Slashdot Mirror


Legal Arcade ROM Vendor Talks Business

jvm writes "Remember StarROMs, the company selling legal Atari ROM downloads for a few bucks a piece? They're still around and Curmudgeon Gamer posted an interview with StarROMs co-founder Frank Leibly. Have they been successful so far? How can they possibly expect to compete with free downloads? Are they giving money to MAME as promised? And why has their listing of games dropped from about 60 games to just over 50? It's all here. (Slashdot covered their initial launch late last year, and Slashdot Games recently also recounted a different discussion with Leibly.)"

127 comments

  1. Increase in liability by Raindance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By implication, are folks who violate copyright by downloading various roms more legally liable if StarROMs' business model succeeds?

    I'd imagine so, and I don't like it.

    p.s. all STFU Pirate!!!!! replies will be ignored as missing the point.

    1. Re:Increase in liability by BackwardHatClub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not as far as the law is concerned... maybe slightly different if for a jury. But you are no less liable if "everybody is doing it" and no more liable if there are valid alternatives.

    2. Re:Increase in liability by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what if the company dosnt exist any longer?

      There's also a little exemption in copyright if its not commonly attainable (some 70's song you heard long ago and nobody carries it. You get it off of kazaa)

      --
    3. Re:Increase in liability by Snoopy77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's got nothing to do with the business model and I doubt StarROM's success/demise will have any effect on the liability of people who illegally obtain copyrighted ROMs.

      From what I have read, StarROM is just a distribution outlet. It does not hold any copyrights to the ROMs so it's existence changes nothing to do with copyright infringements. The only thing StarROMs could do is sue some site owner, who is illegally distributing ROMs, for damages but I doubt they would have the capital to try that.

      Oh and if you're feeling a little more threatened with your pirated ROMs then try buying them legally.

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
    4. Re:Increase in liability by PlatinumInitiate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My own feeling is, if a company is still selling old products (such as is the case with these ROMs), and you want them, buy them. But if the company stops selling that product, well, they can't have their cake and eat it too. It's like the old Sierra games. They are very difficult to get ahold of, and several abandonware sites don't even carry certain titles anymore, because of legal problems. Yet, can you buy these titles from Sierra? No. That's just being a dog in the manger, IMO.

    5. Re:Increase in liability by Raindance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree that "StarROM's success/demise will have any effect on the liability of people who illegally obtain copyrighted ROMs," though I get your point.

      You're quite correct that StarROM is "just a distribution outlet" that "does not hold any copyrights to the ROMs".

      What you seem to be missing is that the courts have shown a tendency to protect secondary markets- meaning, if this business model succeeds *there is a secondary market to be legally protected*.

      Implying, of course, that the abandonware defence will no longer be as valid, and the original creator of the ROM will get basically squat (the middleman gets all the money in this). I'm all for encouraging and rewarding creators, but **This does not do that**.

      Yes, I think this is bad. Yes, I buy things I think deserve buying and No, I don't buy things I use but don't think are worth my money. This also has nothing to do with this argument- thanks for nothing for your STFU PIRATE! ending remark.

    6. Re:Increase in liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and why dont you like it? Maybe you miss the point - if it's illegal, it's illegal. If StarROM is doing things legal, then good for them. You got a problem with someone taking the time to provide a legal service?

    7. Re:Increase in liability by Willeh · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Downloading roms not in the public domain is never legal, whether there is an entity selling those roms or not. Whether it could potentially get you in trouble does depend on someone taking notice who is selling roms, or found the copyrights to Defender in one of his old socks. But i hardly think StarRoms are about to do a 180 and become a bunch of litigious bastards.

      --
      Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
    8. Re:Increase in liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. It's...

      IN SOVIET RUSSIA, COPYRIGHT LAWS VIOLATE YOU!

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    9. Re:Increase in liability by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By implication, are folks who violate copyright by downloading various roms more legally liable if StarROMs' business model succeeds?

      I'd imagine so, and I don't like it.


      Nope. Copyright infingement is still copyright infingement. It's just now there's going to be an easier reference point for how much value you've been taking instead of the court having to throw darts to pick a number.

    10. Re:Increase in liability by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's also a little exemption in copyright if its not commonly attainable (some 70's song you heard long ago and nobody carries it. You get it off of kazaa)

      No there isn't an "exemption". If you have any references saying otherwise, please share them. You may notice in some books notes to the effect that "every attempt was made to contact copyright owners, but some could not be found" and asking them to get in touch. If they did, they'd have to negotiate; showing good intentions in this way makes claiming damages by the owner unlikely, but it doesn't revoke their copyright at all.

    11. Re:Increase in liability by ScouseMouse · · Score: 3, Informative
      >Implying, of course, that the abandonware defence
      >will no longer be as valid,


      Abandonware was never a legally defensable position.
      It was a concept invented by some BBS owners in the 1980's to try to project the image that distribution of ROMS and such like was actually legal. This has always been Bullshit. I have no more rights to copy and distribute Wordstar than i have to distribute MS office.

      A *morally* defensable position to on the other hand is different, although i would say that it is only morally defensable if you personally have tried to find the original copyright owner and after a very detailed search, cant find them.
      (Note, a quick search in the business pages is not a good search)

      I'm sure people will disagree in both directions.

      >and the original creator of the ROM will get
      >basically squat (the middleman gets all the
      >money in this). I'm all for encouraging and
      >rewarding creators, but **This does not
      >do that**.


      The original creators of the rom never got anything anyway. Most of them were salaried employees of the arcade companies (And i believe were paid very well).

      If you mean the original arcade companies, well then they know what they are signing up for. The advantage of this for them is that they have dealt fairly with the emulation buffs who want to want to be legal, while retaining their rights to the work in question when dealing with the pirates.

