Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Schnapple
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*.
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.
Schnapple
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.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.