Slashdot Mirror
Atari C&Ds Emulators, Site About Asteroids
An anonymous reader writes "Atari Inc. has launched another round of cease-and-desist letters targeted at what remains of its fan community. Having threatened homebrewers for the Atari 2600 and 8-bit systems, as well as emulator authors for mobile platforms like Android, they're now upping the ante by menacing Atari emulator authors on the Dreamcast and sites with Asteroids in the name (though in fairness, that site apparently once hosted a version of the Asteroids game). The working theory is that the company is planning a big push into the mobile market, and is trying to eliminate everything it believes could threaten its latest attempts at reviving the brand name. However, the emulators in question appear to have no copyrighted content from Atari, so it's unclear what exactly Atari believes the infringing material to be."
However, the emulators in question appear to have no copyrighted content from Atari, so it's unclear what exactly Atari believes the infringing material to be
Their trademark.
Lots of people would. For a laugh or nostalgia. Would they pay for the privilege? I doubt it.
So they should go after the sites that host ROMs and such. Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past. As long as the emulator authors don't go so far as telling people where to get ROMs and the like, I don't see how Atari would have a leg to stand on.
8-bit Atari is to Atari is like Duke Nukem is to Duke Nukem Forever.
Sorry Atari, you're not even the same entity you think you used to be. This is like me taking on the name of some deceased man, and trying to claim his property and namesake in retrospect.
Going after 2600 emulators for Dreamcast?
Going after emulators for Android is like the RIAA going after bit torrents. Going after emulators for Dreamcast is like the RIAA going after bootleg Edison cylinders.
(Not that I don't have emulators for the 2600 and NES for my Dreamcast--I do--but still. The phrase "bigger fish to fry" comes to mind.)
Who knew?
*goes back to sleep*
It read "Delete yourself! (You got no chance to win!)"
Do you see what I did there?
So they should go after the sites that host ROMs and such. Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past. As long as the emulator authors don't go so far as telling people where to get ROMs and the like, I don't see how Atari would have a leg to stand on.
This is true... but the fact remains that the average person is notoriously vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. Most people don't want to go to court, even if they'd win, because the amount of money a big corporation can throw into harassing and delaying them in legal ways is very large. Even if you're totally in the right, what's easier... fighting a lengthy legal battle over your right to continue pursuing some hobby you're up to, spending large amounts of your own money in the process? Or simply conceding the point and walking away, losing neither time nor money? That's the philosophy behind why corporations pursue lawsuits that they wouldn't have a chance to win in actual court; the mere threat of going to court is more then enough to convince most people to simply not bother.
Maybe this recent push has to do with the upcoming Asteroids movie that was announced a while back.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
... it's obvious they don't want people playing Atari games ...
Well, I for one am happy to oblige.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I grew up on Atari games, maybe they are planning a push into the mobile market. That'd be cool. But suing everyone who still remembers your name is not a good way to generate good will.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
You should take your own advice.
Lame copies are not a replacement for the real thing. This is the basic flaw in all of this nonsense and nonsense like it.
It makes absolutely no sense to attack the enthusiasts that have been keeping your brand alive for years. If you want to "cash in", then license the use of the original ROMs. You could even improve the emulation experience on the platforms you want better visibility on.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Do these retards understand that in a couple of years, your iphone is going to have the 3D capability of a PS2? Who's going to play "asteroids" as an iPhone app when Sega will be releasing Shenmu as an app?
They are assuming nostalgia value, but seriously, the larger market for the smartphones is 20-somethings who have NO memory of 8-bit Atari games. To them nostalgia is Pokemon and Power Rangers, and the games they played were SNES Starfox or better.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
They're not legal if they're using Atari trademarks or linking to Atari ROMs, such as BIOS images.
How dare a company protect its trademarks and copyrighted property, such as BIOS ROMs. The nerve! This is the internet--if you have the capability of pirating something, that suddenly makes it okay.
Most of those games are much more fun than most modern chest high wall dirt simulators. Dont get me wrong, I LOVED first person shooters and 3D games ... in 1990 when it was still new and interesting.
The emulator authors are doing neither (unless you can find a trademark for a targeted machine outside of the dead "Atari 2600" mark). The 2600, which is a targeted machine, never had a BIOS. Try again.