      The service being described by the main article is a very good idea, and i hope more copyright owners take them up on it.
    12. Re:Increase in liability by plumby · · Score: 1

      Legally, probably not. Morally (in my opinion), yes.

      I have absolutely no qualms about downloading ROMs for games that are no longer sold/available legally. I'm not harming anyone. They couldn't have got my money anyway (OK, I could have sent an unsolicited cheque off to the company, but you get the point). However, if I could easily buy the ROM cheaply off someone who was giving money back to the original producer, then I'm depriving them of money.

    13. Re:Increase in liability by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Depends.... Mostly on the jury.

      You can build yourself a better case though if you can tell the court: "I was unable to find a legal source for X, so I was forced to download it illegally. I am perfectly willing to pay for legal rights, as proof I have bought several games from StarRoms. If copyright holder would sell rights for a reasonable price I would pay it."

      The judge/jury is likely to find that you only owe a small amount. Of course if it gets to court you are in contact with the copyright owner and can settle out of court before it gets this far. Thus your argument should finish "[some large number] dollars is not reasonable in my opinion, StarRoms charges just a few dollars. I have therefore deleted this Rom from my system." Again, the court is likely to decide you did all that a reasonable person could do, and fine your a tiny amount.

    14. Re:Increase in liability by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1
      By implication, are folks who violate copyright by downloading various roms more legally liable if StarROMs' business model succeeds?
      I'd imagine so, and I don't like it.


      It would make any fair use claims even more laughable.

      The fourth criterion of fair use is:
      "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
      Title 17 USC, Section 107

      Claiming that the ROMs no longer have monetary value becomes tougher when people are making money selling them.
      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    15. Re:Increase in liability by zod1025 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that downloading is legal - sharing is not. Any information I can find that's publicly displayed is fair game for me to make a copy of for my own use, be it a 'lost dog' flyer, a DVD ISO or an obsolete arcade ROM. Whether or not it should have been publicly displayed in the first place is not my problem.

      Distribution - bad. Acquisition - good!

      Just my 2 cents.

      --

      -ZOD-
    16. Re:Increase in liability by Snoopy77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I buy things I think deserve buying and No, I don't buy things I use but don't think are worth my money.

      So the law be damned then? If YOU think something is useful, but not so useful to pay the asking price then you think it is ok to use it illegally? Do you only pay as much tax as you think the government deserves as well?

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
    17. Re:Increase in liability by Raindance · · Score: 1

      What's it to you?

      I'm not going to apologize for my morality. Perhaps you like to take whatever options corporate america (or where ever you're from) gives you, but I don't.

      I suppose if you were a slave, you'd still think 'Oh, well, I guess this might suck but I don't want to break the law- anything but that!'? I'm not in that situation, but I feel my fair-use rights, which are important to me, are being stepped on in some contexts. So I will do something about it, law be damned, until it's better.

      Maybe if more people took action for what they believed in (yes, even if it breaks the law- just keep it relatively benign), the world would be a better place.

      Frankly, I think you're being a bit narrow-minded and pushing your morality onto others.

      RD

    18. Re:Increase in liability by Snoopy77 · · Score: 1

      I advocate obedience to authorities.

      How are your 'fair-use' rights being stepped on? And aren't you just trampling all over someone else's copyrights? But I guess it is ok to step on someone else's rights as long as your are spared.

      No, I beleive the world would be better if people obeyed the law but proactively lobbeyed for change. Disobedience is not the right way.

      I'm not trying to push my morality onto you. And it's not narrow-mindedness, we are just both being stubborn in our beliefs, no compromising. Compromise too much on your beliefs and you'll have none.

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
    19. Re:Increase in liability by Raindance · · Score: 1

      You read Slashdot and don't understand how peoples' fair-use rights can be stepped on? I don't buy that. Yes, sometimes standing up for my fair-use rights sometimes makes it so others can't excersize their right to financially rape me. I'm ok with this.

      I'm guessing you aren't from America and hence my example of disobedience being the only meaningful option (slavery) wasn't meaningful to you. You say people should "obey the law but proactively lobby for change"- civil disobedience *is* lobbying for change.

      Anyway, like you say, we're both probably being a bit stubborn in our beliefs and this discussion might not get us anywhere. I do think, though, that situations can exist where breaking the law *is* the moral high ground (or, at least in this situation, not necessarilly the moral low ground as you've implied).

      Top of the day,

      RD

  2. mame cabinets by rohan_leader · · Score: 5, Informative
    Selling legal roms is a viable business especially when it comes to building mame cabinets, as the article rightly points out.

    The ultimate geek builds his own, see CmdrTaco's for an example, but in the future, there might be a market for people who want mame cabinets for sheer nostalgia reasons, as more and more, the computer seems to be in the right position to trump the arcade soon.

    And of course, you're not going to put illegal roms on a commercial product. Enter StarROMs...

    1. Re:mame cabinets by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      So this could enable a business to be built on mame cabinets. Before this business opened, there was a liability issue for a commercial vendor selling a system for which the actual game is a *mumble*mumble* thing.

      The only people who seem to think they will be hurt are people who want the hobby to remain elite and underground. They can remain underground with their 'illegal' rom images. It won't be as 'leet as it is now, of course, when there are mail order cabinet kits commonly available.

      --
      ---
    2. Re:mame cabinets by MrIrwin · · Score: 2, Funny
      "see CmdrTaco's for an example"

      Are you expecting extra moderation points for that link ;-)

      --

      And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

    3. Re:mame cabinets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic, but fucking hillarious!

  3. Simple by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "How can they possibly expect to compete with free downloads?"

    There's a couple of ways:

    1.) If they advertise, then people who haven't heard of ROMs before know where to go.

    2.) Service. I mucked around with ROMs a while back. It was a pain in the ass finding them. Even bigger pain in the ass downloading them. If I wasn't entering pop-up hell (not so rough these days given modern browsers, etc...), I was being asked to vote for places in order to proceed.

