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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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*.
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
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?
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.
The coders of QBert are starving right now because evil pirates aren't buying their software!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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.
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!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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?
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.
... illustrates demand. If interest in a game is being rekindled, why not find a way to productize it?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.