profit from those rights after they have died. Essentially that's the same thing as saying they should last the life of the author.

In reality, though, I tend to believe there is some point to extended copyrights or fixed term copyrights (ie X number of years rather than simply the life of the author, since the author may die before X number of years, or even before the initial profitable term of the work is up). For instance, if record companies didn't own the rights to a number of works that were recorded before CDs came along, those works may never have been released on CDs, and would be limited to significantly less portable formats (portable in terms of what you can do with them and how easily, I consider a casette tape more portable in terms of being able to take it somewhere). Movies would still be relegated to VHS (and some are due to concerns over whether or not DVDs can be easily copied, ie people don't want other people to be able to copy their work).

Overall, though, I just don't like the fact that Michael Jackson is getting more money than Paul McCartney when I buy a Beatles record ;) I don't like the fact that record companies can lock up music for huge numbers of years until the original source is so degraded as to be worthless. I don't believe anyone should be able to take artistic works off the market and control copies of that work for so long that almost no one is aware that work ever existed, or so that those interested in the work can't have access to it.

It's been said that the source tape for Star Wars was in very poor condition before Lucas remastered it for re-release back in '97. Imagine the condition of other works from the '70's at this point in time, or works from even earlier, such as material that Disney's been holding onto. Under the original copyright laws specified in the Constitution, those works belong to the public domain, or at least must be released to the public domain after a limited time. Today, because of the extensions on copyright, source material for copyrighted works is deteriorating so that those works may never enter the public domain. The only thing saving a lot of work now is the efforts to digitize a great deal of work for re-release, but a large amount has been left behind, too, simply because some believe that the market is not there, or not big enough to justify the conversion and publishing.

Even with the 'digital age', with most new audio works released on CDs, people don't seem to understand that the source material is usually recorded at much higher quality, even if it's digitally recorded, than what is released, and the case is similar with movies (though in at least as many cases as not the source material is lower quality with video). Slowly we're receiving more books with digital sources (especially since most writing has been submitted to publishing in digital format for years), but we can't get digital copies of a great deal of it, and digitizing a book is a process that takes a great deal of time unless you have a somewhat high-priced copier (and tends to be destructive to the original source if you take the faster route).

I'm not overly concerned about whether or not people will still be able to listen to Elvis and the Beatles when I'm 50, because we have them on CD, which is better than what we've had in the past as far as being able to preserve the work. I can listen to Bach and Beethoven, but only because people have preserved or found paper on which they (or others) wrote their pieces. The only reason I have Carnivore's CDs is because their record label finally decided to release them on that format 15 years after their original release (though there was an earlier compilation that removed some songs to put 2 albums on one disc), mostly because the sing

Collecting and playing are two different things.

[\\]

I realize this is semantics to some, but not to others.

I read comic books; I don't give a shit what they're worth, or what they'll be worth in the future.

People collect roms to give themselves a buzz, "gotta catch them all" type shit. I play roms, old things that cannot be purchased anywhere but ebay for outrageous prices due to insane cart collectors. I don't emulate n64; that system is still just about new, for God's sake.

NES games is a different matter, especially famicom games that never made it over. It's fun to play them and see what we missed in the USA, and it's more fun to play a game that is slightly different, like the Japanese Bionic Command, complete with nazi references intact. Master D indeed.

Lastly, translated Japanese roms are awsome. We may not have gotten most of the original Final Fantasy games here to the USA, but now I can play most of them thanks to fan translations.

Legal? No. Perhaps the owners of older games could look at their property and decide if perhaps it might not be beneficial to them to release their old games as roms, aka, let them be freely downloaded.. ah, blah blah, ramble.

There's a difference between collecting and using.

[Anonymous Coward]

Collecting is fine.

Using, that's kind of a gray area.

Dowloading ROMS...

[Anonvmous Coward]

... illustrates demand. If interest in a game is being rekindled, why not find a way to productize it?

Re:Collecting and playing are two different things

[lightspawn]

Lastly, translated Japanese roms are awsome. We may not have gotten most of the original Final Fantasy games here to the USA, but now I can play most of them thanks to fan translations.