    If I ever get the itch to play with ROMs again, they'll be the first place I try. Why would I do that instead of trying to find free downloads? Because free isn't so free when you're hugely inconvenienced along the way.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reply to 2)
      You can get the ROMs for the cost of media and shipping from quite a few people, and not have to deal w/ any of it. You can pick up 5 DVD's worth of the latest MAME set for $30.

    2. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or just get them from SuprNova. Almost zero hassle.

    3. Re:Simple by ScouseMouse · · Score: 1

      I would add (3) Some people prefer having legal, software to play with. This is why I switched to Linux. I had Three boxes with unlicensed copies of Windows 98, and its just not legal. Same difference.

    4. Re:Simple by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      I mucked around with ROMs a while back. It was a pain in the ass finding them. Even bigger pain in the ass downloading them. If I wasn't entering pop-up hell (not so rough these days given modern browsers, etc...), I was being asked to vote for places in order to proceed.

      Well, that's your mistake... you were looking for contraband on the WEB.

      ROMs are plentiful and easy to acquire on most IRC systems, P2P networks, Usenet, etc... There are in fact parts of the internet that Google does not index for you. (Yet.)

  4. Legitimization by Willeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this could do well to somewhat brush up the image of emulation as a whole that Nintendo have done their best to smear (ultrahle, that handheld emulator) be it commercial or purely as a technical proof (what ultrahle was). Hell, i could even think of a somewhat commercial version of mame that has an itunes music store type thing in which you can buy the roms directly (call it Mame$ or something).

    --
    Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
    1. Re:Legitimization by Troed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nintendo cracks down HARD on illegal roms since Nintendo are actively using their old games to further the value of new ones. If there's any one company where "abandonware" really doesn't apply it's Nintendo.

      Play Animal Crossing on the Gamecube, and you'll be able to play old NES-games both on the cube - and on your GBA if you have one.

      Nintendo has shipped bonusdiscs with both NES and N64 games (Zelda CE) ... lots of GBA games are either remakes or build heavily upon old NES and SNES games.

      I do agree with the point that ROMs should be available for legal purchase though. I use a GB Player connected to my Gamecube to play GBA-games, but I'd just as well like to buy a few NES and SNES ROMs from Nintendo and play on my Xbox.

  5. Atari still for sale - $18 by JPriest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought this was cool, you can pick up a Joystick with a built in Atari and 10 games for 20 bucks at walmart. Larger picture here

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:Atari still for sale - $18 by Cus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Namco do one as well with Pacman, Dig Dug, Galaxian, Bosconian and Rally X.

      Thinkgeek stock them

    2. Re:Atari still for sale - $18 by brendanoconnor · · Score: 1

      That is pretty cool that Walmart is selling this setup, but before you go off and give them your money, you might read this article first. I know I don't support this company, and even though I wouldn't mind this product, I won't give any money to Walmart if I can help it. Click Here

    3. Re:Atari still for sale - $18 by LSD-25 · · Score: 1

      I have the Namco model. Be aware that the games are ports, not emulations. The machine might be a NES clone, since there are all-in-one units that contain a collection of NES games, and the games look like NES games. Also, the Bosconian port is deeply flawed; the joystick only goes in 4 directions instead of eight, and the fire button has to be pressed for each shot, instead of firing continuously when held down. I was hoping that the game would actually contain hardware similar to the original machines, but that would probably cost much more than twenty bucks.

      Also, these games are available in places like Toys 'R Us and Circuit City, so you don't have to go to Wal-Mart or mail order. The manufacture is Jakks Pacific.

    4. Re:Atari still for sale - $18 by Cus · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that given the Namco name that ROM licensing issues wouldn't be a problem and true emulation would be used.

      *sigh*

      Back to the drawing board then :-(

  6. Abandonware grey areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There used to be some great abandonware sites where you could download and upload stuff for free (aw.localhost.ee). Eventually they required log ins to download and upload and then they were eventually shut down. The problem was some people had uploaded stuff that though was no longer for sale, it was also not for free public consumption. Telengard, The Leisure Suit Larry series, Stronghold and others can only be found for sale on E-bay. The companies that sold the games no longer exist but the makers of the games and their rights over them do. The can't get a publisher to spend the money to market the games again because of their limited and dated appeal among nostalgic gamers so they just fall into limbo. This sucks for me and other gamers who fondly remember these old relics whose gameplay (though not graphics) surpasses many of todays new games. There has to be some solution besides just denying a viable market of what they want.

    1. Re:Abandonware grey areas by CrystalChronicles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why I think copyright law on software should be reduced. That way people who want this stuff can aquire it legally. If the owners can't make money from it then what are they losing when it goes PD? The original developers don't get anything either way but I bet they would rather more people can enjoy their creations. Since copyright law is so lengthy on software which is virtually useless after a few years (unlike copyright on physical items which are still useful/commercially viable for many decades and more) I think most software companies turn a blind eye when their software is pYrated. Protect your interest against rival companies but if you're not making money selling it, what do you lose when people do dl it?

    2. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the developers are still employed making new games, the old games being available for free hurts them because it gives people an alternative to buying the new game. It hurts the game vendors the same way.

      It also makes it harder for competitors to sell new games. Under things the way they stand now, 'abandonware' should cease to exist, because if the software exists, there is an interested body who will want to buy it, and either distribute it or bury it so they can sell their game to you instead.

      And 'abandonware' assumptions destroy the market for those games we can all buy for $5-10 on the 'bare jewel case' rack at stores. This hurts the game itself, because it means there's no 'official' distribution, just people passing around random old copies.