FC Closer
Good point. I haven't played asteroids in a while. Time to fire up the ol emulator.
I know this one!!
There's this Triangular Lawyer, flying around, suing at anyone and anything that uses the Atari name! The small targets are single businesses - the larger ones are small companies and clubs, which, when sued, split up and take the emulators and pass them around!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Emulators are legal, regardless of how people may use them to do illegal things. Courts have stated this in many cases in the past.
Got any cites for that? AFAIK there has never been a definitive ruling on the matter; Bleem! ran out of money before they got that far. Haven't researched it though.
geek. lawyer.
And at their price, I would still just go to a yard sale and buy them for 50 cents. Although if they offered the ROM's for $1 each, I'd save myself the trouble.
This is why it needs to be easier to countersue for your legal expenses and time.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Given the bit sizes of the roms (8K), you could probably figure out a mathematical expression that would generate the identical bits ie.
a0 **b0 + a1 **b1 .. + an ** bn
Might take some time to find a combination... but it would be an impressive compression algorithm.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Also this applies.
Your honor, the defense cites Sony v. Connectix: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/53PQ2D1705.htm
Although the case in question pertains to whether or not Connectix as a whole were engaging in copyright infringement by way of having "intermediate copies" of the BIOS for the original Sony Playstation, I would submit that the following statement in Judge Canby's ruling on the case is pretty definitive regarding both the legality of emulators as well as the subject matter (trademarks) with regard to which Atari are sending out C&Ds, though it has not been tried in and of itself:
"The intermediate copies made and used by Connectix during the course of its reverse engineering of the Sony BIOS were protected fair use, necessary to permit Connectix to make its non-infringing Virtual Game Station function with PlayStation games. Any other intermediate copies made by Connectix do not support injunctive relief, even if those copies were infringing. The district court also found that Sony is likely to prevail on its claim that Connectix’s sale of the Virtual Game Station program tarnishes the Sony PlayStation mark under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125. We reverse that ruling as well." [emphasis mine]
Nolan Bushnell (co-founder) of Atari back-in-the-day is back and in charge. Given the success of their 3 million downloads on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ataris-greatest-hits/id422966028?mt=8) they see $$$ potential.
I hope the 2600 hardware and home-brew community survives.
Given the spanking that Nintendo is taking due to mobile gaming, watch out SNES and NES emulators.
Most of the recipients are not copying BIOS ROMs, um cause there isnt any in a 2600 you dink
I am pretty sure they had copyright on their games, but the main thing is any dink with a rom burner and a afternoon can make their own cart's. This produced a flood of just shat games and rocked consumers confidence, "why pay 60+ bucks just to find out its a shitty broken clone, I am not buying any more of this garbage" much like the PSP
Add on top of that and the fact that everyone and their brother was making a game system with similar problems and the consumers no matter what lost, so they stopped buying all together.
Its some holding company who bought the rights. What most of us would consider Atari has been gone for a long time now.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, but I bet most of those sites link to sites that host the game ROMs and other atari systems did have BIOS's even if the 2600 didn't.
And as far as I know, the "names" of the systems and games are still trademarked. And while some are saying "This isn't the real Atari, they haven't done anything", they most certainly have. Ever hear of Atari Anthology? They've also got an iOS collection out. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ataris-greatest-hits/id422966028?mt=8
then they need to go after those sites hosting the illegal material, nothing catches crooks faster than to give them a heads up
and no this Atari has not done anything, the Atari Anthology? you mean the one released 2004ish by Digital Eclipse? yea that's totally Infogrames and that iEmulator is free to download so they are obviously needing to sue
Sounds like the letter was produced by moronic marketdroids rather than a buncha bozo barristers.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
It's because some jerk-ass lawyer is working through Atari's trademark catalog alphabetically. Next...Breakout?
Let's all go infringe against Yar's Revenge. We'll be safe for years!
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
No, it was released and published by Atari itself...the "developer" was digital eclipse. The PS2 version has the proper ATARI logo and everything. And though we may not like it, Infrogrames IS Atari now. I also do not believe that Digital Eclipse's emulation technology is free to download.
so there you go this atari has not done shit except release a free emulator, which is not a big mystical deal anymore for the 2600 as its been nailed for atleast a decade
I have an Atari 400, an 800XL, and a 520ST. They all still work!