I completely agree - finding out there's a prequel/sequel to a game you played that's only available in Japanese sucks - but you're wrong about Final Fantasy

Final Fantasy Origins (PSX): FF I + II
Final Fantasy Chronicles (PSX): FF IV+ Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy Anthology (PSX): FF V + VI

So as you can see, after Sony's E3 FF XI announcement, the only game in the (main) series not published in north america is FF III.

Was using the NES/SNES roms "right" before the games were published on the PSX? Did it become wrong afterwards? what about FF III? How about if you play that, then it's published in your region? Do you have a moral obligation to buy it then?

P.S. Yes, playing cart games on a PSX sucks since you have to deal with loading times, but they did try to improve the games in a number of ways (that an old-school gamer would not disapprove of).

Re:Collecting and playing are two different things

[\\]

I completely agree - finding out there's a prequel/sequel to a game you played that's only available in Japanese sucks - but you're wrong about Final Fantasy

Final Fantasy Origins (PSX): FF I + II
Final Fantasy Chronicles (PSX): FF IV+ Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy Anthology (PSX): FF V + VI

So as you can see, after Sony's E3 FF XI announcement, the only game in the (main) series not published in north america is FF III.

Was using the NES/SNES roms "right" before the games were published on the PSX? Did it become wrong afterwards? what about FF III? How about if you play that, then it's published in your region? Do you have a moral obligation to buy it then?


My personal situation is, I like playing the EXACT game as intended. You can argue translating them ruins that, but for an RPG you don't really have much of a choice.

I also like seeing differences between games that are localized for the USA and not.. different graphics, different story, etc. I guess I already made that point with Bionic Commando, though..

Getting back to your comment, however, if I enjoy a rom that I've downloaded and don't already own in it's original form, and a rerelease happens for modern hardware, I'll buy the original. Sega's Sonic collection for GameCube might look like shit on my big tv, but it was worth supporting Sega's effort of emulating the games that I enjoyed.

Copyright

[Detritus]

Having a copyright on a work does not mean that you own the work, it means that you have a limited-time government grant of the exclusive right to reproduce the work. See Copyright Basics. You can own a particular instance of the work, its physical manifestation, but not the work itself.

Is ROM Collecting Wrong, or Just Misunderstood?

[pmz]

Yes.

Isn't this just to keep the copyright valid?

[Radius9]

I thought part of the reason they tend to enforce their copyrights, even when they have no financial gain in doing so, is to maintain the copyright. From my understanding, if you openly let people copy your copyrighted material, it in essence sets a precedent, and it becomes much more difficult to enforce your copyright later on. You have to make an effort to stop people from violating your copyright, even it is just a cease-and-desist. This is to prevent something me from creating a piece of software that is incredibly useful and has no copy protection, and not enforcing the copyright on it, so that it becomes a de-facto standard, and then suing everyone later on for violating my copyright.

Re:Isn't this just to keep the copyright valid?

[Sancho]

Not true, you're thinking of trademarks. Copyrights and patents can be selectively enforced.

Re:Isn't this just to keep the copyright valid?

[Loosewire]

the reason i can see to keep defending these is to keep the second hand market running.

They already got money from used games

[Rares Marian]

Just how many times do they think we're going to pay them for each cart?

I still don't understand how they can honestly get upset. I don't see car dealers going after used car dealers.

Re:They already got money from used games

[Schnapple]

I still don't understand how they can honestly get upset.

They (the game companies) don't. Like you said, they made their money, and they they don't make these games anymore. The music labels were mad since they still make old albums and didn't want these used CD's to dip into their sales. Plus there was concern that people would buy a CD, copy it (ala cassette) and then sell it back as a used CD. There's not much equivalence with games - you'd be better off just renting the games.

I don't see car dealers going after used car dealers.

That's an entirely different market. Besides, most of the time the car dealer is also the used car dealer. Especially nowadays with the "certified preowned" notion.

Re:They already got money from used games

[Rares Marian]

They have no business making money off the used music. We paid $50 for the HP5 book so that when we're in a bind next summer (always happens in summer) we can sell it for $100.