      --
      ---
    3. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Gorath99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. If you're willing to pay for those oldies, then just let the owners of the rights know. A number of them have already made their old games available again because of such reactions, either at a small charge or even completely free. This is for instance the case with the various versions of the excellent space sim Elite or the various Cinemaware games such as Defender of the Crown.

      2. Leisure Suit Larry was was created and published by Sierra, which obviously still exists. They are even quite fond of releasing old games at low prices or entirely free (the excellent Betrayal at Krondor, for instance).

    4. Re:Abandonware grey areas by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If the developers are still employed making new games, the old games being available for free hurts them because it gives people an alternative to buying the new game. It hurts the game vendors the same way.

      I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.

      I'm in my early 40s and into retrogaming in a big way because I remember Space Invaders, Defender, etc. in the arcades and all the games I had on ZX Spectrums and Amigas. I also play a lot of the PC games from 10 years ago also.

      I would imagine that most of the people in the retrogaming scene are of a similar age group and not really in the target market for games manufacturers anyway. Plus I think we're all a little older and wiser based on the amount of money we've probably spent in the past on games, particularly dire ones!

      Don't get me wrong, I'm eagerly awaiting Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 but I'm simply not prepared to part with hard-earned cash for most of the average games that get output by the games companies these days - that would be the case whether I retrogamed or not.

      I just really don't see that MAME and a few Space Invaders ROMs are going to compete with the likes of Gran Turismo for the younger generations.

      It also makes it harder for competitors to sell new games. Under things the way they stand now, 'abandonware' should cease to exist, because if the software exists, there is an interested body who will want to buy it, and either distribute it or bury it so they can sell their game to you instead.

      I think there are interested bodies who would want to distribute old software. I think the problem is that it will never happen because with the amount of games company mergers over the years, it's such a legal minefield deciding who owns the right to these games in the first place that there's no financial incentive for any company to do the distribution.

      I also think that a games author is more likely to allow free distribution of his/her game rather than letting a third party sell it and make money from it that he/she won't get a slice of.

      And 'abandonware' assumptions destroy the market for those games we can all buy for $5-10 on the 'bare jewel case' rack at stores. This hurts the game itself, because it means there's no 'official' distribution, just people passing around random old copies.

      Yes, but look at the bargain software racks and they are filled with a majority of games that were released within the past 2-3 years - there are exceptions but not many.

      Also, what about "long dead" platforms like the ZX Spectrum, Commodore Amiga (please don't rip into me about the state of the Amiga market, it's just a generic statement!), etc?

      If we're talking music CDs or films, I can generally pick up any music or movies released over the past 50 years with little or no trouble - why can there not be a similar mechanism for games?

      I personally don't see a problem with Abandonware provided no-one is making any money from those games currently and that when someone does decide to redistribute them, those titles are removed from the Abandonware classification.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      The consumer comes first as far as I'm concerned so yes I'm biased.

      1. Old games competing with new games?
      Tough cookies. Sorry, but he way i see it is if an old game is free, then I still have money left over for the new game. This is similar to why filesharing increases profits rather than aroding profits. And of course, maybe the real problem is the new team working on the new game have too many $'s in their eys and not enough love for the the project to make it worth the purchas.

      2. It makes it harder for competitors to sell new games. Isn't that a good thing for the other company? Sounds like a good reason to promote free copies of old games to remind the customer who the king of entertainment is (assuming you have good titles, see if the old game sucked then it would be great for the competition). Wait it gives the consumer a way to evaluate the company's record in the business? Heavens to Mergatroid, we can't have that. Consumers already have too much information as it is.

      3. Official distribution? Oh please, do we have to buy a new basketball when we got to the neighborhood playground? Hey kid, you can't lend your blades to your friend, that's not nice to your friendly rep at the sports shop, tell that cheapskate friend of yours to buy his own. Yes, the building blocks of society are destroyed by sharing.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    6. Re:Abandonware grey areas by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If the developers are still employed making new games, the old games being available for free hurts them because it gives people an alternative to buying the new game. It hurts the game vendors the same way."

      With that argument, Metallica can criticize me for listening to baroque music and 19th century opera.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • If the developers are still employed making new games, the old games being available for free hurts them because it gives people an alternative to buying the new game. It hurts the game vendors the same way.
      WAA WAA WAA
      I guess we should make it illegal to ingest any entertainment if it's not the latest, greatest thing, because it 'gives people an alternative to buying the new [shit]' and thus 'hurts the vendoers the same way'.

      In short, fuck you.
    8. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Sierra, which obviously still exists. They are even quite fond of releasing old games at low prices or entirely free"

      Except when they can milk it for all it's worth, such as in the case of Half-Life, which they still want $40 for and is like 5 years old now.

      Fuck them, I have no love lost for Sierra.

    9. Re:Abandonware grey areas by Gorath99 · · Score: 1
      >Except when they can milk it for all it's worth, such as in the case of Half-Life, which they still want $40 for and is like 5 years old now.
      >
      >Fuck them, I have no love lost for Sierra.

      More likely your local retailer is milking it. I got my copy (GotY edition) + Opposing Force + Counterstrike + Blue Shift for 14.95 euros. Pretty sweet, even if the game is indeed a few years old now.

      I suggest you look around a bit for a shop that has more reasonable prices. If you happen to be in the Netherlands, then this is such a place.

  7. If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when has making a product unavailable for purchase meant you can steal er violate copyright?

    1. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when has making a product unavailable for purchase meant you can steal er violate copyright?

      From City University of New York's discussion on fair use:

      "The fact that a work is out of print or unavailable, or that there is no ready market for permissions weighs toward favorable to fair use."

      Not exactly a guarantee, but the fact that, for most abandonware, no legit source exists weighs positively in favor of otherwise-illegally obtaining it falling under fair use.