Not much you can do with them. Star Raiders is still fun every once in a while, though.
Your honor, the defense cites Sony v. Connectix: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/53PQ2D1705.htm
That's one decision, and it's also the only 'emulation' decision I can find doing a full text search of Nimmer on Copyright. That's not "many cases," as claimed. Also, there's no real discussion in Connectix with regards to the actual act of emulation; Connectix constrained its analysis to the issue of copying of Sony's BIOS for the purpose of building/testing the emulator. Not saying it's not 'good' law, but it's not very 'strong' law; it may even be dicta.
The current Oracle / Google case could prove interesting, as emulation of especially modern environments to me seems roughly akin to implementing an API (which Oracle is claiming can be copyrighted). Example, to build a vintage Macintosh emulator, it's not enough to implement the 68000-series opcodes, you'd also have to in some way implement QuickDraw and the rest of the Toolbox...
geek. lawyer.
That's one decision, and it's also the only 'emulation' decision I can find doing a full text search of Nimmer on Copyright. That's not "many cases," as claimed. Also, there's no real discussion in Connectix with regards to the actual act of emulation; Connectix constrained its analysis to the issue of copying of Sony's BIOS for the purpose of building/testing the emulator. Not saying it's not 'good' law, but it's not very 'strong' law; it may even be dicta.
I can't offer any specific counterpoints with regard to the strength of the ruling as it pertains to the legality of emulators themselves, but I believe one could make a compelling argument that the specific wording of the ruling implies prima facie that emulation is legal by virtue of the unusually specific wording that implies that Connectix's product is non-infringing, thus (if more case law could be established, and I suppose that's the whole point) implying that emulation itself is legal, in lieu of any other infringing activities (cf. BIOS images, ROM images, et al).
The current Oracle / Google case could prove interesting, as emulation of especially modern environments to me seems roughly akin to implementing an API (which Oracle is claiming can be copyrighted). Example, to build a vintage Macintosh emulator, it's not enough to implement the 68000-series opcodes, you'd also have to in some way implement QuickDraw and the rest of the Toolbox...
I would disagree. IANAL (though I was raised by one, and Black's Law Dictionary made great toilet reading at age 9), but I am a MAME developer in my spare time, and I can speak directly on the subject of emulating a vintage Macintosh. From the standpoint of the emulator, there is nothing other than the originating address that would imply that it is running its boot ROM versus software loaded off of the disc, and any modern emulator would be sufficiently generic to not have any meaningful behavior (other than ignoring the write if a program tries to write to ROM) based on the source address of a read or write. Therefore, there is nothing meaningfully different in behavior between the original boot ROM and a piece of software running thereupon, from which one can reasonably deduce that there is nothing different between the boot ROM and a piece of software other than the means of loading it into the emulated machine's memory map. On the contrary to your statement, a vintage (pre Macintosh-II) Macintosh emulator, stripped of emulation framework that isn't Macintosh-specific (so, the VIA peripheral controller, SCC8530 serial controller, and a few other off-the-shelf components) would be little other than a simple bitmapped display and a little bit of glue logic for interrupts and battery-backed system parameters.
You'd think they'd at least GOOGLE SONY VS. CONNECTIX. Even Nintendo has an entire page on their site dedicated to emulation FAQs. I suppose they could sue on the grounds of patent infringement...if they hadn't expired 20 years ago. Wait there's the Atari 8-bit BIOS & OS ROMs...that have been reverse engineered, reprogrammed & improved upon. Y U NO THINKING ATARI!? Still, I've been using atari2600a as my standard alias for a decade, can't go back on that now...
Did you search through the US trademark database? The system names are not trademarked. The only one that ever was (that is relevant to this discussion) was the 2600, and that mark has been dead for years.
FC Closer
Where do you get this "free" nonsense. Atari Anthology was most certainly not free, and I an quite certain that Digital Eclipse did not give away whatever tech/software they had.
the iphone app you linked to is free dumbass
I am not going to hold your hand during your argument
And that iOS app is not Atari Anthology, but a separate thing It's not even by Digital Eclipse. You'll also note that on the sidebar it shows in-app downloads...the app is free, but the games it runs aren't.
So i heard you liked dead consoles, so we put a dead console in your dead console!