Re:They already got money from used games

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars is a fine analogy, but how about real estate? I mean if you're going to make an analogy to real property which is foolish to begin with.
But just as an exercise in futility --since nobody owns ideas any more than anybody owns the law or language-- imagine the analogy of land.
If the real property laws insisted that once you lived on a piece of land, you could never re-sell it, there would no longer be real property laws. It just can't work that way.
Sometimes, kids, you've just got to grow up and learn to share. Greed as a way of life is exciting for people in a youth culture like America, but it can't cut it long term. It's not a model based in anything but rampant desire. Real property is no model for the exchange of ideas and even in real property the models we're seeing for "IP" don't add up.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[skinnedmink]

Unless I'm mistaken, they still charge for the Bible do they not?

Ahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Free games are fun to play.

arg

[SQLz]

Video games, CDs, movies, etc should come with some kind of like...serial number or offical looking slip of paper saying you have bought a license. I've lost more cds and carts than I have mp3s and roms. Most of the mp3s I have are from CDs I lost. Of course, I could never prove I did by "Iron Maiden - Live after Death" in 6th grade so I could technically be in big trouble for owning the mp3s.

Re:arg

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you can lose the actual cd's in 10 years time, what makes you think that you're going to hang on to this certificate of ownership? Most people don't even keep their tax records that long.

Re:arg

[weeboo0104]

"...so I could technically be in big trouble for owning the mp3s.

That's quite a "Revelation". It would take a "Brave New World" to adopt your idea of using serial numbers to ID albums we have bought.

If the RIAA ever tried to get its "Hooks in you", you might have to "Run to the Hills" or "Be quick or be Dead". It's not like you're guilty of "Murders in the Rue Mourge", but you would be an "Innocent Exile" sentenced to "Purgatory". A "Drifter" who would wander a "Strange World".

I guess we could wait for the *IAA to leave their "Sea of Madness", but waiting for that would amount to nothing more than "Wasted Years". Oh well, live life like "The Trooper" and go "Where Eagles Dare". Don't forget to "Die with your Boots On".
For now, I'll just dream "Infinite Dreams" of "Running Free".

(I could probably work more songs into that, but then I would just be blowing "Holy Smoke")

Re:arg

[n_jed]

I've lost more cds and carts than I have mp3s and roms.

Well you're pretty useless then. Perhaps you should be a bit more careful...

what would stop you from losing the piece of license paper anyway... nice logic there.

Re:There's a difference between collecting and usi

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think that would be more of a brown area.

Don't forget the portable systems!

[mcp33p4n75]

The reason Nintendo is the only company all hot and bothered is because they still have a market for older games. Where is this? You have to look no father than your nearest Game Boy system. Nintendo is releasing games like Super Mario Bros. on the Gameboy Advance. Rumors bound of other great games being ported to the GBA, such as Earthbound. Watch Sony get po'd about PS1 piracy once they release their portable gaming system.

Have you ever noticed...

[M.C. Hampster]

... how so many gaming sites use little cartoony type pictures for the authors of the articles? Is it because these people are horribly and hideously scary or what?

Re:Have you ever noticed...

[PainKilleR-CE]

It might simply be the fact that a great deal of the sites are run completely over the internet, and many of the people have never seen each other before, and couldn't be bothered to send in a picture.

Re:There's a difference between collecting and usi

[Anonymous Coward]

Ow, my side!

Morality

[CashCarSTAR]

I think the question asked is "Is it moral?", of course the legality of it leaves little to doubt. However the morals of it, leave a lot of discussion.

This conversation usually is rather interesting, for the most part. here's the way I look at it.

Rewarding the producer is a good and moral thing.

What is more moral. Downloading a ROM image or buying a used cart? The second right?

How? The producer is left in the dirt, and money that WOULD have spent on that product is instead in the product of a third party. Not exactly a moral outcome, is it?

Sure, the reseller has that right (I agree totally), but from the producer type of view, it's still a lost sale. Execpt that one is legal and the other illegal. (But both the same from the producers POV)

So are ROMs moral? For anything that one can not buy an original shrinkwrapped copy, they not really moral, but not the opposite either. It's sort of like a tree falling in the woods with nobody around. Not really doing much of anything.