      Of course, considering the four points that determine whether or not a given activity falls under fair use, I'd say the idea of abandonware scores at best a 50:50 shot. For the "purpose and character", noncommercial preservation of culturally relevant materials weighs as a positive. For "nature of the copyrighted word", a game purely for entertainment scores a negative. For the "substantiality of the portion used", I'd call 100% a definite strike against abandonware. And for the "potential market", that could go either way... Currently unavailable would count as a positive, but by infringing copyrights to get the ROMs, one could argue that downloading them would tend to reduce the potential market (though, I would personally say it increases the market, when a friend comes over and plays Pac-Man via MAME and then goes out and blows $1500 on a vintage machine...).


      PS - IANAL, as if it needs saying.

    2. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not exactly a guarantee, but the fact that, for most abandonware, no legit source exists weighs positively in favor of otherwise-illegally obtaining it falling under fair use.

      A copy of the entire work is hard to justify as "fair use" in any situation. For written work, the general rule is no more than 50% of an article, or a chapter or two of a book, may be quoted as "fair use" without requiring permission. These limits are rubbery, and are rarely tested in court. If you can show you made some attempt to find the owner, and have an open offer to make an arrangement with them should they contact you, you would probably be reasonably safe. But if it's a company in the phone book (not some bankrupt and long-gone publisher) that just refuses to licence their work, you would be in trouble.

    3. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A copy of the entire work is hard to justify as "fair use" in any situation.

      I tend to agree, though as someone who understands why software differs from something like a book or a movie, I could also argue the opposite point...

      With a book, a one-chapter excerpt can make quite a lot of sense, and give an idea of the feel of the work as a whole. With movies, the actual advertisements just take a set of very short clips and string them together. But with a program? How do you meaningfully use only part of a program? Sure, if you have the source code, you can chop out, say, eight of ten levels in a game. But from just a binary? You just can't do it.

      So, although the entire work wouldn't normally count as fair use, with a ROM, you have no choice but to use 100% of it.


      If you can show you made some attempt to find the owner, and have an open offer to make an arrangement with them should they contact you, you would probably be reasonably safe.

      The very idea of abandonware (at least as defined by the more reputable sites) makes that rather easy - 99% of the games publishers from before the mid 1990's simply don't exist anymore. Tracking down who currently owns the "rights" to the games produced by such companies amounts to a snark hunt, as even if a legal chain of ownership does exist, in many cases, the current owner doesn't even realize it... "Yeah, I worked at Spiffware in 1987 - I designed 8x12 animated blobs that supposedly looked like aliens. What??? As the last surviving programmer who, under a bizarre contract clause, didn't go work for Nintendo, I own their entire catalog, including ZappoBlast 9000? Cool! Uhh... So what do I do with it? I don't even have a single copy of any of those games, though I do have a moldy ZB9k promo poster..."

      Now, does that excuse blatant copyright infringement? IMO, as long as the original author/publisher no longer exists, I'd say yes - With the condition, though (as you suggest) that such use include an open offer to the current owner to either stop using it, or to make an arrangement to use it legally. Though, of course, my personal opinion does not carry the weight of law, and various anti-piracy groups regularly crack down on abandonware, despite having no idea themselves as to who can currently claim ownership of such material.

    4. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      How do you meaningfully use only part of a program? Sure, if you have the source code, you can chop out, say, eight of ten levels in a game. But from just a binary? You just can't do it.

      I wasn't saying that you could; only that in most media that "fair use" never allows a complete copy to be published, and as in software it generally isn't possible to use anything less that it isn't relevant. Though it probably would enable screenshots and such. Lots of ROM and warez sites have claimed that it's all right to download and use for "24 hours", for "evaluation", etc, hoping somehow that this was "fair use", by limiting the time; though of course no one really expected you to download Photo Shop and delete it the next day.

    5. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by dj245 · · Score: 1
      Does this mean that you should steal Ferarri's since they are unavailable for immediate purchase and you cannot buy them immediately? (There is like a 2 year waiting list)

      Kind of like 2 years ago when there was no StarRoms, only we didn't know there was going to be a StarRoms.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by ymgve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you could copy a Ferrari without taking it away from the original owner, you should go right ahead.

      Your analogy is flawed.

    7. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really expect to be able to manufacture your own car copying a Ferrari design and not being sued by Ferrari?

      Your correction to the analogy is flawed too...

    8. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by bircho · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that you should steal Ferarri's since they are unavailable for immediate purchase and you cannot buy them immediately?

      If you paint your car red and put a horse sticker on it, you are "copying" a ferrari without steal someones else car. Is it wrong? Must i go to jail for a sticker?

      I would gladly pay to go to a arcade. But some times is difficult to find the game you want...

    9. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Do you really expect to be able to manufacture your own car copying a Ferrari design and not being sued by Ferrari?

      Your correction to the analogy is flawed too...

      Cars can't be copyrighted. If you copy, say, a 1982 Ferrari part-for-part, the Ferrari company has no legal recourse. Your attempt to debunk his correction is flawed. The original attempt to cast copyright infringement in the same light as theft was lame to begin with; let it go.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, since the copyright infringement case can only really be brought by the copyright owner, if that owner cannot be found, you won't get sued.

      If someone *says* they are the copyright holder, then they will have to prove it, or be done for plagiarism.

    11. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plagiarism?

      I think you mean perjury.

    12. Re:If Disney can do it, why can't Sierra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A copy of the entire work is hard to justify as "fair use" in any situation.

      Yes, but a copy of the entire work is in the hizzle fo' shizzle.

  8. Great reason to support HR2601. by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Informative

    ROMs are a great reason to support HR2601 -- the Public Domain Enhancement Act. Copyrighted works that aren't commercially viable stand a chance to enter the public domain after 50 years. If you live in the US, I think you should write you Congressional representatives to co-sponsor this bill.

    1. Re:Great reason to support HR2601. by CrystalChronicles · · Score: 2

      Isn't 50 years what it used to be before copyright laws were extended? Looks like we're been jipped.

      I still think 50 years is too long.

    2. Re:Great reason to support HR2601. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it used to be 20 years when it was first enacted in the USA. Of course average life expectancy was a bit shorter in the 18th century too, but that was partly brought down by high infant mortality. If you grew old enough to create copyrighted works, you might have had a good chance to live past 60. But most artists tend to be poorer and have worse nutrition and health as a result. So 20 years was probably more than 1/2 of an artist's productive years, which nowadays would probably work out to about 30-35 years.

    3. Re:Great reason to support HR2601. by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Close. It was 14 years plus a 14 year extension possible. I think your talk about the "artists tend to be poorer" is a rather large misconception. For the most part, only people with any significant level of learning could write proficiently enough to author a book. It wasn't until the 19th/20th century that there were folklorists and general widespread literacy improvements that allowed for the poor to write books, so most stories were still told orally for the poor.

      During the time between a book starting to be written to the point where sales are enough to live off of, an author needs somewhere to live and eat. There wasn't much of a middle class at the start of the US, so generally that shifts virtually all writers into the comfortably rich. I think all this amounts to most authors of the time having a natural life span around 60 years (ignoring the revolutionary war that shrank writers lives).

      However, I don't think that copyright as it was was 14 (+14) years because of the average lifespan of the author. US doctrine doesn't believe the author has any innate right to copyrighted works. In reality, the likelyhood is the 14 (up to 28) year span was more a result of communication lag which could mean it'd take several years before even a popular book to go from one major city to every rich person in even the more rural settings.

      Today, it takes literally seconds for most works to go from a major city to a rural setting. While I don't believe a copyright the length of a few days would be sufficient incentive for an author (though it covers news stories well enough), if anything the increase in rate of information transfer should be *decreasing* the length of copyright, not increasing it. The US's adoption of the Berne Convention is to me, an ignorant surrender of a basic ideological difference between given and natural born rights. I truly wish that at some point the US takes measures to reaffirm the basics of what copyright is.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    4. Re:Great reason to support HR2601. by Zaph · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the heads up on this bill. It may not be the ideal way to fix the copyright problem, but at least it's a start in the right direction.

      I checked on the EFF Action Center and found this issue listed... a quick and easy way to send a fax to my congressman. I'd encourage everyone in the US to do the same!

      --
      Quoth the Penguin, "pipe grep more!"
  9. StarRoms Roms, were do they come from? by fathertom · · Score: 0, Insightful

    What I wonder is were is Starroms getting their roms? Are they dumping the roms themselves or just making money off someone else's rom dump? It takes about 3 seconds to locate roms on edonkey/kazaa.. That's quite a lot of work for them...
    -Tom

  10. Aggh! /.'ed by zem_11 · · Score: 1

    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/local/etc/httpd/curmudgeon.linuxgames.com/gee klog-1.3.9/system/databases/mysql.class.php on line 108
    Cannnot connect to DB server

  11. Reason They Have Less Games by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Informative
    Atari licensed a number of concole games from other video game manufacturers. For example, the arcade version of "Crazy Climber" was manufactured by Nichibutsu. I know one of Nichibutsu's former stateside attorneys who helped broker the licensing deal with Atari to bring "Crazy Climber" to the 2600. That was around 1980 or 1981.

    A LOT of these games are 20-25 years old. In the intervening years the original licensor may have gone out of business and determining who has the licensing rights after the business was dissolved requires a lot of legwork... or there may still be pending disputes between former owners of the businesses that tie up doing anything with the game until the dispute is resolved.

    Tracking down the person with rights or waiting for a rights dispute to be settled are both reasons I've heard for some classic films languishing in the vault without seeing the light of DVD.

    Games disappearing from StaROMs may be ones that were licensed to them in good faith, but were later found out to have a murky provenance where determining, finding contact information for, and coming to an agreement with the party that has licensing rights became difficult.

    I'm not going to comment on other aspects, but I wouldn't use the drop from 60 to 51 games as an indicator of imminent failure of the site.

  12. Open up a MAME Arcade cheap? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm trying to find on the StarROMs site... is it legal to use game ROMs obtained through them in a commercial arcade setting where a customer actually puts a quarter through to get past the "insert coin" prompt? The license terms seem to say nothing about that one way or the other...

    1. Re:Open up a MAME Arcade cheap? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay... found it... to answer my own question:

      This License allows you
      to use the Software on a single personal
      computer for non-commercial
      entertainment purposes only,

    2. Re:Open up a MAME Arcade cheap? by xirtam_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't do this. The licence is for non-commercial use only. If you want the ultimate in retrogaming in the arcade get yourself a cabinet from these guys UltraCade who have games licenced for commercial use.

  13. Word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fo shizzle my nizzle! Of course I gotz ROMs!

  14. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by FryGuy1013 · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, ROM's are given that name because they are ROM dumps. Cartriges are ROM, and the contents of them are dumped into a file for use by the emulator (or for ahem, backup). Just like people say ATM Machines, people will shorten the ROM dump files to ROM's.

    --
    bananas like monkeys.
  15. Legal and not-so-legal emulator cabinets by AtariKee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are a couple of machines manufactured that play classic games via emulation, and I believe that the games themselves are either licensed or no suitable copyright owner could be found. Ultracade is one of them (site requires Flash and is annoying as hell; visit this site for a picture of the cabinet and description). I *believe* that there is another, but I cannot remember the name of it now.

    And then there is the venreable ArcadeControls.Com with a hundred or so examples of home-built MAME machines.

    --
    "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
    "Thank you, Master Control"
    -Sark and the MCP
  16. Is it a quagmire yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it a quagmire yet? Mr Bush?

  17. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If your son doesn't know the definition of rom, may I suggest you steer him away from CS? It's really for the good of us all.