My suggestion? It's the same for everything. We appoint a copyright court. The standard is, you keep copyright as long as you keep distributing the product at a competitive price. You decide that it is too expensive and not profitable enough to release. Fine. Either release it to the public domain, or risk a challenge being made. If you lose the challenge, you pay the legal bills of the winner. Simple as that.

No more culture going down the memory hole.

I so agree, but is there enough demand/return?

[LiberalApplication]

I personally love arcade shooters, especially Cave shooters like ESPrade and Dangun Feveron. There are a ton of arcade games, fantastic ones like Dead Connection, that I've never seen or heard of until they were added to MAME. As much as I'd hope otherwise, it's not likely that anyone would port them to a current system.

These arcade games from five, ten, fifteen years ago, they were designed to get you to pump in your quarters for an hour or so, maybe-just-maybe a few times a week. Unfortunately, I think the trend as of late has been towards the production of games which require a real commitment over a period of time. Levelling up in RPGs, playing out a season in a football game, unlocking cars in Gran Turismo, and getting your Sims rich, these are the things which seem to get people's wallets out of their pockets.

If some of these old arcade games found their way to a home system now, I bet people would complain about their lack of replayability, the simplicity of their nature, and their brevity. Those were their strengths in the arcade, of course, but how much could a developer expect to make porting a title without content changes to the PS2? They'd have to sell them for a very low price. People would probably not pay fifty dollars for a game they could finish in 30 minutes. Heck, people complained about Ikaruga on the Dreamcast being a straight arcade port.

I have no idea what I'm rambling about anymore, but I guess I'm just sad that the only way I can get a 4-player game of Sunset Riders going is by breaking the law.

Am I the only one who suspects... (Phantom)

[LiberalApplication]

...I get this strange feeling that this is what the hush-hush Infinium Labs "Phantom" console is going to do.

Although I can't locate them now, I recall mentions of "streaming games" and "trials" and "online rentals" of "over X0,000 existing software titles". While this is said to include PC titles, I keep thinking that old arcade ROMs would be perfect for this kinda thing.

Games you could play on a whim, whose ROMs are typically a few megs at most, often have high production values, are completed and tested... You could download them via the Phantom, and Infinium Labs pays the copyright holders a nickel each time someone presses "start" on Do Don Pachi.

My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said, the legality of ROM files is beyond question--they are copyrighted and can't be distributed or copied without permission of the copyright holder.

I can understand the stance of Nintendo, who wants to re-release older games for Gameboy. What I don't understand are arcade games. There are old arcade games that I enjoyed while growing up and would like to play again. I'm not talking about the "classics" that have been re-released (Centipede, Space Invaders, Galaga, etc.). I'm talking about the more obscure games that I loved growing up and would love to play a few more times. Games like Mat Mania and Karate Champ. These are relatively obscure games that I only played because they were in my local arcade. They are never going to be released as official PS2 or Gamecube games. Even if they were, I would only play it 3-4 times before I craved new graphics. But why have developers driven MAME underground. I downloaded MAME and some ROMS a few years ago and had a couple hours of fun on my old computer. I suddenly had the craving to play an old game and couldn't find MAME ROMs anywhere. All the sites said the ROMs were no longer available. That just irritates me. They will make next to nothing on a re-release of those games, but they still try to reserve it for themselves.

Re:Collecting and playing are two different things

[ymgve]

I bought FF6 for the PSX. It might have been some of the worst money I ever spent.

All menus took AT LEAST FIVE seconds to open up. It wasn't a RPG anymore, it was a patience tester.

If the rest of the conversions are equally bad, I'd much rather fetch an illegal ROM and emulate it on my trusty PC.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[Wog]

The truth is that the rights to the Beatles and Jackson music did not magically transfer to greedy execs. The original artists got *something* for it, and now the right to sell it belongs to someone else. I can't just take the gas station just because the original owner died years after selling it to someone else. Creating a work for profit is like starting a business. Get it?

Now, how badly they got ripped off is another question, but it's not like it was stolen from them.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[Wog]

They still charge for "recent" translations of the Bible, yes. You can get the King James Version (Thees, thous, etc) for free. What usually happens is that some publishing company supplies the funding for a new translation of the original text. The translators put up with it... They just want a more accurate translation, or whatever.