  18. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interview: Frank Leibly of StarROMs
    Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 08:01 AM CST
    Contributed by: jvm

    Last Fall I interviewed Jeff Vavasour (parts one, two, three) and asked whether we'd ever see any game companies offering game ROMs in a pay-per-download service. Within a matter of days, StarROMs appeared in the public eye and caused a stir by offering several dozen classic Atari arcade ROMs for download, apparently legally, for a couple of dollars each. Shortly thereafter, I purchased several ROMs and enjoyed playing them in MAME, leading to one of the more curmudgeonly, controversial posts to ever grace this site.

    Having already poked the ROM pirates with my sawed-off pointy stick, it seemed appropriate to needle the StarROMs people themselves. In the period shortly after their launch, however, StarROMs disappointingly declined my request for an interview. Being the patient type, I asked again recently and this time StarROMs co-founder Frank Leibly agreed to answer my questions.

    Here, at last are answers to the big questions: How can StarROMs, a pay-to-download business, really expect to compete with the free, pirated ROMs people are already downloading? Have they been successful? And, are they really going to donate some of their earnings back to emulation projects like MAME?

    jvm: Let's get right to the big questions. You've had your business open for nearly five months. Is StarROMs successful so far?

    Frank Leibly: I think we're doing pretty good so far. Longer term, we aren't going to be happy until we get every copyright owner on board. And that's going to take some time. But I think we've made a lot of people very happy with what we have to offer now.

    jvm: You're charging a couple dollars per game. How can you possibly compete with the "free" downloads of ROMs that any modestly skilled net surfer can track down?

    FL: This is really the same issue every copyright owner and media company has been dealing with for years. As a kid I bought blank tapes and copied records and tapes from my friends but when I got to the point when I could afford it I bought the CD's. And I still do. If you look at the demographic of who we're selling to, it's people in their 20's, 30's and 40's for the most part. Spending a few bucks is pocket change and it's worth it to know you're dealing with someone legitimate. I like to think the service we provide is worth something too.

    I also think the illegal sites are going to continue to experience pressure and when you get right down to it I'm not sure I see the point of putting up illegal roms if there is a legal source available.

    We're also starting to work with some folks who are selling MAME cabinets who want to provide their customers roms legally. These customers are spending big money and they deserve to get something that's fully legitimate rather than pirated.

    jvm: There has been some contraction in the catalog of games at StarROMs. I purchased Gauntlet II from you, and it's not listed any more. Could you explain this?

    FL: We had a rights issue emerge with respect to ten of the titles we were initially offering, where a third party came along and said that they had rights to these games and that we couldn't sell them without their approval. We hope to offer these games again in the future, but for the time being we agreed to settle this issue amicably by pulling the titles from our offering.

    jvm: So, is my license to use Gauntlet II a valid license, even though the game has been removed from your catalog?

    FL: Yes, the license is still valid. Likewise, we will continue to provide support for customers who have purchased these games through us, including providing update ROM versions if necessary.

    jvm: StarROMs says they'll give a portion of the annual profits to projects that support the emulation of classic games. Some are skeptical about how, or perhaps even whether, this will be done. What does StarROMS have in mind, specifically and when can

  19. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by huchida · · Score: 1
    I assume you're the guy who goes off on a tirade where someone calls Tower a "Record Store." Lots of fun at parties.

    And no, these aren't actually "Read Only Memory." But they are dumps from arcade machines, so it's not such an imbelicic "fad word."

  20. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
    I cringe everytime I read about people talking about where to get "ROMs".

    Seems perfectly reasonable usage. Most of these files are copies (or derived from) the code that was in a physical ROM. Do you also get annoyed if someone refers to a CD "ISO"? That is somewhat sillier if you recall what the letters mean. Extending usage of a term is fine as long as there is no confusion created.

  21. Best emulators these days? by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was wondering about the current state of emulation the other day, as I too used to download/play a lot of ROMs. I can recall using some really good emulators - Genecyst and NeoRageX spring to mind - but that was back in the days of Windows 98/ME and increased DOS compatibility.

    What is the go these days? Can anyone suggest what emulators are good, stable and above all have correct timing for modern processors running under Windows XP? I tried a DOS version of MAME the other day and it seemed to be waaay to fast on an Athlon 1800+.

    I must play Puyo Puyo...

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Best emulators these days? by Bronzefinger · · Score: 3, Informative

      I find Mame to be rather stable. You can get Windows versions as well as dos, so it might be worth trying a windows version of mame. I use that without it being too fast, but then I've only got a 1GHz Athlon, with Windows ME. The only variation in speed seems to be that modern games are choppy. (low FPS).

      Anyway, you can get the latest version(.81) at www.mame.net, although I haven't found aany rom sites with the updated roms yet, so it might be worth sticking with .80.

      I've not used many other emulation programs much recently, so I'm not sure what else has been going on emulation-wise.

    2. Re:Best emulators these days? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      mame should throttle the emulation to right speed(just get a modern version).

      mame32 is the windows with gui build.

      as for other emus, zsnes is pretty snappy snes emulator.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Best emulators these days? by slycrel · · Score: 1

      http://www.zophar.net

      http://www.emuunlim.com

      between these two sites I can almost always find a viable alternative to any platform that I've been interested in.

  22. Re:StarRoms Roms, were do they come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFA YOU MORON

    i wish there were a "auto-RTFA" for anyone who has an iq < 130

  23. Mod parent down - idiot by fpga_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The hard work is arranging the licensing. You know - negotiation, people skills, all that? sheesh -- yep got karma to burn

    1. Re:Mod parent down - idiot by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      The question is, did they do that with all their offerings? The article mentions Gauntlet II which they offered, and then withdrew, but still claim that the copies they sold are legit. Hmm?

      Are they really getting licences in all cases, or with some are they offering them and sort of looking for the owner (and hoping they don't find them)--meanwhile driving people away from picking them up as abandonware?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  24. Re:Scroodge the past for cents by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 0

    granted the only thing that might be bad would be software companys holding back on new version releases

    I personally don't see a big deal in software cos holding back their releases. I mean one of the reasons (I'll leave the other reasons for the trolls) that M$ software is buggy is because they're under pressure to release to market quickly(Pls trolls, I said this is _one_ of the reasons). And on top that, they wouldn't be able to convince you to switch to BluScreen 12.9a so easily, since there'd be a limit on the versions released....
    On the other hand...maybe operating systems should be free and open source...now when will somebody come up with that....

  25. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by necronom426 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hate it when people call C64 or Amiga games ROMS. Those are not from a cartridge (except for a couple here and there), but are disk images or tape files etc.

    I do think it is right to call arcade machine ROM dumps as ROM's though.

  26. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you also get annoyed if someone refers to a CD "ISO"?

    Only if they're talking about a BIN/CUE image. ;)

  27. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by Anime_Fan · · Score: 1

    Do you also get annoyed if someone refers to a CD "ISO"? That is somewhat sillier if you recall what the letters mean. Extending usage of a term is fine as long as there is no confusion created.

    But "ISO" in that context is short for ISO9660, the data format used on the CD. It's equally valid.

  28. Old-school games? Check out scummvm! by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slightly off-topic, but maybe interesting nevertheless: if you're into old-school games then check out ScummVM and play Beneath A Steel Sky and LOTS of otherse.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  29. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by AndroidCat · · Score: 0

    Gee wow, you're right! They're ROM images. It's too bad that you weren't around when I worked for an arcade company. We'd say we were "burning" new versions of the EPROMs all time, and we usually weren't literally burning the EPROMs. You could have corrected us!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  30. Re:Johnny Mnemonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deja vu. Wrong movie for that.

  31. Re:StarRoms Roms, were do they come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must have missed the part in the article were they talk about were they obtain the roms from. So I read it again and wouldn't you know it, it doesn't say were they get the roms from, just that they are license to distribute them. So it's just intresting because mame changes aspects of how they read a rom sometimes from version to version. I wonder if they use clrmame.
    -Tom

  32. Pirate to Sell? by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I found this interesting:

    When I first heard about StarRoms I naturally assumed that the rom images they provide would be obtained directly from Atari. After an email exchange with StarRoms, I was very dissapointed to find out that the roms they are selling were originally downloaded from the internet (i.e. the same images from the same illegal dumping activity that most of us have already). It seems StarRoms are missing the most important point to emulation fans and missing a real benefit that only a legitimate source can provide: we'd like to be sure that the rom images are 100% accurate by having them provided by, or at least authenticated by the manufacturer. Atari should naturally be required to provide them if they are also making money by selling/licencing them.

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    1. Re:Pirate to Sell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they dumped their own ROMs...

    2. Re:Pirate to Sell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that the current owner of the Atari rights still has the original code. Given how often Atari has been broken up and/or sold I doubt they do. Also, while distribution of ROM images is a copyright violation, dumping them isn't.

  33. Re:Scroodge the past for cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " why dont they pass a new Public domain law for software "

    "THEY?"

    They can have practically any laws they want, but it means working in the framework of the political process, which means being involved, not just reactionary. The laws that do get passed, do so because people are involved in the process. People vote, people attend political meetings, people run for office, and people make careers out of bing political consultants and lobbyists.

    Then you have people who DON'T participate in the process at all, who really wish there was another way, but like the drunk looking for something besides the alcohol to blame the hangover on, they don't see the solution.

  34. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    "ISO" in that context is short for ISO9660, the data format used on the CD. It's equally valid.

    I understand it, I use it myself, but it's more of an abuse. "ISO" = "International Standards Organisation", and there are God knows how many ISO standards.

    Reminds me of a musican I knew who got annoyed at plebians who'd say their favorite classical piece was 'The Ninth'. She said: `Whose ninth? Mahler's, Bruckner's, Williams's, Dvorak's?'

  35. The interview does not answer the though question by Etyenne · · Score: 1

    Are they profitables ?

    I wish they are.

    --
    :wq
  36. alt.binaries.emulators.mame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try good ole NNTP.

    Someone posts a flood there almost monthly.

  37. Re:StarRoms Roms, were do they come from? by fathertom · · Score: 0

    from another post

    "
    Pirate to Sell? (Score:3, Interesting)
    by SomeOtherGuy (179082) on Wednesday April 07, @10:42AM (#8791981)
    (Last Journal: Sunday November 03, @02:58PM)
    I found this interesting:

    When I first heard about StarRoms I naturally assumed that the rom images they provide would be obtained directly from Atari. After an email exchange with StarRoms, I was very dissapointed to find out that the roms they are selling were originally downloaded from the internet (i.e. the same images from the same illegal dumping activity that most of us have already). It seems StarRoms are missing the most important point to emulation fans and missing a real benefit that only a legitimate source can provide: we'd like to be sure that the rom images are 100% accurate by having them provided by, or at least authenticated by the manufacturer. Atari should naturally be required to provide them if they are also making money by selling/licencing them.
    "

    -Tom

  38. Why pay? Free roms, no hassle. by AtariGuide · · Score: 1

    AtariGuide Happy Gaming!

  39. Re:They're not ROMs you imbeciles! by OC_Wanderer · · Score: 1


    I hate it when people call C64 or Amiga games ROMS. Those are not from a cartridge (except for a couple here and there), but are disk images or tape files etc.

    My point exactly! And yes, my post was intended to elicit responses.

    I want people to be aware that not all emulator files are ROM dumps. To group them all in one term means they don't even know what they have.

    --
    -- There is no spoon. Only fork.