Simple...

[Stonan]

If the game is not longer being sold in main-stream video game stores (Electronic Boutique, Egghead Software, etc) then is should be classified freeware.

This doesn't usually happen to games until they're 2-3 years old. With the progress of computer hardware & software, this seems reasonable.

Games that fall into this category are usually being sold at Walmart for $15-$20.

The thing about ROMs and "piracy"

[AvantLegion]

First, we must acknowledge that downloading ROMs is illegal. There is no argument to the contrary.

However, let's look at how ROM "piracy" is different from, say, MP3 "piracy".

1. These titles are not available through retail. - Limiting the discussion to 8-bit and 16-bit era console systems, there is no way to get any of these games through retail in their original form, except used.

2. The vast majority of these games are not available in non-original forms. Certainly, Nintendo and a few others have released a handful of games in GBA form, or bonuses in other retail products. Even a couple of "anthologies" have made it to market (there are many for old arcade games, most of which never had a complete, arcade-perfect home translation, but there are far fewer anthologies of games that were home-console titles). However, MOST titles are not available in any way, shape, or form.

3. Used games are subject to availability, wear/damage, pricing, and profit the copyright holders $0. I walked into FuncoLand a couple of days ago, and saw a used Kid Icarus game in the used "old games" bin. The price tag? $14.99. I have also bought used cartridge games that flat out did not work. And most of the old games I'd like to get aren't available in local used stores. Do I want to go on to eBay and buy a cartridge where the shipping cost would almost double the final price, and I'd still be getting a used cartridge that isn't guaranteed to function beyond today? In some cases, yes, but mostly no. ROMs allow us to play the games without worrying about the integrity of 15-20 year old equipment.

4. The flaw of copyrights - "it's mine and I don't have to use it if I don't wanna". Nintendo, Sega, and all the other publishers of the era do not have to make their old titles available in any way if they don't want to. This is where copyrights are a hinderance. If Nintendo and the others refuse to make use of their copyrighted material, some 3rd party should have the right to be able to license the material for some baseline fee, and use it, whether Nintendo/Sega/etc. like it or not. Allowing copyright holders to sit on their copyrights and do absolutely nothing with them hurts the consumer, and doesn't benefit the holder either.

Barring this, however, ROM use will proliferate.

Re:The thing about ROMs and "piracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. So there is a way then? Point 1 out.

2. So you know every publisher's strategy forever? Point 2 out.

3. So cost and state of repair are factors? I can then justify stealing a car because I can't afford the one I want, the original producer will not profit, and you can't be sure a used one purchased is in factory condition? Point 3 out.

4. Your opinion. You don't know what they intend for the life of their business. I just bought a PS2 title called Activision Anthology. It contained MANY Atari era Activision games. And companies ARE able to license the material. It does happen, but ROM proliferation makes it less profitable. You create a chicked and egg situation here. You download the ROMs because you claim noone sells the games, but noone will sell the games because you download the ROMs. Point 4, WAY out.

Lets use logic here people, not opinion and justification.

Re:The thing about ROMs and "piracy"

[AvantLegion]

1. So there is a way then? Point 1 out.

Straw man. For most products, it's difficult if not impossible. Scouring eBay for a few rare table scraps is NOT "a way" by any reasonable distinction.

2. So you know every publisher's strategy forever? Point 2 out.

Straw man. This in no way counters the fact that the IP for most of those games aren't in use. The argument that maybe someday a handful will be put into use doesn't change that.

3. So cost and state of repair are factors? I can then justify stealing a car because I can't afford the one I want, the original producer will not profit, and you can't be sure a used one purchased is in factory condition? Point 3 out.

Straw man. The argument has nothing to do with not being able to afford the product. If your argument was equal to mine, then mine would have to be advocating ROMs when you can't afford to buy the real thing. That's not my argument. Hence, yours is another bullshit Straw Man.

4. Your opinion. You don't know what they intend for the life of their business. I just bought a PS2 title called Activision Anthology. It contained MANY Atari era Activision games.

And there's the solution to the problem.
Use it, or let someone else use it.
I recently bought Lucasarts's adventure game collection (with stuff like Sam & Max and Day of the Tentacle). They released it, I bought it. What a concept! Unfortunately, getting the first two Monkey Island games in a legit form has proven much more difficult. I played through those games with "abandonwarez" downloads, and yet I'm still looking for them on CD (they were bundled with a particular release of Curse of Monkey Island, but it's hard to determine what vendor has the "right" version).

Has iTunes taught you nothing? Legit releasing at reasonable prices of normally "pirated" material turns a lot of "piracy" into "business".

And companies ARE able to license the material.

And unfortunately, most don't bother.

It does happen, but ROM proliferation makes it less profitable. You create a chicked and egg situation here. You download the ROMs because you claim noone sells the games, but noone will sell the games because you download the ROMs. Point 4, WAY out.

I didn't create the situation. And one came well before the other. "Classic" games were shoved into the vaults long before ROMs proliferated. No chicken or egg here, just cause-and-effect.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[PainKilleR-CE]

I can't just take the gas station just because the original owner died years after selling it to someone else. Creating a work for profit is like starting a business. Get it?

Except that if I want to buy gas I can go somewhere else if I don't like the owner of that gas station. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly over a creative work that is meant to encourage artists to reveal their creations to the world, under the assumption that it will go into the public domain. I *could* get the work illegally, or try to find it used, if I don't care for the company or people that own the copyright, but the first would be illegal and the second would be next to impossible for many works.

The simple fact is that current copyright laws mean that I will never see any current works in the public domain, and probably won't see Elvis, the Beatles, or anything else from the 1950's and 60's, either. Elvis has been dead nearly as long as I've been alive, and it appears that Ringo may become the last Beatle at some point, and will probably outlive me.

Commercially Damaging...

[Thedalek]

In all actuality, Fair Use does cover this. In order for someone to be in violation, the pirated work in question must be commercially damaging.

The exact wording of the Fair Use section of copyright law is a little fluffy on the matter, but basically, I'm looking at (1) The purpose and character of use (profit/nonprofit) and (4) The effect on the potential market value of the product.

Are you cracked?

[Inoshiro]

Part 4 pretty much is a single-paragraph decrying the entire concept of IP. Guess what -- if I own something, because I made it or bought the rights to it, it's my decision if I put it in a box in a graveyard to rot for all eternity. Today's digital age makes it easier to still obtain a copy, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it make IP outmoded.

Re:Are you cracked?

[AvantLegion]

Part 4 pretty much is a single-paragraph decrying the entire concept of IP.

No. IP allows you to use your copyright, license it to someone else to use, or sit on it and not use it. Paragraph 4 only asks to eliminate the last part.

f I own something, because I made it or bought the rights to it, it's my decision if I put it in a box in a graveyard to rot for all eternity.

And that's the problem. If you have no intention of ever using it, you don't lose anything if someone else has the right to pay to license it and use it themselves. But the consumers that demand the product do.

Re:Natural response to ridiculous copyright length

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with the music industry you can still buy works from 30 years ago.

Only a handfull of companies in the world do the same for old games.

I live in Australia. I still haven't played Chronotrigger. I haven't d/loaded it out of respect for Square. I would love to pay them hard cold cash to play it.

But they won't sell it to me, yet. (Hey, I only had to wait 12 years to play Final Fantasy 4, maybe one day...)

Yes, but...

[Inoshiro]

"And that's the problem. If you have no intention of ever using it, you don't lose anything if someone else has the right to pay to license it and use it themselves. But the consumers that demand the product do."

Before you think of the easy justifying scenario, consider the other scenarios. Do you really think people want their new idea for memory managment to be so loose that it can be taken out from under them? How do you define in use? Would there be specific legal restrictions, or would you be wanting to go on a case-by-case basis until there was enough precedent? How would the society we are based in (personal rights ueber alles) react to the much more socialistic treament of sharing unused ideas? Do you like the idea that all the code and writting on your HD which you scribbled years ago would suddenly be open for anyone to prod at?

You can't go making such large changes off of one case. First you have to understand the shortcomings of the current system, then you have to come up with a plan to address them. Show the need for change, show how your plan would address them. Bringing a whole slew of unanswered questions and possible problems to the table does not a plan make.